I haven't pondered on this question much but just off the top of my head, several thoughts come to mind:
- This is a problem that historians have asked regarding many occupations including presidents, statesmen, writers, philosophers, etc. "Why aren't we producing as many 'big thinkers' like Jefferson, Madison, etc., when our population is at 280 million and not 4 million like the American colonies?" say the historians.
- I don't think that it is enough for art schools to teach techniques, methods and skills alone. Promoting and encouraging creative use of those skills needs to be an integral part of the training so that you are, at some point, training in those genre(s) that you are likely to be engaged with in real life. If you are planning to paint still life, nudes and portaits, you are most likely already covered by the atelier or studio curriculum as these are staples of the training. But, if you want to paint clothed, active figures, landscape, imaginative pieces, fine art illustration or other genres, it's harder to find that kind of training readily available.
- One theory that I've heard from a fellow painter is that the best visual people don't go into painting where they tend to drive old cars and don't get paid on time by galleries, but rather are attracted into film making, directing, animation, etc., where their genius, effort and ambition are more likely to be financially rewarded and appreciated. I don't know if that is true but it's worth contemplating. What do you think?
Richard
