@circuitrider I think the reason behind Williams not separating out Art History majors dates back to the 1700’s when Williams was in a political battle with Harvard over setting up a second degree granting college in Massachusetts.
Since Williams was created to serve “midling and lower class citizens”, granting degrees in Art History would be probably be viewed as inconsistent with their original petition and they are probably concerned about attracting the attention of Harvard’s overly aggressive Law School…
[quote]
Until 1792, West College did house the “free school” that Williams’ will specified, but worries that after grammar-school, many young men were leaving Massachusetts for better matriculating possibilities elsewhere (in spite of Harvard’s assurances otherwise), caused the Williams’ trustees to petition the Massachusetts General Court to convert it into a degree granting college. Better to serve “the midling and lower class of citizens,” meaning, of course, only male midling and lower class of citizens. On June 22, 1793, the General Court approved the petition, and on October 9 of the same year, Williams College officially opened its classroom doors to twenty eager “freshmen.” However, “freshwomen” had to wait until 1975 to do the same.[/quote}
http://southwilliamstown.org/2010/06/3-the-founding-of-williamstown-williams-college-3/
@morandi based on the OP’s mention of “art school” I inferred (potentially incorrectly) that her idea of a “good art program” included a strong studio arts component. By intentionally not including the Art History category, I was attempting to separate the areas of “producing art as a creative endeavor” from the areas of “studying art as an intellectual endeavor” as schools that focus primarily on the latter may be less appealing to creative artists.
In general, the list is useful as starting point for further investigation of programs and course offerings
Thanks for the clarification. Just wondering, are you an art producer? How would you describe creative thinking and good art making? My thoughts are that the quality programs connect the discipline of creative mark making or imagery with the history of creative thought. Good faculty and cross disciplines are the key. There are many departments out there which quietly and profoundly contribute to this thing we call art. Students may pick up a thread of thought in a math or science class, a theme of investigation and of standards…It all connects and it all matters. LAC’s are fertile ground for this pursuit and schools like Hampshire, Bennington, and Reed have deep roots…as do many, many others….
My thoughts are kind of messed up because I tend to think of Engineering as a Liberal Art…
Art studio and art history are in the same department at Williams and there’s a good deal of synergy between the two. The Clark and MassMoca, as well as Williams own college museum, contribute to the arts-heavy environment.
On their website, Williams says there are on the average 45 students majoring in either art history, studio or both. It’s difficult to break out the studio portion. I would guess that 29 is on the high side for studio only.
I think the major differential from art department to department is whether they focus more on process or theory. Williams tends toward process in studio and theory in history.
My observation is that small LACs have had difficulty keeping up with art schools and universities in new media and digital media. They may offer a class or two and have a specialist on their faculty, but in general, they are better destinations for students interested in traditional media – painting, drawing, sculpture, print making, photography.
@morandi- I think art is personal, so the the answer to your question may in fact vary from person to person.
For me, good art is about feelings more than thought and, as a result, I prefer to to experience it rather than study it.
When creating, I find that thinking, at least in the usual sense of the word, tends to get in the way.
Not sure how to explain this, but to a visual thinker, relating to art through words tends to be less satisfying and can be downright frustrating.
If I had a better facility with words this would probably not be the case, but then wouldn’t I be more of a writer rather than a visual artist?
I guess I would define creativity as the result of unconstrained thought in a constrained environment…