Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The concept of “school” in the art world embodies the technical experience of generations. These are the canons, techniques, and formed skills of an artist or performer. For example, admiring the virtuosity of a vocalist is quite appropriate to exclaim: “Wow! What a school!”
Or another example: Leonardo da Vinci is the embodiment of the “school”, to the formation of which he himself made a significant contribution. His brilliant knowledge and application of the laws of perspective allowed him to draw extremely plausibly. But this is not the main thing in his paintings. Technical skill should be put at the service of expressing the artistic intent.
The meaning born by the author of the work is primary, and the technique should serve him. In no case is it the other way around. And it is in this sense that the phrase “art is more important than school” should be understood.
Moreover, it means that the artist (in the broadest sense of the word) has the right to break or even, I'm not afraid, violate some of the laws of the genre. Maybe even invent a new genre. But as long as it wasn't an end in itself, of course.
It means that education for the most part is just a paper on which it is written that you studied in this or that place, and how you studied and whether you really studied is all checked in the very process of work.