Art In Schools: More is Not Always Better

I recently read a wonderful Opinion piece written by Temple Grandin about neurodivergent and visual thinkers in the United States education system. In the piece, Grandin appropriately points out how schools fail students who do not fit into a very rigid achievement paradigm - because the structure of schools is often based on a very linear, verbal pathway - meaning that there is little room or importance placed on those that think through shapes and objects versus those that think in words and sentences. Grandin also points out another significant thing that I very much agree with: that visual thinkers are some of the greatest innovators, engineers, and communicators that we have - but that we are failing them through a lack of education support. 

While I completely agree with Ms. Grandin, I do want to point out something that always seems to be missing when discussing visual learning: how visual thinking and the arts are taught. It is commonplace to hear advocates, like Grandin, or nonprofits, or even government agents speaking to the need for “more arts education” - and of course, we need “more.” But more is not always better. We should be focusing on quality arts education, not just more arts education. 

Making art in a way that reaffirms a linear style of thinking does nothing to promote innovation or creativity. Assigning children a color-by-number painting or a clay coil mug is not the same as addressing their desire for creation and teaching them the techniques to accomplish their own defined problem. We are not teaching them to play, to embrace freedom, or to do something different. We so often teach artists in the same way that we teach writing or math: “Here is the problem, here is the answer - repeat those steps, and you will have your product.” 

Simply speaking, we teach visual thinkers how to make something technically without teaching them how to think creatively. In this way, the arts as they are taught in many schools are no different for visual thinkers than a science lab - with a preconceived experiment that you put to motion. Teaching art as a technique-first subject completely distorts the immense thinking and learning that is involved with art-making. 

For decades (almost a century!) Constructivist learning theory - wherein students and teachers learn through experience and discourse - has been demonstrated and discussed as an effective means to educate students into understanding and thinking. While this is gaining traction in some educational spheres, there is always an assumption that the arts, by their nature, are demonstrating learning that is consistent with this pedagogy. But, in my experience, the bulk of arts education is not operating in such terms - from elementary school into college. The arts are just as linear as every other subject area. 

Nearly every student I meet who is passionate, driven, and focused on the arts speaks to the nature of their educational experiences with little sense of dynamism or creativity. Most schools (even renowned institutions of art learning) teach the arts through technique first and thinking second. There are endless arts curricula that generally begin with benign life drawing and color theory and only move on slowly towards self-expression and problem-solving - which are the most important aspects of arts education. Again, this is technique driving thinking rather than thinking driving technique.

The tentacles of this established order expand widely and continuously. For example, because of our experience and exposure to the arts in this linear manner, most people (even artists) are left with an understanding of art that is limited to an evaluation of its technical prowess - that artworks should be beautifully cut diamonds, polished and exquisite. We may listen to computer-generated music with a single beat over and over, but when it comes to a sculpture, if it’s not David, it’s not good. 

Many art schools still require “observational drawings” in their applications - even in an age when photographs can perfectly capture imagery, and AI can render entire scenes in seconds. Forcing students to think of art as only mark-making recapitulates an established linear system of thinking and learning. This is not to say, once again, that artists should not continue to make incredible art out of technically oriented practices, but to have this “skill” as a requirement is simply limiting the possibilities of artists.

All of this is not to say that the educational system is completely at fault for the inability of people to think abstractly, but it is certainly not oriented to help those who need and want creative expression. And so when we think of supporting neurodivergent and visual thinkers, we must not limit ourselves to the “why” but also embrace the “how.” The reason to alter our approach should not just be to have more of something but to have more of something good, welcoming, and open to exploration and creativity for all.

Drawing and Teaching: How the Visual Arts are Outdating Themselves in Schools

One of the most overused adages that artists encounter when discussing the visual arts tends to revolve around a person’s inability to make art because they “can barely draw a stick figure.” I’m not sure why stick figures have become the litmus test of artistic skill, but especially in a contemporary moment, rendering a bare-bones human form in a drawn capacity feels extraordinarily outdated. In the caves of Lascaux, these forms are a triumph. But 15,000 years later, this feels more like an indictment of our conception of art than a sign of talent. 

Over the centuries, the practice of drawing has often served as the de-facto introduction to artistic studies. Even today, most art class sequences begin as drawing classes. Many art schools, colleges, and community programs require some form of drawing before students are permitted to explore different artistic media. And, perhaps most frustratingly, students with expertise in any medium are often required to submit sketches and “observational drawings” when applying to art schools and universities in addition to their more comfortable medium of expression (whatever it may be). 

As an example, we at Vision Field spent a lot of time this past admissions cycle working with an absolutely brilliant film and animation student who, in order to apply to art schools like RISD and Pratt, was asked to submit observational drawings in order to even apply to these schools. 

This is a student with near-perfect SAT scores and excellent grades who spent thousands of hours hand-cutting magazine articles for stop-motion videos and painting hundreds of panels for a painted animation project. This student wrote a novel when they were in the 8th grade. Yet, for some reason, they needed to show these schools that they could draw something sitting in front of them in order to really be considered an artist of potential. And, sadly, because of this incredibly rigid paradigm of evaluation, this student actually avoided these schools (which would have been lucky to have her) in favor of a more holistic university program. When asked directly why a film student would need to submit drawings, the Director of Admissions at one of these institutions offered up that their first-year program requires a lot of drawing - so students who apply “need to demonstrate that they are prepared for that.” 

Wait - why are we basing access to phenomenal artistic institutions on a film student’s ability to draw? And why is the potential readiness for a first-year of an artist’s time at school indicative of what they will be doing in their second, third, or fourth year? We may as well ask biology applicants to take a math test on an abacus as well. 

Artists of the 21st century are using advanced computer algorithms, blockchain technology, gene editing, immersive media, 3D printers, iron and steel, thread, holograms, painting, drawing, photography, social media, virtual reality, etc. Artists plan and execute large-scale projects - working in teams and utilizing deep project management skills and creativity. Artists are disrupting political and social discourse; they are altering landscapes, they are creating Utopias, and pushing the boundaries of thinking and movement. All of this and we are still using a pencil as the entryway. 

Before we receive angered responses to this, we must mention that, of course, drawing is incredibly important to some artists. It synchronizes the hand and the eye, focuses thinking on value and tone, is easily accessible and efficient; and it is able to be evaluated quickly through its standardization. Drawing can form a sincere foundation for seeing, making, and understanding art. In this way, it is understandable, to some degree, why schools and individuals want to see drawings in order to gauge “skill” - basically because it is simple. 

But underlying this is a more insidious issue with how the arts are conceived and evaluated in culture writ large, and how art classes, schools, and universities are serving to support this established order. It is undeniable that, while drawing can certainly be learned, some people are naturally good at it, and some people are not - or, more appropriately, some people are inclined to learn it and some are not. And this roadblock stops as many creatively inclined students as it welcomes. These ripples extend beyond the classroom into the larger culture where walls of elitism serve as gated entries to those who did not persevere through their government-mandated arts electives.

Arts learning can be and should be altered to be as inclusive as possible - meaning students with different skills, backgrounds, and learning styles should be accepted and nurtured to find their creative and artistic voice. And this process must be replicated in elementary schools, secondary schools, cultural institutions, college admissions, and even in college classrooms - to preserve and expand possibilities and opportunities. Drawing, and, by extension, painting, do not represent inclusivity - they are simply an avenue that, historically, many artists have followed. But that does not mean we should all continue to travel in that direction.

Instead, we would like to see a more open conception of how the visual arts can be taught. Questions we could and should ask ourselves: 

• How do people learn best and what does that look like for the arts? 

• How do we apply technical skills as a means to support a flexible expression of ideas rather than as a marker of success? 

• What do the arts teach well and how can we employ this teaching and learning in other subject areas?

• How can we help students understand tools such as color, form, line, texture, and shape in a way that does not force them into a box - and provides the basis for creative problem-solving and motivated exploration? 

• How can we alter the use of material to offer new possibilities of thinking rather than close them off?

• How can medium-inclusive art be taught to welcome even those who do not consider themselves artists? 

In order to expand creative access, we must determine how a more dynamic teaching and learning framework can seek to engage thinkers in the creative fields rather than technicians - and determine how technicians can become thinkers. We must expand arts access and seek quality arts education that orients students towards understanding and questioning rather than just enacting. But this requires a reframing of the arts as something different than the conception that exists in most educational and public spheres. 

As high-stakes academic programs continue to blossom; anxiety over potential and future orientations, identities, and professions continue to grow; as our American youth continue to construct new ways of doubting themselves and hiding under various guises, studying the arts and expanding creativity have never been more important. Understanding self-value, respecting thoughts and creations, rallying against monoculture and one-size-fits-all-isms, and promoting critical thinking and empathy - all of these things are necessary and important for everyone, not just those that can draw a perfect flower with a pencil and paper.

Before applying to a college art program, read this.

Applying to BFA and MFA programs can often feel daunting. Not only is the application process itself very time consuming, but it can be hard to tell what separates one school from another in terms of the trajectory of learning. More often than not, a choice of school or a program may come down to a random decision on the part of the applicant - which is not at all uncommon and not at all ideal.

Before applying, it is important to do research on what schools interest you and why. For these questions, we recommend reaching out to each school’s admissions team. Art schools and universities have a collection of professionals who are trained and educated on the policies of the school, what makes the school special, and what the trajectory for your studies would be. This is not a space to be passive. If you are serious, talk to an individual - don’t just put your name on a mailing list. People who work in admissions love students who ask good questions and show an interest in the school. This might benefit you to some degree at a later date - when decisions about admission into a school are rendered, or when scholarships and financial aid are considered. However, be aware that admissions team members are often trying to “sell” you a program - and while things will be honestly explained, the enthusiasm and optimism behind them may be fabricated or exaggerated. Always be discerning. 

A hidden secret in the admissions world is that all forms of communication and engagement are tracked and recorded in a student’s digital file - which follows you from inquiry to admission. An institution can track your level of interest and know if you are the right fit for them even before you apply. While some admissions representatives may not directly render decisions on admission (especially in graduate school), they can definitely help you navigate the ecosystem of the application process, make things easier for you and your family, and help you understand how you would fit into their particular school. Most schools value a potential student’s demonstration of interest as much as they do supplemental material in your application like recommendations and personal statements - and speaking to admissions, attending tours, or participating in admissions events can influence not only how good your application to a prospective school will be, but also whether you will be admitted to a prospective school. 

When considering different schools and programs in order to narrow your art school search, there are a few very general questions that you should ask yourself to start: 

1. Do I thrive in a constructed art-making environment, or would I prefer a more open-ended, independent program? Another way of thinking about this is: Do I enjoy doing assignments in class, or do I enjoy making what I want to make when I want to make it? This is one thing that many schools do very differently. Some programs push independent exploration, electives, and openness; others push foundations, technique, and focus. Most schools fall somewhere in between.

2. How do this school’s curriculum and facilities support the type of learning that appeals to me in the arts? In relation to #1 above, if a school claims to be supportive of independent art-making, but then forces every student to take Drawing 1 and Color Theory before they can even take a Film 1 class, it might be frustrating for a student that really is focused on one specific medium or concept. Similarly, if you are an artist that works exclusively at night and the studios are closed at that time, will you be able to effectively make art that suits your schedule? In addition, facilities such as health centers, food services, academic support centers, and other seemingly menial spaces may take on massive importance if you need them at some point - and it is worth predicting as much as possible what seems to matter to you.

3. Am I interested in conceptual artwork (the thoughts behind the artwork) or technical artwork (the craft of making artwork)? These are very different approaches! For instance, New York Academy of Art, which is technical in basis, will provide a wholly different graduate experience than a school like the San Francisco Art Institute, which is generally conceptual in its approach. If art that stimulates your thinking appeals to you more than art that stimulates your eyes, you may want to rethink what schools you are looking at.

4. What does this school seem to do well and what does it seem to do poorly? Am I excited for what it does well and can I seriously navigate what it seems to do poorly?

5. How big is this school? How will I fit in and will professors know me? Do I prefer anonymity or focused attention? Larger schools tend to create more competition for attention, but also offer students the ability to find a unique community and lots of different opinions. Smaller schools tend to form a more insular community with a lot of specific attention from a few professors.

6. Does the school’s location allow me to engage in the arts off-campus? Do I prefer a quiet workspace or a bustling energy? Do I want to go to gallery openings on Friday nights, or stay in the studio and make work? Is my art rooted in nature or in the rhythm of humanity? Are there opportunities for me to showcase my artwork outside of campus?

Many of these questions revolve around finding schools that orient their teaching and learning philosophy around your needs. And if a school does not have a generalized teaching or learning philosophy that can be explained to you, that should raise a red flag. While it is a lot for a young artist to understand what their own personal educational philosophy is, broad categories should be considered like: Do I like to be told what to do or do I prefer freedom to make my own decisions? Do I like to write papers or do I like taking tests? Do I want to gain foundational knowledge in a variety of subject areas, or am I confident that I want to focus on one specific thing? 

This leads to evaluating the curricular experience of the school. What does the first year look like? What courses do I need to take in order to focus on my major? In art schools and universities, there are certain classes or sequences that students need to complete in order to move forward in a more focused manner. While most art students we talk to claim that they want to “learn about a lot of things”, in our experience, it becomes very hard for students who are focused on art to survive a deluge of academically based classes that feel arbitrary and unconnected to your studies - especially early in your experience at school. 

Colleges in the United States are failing incredible amounts of students by not gearing their programs towards student success - both in the classroom and through student services (please read more about this issue in this brief interview here). In a very generalized way, you can determine whether a school supports its students through its graduation rate. Schools that focus on student success tend to have a higher graduation rate - Schools that do not focus on student success tend to see a lot of drop outs. 

There are a variety of reasons why students do not persist at an institution, but most tend to revolve around academic difficulties, financial troubles, or mental / physical health issues.  In this way, “student success” can mean a lot of things, so please only use a graduation rate as a generalized guidepost (Graduate programs are slightly harder to evaluate based on this metric because most graduate students are older and more focused and can navigate difficulties more easily than those in undergraduate programs.).

Of course, it is also important to see what the art scene of a particular location is like. While you certainly want to network with peers in school, what gives a school life is often the environment around it - and meeting students from other schools or local professional artists at shows can very much inform your own trajectory. This becomes especially important in graduate school, as networks and connections tend to coalesce more tightly in the geographical area around the school. 

There are a number of other very important things to keep in mind when answering these questions or evaluating a school:

1. The list of a school’s alumni can only tell you about their reputation and the past. Be sure to focus on the present and the future - because that is what you are investing in. 

2. Big name professors may not be big name teachers. Some of the most impactful and important teachers will be exactly the ones that don’t stand out on a faculty list. In fact, in most art schools, many of your classes will be taught by adjunct professors or lecturers - especially in the introductory stage. Evaluate how consistent these adjuncts are used, what their work is like and, if you can, speak to them about their experience with the school. They will be able to tell you a lot. 

3. Professors who make work that you think is associated with your work may, in fact, have no kinship with your work. When looking at an art school, don’t assume that professors who paint in a similar style or focus on similar subjects will provide you with the leadership that you are looking for. In fact, sometimes the best feedback will come from a professor who is working in a totally different field than you. Familiarizing yourself with a professor’s work is important, but it by no means portends a relationship or any sort of artistic value-add.

4. The bulk of your experience at a school will not be in the classroom. This cannot be stressed enough. Most of your time at a school will occur in the studio, in your dorm / apartment / house, and the surrounding city or town. Make sure you find a space that resonates with your sense of making and being. Make sure you feel at home within the student body. Make sure you know where you will be living and what amenities are there. If you can’t get food easily, if dorms are miles from the school or in a bad neighborhood, if health services are hard to access - you will feel unhealthy and disjointed. 

5. The tuition cost listed on the school’s website may not be the amount you have to pay to attend the school. There is no doubt that almost every college feels extraordinarily expensive. However, almost every school provides a “discount rate” that they award students based on merit and need. Crossing a school off of your list because of its price tag on paper may be necessary for you and your family, but we always advise students to apply to schools they want to go to and fill out their financial aid application before determining cost. In general, private colleges and universities in the United States discount upwards of 50% tuition on average, whereas public colleges and universities discount around 20%. This is all, of course, depending on a student’s qualifications and demonstrated need.

6. Remember that art-making is only one aspect of art education. You should also be learning how to present, talk about, and showcase your work. Determine what opportunities there are to show your work on-campus and how often your work will be reviewed by faculty. 

7. Facilities are great - but they are often bells and whistles. In a digital age, most schools have similar capabilities - and having cool equipment is very different than using cool equipment to make art. Facilities that are not open for you to work in or are dedicated to only certain students are completely pointless. Make sure you can be trained on how to use equipment and can access it when you need it. Make sure you can transport and store materials easily.  Determine how close you will be living to important facilities and what hours you will be able to use them. 

8. Visiting artists are important - but what interaction will you have with them? Going to artist lectures can be grounding and informative, but make sure there is the opportunity to interact more deeply if possible. Seeing an artist talk and talking with an artist are two very different things. 

9. Marketing materials will often tell you nothing of significance. Speaking to admissions teams, professors, or students - as well as learning about a school’s curriculum and philosophy - will paint a much better picture of an institution than anything a marketing team can come up with. Overused terms like “creative”, “bold”, “innovative”, “dynamic”, and “professional” adorn most materials - but they might be hollow slogans. Dig deeper. 

10. Visit the school. Envision yourself there and see if it fits. 

Only after evaluating these initial factors should a student engage with the application process - because applying to schools can become emotionally and mentally draining. Every school has different requirements, which should only be met if a student can envision themselves successfully learning at the school. And while a student’s desired educational outcomes will surely change and refocus, the likelihood of persistence or success in an institution can often be determined ahead of time with enough research, honesty, and accountability.

Vision Field offers a soup-to-nuts approach to the college/art school application process. We help families determine what schools are a good fit, and where a student can be successful. We offer professional advice and approach each family with only a student’s success in mind. Talk to us about a free evaluation. 

Art Schools vs. Traditional Universities: Where do you fit in?

Many students that we work with at  Vision Field are concerned about whether they should go to art school or to a traditional university to study art (even at a graduate school level). The answer to this is pretty simple: if you are planning to go into the arts and can’t imagine yourself not working in a creative career of some kind, going to an art school will prepare you much better than a university (unless you select a university that has an excellent art program. They exist - but they are not the norm). However, if you love art and creativity, but you are not convinced that artistic career is what you want to pursue above all else, then a more traditional university will likely be a better fit.

The quality of arts created in an art school and the creative environment within an art school simply occur at more focused intensity than one would experience at a traditional university. Teachers and programs are often granted more academic freedom, and their courses are geared more heavily towards experimentation; administrative leadership at art schools have experience in the arts; and board members who drive the direction of the school are inherently interested in propagating the arts as a subject of learning. At more traditional universities the arts are, of course, respected, but resources rarely ever focus on arts programming. 

Art schools do have significant drawbacks and they are definitely not for everyone. Most art schools are under financial pressure that larger universities simply do not have to deal with to the same degree because art schools are expensive to operate. Artists require physical space, mechanical training, and higher demand for  student support services (art students tend to suffer from learning difficulties and mental health issues at a higher rate than their peers in other subject areas). Artists need access to spaces after hours, and there is virtually no opportunity to teach classes in a way that does not require physical presence - universities have expanded their “distance learning” initiatives as a way to broaden their reach and earn money to support in-person learning while art schools are struggling to transition to virtual learning environments. In addition, because art schools do not draw the same level of large-scale donors as university business and science programs, for example, they tend to be primarily tuition-driven - which means their budgets are often more strained, and amenities may be lacking in comparison to larger universities (i.e. top-of-the-line gyms, dining halls, sports teams, dormitories). 

To recruit the best students, art schools often discount tuition at a high rate, which makes their operational budget even tighter. Some larger art schools such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC), Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA), or Pratt are able to navigate these difficulties by virtue of their scale, but this also presents drawbacks in terms of less personal attention from faculty and more competitive, anonymous relationships with other students. 

If you are somewhat unsure of your professional direction, have a variety of interests, and hold a more traditional vision of school, you should absolutely consider a university over an art school. But be sure to examine what the arts are like at this university first because schools have a very wide range of styles and expectations within their arts programs. One should not go to a traditional university art program and expect it to mimic an art school in terms of its general caliber of artistic freedom, or opportunities surrounding the arts. Doing your research about what programs are like at a specific school will help you prepare for your future studies and might save you a good deal of money, time, and stress. Take note of what is required for each application and what the “foundation” experience is like. If these two components feel overly prescribed and dissociated from your interests, it should raise a red flag about your potential success in the program. 

If you are specifically interested in one aspect of the arts program (say, ceramics or filmmaking) look at the available courses at the institution in this specific medium. Most universities do not boast the same challenging upper-level coursework in a specific medium - and focus instead on a broad range of arts courses. For the targeted, directed artist, an art school provides much greater depth, whereas a university often focuses on breadth. 

Conversely, the core academic subject offerings at art schools are often limited due to budget, scalability, and interest. We have worked with students who love art, but also have a passion for languages or science - and can feel limited in their studies at an art school. While some art schools such as the School of the Museum of Fine Arts (SMFA) and Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) have bridged this gap (not without major headaches) through unique partnerships with Tufts University and Brown University, respectively, it is not the norm that art schools will be able to provide the breadth or the depth of subject offerings beyond a few novel courses in certain non-art fields. 

Some students do seek to concurrently enroll in a university / community college specifically to take course offerings that are not present in art school, but this process can be stressful, confusing and alienating. 

In the discussion of art schools, we often find that there are significant misconceptions that people hold when evaluating an art school against a traditional university. Here are some that we encounter often: 

Myth #1: Art Schools are not academically rigorous. This is absolutely not true at all. Some of the courses you will experience in art school will challenge you in ways that will surprise you. Even courses focusing on art-making will force you into research or challenging dialogue. While you may not be required to take an ancient philosophy class or an anthropology class, the academic rigor of art school can be incredibly intense. Similarly, many art schools are pivoting their curricula to contain more “practical” courses that prepare students for a possible career orientation. 

It is always important to remember that, in education, rigor in and of itself is not helpful. Rigor should be oriented towards a student’s growth and interest - not just towards a generalized sense of stress and busywork. The time commitment and dedication that art students employ to successfully navigate art school may not appear rigorous to those who envision higher education to revolve around paper-writing, test-taking, and long nights in the library; but the work ethic, time commitment, and motivation of art students should not be understated. 

Part of this myth comes from artists themselves - because many young art students, coming out of traditional secondary school settings, are primed to believe that education is about arbitrary rigor - and should not be enjoyable. A common refrain among young artists is the notion that, because they are in an art school, they are not learning anything useful or applicable to the “real world” - which they believe to be defined by efficiency and practicality. Of course, progressive educators know that this is not the case - because the usefulness of an education is much more about how one applies it than what information is learned. Which leads to the next point…

Myth #2: Art schools only teach you art. While of course art schools focus on art, the world of art is diverse in nature - and “learning about art” can mean virtually anything. Art students take classes on deeply complex subjects that relate to science, philosophy, economic theory, critical thinking, race, class, gender, and many other courses of study in incredibly pressing and significant topics. 

Most of all, it is important to recognize that the quality of an education should not be defined by what you learned, but how you use it. Memorizing facts and figures about economic trends or environmental policies is not helpful unless you can flexibly use this information to inform your thinking or practice - and this flexibility is what artists specialize in. 

Art students learn significant lessons in critical thinking, problem solving, and qualitative evaluation through a self-reflective, experiential process of thinking and making. And while this certainly occurs at a traditional university, art school, with its singular focus, incubates students in a manner that universities simply cannot provide. These students innately learn how to create solutions to problems, self-advocate, and challenge themselves in ways that many students in other disciplines are robbed of - and are left with a degree that symbolizes knowledge without understanding. 

Myth #3: Art schools are always more expensive than universities. Private art schools are certainly expensive by nearly any metric - but most people do not realize that a school’s listed tuition does not define what you will actually have to pay to attend the school. Schools across the nation have what is known as a “discount rate” - money in grants and scholarships that they provide students to attend a school. In 2021, private colleges (which many renowned art schools are) discounted tuition by over 50% for first-time freshmen (read more here). Four year public universities, by contrast, offer discount rates in the 20% range. 

In addition, a school’s tuition does not tell you what you will have to pay to live, work, and eat while attending. For instance, attending a public university in New York City may actually cost more than a private college in Florida simply on the basis of tuition discounts and the relatively high cost of living in New York City. Now, the overall value of living in a major city to an artist may outweigh the cost differential, but the point is that you do not know what a school will cost you until you receive a financial aid package and see the Total Cost of Attendance for a school. Total cost of attendance includes housing, food, transportation, health insurance, fees - everything. 

There are a host of problems that this trend may signify (squeezing of smaller, tuition dependent schools, over-reliance on international students, lack of economic diversity in the student body, etc.), but for the purpose of this article, it is important to state that if you have a strong portfolio and a strong academic background, art schools will give you significant money to attend. 

For young art students, Vision Field specializes in portfolio development and college admissions in order to provide the best, most cost-effective opportunities to students. We are happy to walk you through these difficulties.

Myth #4: If you go to art school, you will not be able to find a job. This statement is absolutely, patently false. There is no question that some art school graduates move on to have lucrative and exciting careers making art. It is more likely, however, that an art school graduate will wind up working in an alternate field - but one that still involves the arts, creativity, problem solving, and dispositions developed in art school. 

According to a recent SNAAP Survey (Strategic National Arts Alumni Project), over 68% of art school graduates did, at one time, have a job in the arts, and over 50% currently have a job in the arts. Many art school graduates go into education, design, arts administration, and writing. While art students wind up making less money, on average, than more career-focused majors, arts alumni report much higher levels of job happiness and overall satisfaction - as well as significantly lower levels of unemployment nationally. We maintain that art students often make the best employees and bosses because they can predict problems, take initiative, and are relentless in their creative approach. 

In summation, there is no question that choosing a college or university is a daunting and challenging proposition. But we at Vision Field believe that the most important aspect of learning is to develop dispositions and flexible bases of knowledge to support artistic and personal development - in careers and in life. Some universities will help to accomplish this for certain students, and some will not. Some art schools will help to accomplish this for certain students, and some will not. The key determinant is not necessarily what a school is like, but who you are and what you need to succeed. Doing the research with us and taking the time to reflect and explore is key. While we can help you navigate this process from the inside, finding a path is always about you. 

How to parent an artistic child (especially when you aren’t an artist)

Many parents (including my own) are at a general loss for words when encountering their creative child’s artwork. Parents that have a lack of artistic experience often feel unsure how to approach or support highly creative children, which winds up making their creative child feel isolated, alone, or misunderstood. 

While many parents feel comfortable qualifying their child’s scholastic, athletic, or even social aptitude, most are at a loss when it comes to evaluating and supporting an artistic student.  This tends to put an exceptional burden on a student’s teacher or on the student themselves to legitimize their own interest and artwork. On top of this, parents who are unfamiliar with art tend to ascribe value to artworks that look realistic, or songs that sound recognizable, or dances that appear challenging - which winds up guiding children not toward self-expression, but in a direction that seeks to please the parent, rather than toward the child artistic growth and interests. 

We cannot forget that, as parents, it is our job to support our children in pursuits that we may not understand. In the arts, this may look different than in other pursuits - because the arts generally activate a different kind of learning and thinking than other subject areas. 

In order to help an artistic child feel supported and seen, it is important for parents to focus on ideas and inspiration, not on outcomes. We are generally not trained to operate as such, especially when encountering the arts because much of what we see in cultural and social space is completed or historical. We witness acting in a completed movie, art hanging in a museum, dance in a choreographed recital. We receive our child’s grades as a marker of their previous work and tend to evaluate their future possibility based on their past performance. In many ways, this completeness can limit how we engage with students because it orients all of us, artists and teachers, towards a finished outcome. By focusing on process, linkages and ideas, we can reroute the learning a student experiences through art (and through school) towards something more fulfilling and wholly more complex. 

Now, this is not to say that a young artist is always interested or willing to share their artwork with their parents. Art-making can be a very private and personal venture. However, it is my experience that a child tends not to share their artwork because they fear a parent’s judgment more than because they are embarrassed about the work. In fact, teenagers and older children frequently do not share their artwork with adults precisely because they care about their work deeply: it is steeped in identity and emotion, and they fear the work will be met with confusion and a lack of enthusiasm.

As in life, young people pursuing art thrive when they have advocates and champions at their side. To some, it can be a friend, a teacher, a professor, but having a supporting parent is key to unlocking the confidence that is necessary to pursue a very abstract goal in the arts. 

So what, then, does it look like to be a supportive parent of an aspiring artist? 

The answer to this question in art can be very complicated. Perhaps the key component to ensure a student’s continued success in art (or any learning for that matter) is maintaining motivation. We want our children to be persistent and able to navigate difficulty on their own accord - and pursue challenges beyond an initial failure.

In educational spheres, this is known as intrinsic motivation - motivation that comes from one's self, and it is perhaps the most important disposition for any artist or learner to possess. In very generalized terms, intrinsic motivation in the arts stems from a desire to make work based on the natural, internal reward one achieves as opposed to notoriety from an extrinsic party.

Think about how different it feels to go for a run because you want to versus the feeling when you are competing against other runners in a massive race. Or driving in a vehicle to go to the beach versus driving to get to work on time. The frame of mind or the approach that one uses to perform the activity changes vastly when the expectations change.

Above all, it is most important for parents to avoid judgment. This can be difficult because our tendency is to throw a hollow “That’s great!” into our initial interaction with a child’s work. It’s ok to say why you think something is great - but describe it further. This opening up about why - this modeling of thoughtfulness - will not only challenge a child’s thinking, but it will make them feel like you see them. Notice what you see and talk about how you see it. 

Along with this is an important note - do not tell a child what they should do in their own art space. Saying something like, “Have you ever thought about what would happen if you tried to include more colors?” is much different than saying “You should add more color to this. It would look so cool!”; or “Did you intend for there to be gray marks on the edges?” instead of “You should erase those marks - it just looks sloppy.” 

Ask questions, reward risk-taking rather than technical proficiency. Tell them what parts you like and why. Inquire about what parts were the hardest, what things mean, and what it would look like to push things further. Notice when they try something new and reward the trying as opposed to the outcome. 

It is important to understand that making artwork at any level is work. It requires tremendous time, patience, problem-solving, reflection, evaluation, and technical proficiency - and all of this work, more than anything, should be recognized and rewarded. Mark improvement - talk about what things used to look like and what they now look like and tell them you can see the work that they have put in (even if it’s just “thinking work”). 

Remember that successful art-making is not about the end product. It is about the process of experimenting and asking questions. Framing work and hanging it in your house is great and important, but we want to maintain the creative challenge, not force masterpieces. While it is incredibly reasonable to value a finished artwork - since most art that we experience exists in a state of “completion” (paintings on the wall, movies on a screen, etc.) - it also ignores the moment that the art is happening, which is when it is being created. What we see in a museum, for instance, is an artifact of the artistic process, and using an artifact to evaluate a process is very different than determining whether an artwork is successful or not. Learning is an accumulation of failures - and we need our students to fail - to learn from what works and what doesn’t - to try new things at the risk of destroying old things. It is scary. It is hard. It is necessary. However, as a parent, it is not our role to call something a failure, but to notice risks, reward them, and support additional risks. 

Unfortunately, it is par for the course that much of a student’s art education will exist in a limited time frame in a school that does not value high-quality art creation - meaning, art projects undertaken within schools are often meant to fit specific classroom standards rather than personal expression. Similarly, the arts being taught are often representative of a more “classical” form of art-making, which may or may not relate to a student’s creative interest. Many art teachers in high school are excellent, but there are also some that are simply directing our children in the wrong way - without a sufficiently individualized teaching pedagogy or theoretical basis in contemporary art-making. If this is the case, it is important to find alternative spaces for high-quality arts education. One thing I often recommend to parents of high schoolers is to seek advanced studies at a local community college if a student shows sincere interest in the arts. These classes tend to be taught by professional artists and offer the students a glimpse as to what studying art at a college can be. In addition, classes taken at community colleges can often count as college-credit classes after a student matriculates into college. If a community college is not close by or a challenge for your family, reach out to Vision Field for referrals, tutoring, mentorship, and support.

 In summary, our recommendations for parents of art students are to:

1. Talk to your child about their artwork. Ask them what are they working on, what things mean, why they did certain things, and what they want to do with it. 

2. Allow them to try new things and reward them for doing it. Notice when they do something new. If they are scared to “fail” offer to document their piece (take a high-quality picture) as it is so that it is not “lost” forever. 

3. Don’t ignore things that seem difficult. Students have to feel safe expressing themselves, and part of that needs to come from their families. Feel it out, but don’t be scared to have a hard conversation. 

4. Don’t treat art as something playful. It is work. It is hard work. Make sure to notice this and reward it. 

5. If you feel that your child is not getting the kind of guidance that they need from your local art teacher, seek additional resources and reach out to Vision Field for help. Community colleges, local arts non-profits, or even artists can help students understand their work better and to improve on their process.