This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Ruskin school

Hi.
Does anybodyknow anything about the Ruskin school of drawing and fine art at oxford?
I like the sound of the course and am considering applying, but have heard conflicting opinions on it.
I have friends studying art in london who say the course is crap, but my teacher seemed rather enthusiastic about it.
x

Reply 1

thebourneartist

I'm probably not the best person to ask, but I was seriously considering applying to Oxford to do Fine Art last year, but in the end decided to do a foundation course in art and design. I'm of to Central Saint Martins with an unconditional offer so very happy. I went on a couple of open days at Oxford and kind of got the impression that they prefered to except applicants that had done a foundation course, something they don't specify, but in my mind it was what was implied- lets just say they said that many of their students had completed a foundation course?

I mean for fine art it is meant to be the BEST place to go in all aspects e.g. teaching etc. However I was not impressed by the workshop rooms about a 1 or 2 miles from the Ruskin school, next to a pub and across the road from a fast food shop. I can help you answer any questions, but like I said I haven't been there but know a little.

However, I am still unsure as to whether I will apply next year.

Reply 2

fakeplasticsmee

8

It baffles me why anyone would want to go to Oxford to do art.

Surely the 'BEST' places are the best UAL colleges.

You need a creative environment to excel in art, especially Fine Art.

Reply 3

pharmakos

8

That's why the Slade at UCL is THE BEST place for fine art.

Reply 4

artsstudent

Slade has a famous name although I've heard from friends currently studying there that it isn't as good as it once was.

Goldsmiths has a good reputation for fine art, as does Chelsea College of art. Their approach may be more contemporary.

Reply 5

pharmakos

8

Well, I've got several friends studying at the Slade and they loved it. I've been to several Slade exhibitions and they were very impressive indeed.

Reply 6

peachmelba

8

Daughter of a friend of my dad's did fine art at Ruskin a while back. It's actually the most competitive course to get into at Oxford. You have to be damned good at drawing, AAA and apparently very few people have the broad portfolio needed without doing a foundation.

I think it appeals to people who are very strong academically and want to mix with other very bright people (as well as other artists)

Reply 7

seanaldo123

I have more respect for graduates of Ruskin, as i think in other unis/colleges you can almost blag your way through contemporary art (not saying that is particularily bad ), however at Ruskin they make you take a life drawing exam etc, they are really good at teaching technical drawing skills and someone who has graduated has therefore been taught to draw/ paint a hell of a lot better than someone from say slade or goldsmiths..

Reply 8

pharmakos

8

someone who has graduated has therefore been taught to draw/ paint a hell of a lot better than someone from say slade or goldsmiths..

drawing/painting well doesn't one an artist!!! more importantly, one doesn't need to go to an art school in order to paint well.

Reply 9

seanaldo123

pharmakos

drawing/painting well doesn't one an artist!!! more importantly, one doesn't need to go to an art school in order to paint well.

Yes you do. One cannot comprehend the importance of teaching unless you have been taught. Before i was in the process of real teaching i thought i was really good - now i have learnt so much that you can automaticaly produce the right marks that you need - and when you make a mistake it is far more easy to spot. Dont make the mistake of assuming self taught artists can produce better drawing/painting than those who have had proffessional guidence, they may well be good and inventive, but without certain training it will never be as good as those who have been taught.

Reply 10

larchitecturel

My opinion is that to some degree it doesnt really matter where you go to do fine art as long as you have what it takes to make it and work hard. Students have so little contact time with tutors, can they have the much a difference?

Reply 11

studentin007

seanaldo123

I have more respect for graduates of Ruskin, as i think in other unis/colleges you can almost blag your way through contemporary art (not saying that is particularily bad ), however at Ruskin they make you take a life drawing exam etc, they are really good at teaching technical drawing skills and someone who has graduated has therefore been taught to draw/ paint a hell of a lot better than someone from say slade or goldsmiths..

That sounds really good to me, as I'd ideally like to be taught the practical skills of art, when I'm paying £3,000 a year, rather than just conceptual stuff. However, the only work I've seen from Ruskin looks honestly, devoid of any skill and more conceptual.
It might just be me, but I think finding a good art course is really difficult, because I think the only way to judge it is by looking at examples of students work, however, most universities dont give many examples on their websites/ prospectuses. I also find it hard to tell how the university approaches a specific 'course' as I've found some universities teach courses with the same name in totally different ways. Anyone else agree?

Reply 12

peachmelba

8

It might just be me, but I think finding a good art course is really difficult, because I think the only way to judge it is by looking at examples of students work, however, most universities dont give many examples on their websites/ prospectuses

Seeing students' work is a great way to get a feel for a course. Degree shows are coming up and are usually open to the public. It's difficult if the places you are interested in are a long way from home but can really help answer lots of questions. Mainly representational or lots of video installations? Overall standard of work? Facilities and atmosphere of the place (for artists in particular, the latter can be critical).

Reply 13

seanaldo123

I completely agree with larchitecturel in the sence that it doesnt really matter on the school for BA - as long as you yourself are very dedicated, like he said - the time you have with tutors is minimal and they expect you to get on with it.
As far as i know Ruskin teach the fundemental skills needed for good art, but on the other part of the course they really encourage conceptual ways of working as apparently they believe in it quite a bit. So on the one hand at least when you leave you would have the skills of both ways...

Reply 14

lowkesa

1

You skim through the graduate list of Goldsmiths and it reads like the history of the turner prize, they churn out a winner/shortlister every other year. To have a record like that, their teaching staff must be doing something more than sitting round making cups of tea and letting their students get on with it :redface:

Reply 15

LadyEnglish

2

seanaldo123

Yes you do. One cannot comprehend the importance of teaching unless you have been taught. Before i was in the process of real teaching i thought i was really good - now i have learnt so much that you can automaticaly produce the right marks that you need - and when you make a mistake it is far more easy to spot. Dont make the mistake of assuming self taught artists can produce better drawing/painting than those who have had proffessional guidence, they may well be good and inventive, but without certain training it will never be as good as those who have been taught.

If everyone in a class is taught the same way to draw or paint by one person surely a lot of those students work becomes quite generic. Self taught artists like musicians can develop their own style, something original. I'm all for being guided by teachers and artists but I'd never want nor have I been directly taught how to draw, just wouldn't be as satifsfying knowing im directly applying someone elses skills to my own work.

Reply 16

Redredred

seanaldo123

without certain training it will never be as good as those who have been taught.

I can't stress how much I disagree with you on this. Everything you'd get taught at art school CAN be self taught through EXPERIENCE just as well. I'm only 17 but I've had enough experience that would allow me to live on my work already.

As for the art schools, Oxford's Ruskin is very conceptual stuff, so it depends on your interest really. Best thing to do is visit all the open days. Slade is excellent, but the degree does pan out over 4 years.

Reply 17

seanaldo123

Redredred

I'm only 17 but I've had enough experience that would allow me to live on my work already.

That is a ridiculous and naive statement !! To live off your work, im guessing that would be roughly £20,000 a year (at least), depending on where you live. And taking in consideration of art dealers and agents large % takings of work sold, you would really have to sell about £50,000 a year - just to make around £20 k, which is barely enough to live off these days. Especially when taking in consideration of rent, food, bills and of course art materials. The fact that your 17 suggests that you have alot of maturing to do, although i am only 19, i feel this statement has proven your ignorance and shown your attitude to be that of a halfwit.

Also i stand by my statement that you need to be taught skills, and no that does not make everyone draw the same or produce the same work - you can be taught the fundamentals of the art practice and then left to advance on your own from what has been taught to produce your own unique and distinctive way of working (which should really come naturally).

Reply 18

LadyEnglish

2

seanaldo123

That is a ridiculous and naive statement !! To live off your work, im guessing that would be roughly £20,000 a year (at least), depending on where you live. And taking in consideration of art dealers and agents large % takings of work sold, you would really have to sell about £50,000 a year - just to make around £20 k, which is barely enough to live off these days. Especially when taking in consideration of rent, food, bills and of course art materials. The fact that your 17 suggests that you have alot of maturing to do, although i am only 19, i feel this statement has proven your ignorance and shown your attitude to be that of a halfwit.

Also i stand by my statement that you need to be taught skills, and no that does not make everyone draw the same or produce the same work - you can be taught the fundamentals of the art practice and then left to advance on your own from what has been taught to produce your own unique and distinctive way of working (which should really come naturally).

Fair point, I suppose I personally find it hard to agree because I've never been taught to draw but have been praised for my drawings so I've only ever know self taught art but I'm sure there are huge benefits to being taught basic skills like face proportions for example

Reply 19

Redredred

If you see my paintings seanaldo, I'm sure you're view would be slightly shaken. My predominate point was concerning art being 'taught'. Clearly it is very useful for a lot of people, but fundamentally, you can learn all of it through experience and deploying a God given talent.

As for artists not being able to make a living - that's a whole different story.
I understand your point about the commission taken by agents etc., and in that respect you're right, but if you really think that no artist can live on their work, then we would have very little artists around. But we don't - there are a profusion of freelance artists in the world who make money out of their work by promoting themselves well. Are you aware that, for a proffessional portrait, a good artist charges approximately 7 grand? Without an agent, just 3 of these a year would get you 21 grand.

Ruskin school

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you