Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thinking

Bare shoulders earn failing grade for BYU-Idaho student’s art project.

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know where I saw it, or if I'm imagining it, but I don't believe she was sincere in presenting this assignment. I believe she was trying to see what the teacher would do. She doesn't appear to be genuine about it. If she was then she probably doesn't deserve a zero but pretty close.

It is hard to believe that anyone who attends BYU-Idaho (where flip flops and capri pants are banned!) wouldn't know that those kinds of photos would cause an issue.  Hopefully she didn't do it on purpose.  It's hard to respect a person who would go to a school and sign the honor code and then purposefully misuse it to try to embarrass the school and her professor.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know where I saw it, or if I'm imagining it, but I don't believe she was sincere in presenting this assignment. I believe she was trying to see what the teacher would do. She doesn't appear to be genuine about it. If she was then she probably doesn't deserve a zero but pretty close.

To be fair to her and her "art skills," the title of the class infers that AT BEST this was a class for amateur photographers/artists who weren't actually majoring in it. It's a humanities 100 level class. At BYU-provo, I took a couple 100 level art related courses....wanting to work on my art without making it my major. Most of the students were drawing at a level similar to me in 8th or 9th grade and the subject matter was not challenging at all.  

So for an art student she would have gotten a really lousy grade. For an amateur with a camera, trying to meet criteria, I would have probably given her a B or a C. Her weakest one was the shower because the water itself is visually distracting. The primary color paint on the skin is also more distracting than visually appealing. It conflicts with the woman's basic coloration and freckles. So there's little harmony and the picture becomes disjointed. The contradicting color-scheme means your eye is always jumping from the bold tones to the woman to whatever background she has, never settling because there's really nothing to settle on. Her highest grade would have been on the bath water photo. And again her backgrounds don't really enhance because they're so very neutral-bland to such strong bold color choices. If I went with neutral I would have chosen a stark white background and change the woman to one who had more striking colorations (Really pale skin with black, dark brown, or red hair, or really dark skin). Or I would have used more subdued tones of primary colors. Artistic, from this artist's mind, is over-complementary.

On the issue of the 0, I think in one way it's overdone, considering she had the option of the make up assignment. Yet on the other hand, if the professor didn't explicitly state no human subjects that don't meet up to the dress code, there's a problem. Art does get exceptions, at least at the BYU-provo. Female models wear bikinis for still-life drawings and the still-lifes I have seen shown in the HFAC. 

Still I don't find this exactly newsworthy. There were plenty of grades or choices professors made that students found irritating or unfair. I'm pretty sure that goes for just about every school. BYU-I's professor just made a conservative one based on dress standards expectations. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Edited by BlueDreams

Share this post


Link to post

I think there is a lot more to the story. I think he was on to her insincerity with the assignment. Of course if that were the case I guess he could have given her an A just so her plan wouldn't work. I still think she had it in for her professor, and is a closet non-believer. And if she were sincere, I highly doubt he'd give her a 0, he'd have some empathy and give her a C or something. 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post

What he did was give her a chance to make it up.  There is no indication there was a penalty attached to the grade.  She submitted another project so her final grade shouldn't be affected at all as far as we can tell.

whether the makeup was a class standard (some professors do that) or a special case, It seems the professor responded by giving her the benefit of the doubt by giving her another chance to fulfill the assignment.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 12/5/2016 at 11:57 AM, bluebell said:

Were they photographs?  I haven't been able to find anywhere that has said other than the two examples she gives, which were a painting and a sculpture.  

Paintings and sculptures may be the photos of their times but we can all agree that they are not the same thing as actual photos of real people who had to break the honor code themselves to be in them.  

I'd be fine with Liberty leading the people being shown in my son's 9th grade class.  I would not be fine with a picture of a topless woman being shown though and I don't think i'm unique in that.  Our culture recognizes the two are not the same.

No we can not all agree that there is a difference between a painting/sculpture/drawing or a photograph.  We are not talking about pornography here.  We are talking about art.  There are thousands of photographs showing nude bodies that are considered great works of art.  Photography is a medium used by artist just as much as paint or marble.  There is no difference.  Just because a nude is done using photography as a medium does not make it immoral or obscene.

 

On 12/5/2016 at 7:00 PM, katherine the great said:

What a strange story.  I was a student at BYU (Provo) in the early 80's and my (then) boyfriend was a model for an art class at BYU.  He wore a flesh colored speedo when he posed for the students.  I asked him what the female models wore and he said they wore a fitted, flesh colored leotard.  It had to be tight in order for the students to see the curvature of the body.  I think these photos are pretty dorky personally, but a zero?  I have to wonder if the photos she posted were more cropped than the photos she actually submitted.  I don't think they are particularly immodest, they just aren't particularly good pictures.  Teaching college students myself, I do feel kinda bad for the professor.  Were we really ever that clueless? (Probably)  I think he could have handled it better though.

I completely agree with you that this is a strange story.  I was an art major at BYU during the 70's,  Art history classes were filled with great works of art where the subjects were nude.  How could they not be.   And I will confirm that BYU models were required to wear flesh colored leotards and speedos.  I will also tell you that many of the art instructors found the policy to be ludicrous for art students.  i remember one of my art professors telling all students to go buy a Playboy and draw from it so that they  could understand the female figure.  Can you imagine trying to teach someone how to draw the human figure by looking at photographs?  I did just that, because I was an art student.  And it had nothing to do with sex.  I am gay after all.  Nude women had no excitement factor for me any more than the assignments to draw all the muscle structure under the flesh.  

Over the years, I have participated in countless drawing classes that had nude models.   Figure drawing is the foundation of learning how to draw and express yourself. When you are drawing, you literally forget that the subject is naked.  You are far more concerned about porportion volume and structure.  Anyone who is attending an art class to perv on the models should choose another major.  They obviously have little interest in learning how to draw.  This professor should not be teaching art if he is offended by a bare shoulder IMO.  He should be way more concerned about the composition lighting, and design of the photograph.  Why did the student shot the photograph the way she did?  What was she trying to evoke.  Did she succeed?  Bare shoulders?  To most serious art majors, it is laughable reason to fail an assignment.  In 4 years at BYU, I never ever heard one single professor state that bare shoulders are not allowed for any classroom assignment. 

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, california boy said:

 

No we can not all agree that there is a difference between a painting/sculpture/drawing or a photograph.  We are not talking about pornography here.  We are talking about art.  There are thousands of photographs showing nude bodies that are considered great works of art.  Photography is a medium used by artist just as much as paint or marble.  There is no difference.  Just because a nude is done using photography as a medium does not make it immoral or obscene.

 

Go into any public Junior High school in the country and see which is easier to get approved to show the students:  Michelangelo's David, or a photo showing a completely naked man, full frontal.  

That will help you understand what i mean when i say that our society does not treat sculptor and photography the same way.  Pornography has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, california boy said:

 

No we can not all agree that there is a difference between a painting/sculpture/drawing or a photograph.  We are not talking about pornography here.  We are talking about art.  There are thousands of photographs showing nude bodies that are considered great works of art.  Photography is a medium used by artist just as much as paint or marble.  There is no difference.  Just because a nude is done using photography as a medium does not make it immoral or obscene.

 

I completely agree with you that this is a strange story.  I was an art major at BYU during the 70's,  Art history classes were filled with great works of art where the subjects were nude.  How could they not be.   And I will confirm that BYU models were required to wear flesh colored leotards and speedos.  I will also tell you that many of the art instructors found the policy to be ludicrous for art students.  i remember one of my art professors telling all students to go buy a Playboy and draw from it so that they  could understand the female figure.  Can you imagine trying to teach someone how to draw the human figure by looking at photographs?  I did just that, because I was an art student.  And it had nothing to do with sex.  I am gay after all.  Nude women had no excitement factor for me any more than the assignments to draw all the muscle structure under the flesh.  

Over the years, I have participated in countless drawing classes that had nude models.   Figure drawing is the foundation of learning how to draw and express yourself. When you are drawing, you literally forget that the subject is naked.  You are far more concerned about porportion volume and structure.  Anyone who is attending an art class to perv on the models should choose another major.  They obviously have little interest in learning how to draw.  This professor should not be teaching art if he is offended by a bare shoulder IMO.  He should be way more concerned about the composition lighting, and design of the photograph.  Why did the student shot the photograph the way she did?  What was she trying to evoke.  Did she succeed?  Bare shoulders?  To most serious art majors, it is laughable reason to fail an assignment.  In 4 years at BYU, I never ever heard one single professor state that bare shoulders are not allowed for any classroom assignment. 

Which is why I think it's important to remember this wasn't an art class but a 100 level humanities class. The difference may be part of the reason for the reaction for the stricter expectations.

as for the photo v painting/drawing diff. I agree. My bro and I are both artistic, him a little more prolific than I am. I still remember looking over nudes with him. It just doesn't register the same, painting or drawing or photo. Though there are some works that it does, particularly if the displays are more sexual, now that I think of it. And none of these I would expect to have approved for the grades BB is talking about. We did a whole art project called "I can't bare it" of partial nude self-portrait paintings in my upper lever painting class in high school semi-mocking the policy of no fuyll nudes. I wouldn't be comfortable with sketching from playboy though. Not because of the soft-core porn. But because, at least nowadays, they're not really indicative of the real female bodies with the level of photo shop and plastic surgery presented. 

Edited by BlueDreams

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Go into any public Junior High school in the country and see which is easier to get approved to show the students:  Michelangelo's David, or a photo showing a completely naked man, full frontal.  

That will help you understand what i mean when i say that our society does not treat sculptor and photography the same way.  Pornography has nothing to do with it.

This is college not junior high.  And junior high school students are not art majors.  And they are minors.  

I am not saying that a photograph is the same as a sculpture.  That should be pretty obvious.  What i am saying is that photographs where the person is nude can be great works of art.  They are no more pornographic than the David.  I would think you could understand that.  And yes I understand that there are some people who think any piece of art that shows a nude figure is pornographic.  But guess what, the majority of people don't view artistic nudes that way, no matter what the medium.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Which is why I think it's important to remember this wasn't an art class but a 100 level humanities class. The difference may be part of the reason for the reaction for the stricter expectations.

as for the photo v painting/drawing diff. I agree. My bro and I are both artistic, him a little more prolific than I am. I still remember looking over nudes with him. It just doesn't register the same, painting or drawing or photo. Though there are some works that it does, particularly if the displays are more sexual, now that I think of it. And none of these I would expect to have approved for the grades BB is talking about. We did a whole art project called "I can't bare it" of partial nude self-portrait paintings in my upper lever painting class in high school semi-mocking the policy of no fuyll nudes. I wouldn't be comfortable with sketching from playboy though. Not because of the soft-core porn. But because, at least nowadays, they're not really indicative of the real female bodies with the level of photo shop and plastic surgery presented. 

I agree with most of what you are saying.  But a college level art class 100 should not freak out over a bare shoulder for heavens sake.  

I also want to be clear that my BYU professor that recommended we all buy a Palyboy to understand how the female figure actually looked did not require us to do any drawings.  He was emphasizing the need to actually see what a female figure looked like in order to understand how to draw the females.  We also spent time looking at muscle structure for the same reason.  At least BYU let the male models show their shoulders.  

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is college not junior high.  And junior high school students are not art majors.  And they are minors.  

I am not saying that a photograph is the same as a sculpture.  That should be pretty obvious.  What i am saying is that photographs where the person is nude can be great works of art.  They are no more pornographic than the David.  I would think you could understand that.  And yes I understand that there are some people who think any piece of art that shows a nude figure is pornographic.  But guess what, the majority of people don't view artistic nudes that way, no matter what the medium.

If you're not saying that a photograph is the same as sculpture then why did you say "No we can not all agree that there is a difference between a painting/sculpture/drawing or a photograph."?

I'm not addressing pornography or works of art.  My very simple point was that our society sees photographs and sculptors/paintings differently.  I'm not sure what you are actually disagreeing with me about?

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree with most of what you are saying.  But a college level art class 100 should not freak out over a bare shoulder for heavens sake.  

I also want to be clear that my BYU professor that recommended we all buy a Palyboy to understand how the female figure actually looked did not require us to do any drawings.  He was emphasizing the need to actually see what a female figure looked like in order to understand how to draw the females.  We also spent time looking at muscle structure for the same reason.  At least BYU let the male models show their shoulders.  

Yeah, still not the best advice, IMHO. The advice I had in 2000-something just recommended taking a local figure drawing class at some point. Of course, by then the models were wearing bikinis...I didn't go because I decided I didn't want to major in art and I never had time to add-drop it and sneak into the classes that were reserved for art majors only. I don't disagree that a 100 levels humanities class shouldn't freak out so much. But I still think the student is also freaking out a little more than warrants a humanities class. I keep calling this a humanities class because I don't even know if it was in the art departments at BYU-I. In Provo, it wouldn't have been. In which case, such a policy at a very conservative school (particularly on dress codes) kinda makes sense. Not the best, but it makes enough sense that I really don't think it should have been newsworthy. Especially sense she had the opportunity to make up the assignment.

 

With luv,

BD

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, bluebell said:

If you're not saying that a photograph is the same as sculpture then why did you say "No we can not all agree that there is a difference between a painting/sculpture/drawing or a photograph."?

 

As I also said.  From an artistic point of view they are all the same.  Just different mediums.  One medium does not dictate that it is more explicit or vulgar which seemed to be the position you were talking.

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not addressing pornography or works of art.  My very simple point was that our society sees photographs and sculptors/paintings differently.  I'm not sure what you are actually disagreeing with me about?

Well maybe I am reading a little more into your belief.  If you are implying that photography is more lewd or explicit or less excepted as works of art than other mediums, then that is what I am strongly objecting to.  Simply put, a photograph of a bare shoulder is no different than a painting, sculpture, charcoal drawing etc.  One is not more lewd, less excepted or immoral just because of the medium used.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Yeah, still not the best advice, IMHO. The advice I had in 2000-something just recommended taking a local figure drawing class at some point. Of course, by then the models were wearing bikinis...I didn't go because I decided I didn't want to major in art and I never had time to add-drop it and sneak into the classes that were reserved for art majors only. I don't disagree that a 100 levels humanities class shouldn't freak out so much. But I still think the student is also freaking out a little more than warrants a humanities class. I keep calling this a humanities class because I don't even know if it was in the art departments at BYU-I. In Provo, it wouldn't have been. In which case, such a policy at a very conservative school (particularly on dress codes) kinda makes sense. Not the best, but it makes enough sense that I really don't think it should have been newsworthy. Especially sense she had the opportunity to make up the assignment.

 

With luv,

BD

Well I am going to have to strongly disagree with you.  It is insane to me that an art professor would give someone a zero for doing any work of art just because it shows a bare shoulder.  And if I was an art student and a professor did that to me I would definitely consider my options in changing such a mentality.  If the professor was unwilling to reconsider his position, I would think that bringing such an attitude out in the light of day would be a healthy way to have a more inclusive discussion about such a policy just as we are having here.  If BYU has such a backward policy concerning showing a bare shoulder in a work of art, perhaps they should reconsider even having an art department.  They certainly are not doing their students any favors by having such a policy.  While this attitude is just my opinion, I have a feeling that if this story hit the national news, BYU's art department would be scorned by most people in the art world as being completely insane.  

Perhaps that is why BYU doesn't have a medical school.  So many procedures require that a doctor actually see a bare shoulder.  Yeah.  To me it is the same kind of attitude.  You can't ignore the human form in either field.  It is just too central to that profession.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well maybe I am reading a little more into your belief.  If you are implying that photography is more lewd or explicit or less excepted as works of art than that is what I strongly object to.

Nope, not what I was implying. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well I am going to have to strongly disagree with you.  It is insane to me that an art professor would give someone a zero for doing any work of art just because it shows a bare shoulder.  And if I was an art student and a professor did that to me I would definitely consider my options in changing such a mentality.  If the professor was unwilling to reconsider his position, I would think that bringing such an attitude out in the light of day would be a healthy way to have a more inclusive discussion about such a policy just as we are having here.  If BYU has such a backward policy concerning showing a bare shoulder in a work of art, perhaps they should reconsider even having an art department.  They certainly are not doing their students any favors by having such a policy.  While this attitude is just my opinion, I have a feeling that if this story hit the national news, BYU's art department would be scorned by most people in the art world as being completely insane.  

Perhaps that is why BYU doesn't have a medical school.  So many procedures require that a doctor actually see a bare shoulder.  Yeah.  To me it is the same kind of attitude.  You can't ignore the human form in either field.  It is just too central to that profession.

I still think he was onto her and that she was being disingenuous and that's why she got a zero.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, california boy said:

Well I am going to have to strongly disagree with you.  It is insane to me that an art professor would give someone a zero for doing any work of art just because it shows a bare shoulder.  And if I was an art student and a professor did that to me I would definitely consider my options in changing such a mentality.  If the professor was unwilling to reconsider his position, I would think that bringing such an attitude out in the light of day would be a healthy way to have a more inclusive discussion about such a policy just as we are having here.  If BYU has such a backward policy concerning showing a bare shoulder in a work of art, perhaps they should reconsider even having an art department.  They certainly are not doing their students any favors by having such a policy.  While this attitude is just my opinion, I have a feeling that if this story hit the national news, BYU's art department would be scorned by most people in the art world as being completely insane.  

Perhaps that is why BYU doesn't have a medical school.  So many procedures require that a doctor actually see a bare shoulder.  Yeah.  To me it is the same kind of attitude.  You can't ignore the human form in either field.  It is just too central to that profession.

Again, There's a pretty good chance this isn't an art professor. He's in the humanities department. If this was an art professor, you'd have a point. I'd agree. Because there's a fairly good chance that this isn't. This isn't a 100 level visual arts course. This is a 100 level humanities intro course that I would guess is giving a small introduction to potential humanities majors, because I can't even find the class in the humanities department at BYU-I's Humanities programs. Which means it's not needed for most of the humanities programs/majors. It's a fluff-ball humanities course. It's not even a fluff ball visual arts course. The reason I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt is because of which department it originated. I would be more critical if this was a visual arts department course. And this isn't BYU, It's BYU-I. They're very different.

BYU-I probably doesn't have a med school dept, because it's a relatively small school that is academically not as competitive. You're getting silly at this point about med school and bare shoulders.

Both articles noted a chain of command, per se, about the order to making a complaint about a course. And the other article (I'm having trouble with the trib on my tablet) noted that how it's implemented is left at the discrepancy of the professors....it wasn't a department wide humanities policy. In that article as well there's indications that the student was expecting to ruffle feathers (the exact quote was that she thought her pictures would cause cardiac arrest). Which means he also probably was nervous with the work he did show...or that there was at least some basic indication that he's uncomfortable with nudes.

To me, your points in art are correct, if this were an art class with an art professor at any level. But THIS ISNT AN ART CLASS. This isn't part of a major program I could find on BYU-I's class list. It's an extremely basic level course to Humanities, in general. So most of these points are moot.

 

Edited by BlueDreams

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, There's a pretty good chance this isn't an art professor. He's in the humanities department. If this was an art professor, you'd have a point. I'd agree. Because there's a fairly good chance that this isn't. This isn't a 100 level visual arts course. This is a 100 level humanities intro course that I would guess is giving a small introduction to potential humanities majors, because I can't even find the class in the humanities department at BYU-I's Humanities programs. Which means it's not needed for most of the humanities programs/majors. It's a fluff-ball humanities course. It's not even a fluff ball visual arts course. The reason I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt is because of which department it originated. I would be more critical if this was a visual arts department course. And this isn't BYU, It's BYU-I. They're very different.

BYU-I probably doesn't have a med school dept, because it's a relatively small school that is academically not as competitive. You're getting silly at this point about med school and bare shoulders.

Both articles noted a chain of command, per se, about the order to making a complaint about a course. And the other article (I'm having trouble with the trib on my tablet) noted that how it's implemented is left at the discrepancy of the professors....it wasn't a department wide humanities policy. In that article as well there's indications that the student was expecting to ruffle feathers (the exact quote was that she thought her pictures would cause cardiac arrest). Which means he also probably was nervous with the work he did show...or that there was at least some basic indication that he's uncomfortable with nudes.

To me, your points in art are correct, if this were an art class with an art professor at any level. But THIS ISNT AN ART CLASS. This isn't part of a major program I could find on BYU-I's class list. It's an extremely basic level course to Humanities, in general. So most of these points are moot.

 

This quote from the KUTV link you provided, is probably what I read to give me the idea she was disingenuous. But maybe the professor wasn't onto her, don't know.

"Giles posted on her public Facebook page in early November that she couldn’t wait to send her teacher into “cardiac arrest with my photos.”

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, There's a pretty good chance this isn't an art professor. He's in the humanities department. If this was an art professor, you'd have a point. I'd agree. Because there's a fairly good chance that this isn't. This isn't a 100 level visual arts course. This is a 100 level humanities intro course that I would guess is giving a small introduction to potential humanities majors, because I can't even find the class in the humanities department at BYU-I's Humanities programs. Which means it's not needed for most of the humanities programs/majors. It's a fluff-ball humanities course. It's not even a fluff ball visual arts course. The reason I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt is because of which department it originated. I would be more critical if this was a visual arts department course. And this isn't BYU, It's BYU-I. They're very different.

So basically you are saying the instructor that was teaching a humanities class was unqualified to teach and made a mistake.   If that is the case, then this is what the article should be about, not about bare shoulders in works of art and honor code violations.  And if that is the case, then why are we even discussing a mistake a person unqualified to teach the course made.

 

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

BYU-I probably doesn't have a med school dept, because it's a relatively small school that is academically not as competitive. You're getting silly at this point about med school and bare shoulders.

That was a little extreme example to illustrate the importance the human figure is to art, not an honest appraisal of why BYU doesn't have a medical school in any of the BYU campuses

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Both articles noted a chain of command, per se, about the order to making a complaint about a course. And the other article (I'm having trouble with the trib on my tablet) noted that how it's implemented is left at the discrepancy of the professors....it wasn't a department wide humanities policy. In that article as well there's indications that the student was expecting to ruffle feathers (the exact quote was that she thought her pictures would cause cardiac arrest). Which means he also probably was nervous with the work he did show...or that there was at least some basic indication that he's uncomfortable with nudes.

To me, your points in art are correct, if this were an art class with an art professor at any level. But THIS ISNT AN ART CLASS. This isn't part of a major program I could find on BYU-I's class list. It's an extremely basic level course to Humanities, in general. So most of these points are moot.

 

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This quote from the KUTV link you provided, is probably what I read to give me the idea she was disingenuous. But maybe the professor wasn't onto her, don't know.

"Giles posted on her public Facebook page in early November that she couldn’t wait to send her teacher into “cardiac arrest with my photos.”

Actually it tells me exactly why Giles did the piece.  Art is often used to protest something, challenge social customs, traditions, and political actions.  If Giles did the piece to purposely call into question how the art department teaches art, then I would say she should have gotten an A for her art.  Certainly no one else in the class turned in an assignment that has moved community discussion so effectively.  Art is done to move people.  Make them think differently.  Some of our greatest artists have done masterpieces challenging authority.  Even when it was just a simple can of soup.  Many did not call that art at the time either.  Yet it became the icon of a movement protesting consumerism which was at the core of the Pop Art movement  The number of art works done to protest issues is long and filled with important artists.

For a beginning artist to know and understand that, and actually integrate into her successfully tells you a great deal.  This student wasn't interested in snapping pretty pictures.  She wanted to make a statement.  Judging the reaction, I think she succeeded pretty well and is on her way to doing something more than just a snapshot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, california boy said:

So basically you are saying the instructor that was teaching a humanities class was unqualified to teach and made a mistake.   If that is the case, then this is what the article should be about, not about bare shoulders in works of art and honor code violations.  And if that is the case, then why are we even discussing a mistake a person unqualified to teach the course made.

 

That was a little extreme example to illustrate the importance the human figure is to art, not an honest appraisal of why BYU doesn't have a medical school in any of the BYU campuses

 

Actually it tells me exactly why Giles did the piece.  Art is often used to protest something, challenge social customs, traditions, and political actions.  If Giles did the piece to purposely call into question how the art department teaches art, then I would say she should have gotten an A for her art.  Certainly no one else in the class turned in an assignment that has moved community discussion so effectively.  Art is done to move people.  Make them think differently.  Some of our greatest artists have done masterpieces challenging authority.  Even when it was just a simple can of soup.  Many did not call that art at the time either.  Yet it became the icon of a movement protesting consumerism which was at the core of the Pop Art movement  The number of art works done to protest issues is long and filled with important artists.

For a beginning artist to know and understand that, and actually integrate into her successfully tells you a great deal.  This student wasn't interested in snapping pretty pictures.  She wanted to make a statement.  Judging the reaction, I think she succeeded pretty well and is on her way to doing something more than just a snapshot.

 

Knowing how to tick off authority figures you don't agree with (and wanting to) is teenager 101. It's hard to see it has much of an accomplishment.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, california boy said:

So basically you are saying the instructor that was teaching a humanities class was unqualified to teach and made a mistake.   If that is the case, then this is what the article should be about, not about bare shoulders in works of art and honor code violations.  And if that is the case, then why are we even discussing a mistake a person unqualified to teach the course made.

 

That was a little extreme example to illustrate the importance the human figure is to art, not an honest appraisal of why BYU doesn't have a medical school in any of the BYU campuses

 

Actually it tells me exactly why Giles did the piece.  Art is often used to protest something, challenge social customs, traditions, and political actions.  If Giles did the piece to purposely call into question how the art department teaches art, then I would say she should have gotten an A for her art.  Certainly no one else in the class turned in an assignment that has moved community discussion so effectively.  Art is done to move people.  Make them think differently.  Some of our greatest artists have done masterpieces challenging authority.  Even when it was just a simple can of soup.  Many did not call that art at the time either.  Yet it became the icon of a movement protesting consumerism which was at the core of the Pop Art movement  The number of art works done to protest issues is long and filled with important artists.

For a beginning artist to know and understand that, and actually integrate into her successfully tells you a great deal.  This student wasn't interested in snapping pretty pictures.  She wanted to make a statement.  Judging the reaction, I think she succeeded pretty well and is on her way to doing something more than just a snapshot.

 

Whoa, didn't think of this!

Share this post


Link to post

The context the quote was first given in was the professor was expecting low quality work of little interest and she was going to blow him away with her talented presentation.  There was nothing included about making a statement.  Her makeup assignment otoh definitely was.  It wasn't even the art department teaching art, but the humanities dept. 

If it is now being presented as a protest statement where prior she was saying she was clueless about the requirement and thought nude shoulders would be okay because of the use of nude statues and paintings in the class by the prof, her story has changed dramatically.  Otoh, it just may be people are reading stuff into her original comments that wasn't there.

As far as the teacher not being competent to teach art, how many times does it need to be pointed out it wasn't an art class, but a humanities 100 class?  The teacher could be very good at teaching other aspects of the class, but weak in this area.  That happens often when those who specialize in certain topics teach general courses.  I wouldn't see my husband as all that great in teaching the econmics section of a general business class because his work is in small business startup and development...but he has from what I have seen great success helping his students come up with and develop working business, got a number of millionaires as former students and every time I am out in public it seems we run into a former student who gushes about how helpful he was.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

For the idea she was somehow making a statement by pushing boundaries, from the OP link:

"A freshman student at Brigham Young University-Idaho said she was surprised to learn that a recent art project went too far by showing exposed female shoulders....Giles said she respects and appreciates the school's Honor Code. But her professor had included images of partially clothed or nude artwork — like Michaelangelo's David and Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People" — during classroom presentations, which led her to believe art projects would be granted some flexibility from campus rules.

It's art, it's beautiful and it's appreciating the human form," she said. "I was kind of expecting that same amnesty when it came to my project.""

The class:

"a lower-division humanities class"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

From the KUTV link:

"A student at Brigham Young University-Idaho says she was shocked when her instructor refused to give her photo project a grade because it featured a woman baring her shoulders....

As a result, she was told she did not get a grade because the art failed to comply with the school’s dress code, (which is more strict than BYU-Provo's dress code) something she said was not ever addressed as criteria in the course syllabus or in the grading rubric for the major class assignment.

“I was not warned beforehand that the dress code or honor code applied,” Giles said."

One wouldn't be shocked IMO if intentionally making protest/pushing boundaries art.  And she apparently wasn't aware of the school/art dept policy to protest it (if it actually was one given this "That would just be left up to the instructor if they wanted that to apply,” said BYU-I spokesman Brett Crandall.")

btw, the Facebook shot isn't there anymore, but I remember her saying something about him not expecting anything of value from the class.  I will see if I can find something with the full text.

The class was not an art class, but Foundations of Humanities 1010...it might have included literature.

"“The thing that bothers me is that he didn’t give me a grade because of the bare shoulders,” Giles said...If I had known he didn’t want to see bare shoulders … and follow the dress standards, I could have done something else."

Not exactly the sentiments of an art student (she wasn't an art student btw, which probably explains her cluelessness on the policy) who created a work specifically to protest the limitations the art dept/school places on teaching art...imagining her that way is, IMO, wishful thinking).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like the Foundation courses are what was called General Education back in the 70s and 80s at BYU (Provo).

https://www.byui.edu/Documents/catalog/2015-2016/Foundations.pdf

That class is part of the "cultural awareness" aspect.

Class description:

"FDHUM 110 Foundations of Humanities

(3:3:0:0)

Introduction to the Humanities. Students will examine key works in the arts from Renais- sance through the early 20th Century, their historical and cultural context, and the artistic principles that contribute to their significance. Students will then apply these principles in their own creative work, and in making value assessments about the arts."

Goals:

"1.      Identify key works of Western art, architecture, literature and music within their cultural and historical contexts.

2.      Understand and identify the formal elements of the visual arts, literature, theatre, cinema and music.

3.      Apply principles of the creative process in their own creative work and in analyzing cultural events.

4.      Apply basic cognitive and analytical tools to make value assessments about quality in the arts."

http://www.byui.edu/foundations/foundations-overview/philosophy-of-foundations/section-ii(a)-outcomes

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Well, if nothing else, the professor will be more specific on the rubric in the future.  "The subject will be completely clothed" or something to that effect.  We have to learn from semester to semester how to outsmart our students. It's a process.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...