>>7579295
It's not outdated, go to any MFA show, or at least, having gone to one a week ago I can tell you this problem is still there even with so called "High tier schools."
>But examples of breaking from the mold exist!
Yes, but this is also a part of a larger super fucked problem.
You see art education in general, has been doomed by the fact that great artists aren't great writers.
So if you taught a technique and didn't put everything down in a book it got lost.
It is only in recent years we realized "Oh shit there really is all this lost knowledge-- and it's gone."
Someone here will tell me "X manuscript exists" or "Y school teaches this."
Yes but we do not have a full working method for every artist in history, nor do they go fully into detail, some of their secrets we only know because of modern science scrutinizing their paintings. Most schools at their best teach only to 1800s methodology if at all.
Kenyon Cox mentions when he studied under Gerome only 2 students picked up what he taught verbatim, most others were just there to pass his class and move on.
This is why painting developed quick from each painter to painter.
The underpaintings changed until there eventually was none, and so on.
Eventually things we taught long were replaced, then eventually those things faded, figure drawing became academic, and then it was gone completely.
The way we taught things in the past was fundamentally flawed and now we're realizing there is a sincere competency and archival crisis in art.
"Dude you can sign up for figure drawing classes now" and "But some artists don't suck!" are not a valid response to this.
Richard Williams did more by writing that book than he did with any class he taught because he realized schools eventually change curriculums.
Most artists don't realize this but selling books>teaching hands on.
Ideally with photos if not videos as well.
Unless you want to be a dick and hold a monopoly on knowledge.
That sure won't backfire.
