Teaching Writing
Nicky
It can't be done.
You can learn a craft but you can't teach heart and soul and experience
Hound of Cullen
experience" down on paper without making the common newbie mistakes.
But, to get back to Jen's question. I'd start with a wide brush. Make sure
that everyone knows what you mean when you say "haiku." You'll be teaching in
English (not Japanese) so talk about what is "acceptable" in english language
haiku. Use lots of examples (which you were going to do anyway) and workshop
around the examples.
Talk about why something works and why something doesn't. If you are going to
be "workshopping" the student's haiku, try to frame your discussions of
examples the same way. That way, you'll be teaching them about haiku *and*
you'll be giving them a framework in which to discuss their own work.
And since you're teaching writing, tie *everything* back to how the students
write or discuss their work. Don't get trapped in theoretical discussions.
Hope this helps.
Hound
O how could I be so calm
When she rose up to depart?
Now words that called up the lightning
Are hurtling through my heart.
-- W.B. Yeats
Smith / McGrath
I am not a writing teacher, but have taken a couple of graduate-level
courses and some commercial seminars, and it was clear in each case that
one of the pitfalls is having too wide a variety of writing
experience/ability in the class (among students). A teacher in that
predicament seems to spend a lot of time and energy shifting gears
between spoon-feeding the students with lower ability (who certainly
have legitimate needs but often consume disproportionate amounts of
class time) and satisfying/inspiring the better writers with loftier
concepts.
That makes it important, I think, when promoting or constructing a
class, to be clear about exactly who the class is for (e.g., who should
take this course: beginning adult writers who want to learn poetry
basics and develop basic ability to analyze and create haiku, etc.).
Good luck.
C.Smith
Ari Nordstrom
>what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
>
>
>It can't be done.
Sure it can. The craft of writing can be successfully communicated to
students, but only practise will make them experts. Pilots,
programmers, dancers, musicians, plumbers, etc all have that same
basic problem. They have to work to gain experience,.
>You can learn a craft but you can't teach heart and soul and experience
That is true, regardless of the profession. A good teacher can,
however, pass on the necessary basic skills to the students _and_
inspire each of them to use those skills.
/Ari
rob sanders
>
> In article <6v0kvi$21g$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>, "Nicky" <n.l...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
> >
> >
> >It can't be done.
> >
> >
>
> it took to write well was 'heart and soul and experience', then
> every schlocky soul-searching journey through the psyche that was
> ever vomited onto paper would be works of art.
I happen to think they are. Maybe not masterpieces, but worthwile
endeavors for those involved. Certainly better than screaming at the
kids or calling the cops on the neighbor's backyard party.
>
> i will not deny that 'art' and 'talent' play a large part in writing
> but without craft, which is that portion of writing that can indeed
> be taught, then the resultant work is just as bad (if not worse) as
> that written with craft but no art.
You have to gauge the merit of teaching based on the impact it had on
that particular student, not on how the student compares to seasoned
world class writers.
-rob
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
>
> what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
>
> It can't be done.
Hogwash
> You can learn a craft but you can't teach heart and soul and experience
True. But you can give someone the tools to discover if they have the
"heart and soul and experience" to say something worthwhile.
Agents and editors have a variety of names for well-crafted,
perfectly-written, pointless fiction: "Cancer in New England stories".
But, you know what, more of them get published than do
incompetently-written stories about "original truths" or what-have-you.
You can teach people to write stories well, but it's up to them to have
good stories to write.
As for the biggest problems in teaching writing, I suspect it's
probably giving meaningful criticism to people who's work may have
merrit, but which you don't particularly like.
Recognizing merrit in things you find distateful (or are even merely
indifferent to) is very difficult. Heck, on the usenet the phrases "I
like this" and "I think this is good" have become completely
interchangable. If you don't give criticism, you're not helping your
students. If you don't give criticism well, they'll tune you out and
assume you don't know what you're talking about, because you're not hip
to their style.
-Ron
Steve Pritchard
Nicky wrote in message <6v0kvi$21g$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
>
>
>It can't be done.
>
I disagree. I think that an artform like drawing (something I can't do and
never will be able to, much to my chagrin) can't really be taught so well.
Writing is more mechanical than that and the basics of how things work is
easier to get across. Can you teach someone who can't write to be a
novelist? Perhaps not, but you have more chance that you have of teaching
me to be Picasso.
chris mclaughlin
>i know there are some things i want to include in the class:
>
>- exposure to fine examples of good haiku, both japanese classics in
>translation and english-language ku;
>
>- an opportunity to write and share haiku with a group
>what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
I hope you have as much fun with this experience as
possible, Jen: when it goes well, there's nothing
more exhilarating than teaching. Well, maybe it's
even more exhilarating when it doesn't go well and
YOU learn more.
It helps with adult learners to make your expectations
very, very clear: when you leave this class, you will
know the forms of haiku and some variations; you
will have read some great haiku. And you will have
written one or more. The main purpose of this class
is pleasure and experiment with creativity (or learning
to appreciate fine haiku, or learning technical subtleties, or
whatever it is you want them to get from the class.)
Having said this, you need to be flexible and ready
to turn on a dime should it turn out that most of
them want something different than you'd planned.
I just taught a session on writing letters of
recommendation, and it turned out that the docs
weren't having what I was teaching -- how to write
letters that really make a person come to life. They
wanted to learn how to damn with faint praise! Yuck.
So I compromised and did both.
Pitfall: too much didactic, too little hands-on.
Or too much hands on if they are passive and expecting
didactic stuff.
Pitfall: they want to be writers; they don't want to write (in
which case you'll get a lot of questions about getting
published).
Pitfall: they all once wrote a haiku in high school and
got a lot of praise and now they want to keep writing the
same thing over again. You will have to challenge people
to stretch and take risks sometimes.
My advice? Let your passion show. Let the colorful
Jen out. Teaching is part seduction, part performance
art. Love your subject AND your students and they
will catch some of your fire. I teach in a place
I'm not "supposed" to teach in -- according to the
rules here, you have to have a terminal degree. But
they let me do it because I'm good at it and available
(not to mention cheap). At first I was cowed both
by my own undercredentialing and the self-importance
of my students, all medical doctors and faculty members.
And then I said fuck it:I'm going to be who I am.
I vamp. I storm around the room or fall to the floor
in dismay. It's very embarrassing, really. But sometimes,
they take the risk of authenticity around me.
Why not? Who am I?
If you can, involve all the senses. Teaching about nature
images? Bring in a bag of fall leaves so they can
see them, smell them, hear how they crunch. Bring crisp
apples to taste and chew and feel the weight of: music.
Make 'em dance, move about, like leaves before a wind --
take turns being the wind. Anything to blast people
out of the trance classrooms
tend to put us in. Anything that works for you.
What have you got to lose?
Chris
chris mclaughlin
Flornella
word puzzle game that makes interesting conversation when things get
dull during coffee break or at a cocktail party!
"From the deft silence
Left by too many words said
Thunders the haiku"
Allen Rolf (G)
WRITERLIST is a FREE service providing marketing and technical
information to writers. To join WRITERLIST:
http://members.tripod.com/~Flornella/index.html
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
>
> Nicky wrote in message <6v0kvi$21g$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
> >
> >
> >
> >You can learn a craft but you can't teach heart and soul and experience
>
> I disagree. I think that an artform like drawing (something I can't do and
> never will be able to, much to my chagrin) can't really be taught so well.
You know, two years ago I would have agreed with you, but I
subsequently been taught how to draw, despite having "no artistic talent
whatsoever."
I know this is off-topic, but check out Betty Edward's "Drawing on the
Right Side of the Brain." I know at least five people who felt that they
couldn't draw to save their life, and now are capable of doing things
which, if you saw them, would lead you to believe that they were
artistically talented.
> Writing is more mechanical than that and the basics of how things work is
> easier to get across. Can you teach someone who can't write to be a
> novelist? Perhaps not, but you have more chance that you have of teaching
> me to be Picasso.
Like with writing, there are two aspects to drawing: the technical,
which can be taught (just like with writing) and the 'art' of finding
something interesting to saw, which can not. Picasso had both, but
there's no reason to think you can't acquire at least the technical
skill (which, let me tell you, is really satisfying).
Dick Harper
> You have to gauge the merit of teaching based on the impact it had on
> that particular student, not on how the student compares to seasoned
> world class writers.
Well, no. It is good and very gratifying to see a student
improve over the course of a semester. However, success means
achieving specific goals.
In a word processing course such as the one I mentioned
earlier, students would be expected to develop complex macros,
create and apply Styles, use specific organizational tools, employ
advanced document management, create and publish docs to the
Internet, design functional templates, and so on. Those are
competencies I can quantify.
In Jen's Haiku course, students might be expected to
understand meter, explain imagery, use allegory, and submit
publishable work. That may not be the same level of competence as
"seasoned world class writers," but it is certainly a measurable
step on the yardstick we hold up to the working pros.
--Dick
Dick Harper
> one of the pitfalls is having too wide a variety of writing
> experience/ability in the class (among students). A teacher in that
> predicament seems to spend a lot of time and energy shifting gears
> between spoon-feeding the students with lower ability (who certainly
> have legitimate needs but often consume disproportionate amounts of
> class time) and satisfying/inspiring the better writers with loftier
> concepts.
Chris makes an excellent point. I recently finished an
intermediate-level WP class in which more than half the students
had _none_ of the prerequisites. Except for what _I_ learned, it
was a truly awful class.
I changed the syllabus.
The students with no background still sucked up resources,
not only from me but also from their classmates. The result was a
class that was always playing catchup.
If you have no choice in the class makeup and do wind up in
that predicament, try dividing your class time into lecture and
recitation sessions (I teach 2-1/2 or 3 hour classes, so this is
fairly easy). In the "teacher talks" segment, do not entertain
questions. Muzzle 'em if necessary. Pepper your theory with very
specific examples. In the second segment give out hands on
exercises for students to work on independently. Use that time to
work with students individually.
Then make them practice. A lot. Homework. More homework.
--Dick
BTW, I'd appreciate a critique from the other teachers.
Pat Marcello
Jensen wrote in message <6uv2av$sfb$1...@news.islandnet.com>...
>in the little book that guides my life, i've written that next week
>i will be developing the course outline for my upcoming haiku
>course.
>
>i know there are some things i want to include in the class:
>
>- exposure to fine examples of good haiku, both japanese classics in
>translation and english-language ku;
>
>- an opportunity to write and share haiku with a group
>
>sitting.
>
>what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
I've been teaching for about eighteen months now, and find that the biggest
problem comes from dealing with egos. People want to learn how to write,
yet many of them already think they know how. They're upset when you
honestly critique their work, and try to explain the proper way to do
things. I don't understand why they pay money to learn, and then refuse to
learn.
I have only run across this problem a few times, and I have over 150
students. Still, it's tough to deal with. I try never to dampen their
enthusiasm, and always point out the good things they do. And even though I
try to instruct them gently, I think they want me to say, "Wow! You're the
next Hemingway!" Anything less sends them into a tizzy.
Pat M. Egos are the biggest problem of all.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1257/
chris mclaughlin
> Well, no. It is good and very gratifying to see a student
>improve over the course of a semester. However, success means
>achieving specific goals.
. . which can vary widely.
I guess we need to know the kind of class Jen
is teaching. There's a vast difference between
teaching a class for college credit and one
for enrichment. My assumption was that she
was teaching a continuing education, not for
credit sort of course, the kind of course
that brings in a wild assortment of folks --
grandfathers with engineering degrees
and high school drop outs,folks who've been
secretly writing haiku or other forms of poetry
for years and people who've never written anything
but have read haiku and were moved in a compelling
way by them.
That's why I brought up the goal of enjoyment
or pleasure, which is a wholly legitimate goal
for education. With or without measurable standards.
And then, there's the question of what Jen's
goal is. If this is an adult enrichment course,
and if she likes it and sees it as a source of
income, then perhaps her goal is to develop a
popular course. Even if her goal is to spread
the love of haiku, it matters whether people
"like" the course, whether they experience
satisfaction. Satisfaction might come from the
class publishing its own book of haiku on hand-made
paper for family and friends, EVEN IF THE WRITING SUCKS.
(Don't panic, Jen: you're as likely to be pleasantly
surprised as otherwise -- it'll work both ways.)
Anyway, I'm rambling. But I just wanted to
point out that the standards, goals, and
measurements will and must shift depending on
the reason for the class. If it is to fulfill
an academic requirement or lead to demonstrating
competency to a judging body of experts, that's one thing.
If it is to let people stretch and reach and
play, that is quite another,though there should
be a good solid area of overlap.
When you really get hijacked in teaching is when
you are confused about what's worth accomplishing,
and you try to meet real or imagined external
standards that are at odds with your own. When
I taught high school English, I did a mediocre
job of teaching what I thought the college admissions
people wanted. But when I started teaching the STUDENTS,
ah, then things were different.
Chris
Shane Glaseman
>
> what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
>
Anything can be taught.
>
> You can learn a craft but you can't teach heart and soul and experience
But since everyone already has "heart and soul and experience," all that
*needs* to be taught is the aforementioned craft -- so that the student
can learn how to express "heart and soul and experience."
Susan Hough
: Nicky wrote:
: >
: > what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
: >
: > It can't be done.
:
: Anything can be taught.
Okay smart guy, teach me to sing <g>.
Sue, WWotW
Steve Pritchard
Ron Moskovitz, Jr. wrote in message <36150D...@micron.net>...
>Steve Pritchard wrote:
>> I disagree. I think that an artform like drawing (something I can't do
and
>> never will be able to, much to my chagrin) can't really be taught so
well.
>
> You know, two years ago I would have agreed with you, but I
>subsequently been taught how to draw, despite having "no artistic talent
>whatsoever."
I would just love to be able to do that - sadly, I think I lack a
particular bit of my brain.
> Like with writing, there are two aspects to drawing: the technical,
>which can be taught (just like with writing) and the 'art' of finding
>something interesting to saw, which can not. Picasso had both, but
>there's no reason to think you can't acquire at least the technical
>skill (which, let me tell you, is really satisfying).
The "technical" I can do. Give me a drawing table, some set squares and a
parallel motion and I can construct anything. Give me a pad and a pencil
and I've shot it.
Steve Pritchard
Jensen wrote in message <6vairm$btp$1...@news.islandnet.com>...
>In article <907583948.22540.2...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Steve
Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I would just love to be able to do that - sadly, I think I lack a
>>particular bit of my brain.
>
>here.
Thank the Gods for small mercies<g>
>>The "technical" I can do. Give me a drawing table, some set squares and
a
>>parallel motion and I can construct anything. Give me a pad and a pencil
>>and I've shot it.
>
>i think ron's right, steve. i took a drawing class last year. let me
>back up. i refer to myself as 'graphically impaired'. i have no
>drawing ability whatsoever. but i've always wanted to be able to
>draw so i took a drawing class last year.
>
>i can draw now.
Freehand? Without rulers and stuff? <sigh> My girlfriend is an artist - a
damned good one too - and while 75% of her work as an archaeological
illustrator is technical, the other 25% isn't. She has spend many hours
telling me I will be able to learn to draw, and trying to show me how. I
remain, sadly, as inept as one can possibly be. There are some things my
poor little mind just cannot grasp; drawing, poetry, music and other
creative stuff normally. I can happily live without poetry and I will
probably never really cry myself to sleep because I can't pick up an
instrument and play it. However I *do* have a very active imagination and
the inability to draw is something I constantly get frustrated with.
I would swap any skill I have - anything at all - to be able to draw.
If only it were that easy?
Heidi
Susan Hough <ho...@amelia.gps.caltech.edu> wrote in article
<6v4cfu$m...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>...
You'd be surprised...I used to croak like a frog, but I trained and
practiced and imitated and struggled, and now I get requests! Well worth
the effort when one can sing for one's supper! Unless you're actually tone
deaf (many people think they are and aren't) and unless you've destroyed
your vocal cords by screaming a lot, most people can be taught to sing well
if they really want to work at it. Not everyone's cut out to be a diva,
but a chorus girl isn't all that bad when you love it!
Heidi
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
> Freehand? Without rulers and stuff? <sigh> My girlfriend is an artist - a
> damned good one too - and while 75% of her work as an archaeological
> illustrator is technical, the other 25% isn't.
Honest to goodness. I look at something and draw it now. Two years ago,
you would have thought I couldn't draw to save my life.
> She has spend many hours
> telling me I will be able to learn to draw, and trying to show me how. I
> remain, sadly, as inept as one can possibly be. There are some things my
> poor little mind just cannot grasp; drawing, poetry, music and other
> creative stuff normally. I can happily live without poetry and I will
> probably never really cry myself to sleep because I can't pick up an
> instrument and play it. However I *do* have a very active imagination and
> the inability to draw is something I constantly get frustrated with.
>
> I would swap any skill I have - anything at all - to be able to draw.
>
> If only it were that easy?
It is. Get the Edwards book. If it's that important to you, you really
do owe it to yourself to give it a try. I know too many people who are
absolutely convinced that they simply lack the ability to draw who have
subsequently discovered that, in fact, they can, to let you say this
sort of thing if it matters that much to you.
The book is called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" (Cheesy
title, I know). Go buy it, and buy yourself a large (11x14 is good)
sketchpad and some pencils and do all the exercises in the book. The
first ones seem a little bizzare.
But it works.
Please give it a try rather than waste another iota of energy being
frustrated at the fact that you can't draw.
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
wanted to add)
Steve,
If you're like I was (which it sounds like) the problem isn't with your
hands or coordination, it's with the way you look at things and think
about drawing them.
The mistake most people make (and this is what Edwards addresses, and
I've mentioned her soo often that I ought to add that I have no
connection with her or her book at all except that it taught me to draw
when I thought I couldn't, and I know other people who had the same
epiphany) is that instead of drawing what they see, they draw what they
think what they're looking at looks like.
This is hard to explain in words, but the idea is that rather than
looking at something and drawing what you see, most people look at
something, decide what it is, and draw what they think they're supposed
to be seeing. Instead of just looking and noting, "okay, there's a line
here, and it intersects a line here like so" and drawing that, people
say, "hmm, okay, we've got a chair here. So that part of it is flat,
right. But I'm looking at it from an angle so it has to be flatter, so
it /should/ be about like this."
Get the book. Try it. And come back here and regale us with stories of
how much fun it is to be able to draw.
-Ron
Raymond Bingham
>Steve Pritchard wrote:
>> I would swap any skill I have - anything at all - to be able to draw.
The key to drawing is seeing and spending a whole lot of time at it. If
you can write legibly you can learn to draw. I used to believe that
drawing were purely an inborn thing, but that honestly doesn't make
much sense. One doesn't carry within their genetics abilities. They
are learned. If it was genetic then people at the time of egypt would
draw just as we do today...
>> If only it were that easy?
> The book is called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" (Cheesy
>title, I know). Go buy it, and buy yourself a large (11x14 is good)
>sketchpad and some pencils and do all the exercises in the book. The
>first ones seem a little bizzare.
> But it works.
> Please give it a try rather than waste another iota of energy being
>frustrated at the fact that you can't draw.
I agree with Ron. This is a very good book. Up until I read it, I
thought that drawing were a magical talent that I had been blessed with
but that none of my other relatives had a clue about. Come to find out
that she teaches many of the technical and creative elements that an
artist uses. It's obviously going to require some adaptation by every
student, and I might mention that skill requires an enormous amount of
time to really master well, but not as much as you'd think. The key is
consistency. For me, I did many of the things she suggested naturally,
but I still found it interesting to be able to say, "Hey! I do that."
I carry a sketchpad or scratch paper everywhere I go, since I was twelve,
actually. Anyhow that's a few thoughts if you're serious about learning.
Many artists don't know how to teach art. They just do these things
naturally. There's a whole mystique built up around the aprentice
master model of teaching art that is (imo) mostly a canard.
Best regards,
--
************************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham (aka. wReam...) * "The meek shall inherit the earth, *
*********************************** and the bank shall reposess it." *
* 100 % PURE Unabashed Opinion ***************** -- Sawyer Brown ***
*********************************** (from Cafe on the Corner)
Shane Glaseman
>
> Shane Glaseman (shane.g...@aero.org) wrote:
> : Nicky wrote:
> : >
> : > what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
> : >
> : > It can't be done.
> :
> : Anything can be taught.
>
> Okay smart guy, teach me to sing <g>.
>
> Sue, WWotW
'Kay. Pick a song. Open your mouth. Emit sounds.
(You didn't ask me to teach you to sing *well*.)
Seriously, I'm the wrong one to ask; I can't sing, either. But you've of
course heard of voice/singing teachers. Ask one of them.
Shane
Alex Jay Berman
<rm...@micron.net> wrote:
>Steve Pritchard wrote:
>
>> Freehand? Without rulers and stuff? <sigh> My girlfriend is an artist - a
>> damned good one too - and while 75% of her work as an archaeological
>> illustrator is technical, the other 25% isn't.
>
> Honest to goodness. I look at something and draw it now. Two years ago,
>you would have thought I couldn't draw to save my life.
>
>> She has spend many hours
>> telling me I will be able to learn to draw, and trying to show me how. I
>> remain, sadly, as inept as one can possibly be. There are some things my
>> poor little mind just cannot grasp; drawing, poetry, music and other
>> creative stuff normally. I can happily live without poetry and I will
>> probably never really cry myself to sleep because I can't pick up an
>> instrument and play it. However I *do* have a very active imagination and
>> the inability to draw is something I constantly get frustrated with.
>>
>> I would swap any skill I have - anything at all - to be able to draw.
>>
>> If only it were that easy?
>
>
> It is. Get the Edwards book. If it's that important to you, you really
>do owe it to yourself to give it a try. I know too many people who are
>absolutely convinced that they simply lack the ability to draw who have
>subsequently discovered that, in fact, they can, to let you say this
>sort of thing if it matters that much to you.
>
> The book is called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" (Cheesy
>title, I know). Go buy it, and buy yourself a large (11x14 is good)
>sketchpad and some pencils and do all the exercises in the book. The
>first ones seem a little bizzare.
>
> But it works.
>
> Please give it a try rather than waste another iota of energy being
>frustrated at the fact that you can't draw.
Well, I can't draw.
But I can draw.
You see, a couple of years ago, I got a bug up my ... brain ... that I
would teach myself to draw.
And draw I did.
Badly.
But I got better. Most of my early stuff was comic-influenced, and
while I still carry that around (I'm still much better at drawing
people than at things), I now find my sketches resemble fashion
sketches more than improbably-anatomied people.
Oh, half the time, my drawings still suck. But these are just
divertisssements, distractions. When I set myself to it, I can really
sketch well. I do best drawing from black-and-white photos (as a
certain wrevolter shall find out), and can draw passably from life.
It's taken practice--and even after attaining dsome degree of skill,
it takes work to do it just smack-dab RIGHT.
But I've fulfilled my intention of teaching myself to draw.
I think I want to teach myself how to sketch with charcoal next.
Alex Jay Berman
-- now just imagine how good I'd be had I actually taken a class ...
Steve Pritchard
Ron Moskovitz, Jr. wrote in message <361907...@micron.net>...
> It is. Get the Edwards book. If it's that important to you, you really
>do owe it to yourself to give it a try. I know too many people who are
>absolutely convinced that they simply lack the ability to draw who have
>subsequently discovered that, in fact, they can, to let you say this
>sort of thing if it matters that much to you.
>
> The book is called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" (Cheesy
>title, I know). Go buy it, and buy yourself a large (11x14 is good)
>sketchpad and some pencils and do all the exercises in the book. The
>first ones seem a little bizzare.
Okay Ron, I'll look out for it. I'm grinning even as I type this at the
thought that I have any hope of learning to draw. Call me a cynic<g>.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Steve Pritchard
Ron Moskovitz, Jr. wrote in message <361909...@micron.net>...
>(Sorry to respond twice to one post, but I came up with something else I
>wanted to add)
>
> Steve,
>
> If you're like I was (which it sounds like) the problem isn't with your
>hands or coordination, it's with the way you look at things and think
>about drawing them.
>
> The mistake most people make (and this is what Edwards addresses, and
>I've mentioned her soo often that I ought to add that I have no
>connection with her or her book at all except that it taught me to draw
>when I thought I couldn't, and I know other people who had the same
>epiphany) is that instead of drawing what they see, they draw what they
>think what they're looking at looks like.
A good way of putting things. This is what my girlfriend tells me I do
too.
> This is hard to explain in words, but the idea is that rather than
>looking at something and drawing what you see, most people look at
>something, decide what it is, and draw what they think they're supposed
>to be seeing. Instead of just looking and noting, "okay, there's a line
>here, and it intersects a line here like so" and drawing that, people
>say, "hmm, okay, we've got a chair here. So that part of it is flat,
>right. But I'm looking at it from an angle so it has to be flatter, so
>it /should/ be about like this."
Again, you've put that quite well. I think that is *how* my mind works. I
know that a chair should have perspective when I look at it but my brain
doesn't think what I draw looks right. As I said, give me a technical
drawing table and the chair will have perspective and *will* look right,
but something tells me that when I do it freehand, it is wrong.
I will look out for that book.
Pat Marcello
Alex Jay Berman wrote in message <3619bb72...@news.erols.com>...
>
>Well, I can't draw.
>But I can draw.
>
>You see, a couple of years ago, I got a bug up my ... brain ... that I
>would teach myself to draw.
>And draw I did.
>Badly.
>But I got better. Most of my early stuff was comic-influenced, and
>while I still carry that around (I'm still much better at drawing
>people than at things), I now find my sketches resemble fashion
>sketches more than improbably-anatomied people.
>Oh, half the time, my drawings still suck. But these are just
>divertisssements, distractions. When I set myself to it, I can really
>sketch well. I do best drawing from black-and-white photos (as a
>certain wrevolter shall find out), and can draw passably from life.
>It's taken practice--and even after attaining dsome degree of skill,
>it takes work to do it just smack-dab RIGHT.
>But I've fulfilled my intention of teaching myself to draw.
>I think I want to teach myself how to sketch with charcoal next.
>
>Alex Jay Berman
>-- now just imagine how good I'd be had I actually taken a class ...
Well, I actually did--several--in college. And I can draw, but I'm mediocre
at best. My husband is extraordinary, and anything I do can't begin to
compare. Drat.
But I'm a much better painter. Go figure. Have you tried painting? It's
very fun. I've done some small works and even portraits of my parents.
They aren't museum quality, but I'm proud of them.
It's good to have a creative aside. When I'm stuck with writing or just
plain bored and I can find a snippet of time, I often go for the
artsy-craftsy angle. Before I became a full-time writer, I even taught
classes in a craft store for awhile. I fancied myself an artist. I'm not.
Just fancied myself as one. <g I painted denim jackets mainly, with all
kinds of cool stuff on the back--pandas and teddy bears, tropical fish--like
that. My daughter wears the ones I never sold now, and people love them,
especially her glow-in-the-dark Frankenstein vest. You didn't know weird I
really was, did you?
Pat M. Get out the drier lint and tacky glue, hunny, I'm on a tear!
Towse
Steve,
Try this handy exercise to get your mind in gear and distance it from
technical drawing.
Find a magazine advertisement, one preferably of a simple face or scene,
black and white, a perfume ad perhaps, hair conditioner, couture.
Turn the advertisement upside down and try to recreate the image.
Somehow, having the photo upside down seems to disconnect the need to
impose what you think you are seeing onto what you are drawing, and you
can focus, instead, on angles and intersections and shading and detail.
Buena suerte,
Sal
Harmoneous Sal
could practice, dialogue, charactorization, perfecting punctuation, etc. and
receive critiques from the instructor, after which homework could be
discussed in class, in other words, workshops for the development as
writers, rather than of particular works-in-progress?
I'm in San Diego county, Calif.
hom...@funtv.com
Shane Glaseman wrote in message <36192B...@aero.org>...
Dick Harper
that success means achieving specific goals.
> . . which can vary widely.
Yes.
> enjoyment or pleasure, which is a wholly legitimate goal
> for education. With or without measurable standards.
Chris' goal is certainly as valid as my example of a
competency-based course. I think, however, that measurable
standards are crucial to learning no matter what the basis of the
course or the goals of the students.
I could, for example, study epic poetry or differential
equations on my own. Which is more important, that I produce a
verse in iambic pentameter or determine the damping required in a
race car spring--or that Anne tell me how smart I am for reading
the books?
In another message, Chris wrote:
> they all once wrote a haiku in high school and
> got a lot of praise and now they want to keep writing the
> same thing over again. You will have to challenge people
> to stretch and take risks sometimes.
Likewise a college (or a high school or a continuing ed)
student needs more than praise. They need specific goals plus
accurate feedback on their successes and failures.
Many undergraduate schools today (including the college in
which I teach) have feel good grading, meaning we work very hard
to boost self esteem. Although I like having my self esteem
boosted, a Clinton special does that as well as an unquantified
"satisfactory" on the grade sheet.
If that sounds like I prefer letter grades, it's partly true.
And so, frankly, do many or perhaps most of the students I've
asked. I think objective, quantifiable grades are the most useful
for students anywhere but in continuing ed or a terminal program.
I also like the approach we now have of an explanation/discussion
of where the student succeeded or fell short and what's necessary
to continue learning.
> Anyway, I'm rambling. But I just wanted to
> point out that the standards, goals, and
> measurements will and must shift depending on
> the reason for the class. If it is to fulfill
> an academic requirement or lead to demonstrating
> competency to a judging body of experts, that's one thing.
> If it is to let people stretch and reach and
> play, that is quite another,though there should
> be a good solid area of overlap.
Well said.
I'm quibbling above by making it seem there is a dichotomy of
having goals and grading them. There is not.
> When you really get hijacked in teaching is when
> you are confused about what's worth accomplishing,
> and you try to meet real or imagined external
> standards that are at odds with your own.
In that I've been remarkably lucky. I have developed the
syllabus--and been on the curriculum planning ground floor--for
most courses I've taught. I did get caught on a manufacturing
processes course a few years ago in which I "showed up, picked up
another instructor's notes, and started in." <shudder> That was
a hard semester for the students and the teach.
--Dick
Dick Harper
> I hope you have as much fun with this experience as
> possible, Jen: when it goes well, there's nothing
> more exhilarating than teaching. Well, maybe it's
> even more exhilarating when it doesn't go well and
> YOU learn more.
> [snipped all the good examples]
Yeah :-) What she said.
--Dick
[Note: This is strictly an illegal me too post from someone who
would really like to take a class with Chris sometime]
chris mclaughlin
>[Note: This is strictly an illegal me too post from someone who
>would really like to take a class with Chris sometime]
Well, I can think of three people who would
be glad to offer you their places <g>.
Thanks for kind and generous words, Mr. Harper.
Chris
Dick Harper
> i think ron's right, steve. i took a drawing class last year. let me
> back up. i refer to myself as 'graphically impaired'. i have no
> drawing ability whatsoever. but i've always wanted to be able to
> draw so i took a drawing class last year.
>
> i can draw now.
Yes, but can you create art?
I am an excellent draftsman (draughtsman to the Brits),
thanks to interest, training, and native ability. The native
ability carries over into sketching which means I can draw a boat
or a building or a tree or a machine part on a cocktail napkin and
you'll know it's a boat or a building or a tree or a specific
machine part.
Art is more than that.
A good technician can manage the elemental skill of drafting,
build color and value, and get the details into each image.
Art is more than that.
A good friend is a superb artist who works primarily in oils
and watercolor. Jamie Wyeth is a superb artist who works
primarily in oils and watercolor. They both create portraits of
places and things as well as of people.
Unfortunately, this is where my own lack of knowledge shows.
I can see that Wyeth puts something more into his portraits than
my friend does. I just don't know how to tell you how to do it.
Here's an example. In Cat and Mouse, Jamie shows us a cat
crouched next to a tray of green apples, watching a mouse. The
mouse isn't on the field, but you can see it in the cat's mind.
In my friend's work, everything in the scene is in the painting.
Can that vision of life be taught? Perhaps. Jamie learned,
but he started very early, he obsesses, and he had exceptional
teachers.
--Dick
Raymond Bingham
>Jen eloquently commented in misc.writing
>> i think ron's right, steve. i took a drawing class last year. let me
>> back up. i refer to myself as 'graphically impaired'. i have no
>> drawing ability whatsoever. but i've always wanted to be able to
>> draw so i took a drawing class last year.
>>
>> i can draw now.
> Yes, but can you create art?
Oh no! It's coming!! Not the "What is Art thread!?"
You don't have to draw to create art, but it helps. If
you set your heart at learning to draw, and do a fine job of
it, then that whole task of becoming a better person is
arguably art.
Is it not art, just because one cannot sell it in a store?
Perhaps it is not "profesional art", but its still art.
In the same way I hope that people will write regardless of
what some critics or editors say. I mean, even if it's a
journal, keeping that will be valuable to someone else
someday, perhaps just grandchildren, or perhaps just pieces
of the picture are worth praise, but at least you wrote
something, and ultimately that's what matters.
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
I was lucky enough to get some advice, second-hand, from Richard
Diebenkorn on this issue.
It was his opinion that all you could do what work on your technique.
Get as good as you possible can are reproducing reality, in whatever
medium interests you. Eventually, it will either be "art" or it won't.
This is especially intersting when you consider what Diebenkorn's art
looks like, but I think it's good advice, for writers or drawers. I know
that he had very little patience for people who were making a show about
creating art.
There is no line of technical skill which separates "artists" from
non-artists.
IMHO it's not for us to say whether what we make is art or not.
Susan Hough
: Dick Harper (RBHa...@together.net) quipped:
: >Jen eloquently commented in misc.writing
: >> drawing ability whatsoever. but i've always wanted to be able to
: >> i can draw now.
: > Yes, but can you create art?
:
: Oh no! It's coming!! Not the "What is Art thread!?"
No. Who is Art. What's on third base.
Sue, WWotW
Scott Elyard
(Susan Hough) wrote:
- >: Oh no! It's coming!! Not the "What is Art thread!?"
- >
- >No. Who is Art. What's on third base.
- >
- >Sue, WWotW
Art thou?
--
Scott Elyard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~http://www.stonebug.net/~~~]
| Peregrinus expectavi pedes meos in cymbalis est. |
| sc...@SPAMLESSstonebug.net Technical Designer (&c.)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ Stone Bug Studios ^
Susan Hough
: In article <6vhcnl$d...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ho...@amelia.gps.caltech.edu
: (Susan Hough) wrote:
:
: - >: Oh no! It's coming!! Not the "What is Art thread!?"
: - >
: - >No. Who is Art. What's on third base.
: Art thou?
No. Sue me.
Sue, WWotW
Scott Elyard
<n.l...@virgin.net> wrote:
- >what are some of the pitfalls of teaching writing?
- >
- >
- >It can't be done.
- >
- >You can learn a craft but you can't teach heart and soul and experience
So, basically, yes, it *can* be done. Writing comes from living.
Teaching them to live is teaching them to write, only without the actual
writing part, which comes during class.
Shane Glaseman
>
> Raymond Bingham (ra...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
> : Dick Harper (RBHa...@together.net) quipped:
> : >Jen eloquently commented in misc.writing
> :
> : >> drawing ability whatsoever. but i've always wanted to be able to
> : >> draw so i took a drawing class last year.
> : >> i can draw now.
> :
> : > Yes, but can you create art?
> :
>
>
What's on *second* base.
Gads
Susan Hough
Raymond Bingham
>I don't know.
I thought I don't know was playing out-field.
Joe
>
> Shane Glaseman (shane.g...@aero.org) wrote:
> : Susan Hough wrote:
> : >
> : > Raymond Bingham (ra...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
> : > : Dick Harper (RBHa...@together.net) quipped:
> : > : >Jen eloquently commented in misc.writing
> : > :
> : > : >> drawing ability whatsoever. but i've always wanted to be able to
> : > : >> draw so i took a drawing class last year.
> : > : >> i can draw now.
> : > :
> : > : > Yes, but can you create art?
> : > :
> : > : Oh no! It's coming!! Not the "What is Art thread!?"
> : >
> : > No. Who is Art. What's on third base.
> :
> : What's on *second* base.
>
> I don't know.
>
Third Base!
--Joe