Artwork by John Fowler
Hi, my name is John Fowler – that’s a good place to start if it’s all about me. Is it all about me? This was certainly the feeling I got when I went to Art School in the 1980’s. A friend asked me recently what I had learned during those five years and I struggled to think of anything apart from how to drink, how to survive with zero money and how to tolerate the personalities of art students. Certainly the tutors seemed to have mastered the art of drinking many years before and were pretty good at avoiding students too.
On beginning my painting degree I found myself disillusioned and disappointed with the course and the environment. It was my own fault really – I had worked really hard on the foundation course and had fired myself up with the thought of being accepted onto the degree. But I had this fantasy that I was actually going to be taught how to paint there! How silly of me to think this. The vision I had projected onto the college was sadly disappointed. Why was this? What was Art School supposed to teach you? I can only imagine now that we were all thought of as geniuses and we were left alone for three years in a 6’ x 10’ white box so we could express our creative genius without the burden of the tuition in skills and techniques.
How could this happen? What was it about the history of art that had led to this situation? Why was there so little emphasis on the learning of craft and practical skills? Perhaps it is the ‘myth of the genius’ that has pervaded art history. The selective mythology of the ‘great artist’ whose creativity springs from a well of imagination that cannot be taught. Of course there is some truth in this but art historians often ignore the study and tuition that these ‘great artists’ received and continued to seek out in their lifetimes. I cannot imagine the same approach for other art disciplines. Would a music college put a student in a white room with a violin for three years and tell him/her to ‘just be creative’? …
