Snobby pretentious art schools

I applied to Central St Martins, one of the most renowned art schools, to undertake an art foundation. I had my interview and portfolio review the other day.

I have always been quite hesistant over the idea of taking 'Art' as an educational route. Because in the end, there is no possible way you can measure and determine how good a piece of art is. It is purely a matter of personal taste and opinion rather than a fact. The idea you can get grades for it is ridiculous. Having a qualification in art does not necessarily mean you are a good artist nor does it guarantee you with a succesful career in art. (In most cases, most people with art degrees end up working in low wage jobs or end up taking another qualification). There is the arguement that a qualification in art teaches you the basic skills in drawing and paiting, but I know for a fact it does'nt. No art teacher teaches the skill unless you booked special lessons on how to draw or paint. You are left to develop your own style.

I also dislike this new wave of "artists". An "artist" is our new "exception", a common synonym for "excuse." An "artist" is the prototype for the shit magnet, it seems everyone is an "artist" nowadays. Most people I know of who are 'into art' can't draw to save their lives. I'm not saying that it is a requirement as an artist to be able to draw exeptionally well, but you would think someone who was genuinely interested in art since their childhood will be able to draw to some extent, because I would assume you must have practiced in your spare time. Some people draw like they've never drawn in their lives. The excuse that 'Picasso can't draw' is bullshit because many artists who drew simplified art have in fact mastered how to draw and paint well. Art Students in general consist of prentious middle class kids who wearexpensive and 'unique' clothes. They can afford to laze around because they have the money to do so. Many have very little talent and even fewer brain cells who smoke weed all day because it 'expands their minds' but the generic art they produce suggests otherwise. It seems now, art students go to college with the idea of becoming rich and famous like their idols Emin and Damien Hirst, to act like rock stars instead of aspiring to artistic excellence through a tangible medium.


It was only until my interview did it confirm for me that the stereotypically prententious and snobby image I held of art schools was actually real. I had my portfolio laid out against 3 other applicants. 1 of these applicants had a portfolio that mainly consisted of pieces of papers with thick blobs of paint on them. Another girl had a photograph of her 'conceptual' art, which was basically empty cartons of ribena binded together by straws. As much as it annoyed me, I overlooked it and presumed that their portfolios would also have drawings and paintings. Things that actually TAKE SKILL. Sadly it did'nt. The art teachers absolutely LOVED their work. It was pretty evident that they favoured their work over mine which is what I found ridiculous. Each page of my portfolio took at least a day or 2 to make whilst their art required no skill whatsoever. The reason the art teachers absolutely loved them was because they were so confident, they could talk so openly about the infuluences for their art and had many sketchbooks filled with pictures from magazines and self analytical writing that showed their 'development' towards their art. Meanwhile I was too shy and awkward and I was even embarassed showcasing my artwork to them. I felt so exposed because my artwork is so personal to me. I have no 'development' work. I have a few doodles and observational drawings, but most of the time when I create art, I paint directly what came to my mind. I don't spend hours writing evidence and justifiations towards my artwork. In the end, the final product is the art piece and nobody gives a shit about the thought behind it. For me, my art work is open to be interpreted by others, not a medium where I force my beliefs onto someone.
It seems now, 'ART' consists of somebody taking a photo of their shoes, clothes, themselves and then photoshoping it through a filter. 'ART' is sticking a banana on a wall and attempting to give it a deeper meaning despite it being purely superficial. Art is what happens when you are casually applauded and celebrated. Art is casually mentioning Fauvism before a sip of your sin-black coffee and a drag of a spliff. Art is a video installation or a machine that produces foam in the middle of a room. Art is about making a generic statement rather than reflecting something personal.

Whatever happened to people who do art as a hobby or out of interest? Whatever happened to the people who spent hours using their free time to draw in their sketchbooks rather than just save doing art of school/homework? Whatever happened to people who did art as a private thing or as a personal expression? I probably only know of a few people like me who are embarassed at showcasing their artwork because t is so personal. I don't mind doing it over the internet because I won't know how people react but in real life, I have never shown anyone my skethbooks. Most people very openly say 'Wanna look at my sketch book? its soooo personal" but its more a means of showing off rather than actually meaning anything. It is a shame that 90% of the art student population are only interested in creating art in an attempt to publish it in VICE or DAZED AND CONFUSED magazine.

My interview eventually turned into a an arguement. They made me feel completely clueless and daft because I lacked the ability to smooth talk like my competetors. I found it contradictory that they claim they are open to people from 'all sorts of diversities and personalities with different styles in art' yet they expected a generic portfolio from everyone 'wheres the development?' 'wheres the
life drawing?' 'wheres the evidence?' and favoured the highly confident yet artistically lacking people over the people with genuine skill or talent. Of course, I can accept that not everybody will like my style and concepts in art, but I know for a fact I have the skill to at least draw and paint to a good standard unlike those half hearted idiots.

I've now decided that I will keep art as a hobby. Something I do for myself. I don't need a qualification telling me I passed and most of the time, making art into an eduation stifles creativity. You have to produce art according to what the teachers want and the work load makes you associate art with something stressful rather than something enjoyable. Particularly in this society where art is mostly pretencious and high brow I don't want to be a part of it.