Zen and the art of Art
Fred Tang
Steven Kastl (jo...@iaonline.com) writes:
> lne...@sos.net wrote:
>> "Doug L." <dug...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> >Melinda Patchen wrote:
>> >> >>Rick Martin wrote:
> As has been previously stated, there are those who have the natural talent to do so,
> and then there are those who learn techniques to do so. Of the two, those with the
> natural ability are far more capable than those who learn techniques.
I agree that they have a 'headstart' and more potential, but every person
is different in their own set of circumstances...(well, alright, I'm
playing Devil's Advocate right now..I'll stop...)
> I may put myself in the firing line on this one, but I feel very strongly about this issue.
> I have never taken an art class in my life, but I can draw very well. I learned how to do
> so over the course of my entire life. With each drawing, I learned something new about
Well, I'm not a 'great' artists or anything like that..but I draw, like
it..always done it..
I've applied to Animation programs, been accepted to some...yadda
yadda..okay..enuff trying to establish credibility and such..
I'm just wondering what is your opinion on art classes? I hope that you
are not against anyone, artistic or otherwise, taking classes..
I've found/believe (at least for now. 9)) that classes don't just 'teach'..
The right class can be so so much more.
It's a place to learn not techniques, but 'the eye'. How the shadows fall.
how the muscles play, where the bones jut...and so on. (yes, I should have
said this is Lifedrawing classes, to establish the reference of opinion
here..apologies for being late here..8/))..
and then there's the teacher(s) and the classmates you meet..you get to
share, not just art, but life/being a person..and that tends to, IMHO,
make for a better artists since (at least for myself) part of art is part
of oneself, what makes up you/me/them in whatever form/medium..
> how to create what I saw. After 28 years, I have learned a lot. It incenses me each
> time I see a college student or someone of that sort who has learned how to "draw" after
> being taught to do so over the course of a year or so. There is no knowledge behind their
Well, from what I gathered in my research, alot of their studies (and mine
soon, I hope) are studios/'labs' if you will where U draw. and Draw. and DRAW.
and that's, ultimately, the best teacher right?
And if a human teacher comes around, gives you an objective eye (hmm..that
femur looks a leeetle too long (assump. of classically proportioned Venus
model..)), I think that just helps out the learning process more since its
feedback.
Its hard to live in a vaccuum of information .. feedback is information
and can help improve almost as much as direct experience with drawing IMO..
> skills, it is just some commercial crap that comes out like vomit spewing from one who has
Vomit on canvus.....hmmmmmm.... 8)
(kidding.... 9))
((well, *I* wouldn't do it at any rate..8)))
Actually, I was once told that I shouldn't 'sell out' my talents.
Assumming that I actually have some sort of potential to be a 'true'
artist as opposed to a commercial animation (I like movement..8)) does
anybody here see this as selling out?
the comment sort of got to me..
"Don't sell out. Get some formal training and you might actually go
somewhere Fred" was more or less what was said.
But I don't feel that I'm selling out...I'm just doing what I like and
want to do..is that bad? I'm not hurting anybody (in any way that I can
figure at least)..so what's this 'selling out' thing..it makes me think
that my talent is of no consequence..(lets face it, 'selling out' isn't
exactly a comment of a positive nature right?)
F
--
ONLY four lines for a @*(#!*(!ing SIG???
WHAT is this? How the @#@!k am I supposed to make high brow comments?
Or make a statement? Maybe I should lease this space to somebody?
Or I could always get the d.........><CLICK><
Helen Bakk
In article <4njjg0$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>And if a human teacher comes around, gives you an objective eye (hmm..that
>femur looks a leeetle too long (assump. of classically proportioned Venus
>model..)), I think that just helps out the learning process more since its
>feedback.
You make a very important point in the above. Most artists, and this is especially
true of novice artists, cannot "see" the distortions in their own work. I find that
after over 30 years of doing this work that I still have difficulty "seeing" sometimes.
That is why so many times you get the advice -- put the work away for awhile, and
come back to it with refreshed sensibility. Most artists who look at older work they
have done can find fault with it, if they are truly objective themselves.
The importance of being in a classroom environment, besides the obvious, is
having others who can and will point out weaknesses ( as well as strengths ) in
your work to you -- help you to "see" your work through a fresh set of eyes -- theirs.
--
******************************************
From Her Holiness, Harpy of Hoopla.
Been there, done that, matters not.
~ Helen Bakk ~ I am NOT E-mailable.
*******************************************
Shawn McBride
> ...Most artists, and this is especially
> true of novice artists, cannot "see" the distortions in their own work. I find that
> after over 30 years of doing this work that I still have difficulty "seeing" sometimes.
> That is why so many times you get the advice -- put the work away for awhile, and
> come back to it with refreshed sensibility. Most artists who look at older work they
> have done can find fault with it, if they are truly objective themselves.
Don't you think there is an understated value in the "distortion"
that you are trying so desperately to avoid? I question the notion
of "fault" in a drawing. What standards are your ideals based on,
Leonardo..., Kollwitz..., Miro...?
I agree that the feedback is extremely important to development,
and so is the awareness of how you are portraying your
subjects...but if accuracy is what you want, why not mechanical
reproduction?
http://www.salsgiver.com/wesayso
(fine art link)
Helen Bakk
In article <4npmnd$5...@alterdial.UU.NET>, 'wes...@salsgiver.com' says...
>> ...Most artists, and this is especially
>> true of novice artists, cannot "see" the distortions in their own work.
>Don't you think there is an understated value in the "distortion"
>that you are trying so desperately to avoid?
Distortion can be beautifully used if that is the wish of the artist.
But in a beginning drawing class, regardless of the subject matter,
a beginning (novice) artist will have difficulty "copying" what they are
seeing and trying to reproduce on paper. That is all I was referring to.
And often the novice will not be aware of some distortions. Anyone
who has ever participated in a class will understand what I am talking about.
If the class is one in "freedom of expression" or recreating what one
is drawing in innovative ways, then distortion is part of the intended purpose
of the class. If the class is supposed to be concentrating on "accuracy"
in depiction, then the criticism will be different. That's all.
William DeRaymond
Shawn McBride wrote:
>
> > ...Most artists, and this is especially
> > after over 30 years of doing this work that I still have difficulty "seeing" sometimes.
> > That is why so many times you get the advice -- put the work away for awhile, and
> > come back to it with refreshed sensibility. Most artists who look at older work they
> > have done can find fault with it, if they are truly objective themselves.
>
> of "fault" in a drawing. What standards are your ideals based on,
> Leonardo..., Kollwitz..., Miro...?
>
> I agree that the feedback is extremely important to development,
> and so is the awareness of how you are portraying your
> subjects...but if accuracy is what you want, why not mechanical
> reproduction?
>
> http://www.salsgiver.com/wesayso
> (fine art link)
I would like to share some thoughts about this idea of distortion. Suzuki Roshi a Zen
Master, in Zen mind, Beginner mind says, That the secrets of the arts is to always be a
beginner...
"About distortion, in my opinion, if one consciously tries to distort, then I would say
generally that this is really distortion and the art therein would become stylized
which is not as good as if it expressed true style. On the other hand if the 'so
called distortion' occurs spontaneously as a result of the sincere expression and
attempt of the individual to simply express her or himself in relationship to the motif
and the medium then in fact in terms of ART this is no distortion at all, even if it is
not literally accurate, it will be perfect in terms of all the forces entering into the
moment to moment flow of reality. this is how true style emerges - the
unselfconscious, sincere expression of an individual self." - willie
-Honoring the light within you-
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
Helen Bakk
In article <31A36C...@worldlightproductions.com>, dray...@worldlightproductions.com says...
> On the other hand if the 'so
>called distortion' occurs spontaneously as a result of the sincere expression and
>attempt of the individual to simply express her or himself in relationship to the motif
>and the medium then in fact in terms of ART this is no distortion at all, even if it is
>not literally accurate, it will be perfect in terms of all the forces entering into the
>moment to moment flow of reality.
I agree. It is troublesome to me that so many art intructors force novices to
"see" their stylistic or naturalistic "distortions" instead of perhaps using them as
a basis for building an individual style. But that has long been the emphasis in
studio classes where pupils draw from life -- to make everyone look realistic as
would be possible were they photographing the still life or figure they are studying.
Often-times that is the beauty of so-called "naive" art -- the innocence with which
the artist has represented whatever is being presented. That we set "standards"
of acceptance in the academic training of artists is a very questionable practice.
But how else would you teach? Letting novices just "do it" often doesn't produce
anything but laziness, ugliness, and all the other ____nesses that most people
deplore about contemporary art. Like cream though, the true artist will rise to the
top regardless of the shape of the bottle, IMHO.
Greg Scheckler
In article <4o1nbk$o...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
He...@been-there.com (Helen Bakk) wrote:
>In article <31A36C...@worldlightproductions.com>,
dray...@worldlightproductions.com says...
another great Suzuki Roshi quotation states that the best way
to gain control over your herd of cows is to give them as
much land as possible to graze upon. (paraphrased)
>I agree. It is troublesome to me that so many art intructors force
>novices to "see" their stylistic or naturalistic "distortions"
>instead of perhaps using them as a basis for building an individual
>style. But that has long been the emphasis in studio classes where
>pupils draw from life -- to make everyone look realistic as would
>be possible were they photographing the still life or figure they
>are studying.
too true... and little understanding of how the camera, the film,
the lens all distort and rearrange and design, and less under-
standing of the implicit designing of simpler tools such as
pencils...
>Often-times that is the beauty of so-called "naive" art -- the
>innocence with which the artist has represented whatever is being
>presented. That we set "standards" of acceptance in the academic
>training of artists is a very questionable practice. But how else
>would you teach?
by removing the standards. tearing down the fences and letting
students wander over greater fields.
by taking people to museums and talking passionately about art.
by giving tons of slide presentations. by having students research
their interests, or find new art. by grading as little as possible,
and by provinding students insightful written criticism instead.
>Letting novices just "do it" often doesn't
>produce anything but laziness, ugliness, and all the other
>____nesses that most people deplore about contemporary art.
the deploring is often based on a failure to understand
the experimental strains of contemporary art. I do
strongly disagree with the notion that letting novices
just "do it" often doesn't produce anything but laziness,
ugliness, etc. ... in classes I've taught using such a
fluid method, I've had exceptional results from a great
many students. Not just experimental stuff either, but
traditional and so on. The friction of everybody actively
talking about, sharing and discussing their ideas, even in
'basic' courses, does I think create a far better atmosphere
for learning than does a course where everybody tries to
do more or less the same thing, meeting more or less the
same goals as imposed by the teacher ahead of time.
>Like cream though, the true artist will rise to the top regardless
>of the shape of the bottle, IMHO.
it just might take longer if that artist's character doesn't
match the process of pasteurization.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Mdeli
>William DeRaymond/Artist writes:
>I would like to share some thoughts about this idea of distortion. Suzuki Roshi a Zen
>Master, in Zen mind, Beginner mind says, That the secrets of the arts is to always be a
>beginner...
Its no secret. Beginner is the rank of the majority of
modern academic artists . Zen Boobism just makes them
imagine they are unique by telling failures that there
lack of ability is a great secret asset.
>
>"About distortion, in my opinion, if one consciously tries to distort, then I would say
>generally that this is really distortion and the art therein would become stylized
>which is not as good as if it expressed true style. On the other hand if the 'so
>called distortion' occurs spontaneously as a result of the sincere expression and
>attempt of the individual to simply express her or himself in relationship to the motif
>and the medium then in fact in terms of ART this is no distortion at all, even if it is
>not literally accurate, it will be perfect in terms of all the forces entering into the
>moment to moment flow of reality. this is how true style emerges - the
>unselfconscious, sincere expression of an individual self." - willie
>-Honoring the light within you-
>--
If someone who has no skill produces crap I'm not
interested in whether or not he claims to be sincere.
Sincerity has nothing to do with art. Only the
resulting work is of any consequence.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Helen Bakk
In article <1996May24.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu says...
>>Like cream though, the true artist will rise to the top regardless
>>of the shape of the bottle, IMHO.
>
>it just might take longer if that artist's character doesn't
>match the process of pasteurization.
Your pasteurization analogy contradicts your raw milk philosophy
of the preceding paragraphs. Pasteurizing implies purifying, and
teaching implies imposition of 'purity' whether it be rules, criticism,
or dogma. Regardless of whether or not one lays down ground rules
for a particular class, people are people. I know from experience that
roughly 1/2 of any given class will slough off, given NO direction or
expectation. I am NOT referring to graduate-level. I am talking about
undergraduates taking core courses in studio art. A good instructor is
going to keep the class dynamically charged and charging ahead
regardless of the teaching methods employed. IMHO.
--
******************************************
Discipline is NOT an inherent human
trait -- it is a conditioned response.
Greg Scheckler
In article <4o8fg4$n...@steel.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com
>>William DeRaymond/Artist writes:
>>I would like to share some thoughts about this idea of distortion.
>>Suzuki Roshi a Zen Master, in Zen mind, Beginner mind says, That
>>the secrets of the arts is to always be a beginner...
>
>Its no secret. Beginner is the rank of the majority of
>modern academic artists . Zen Boobism just makes them
>imagine they are unique by telling failures that there
>lack of ability is a great secret asset.
:) It does take years of study and insight to become a
great Zen master.
Greg Scheckler
In article <4o9r2s$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
He...@been-there.com (Helen Bakk) wrote:
>In article <1996May24.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu
says...
>
>>>Like cream though, the true artist will rise to the top
>>>regardless of the shape of the bottle, IMHO.
>>
>>it just might take longer if that artist's character doesn't
>>match the process of pasteurization.
>
>Your pasteurization analogy contradicts your raw milk philosophy
>of the preceding paragraphs. Pasteurizing implies purifying, and
>teaching implies imposition of 'purity' whether it be rules,
>criticism, or dogma.
yeah good point :) mixing my metaphors again...
but the teacher might not be the one who is doing
the pasteurizing... nor would I call my teaching philosophy
one of raw milk. it's far more complex than that and if you
really want to talk about it let's do it e-mail not here.
>Regardless of whether or not one lays down ground rules
>for a particular class, people are people. I know from experience
>that roughly 1/2 of any given class will slough off, given NO
>direction or expectation.
that's a shame. the courses i've taught that involved very
directed work and study were the ones where certain students
got bored out of their wits. the courses i've taught that
were less directed, more individualized to the student,
prevented that problem, as students who were very interested
in representational means were able to study that more in
depth, and others, studied what they were interested in.
Their own interests maintain their motivation automatically.
Meaning is internalized. Thus the students learn more,
and learn more effectively than when meaning or methodology
is imposed from the outside.
>I am NOT referring to graduate-level. I
>am talking about undergraduates taking core courses in studio art.
okay. If there are fundamentals or basics to drawing, then they
must be fundamental to all sorts of drawing. if not, then they
are not fundamental. The same characteristics must apply to
abstraction, constructivism, representation, etc. So in the
arena of a foundational undergraduate core course, it is possible
to have all the students make work that looks different than
other students, i.e. highly individualized works, because no matter
what, the fundamentals stay the same. There will always be
common ground to talk about, share, and contrast (characteristics of
line and tone and techniques for making them, varying tools, the
ways the mind may direct the body to make marks of many sorts, the
characteristics of aesthetic decision-making, etc.)
>A good instructor is going to keep the class dynamically charged
>and charging ahead regardless of the teaching methods employed.
>IMHO.
i agree that any good instructor will keep a class dynamic
regardless of subject matter. but the teaching method employed
does affect whether a class can be dynamically charged at all.
you seem to mistake the ideas i mentioned for the lack
of direction that you associate with the phrase "just do
it." and, i must admit, that there are a lot of teachers
who would do precisely what you are talking about, which is
fail their students completely and offer nothing worth
remembering, drawing, doing, living, etc. Just as there are
very few truly outstanding teachers of observational drawing,
there are very few outstanding teachers of other methods.
>Discipline is NOT an inherent human
>trait -- it is a conditioned response.
i'd say human biology is highly disciplined and sytematic
at root, and therefore, discipline is built-in at many levels.
Thus when the internal mechanisms are set free, discipline
still arises.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Bruce Attah
In article <1996May24.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg
Scheckler) wrote:
> by removing the standards. tearing down the fences and letting
> students wander over greater fields.
> by taking people to museums and talking passionately about art.
> by giving tons of slide presentations. by having students research
> their interests, or find new art. by grading as little as possible,
> and by provinding students insightful written criticism instead.
Result? Some with real ability will succeed *despite* your efforts, the
rest will never receive the corrective they need for their delusion that
they possess talent. They will go out into the world and attempt to foist
trash on an unwelcoming public. Those with a certain flair for
showmanship will get away with it, because there are plenty of philistine
fashion-victims out there who are willing to join in the fantasy. The
sensible ones will eventually learn at the University of Hard Knocks what
you failed to teach them, while the most foolhardy will go on for the rest
of their lives subsisting marginally and whingeing about how nobody wants
to pay for their amazing, challenging art.
Helen Bakk
In article <1996May27.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu says...
>nor would I call my teaching philosophy
>one of raw milk. it's far more complex than that and if you
>really want to talk about it let's do it e-mail not here.
Sorry Greg, but you know my philosophy on e-mail versus open
discussions in this public forum. When you and I talk via this forum,
we are addressing the Internet World -- whether or not we have
anything worth saying. Let's keep it that way. I do it for the sheer
enjoyment of participation. I think you have a lot of thoughtful things
to say -- and I think you believe deeply in your own positions -- so
whatever you say about art in its many manifestations should be
useful information for someone reading these postings, whether you
are directing personal remarks to me or to the world at large.
Hope your enjoying a fine spring there in Utah. Cheers, Helen.
Helen Bakk
>>I am NOT referring to graduate-level. I
>>am talking about undergraduates taking core courses in studio art.
>okay. If there are fundamentals or basics to drawing, then they
>must be fundamental to all sorts of drawing. if not, then they
>are not fundamental. The same characteristics must apply to
>abstraction, constructivism, representation, etc.
Perhaps Utah State has different undergraduate studies than the
schools with which I have been associated. Here in Austin for example,
at UT Austin in particular, undergraduate courses do NOT explore
the various art-isms except as touched on by the individual instructors.
For example: course titles in my studio art classes as reflected by my
official transcript read: Communication Design, Painting 1, 2, 3, etc.,
Drawing 1, 2, 3, etc., Life Drawing 1, 2, 3, etc., Basic Sculpture,
Photography 1, Printmaking; Lithography, Advanced Painting, Advanced
Life Drawing, --- and so on.
But you get the point. ONLY IN ART HISTORY
classes did I get exposure to philosophy of art in a specific ISM. Oh sure,
some of my studio instructors were very knowledgeable on A. E., Minimalism,
or whatever their particular interest was, and they conveyed their ideas to
the class. But undergraduate classes were NOT about style. ALL OF MY
CLASSES stressed individualism -- but individualism within the concept of
the class syllabus.
Oh yeah, I forgot all those "other" core courses, like: Gov., His., Psy.,
Mth, etc. that are part of the core curriculum. In my case, those types of
classes were transferred credits from earlier degree work. In Texas, ALL
degree plans must include 3 hrs. of both Texas History and Texas Government.
It's da LAW (legislated). They were fun courses for me.
Cheers, Helen.
greg allen
I feel like the Intent Man today, but I guess it depends on the
focus and goals of the class and the teacher.
Certainly acquainting students with the different approaches to
creating and seeing art can be accomplished by traditional studio
methods described previously. My guess is a vast majority of
students, whether pursuing an art career or not, are going to
produce mediocre work. Whether it is grounded in classical skills
or contemporary principles, it's going to be mediocre.
If the intent is to find or nurture the few exceptional talents, I
would have to think the "let em do what they want" approach is best.
Elitist, I know, but unavoidable.
That said, when my lit crit prof tried to present a smorgasbord of
crit approaches and had us try them on, it was ridiculous. If
you're gonna have a dogma, and you are, then just acknowledge it,
and let students factor that in.
greg allen
William DeRaymond
Mdeli wrote:
>
> >William DeRaymond/Artist writes:
> >I would like to share some thoughts about this idea of distortion. Suzuki Roshi a Zen
> >Master, in Zen mind, Beginner mind says, That the secrets of the arts is to always be a
> >beginner...
>
> Its no secret. Beginner is the rank of the majority of
> modern academic artists . Zen Boobism just makes them
> imagine they are unique by telling failures that there
> lack of ability is a great secret asset.
>
> >
> >generally that this is really distortion and the art therein would become stylized
> >which is not as good as if it expressed true style. On the other hand if the 'so
> >called distortion' occurs spontaneously as a result of the sincere expression and
> >attempt of the individual to simply express her or himself in relationship to the motif
> >and the medium then in fact in terms of ART this is no distortion at all, even if it is
> >not literally accurate, it will be perfect in terms of all the forces entering into the
> >moment to moment flow of reality. this is how true style emerges - the
> >unselfconscious, sincere expression of an individual self." - willie
> >-Honoring the light within you-
> >--
>
> If someone who has no skill produces crap I'm not
> interested in whether or not he claims to be sincere.
> Sincerity has nothing to do with art. Only the
> resulting work is of any consequence.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
no skill at all. i'm sure you are sincere in your wrong headedness.
but this is the land of the free i've heard it said. you know my
opinion, i know yours. now go forth and illustrate your conceptual load
with the all the glory of your small mind. or don't.
Honoring the Light within You.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
In article <Bruce.Attah-28...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>, Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:
> In article <1996May24.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg
> Scheckler) wrote:
>
>> by removing the standards. tearing down the fences and letting
>> students wander over greater fields.
>> by taking people to museums and talking passionately about art.
>> by giving tons of slide presentations. by having students research
>> their interests, or find new art. by grading as little as possible,
>> and by provinding students insightful written criticism instead.
do not forget that 'insightful' feedback part, the sharing of
knowledge and experience outside the power hierarchies of grading!
> Result? Some with real ability will succeed *despite* your efforts, the
> rest will never receive the corrective they need for their delusion that
> they possess talent.
oh, the 'corrective'
perhaps the greatest problem with teaching art today is the notion that
teachers "correct" their students, that a teacher in some way
"knows better" and prescribes appropriate castor-oil medicine.
I think most teachers do this with good intentions. So-n-so had a
really great experience with still-life drawing when he was a
beginning student, and he then brings that love of still-life drawing
to the classroom, when he is a teacher. Then all the students
draw still-lives whether they like them or not. Or all the students
do conceptual art whether they like it or not, etc. If they do something
radically different, then most likely they get worse grades for not
fulfilling the 'assignment.' I regard such assignment-based learning
(in art) to be highly limiting, b/c often students who do not fit
the methods of the class end up leaving, thinking they can't draw,
believing that good drawing=still lives, or good drawing = appropriation,
or whatever. The rejection they experience, combined with their lack
of motivation and lack of experience means they might not ever pick up
a pencil again and draw. The hierarchical method forces people out.
I would rather open drawing up as a means of exploration for
every student, then have a crowd of students believing something as
simplistic as good drawing = (fill in the blank here). What is more
important, a particular form or method of drawing, or that the
beginning student draw and finds drawing as a whole to be valuable?
If the teacher answers that method "A" is more important than
method "B", when both methods have long traditions, are accepted in
some corner of the art world, etc., then the teacher is being
exclusionary, and limiting options for the students. The teacher's
role should instead be to open options and opportunities, to expand
and help the student's mind to grow.
In any case, students with poor drawing
ability don't need to be told that they have poor abilities (by
some professor who believes he/she must 'correct' the student). The student
probably already knows that, and has come to a drawing class because
despite that they feel as though they don't know how to draw, they
are still interested, and genuinely want to improve. So let's listen to
them closely, and help them to find ways to improve, based on their
interests and not *our* ideas of what makes our own artwork good. The
further and more difficult problem on top of all this is that art may
very well not be 'correct' or 'incorrect' in the first place.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Mdeli
I wrote
>> If someone who has no skill produces crap I'm not
>> interested in whether or not he claims to be sincere.
>> Sincerity has nothing to do with art. Only the
>> resulting work is of any consequence.
>>
>> Mani DeLi
>> ...no skill no art
William DeRaymond/Artist writes:
>Yo mani, you don't know the first thing about art. and your skill is
>no skill at all.
Delighted to hear your opinion on my level of knowledge
and skill. Did you glean this information by means of
your Zen Boobist intuition or did a guru appear out of
the mystical miasma and illuminate you on this matter?
I took the opportunity to look at your work on the web
and offer my informed opinion.
Your work is indeed not much worse than most of the
contemporary incompetent stuff on the web that tries to
pass itself off as art. You do know something about art
but it hasn’t helped.
I’d summarize what I saw of yours as two notches below
a third rate street corner portraitist. But do take
heart you are better than Picasso at his worst.
Its no wonder you crab about technique. Its the only
resort left to those who lack it. Perhaps if you
switched from canvas to velvet things would look
somewhat better. You might try to study painting with
someone who does wholesale imports and drawing with an
advanced art school inmate
Well at least you show in a group which shares your
level of competence. Good luck selling your work.
You’ll need it
> i'm sure you are sincere in your wrong headedness.
>but this is the land of the free i've heard it said. you know my
>opinion, i know yours. now go forth and illustrate your conceptual load
>with the all the glory of your small mind. or don't.
>Honoring the Light within You.
...and …may you go forth with your air of mystical
vanity and try to successfully stick your incompetent
load on the public.
Mani DeLi
Perhaps some others here might take a look at your
websight (http://www.worldlightproductions.com) and
express their opinions.
William DeRaymond
Mdeli wrote:
>
> I wrote
> >> If someone who has no skill produces crap I'm not
> >> interested in whether or not he claims to be sincere.
> >> Sincerity has nothing to do with art. Only the
> >> resulting work is of any consequence.
> >>
> >> Mani DeLi
> >> ...no skill no art
>
> William DeRaymond/Artist writes:
> >Yo mani, you don't know the first thing about art. and your skill is
> >no skill at all.
>
> Delighted to hear your opinion on my level of knowledge
> and skill. Did you glean this information by means of
> your Zen Boobist intuition or did a guru appear out of
> the mystical miasma and illuminate you on this matter?
>
> I took the opportunity to look at your work on the web
> and offer my informed opinion.
Informed? By who?
Was this the first time you stopped by? Have you read my Artist's Manifesto? Have you
read the quote on style by Antonio Salemme, my master in the art? He died last year at
the age of 102.
> Your work is indeed not much worse than most of the
> contemporary incompetent stuff on the web that tries to
> pass itself off as art. You do know something about art
> but it hasn’t helped.
Do you think I expected a different opinion from you?
> I’d summarize what I saw of yours as two notches below
> a third rate street corner portraitist. But do take
> heart you are better than Picasso at his worst.
I don't in any way judge my work by Picasso. Personally, I think I'm further along
than that master.
> Its no wonder you crab about technique.
Yo mani, I don't crab about technique. I'm into it. the fact that you can't tell
tells me you don't have a clue. It's just that technique needs to serve the process of
art not otherwise. I express my self, my own 'voice' as i will. What I do takes a
great deal of skill and intelligence and feeling. My work is alla prima. It is based
in the rythyms of the moment and all the forces of the medium that go into that moment.
Its the only
> resort left to those who lack it. Perhaps if you
> switched from canvas to velvet things would look
> somewhat better. You might try to study painting with
> someone who does wholesale imports and drawing with an
> advanced art school inmate
> Well at least you show in a group which shares your
> level of competence. Good luck selling your work.
> You’ll need it.
> ...and …may you go forth with your air of mystical
> vanity and try to successfully stick your incompetent
> load on the public.
If you think my work is mystically vain you are mistaken. There is nothing vain about
it. I express my heart in terms of the medium and the motif. Something you might try.
If it were vain you would probably love it. I would like very much to get
recognition for what it is I do. But it isn't luck I'll need to sell my work but some
intelligent art lovers. I don't consider you in that lot, although I believe you are
sincere.
> Mani DeLi
> Perhaps some others here might take a look at your
> websight (http://www.worldlightproductions.com) and
> express their opinions.
Thanks for the attention, Mani. I'll try to hold off on further bad vibes with you.
Honoring the Light within You.
William DeRaymond
I just had to do this.
A psychic portrait of Mani Deli dedicated to the Lord in all of us.
http://www.worldlightproductions.com/mani.html
Honoring the light within you.
Helen Bakk
In article <31B0E2...@worldlightproductions.com>, dray...@worldlightproductions.com says...
>I just had to do this.
>A psychic portrait of Mani Deli dedicated to the Lord in all of us.
Hmmmm. My inner esp-ian light shows me that you distended the
forehead area -- the proportions between eyebrows and hairline
is too exaggerated.
--
******************************************
You can put a brain in a cranium
but you can't make it think.
Bruce Attah
> do not forget that 'insightful' feedback part, the sharing of
> knowledge and experience outside the power hierarchies of grading!
Sharing knowledge is good, but you don't need to abandon grading in order
to share knowledge.
> > Result? Some with real ability will succeed *despite* your efforts, the
> > rest will never receive the corrective they need for their delusion that
> > they possess talent.
>
> oh, the 'corrective'
>
> perhaps the greatest problem with teaching art today is the notion that
> teachers "correct" their students, that a teacher in some way
> "knows better" and prescribes appropriate castor-oil medicine.
> I think most teachers do this with good intentions.
I don't think that the problem is that the teachers seek to correct their
students, but that they do so without sufficient knowledge themselves of
the art they are trying to teach. Many art teachers have poor knowledge
of the techniques of painting and drawing, or simply lack any flair, so
instead of imparting useful knowledge to their pupils, they pass on tricks
and shortcuts which will move the students on from the novice stage but
latterly come to hinder them when they seek full mastery. A common
problem that has persisted over the centuries has been that teachers will
often pronounce as an inflexible rule what is in fact a *principle*, and,
as such, always to be balanced against other, potentially conflicting,
principles.
Failures of creativity are often failures to realise that what seems to be
a hard-and-fast rule is really a principle. Success in creativity,
conversely arises from the realisation that there are many principles in
art very few rules, and that originality arises from discovering new ways
to balance these principles against one another.
There are two methods for acquiring an understanding of the principles of
art, and they are both inescapably necessary. The first is the experience
of looking at the application of these principles in a wide variety of
existing work, and the second is the experience of attempting, again and
again, to apply these principles in a variety of circumstances for a
variety of particular ends, in one's own work.
> So-n-so had a
> really great experience with still-life drawing when he was a
> beginning student, and he then brings that love of still-life drawing
> to the classroom, when he is a teacher. Then all the students
> draw still-lives whether they like them or not. Or all the students
> do conceptual art whether they like it or not, etc. If they do something
> radically different, then most likely they get worse grades for not
> fulfilling the 'assignment.' I regard such assignment-based learning
> (in art) to be highly limiting, b/c often students who do not fit
> the methods of the class end up leaving, thinking they can't draw,
> believing that good drawing=still lives, or good drawing = appropriation,
> or whatever. The rejection they experience, combined with their lack
> of motivation and lack of experience means they might not ever pick up
> a pencil again and draw. The hierarchical method forces people out.
Well, I'm darned glad that the hierarchical method prevents some people
from qualifying as medical doctors who otherwise might, aren't you? Most
doctors are bad enough as it is; imagine what it would be like if they
were never tested!
Speaking seriously, I think it is something of an irrelevance to say that
students who would be put off by drawing still-lifes would do poorly in a
still-life drawing class. If teachers should make their intentions and
their methods (including their criteria of assessment) clear before
students commit themselves to their courses, misunderstandings and the
attendant frustrations will be avoided. Conversely, if this is not done,
disappointment and a sense of betrayal are likely to result.
> In any case, students with poor drawing
> ability don't need to be told that they have poor abilities (by
> some professor who believes he/she must 'correct' the student). The student
> probably already knows that...
I have to say, that is not true. Students of mediocre ability very often
think they are far better than is actually the case. The trouble is,
*because* they are as poor as they are, they actually CANNOT SEE the
difference between their own drawing and far better drawing. They have to
be taught to see (i.e., to look with expert skill). As "STEVENSEZ"
reminds us, Picasso thought himself able to draw as well as Raphael -- a
quite laughable delusion when you compare their works.
> The
> further and more difficult problem on top of all this is that art may
> very well not be 'correct' or 'incorrect' in the first place.
I would say that "art" is clearly *not* simply correct or incorrect.
Rather it is unsuccessful or successful or very successful. Success is
more likely when one has mastery of the techniques and media of art.
Total mastery makes success very likely, because armed with such, one is
able to concentrate on the imagination, confident that whatever is
imagined can be realised. By contrast, utter ineptitude makes significant
success impossible and worthwhile originality completely unfeasible.
Helen Bakk
In article <Bruce.Attah-03...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>I don't think that the problem is that the teachers seek to correct their
>students, but that they do so without sufficient knowledge themselves of
>the art they are trying to teach. Many art teachers have poor knowledge
>of the techniques of painting and drawing, or simply lack any flair, so
>instead of imparting useful knowledge to their pupils, they pass on tricks
>and shortcuts which will move the students on from the novice stage but
>latterly come to hinder them when they seek full mastery.
Bruce, You may have told us, but since I don't know what art schools
you attended and what teachers you are lumping together in your assessment,
I can't refute what you say fully. BUT, the teachers I have known and those
I had the good fortune to study under, were weak in their teaching methods for
EXACTLY opposite reasons to those you state. Most of those I lump together
are ARTISTS FIRST and not trained as teachers at all, in most cases. To be
a first rate teacher, one must first love teaching and see it as the all-consuming
reason for teaching. Most art teachers I refer to teach as a way of putting food
on the table -- supplementing income. SOME teach as a way of keeping abreast
of fresh ideas that associating with youthful students gives them. Some find
renewed youthfulness for themselves in this manner. Some teach just to have
some social life they would otherwise not have were they to stay in their studios.
The problem with being an ARTIST FIRST and a teacher second, is that you
bring to class all of your own prejudices and egoisms and then want to project
those onto your pupils INSTEAD of teaching them by some proven or
thoughtful method.
From my own experience, the hardest thing for me to do is realize, when
teaching someone I don't know, that one must NEVER assume the pupil
has certain knowledge. It is always difficult to have the "patience of Job" and
take the time to go back and start a pupil with the basics that you yourself
may long ago have rejected or moved beyond.
--
******************************************
Teach me to see and you will have
taught me the secret of being an artist.
Bruce Attah
In article <4p1djv$g...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, He...@been-there.com (Helen
Bakk) wrote:
> the teachers I have known and those
> I had the good fortune to study under, were weak in their teaching methods for
> EXACTLY opposite reasons to those you state. Most of those I lump together
> are ARTISTS FIRST and not trained as teachers at all, in most cases. To be
> a first rate teacher, one must first love teaching and see it as the
all-consuming
> reason for teaching.
You're right, teachers who lack commitment to their tutees are never
likely to be any good, and it is true that art teachers (like most
teachers) in higher education are not trained in teaching. Nonetheless, I
do think that a weak understanding of the principles they are supposed to
impart is the big hindrance that stands in the way of those teachers who
*do* care about their pupils' progress.
CAT
>I just had to do this.
A psychic portrait of Mani Deli dedicated to the Lord in all of us.
Honoring the light within you.
I see the Cezanne influence.
What do you think Mani?
CAT
Greg Scheckler
In article <4ohk08$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
He...@been-there.com (Helen Bakk) wrote:
>In article <1996May27.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu
says...
>
>Sorry Greg, but you know my philosophy on e-mail versus open
>discussions in this public forum.
yeah yeah I know... public public public blah blah blah
for the rare two or three actually intense and useful
newsgroup discussions i've either been in or witnessed,
I've participated in far more useful email discussions, and,
infinitely more in-the-flesh discussions of great worth.
have you no courage? besides, I would love to discuss
internet and identity with you (more privately, of course).
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
sl...@cc.usu.edu
hey, nice post.
In article <Bruce.Attah-03...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>, Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:
> In article <1996May30.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>
>> do not forget that 'insightful' feedback part, the sharing of
>> knowledge and experience outside the power hierarchies of grading!
>
> Sharing knowledge is good, but you don't need to abandon grading in order
> to share knowledge.
i certainly want to do away with grading, especially if, as you say later,
many art teachers are inept. Nothing like having one's record scarred by
well-meaning teachers who lack the skills...
>> perhaps the greatest problem with teaching art today is the notion that
>> teachers "correct" their students, that a teacher in some way
>> "knows better" and prescribes appropriate castor-oil medicine. ...
> I don't think that the problem is that the teachers seek to correct their
> students, but that they do so without sufficient knowledge themselves of
> the art they are trying to teach. Many art teachers have poor knowledge
> of the techniques of painting and drawing, or simply lack any flair, so
> instead of imparting useful knowledge to their pupils, they pass on tricks
> and shortcuts which will move the students on from the novice stage but
> latterly come to hinder them when they seek full mastery. A common
> problem that has persisted over the centuries has been that teachers will
> often pronounce as an inflexible rule what is in fact a *principle*, and,
> as such, always to be balanced against other, potentially conflicting,
> principles.
mastery involves no tricks?
i definitely agree about the problems with "rules" vs. "principles."
i wouldn't even use the term "principle" and prefer instead the more
apparently flexible term "practices" which implies working
towards some of goal(s) -- an action that you do to get where you
wanna go. A principle to me is sort of a holy something that you
*follow* to get where the principles says to go. The drawback is that
"practice" seems too casual to some people. in any case a "principle"
tends to be its own goal, whereas a "practice" tends to work towards
a goal... if the practice don't work, bag it and keep the goal and
try, invent, find some other practice. you can't throw out a
principle that easily.
> Failures of creativity are often failures to realise that what seems to be
> a hard-and-fast rule is really a principle. Success in creativity,
> conversely arises from the realisation that there are many principles in
> art very few rules, and that originality arises from discovering new ways
> to balance these principles against one another.
i believe that there are many as of not yet invented practices, that
artists may use. To that extent, originality may arise out of thinking
up new things/processes/techniques, etc., as opposed to necessarily
arising out of pre-existing principles. This belief of mine provides
me many routes of escape... what routes of escape are there in your
description of interacting, preset principles?
> There are two methods for acquiring an understanding of the principles of
> art, and they are both inescapably necessary. The first is the experience
> of looking at the application of these principles in a wide variety of
> existing work, and the second is the experience of attempting, again and
> again, to apply these principles in a variety of circumstances for a
> variety of particular ends, in one's own work.
I definitely agree with first method: look at art with a critical eye
towards the ideas/principles of that art. I'd like to add the provision
that not all "principles" appear in each artwork (hence the principles
Cezanne dealt with could be very different than the principles Degas
emphasized). I mean the word "principles" very loosely, of course.
The second method here is kind of a trap -- not for everybody -- but for
me anyway. First there's the "again and again" thing and that just gets
futile and repetetive... I keep thinking of art students banging their
heads against tables while trying to do master copies. Not that doing
master copies is a bad idea -- but it seems only really useful when the
student is able to get beyond the superficial appearance of the work and
discover/sense/apprehend underlying principles, practices, patterns and
ideals (even habits of so-n-so artist's thinkings) at
work in the picture. The other difficulty I've had here is that one of
the trends I find common in much great artwork, is the practice of
continual reinvention of the idea(s) of the artwork... the fluidity of
the process, the pentimenti... changingness (?)... revisioning. The final
difficulty (and for me, the trap) is that these principles (or
whatever we call them) may or may not be applicable to today's
artist, as the arena for what is art is far broader today than it was
even twenty years ago. This is why it doesn't make sense for everybody
to paint like yesterday's artist, although it may make sense for
certain individuals, if they wish to copy processes that have been
used before.
>> I regard such assignment-based learning
>> (in art) to be highly limiting, b/c often students who do not fit
>> the methods of the class end up leaving, thinking they can't draw,
>> believing that good drawing=still lives, or good drawing = appropriation,
>> or whatever.
every art teacher has a particular slant or take on art... the problem is
when students (and teachers) take that slant to be the total truth.
>> The rejection they [students] experience, combined with their lack
>> of motivation and lack of experience means they might not ever pick up
>> a pencil again and draw. The hierarchical method forces people out.
...
> Speaking seriously, I think it is something of an irrelevance to say that
> students who would be put off by drawing still-lifes would do poorly in a
> still-life drawing class.
well said, and thanks for pointing out this oversimplification of mine.
but we should recognize the very pivotal role of students'
motivations, in determining their success in coursework. In my
experience, the less a student likes a particular task, the less
likely h/she is to succeed at that task.
> If teachers should make their intentions and
> their methods (including their criteria of assessment) clear before
> students commit themselves to their courses, misunderstandings and the
> attendant frustrations will be avoided. Conversely, if this is not done,
> disappointment and a sense of betrayal are likely to result.
I definitely agree that teachers should make their intentions,
via syllabi, etc., as clear as possible. Here at USU the situation
is significantly more complex however. Currently Every art student must take
"basic drawing," which is a course in traditional still-life
drawing, with a kind of Bauhaus emphasis. There is no exception to
this requirement, and the teachers believe that teaching everybody
this kind of drawing is what's best for every student. The courses
include students who are art majors, non-art majors, theater
(set design) majors, interior design majors, and so on. The problem
with this is this: students from all over Utah go to this state
sponsored school, many cannot afford to go to school elsewhere...
so not only do they not have a choice about course content (picking
among a variety of professors who have differing approaches for instance)
but they do not have much choice about which school they can attend.
It's a nasty double-bind -- some students, who are
dedicated to studying art, get pigeonholed into spending what little
money they have on certain courses they would not otherwise bother with,
and no matter how clearly the professors explain the course content
and methods, the student who wants the art degree at USU but
who doesn't want or need to study still-life drawing are forced to
take the course anyway. Here, there is no option but to study
still-life drawing as basic drawing. The professors also believe
still life drawing *IS* basic drawing, and so see no need to teach
any other kind of drawing which would just as easily help inform the
students of many sorts of techniques -- this despite the fact that
every quarter, student course evaluations consistently show that
there is a body of students who have other needs (In fact, in the
few quarters that I taught using alternative methods (before the
"still-life drawing = basic drawing" rule was made) I frequently
had fifty or more students trying to take the course (which
was rather vexing considering that the lab could only fit 20 and that
I preferred less than 15 students anyway, and, other
teachers using still-life techniques, had a lot less demand... showing
that USU students did have a need for other methods.) What a mess.
>> In any case, students with poor drawing
>> ability don't need to be told that they have poor abilities (by
>> some professor who believes he/she must 'correct' the student). The student
>> probably already knows that...
>
> I have to say, that is not true. Students of mediocre ability very often
> think they are far better than is actually the case. The trouble is,
> *because* they are as poor as they are, they actually CANNOT SEE the
> difference between their own drawing and far better drawing.
I have no qualms about recognizing that many young students have not seen
much art, and have little to compare their own art with. This is not
because they "CANNOT SEE" or that they are poor artists.
It is simply a matter of exposure, NOT inability.
> They have to be taught to see (i.e., to look with expert skill).
No they don't "have to." Art does not have seeing as a prerequisite.
You could be blind as a bat and still make art.
maybe you're confusing seeing with critical thinking skills.
> As "STEVENSEZ" reminds us, Picasso thought himself able to draw as well
> as Raphael -- a quite laughable delusion when you compare their works.
Actually I prefer the quirks of Picasso's early drawings over the
intensely regular and boring geometric compositions that early
Raphael drawings employed. My own preferences aside, however,
i don't think it's in any way necessary to compare the works in
order to find both sets very valuable and beautiful. they can
stand alone as great works, and we don't have to get into some
dumb posturing about who's work is really better.
>> The further and more difficult problem on top of all this is that art may
>> very well not be 'correct' or 'incorrect' in the first place.
>
> I would say that "art" is clearly *not* simply correct or incorrect.
> Rather it is unsuccessful or successful or very successful. Success is
> more likely when one has mastery of the techniques and media of art.
On this point, I kinda like Isaac Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong."
> Total mastery makes success very likely, because armed with such, one is
> able to concentrate on the imagination, confident that whatever is
> imagined can be realised. By contrast, utter ineptitude makes significant
> success impossible and worthwhile originality completely unfeasible.
one cannot have acheived total mastery unless one has already succeeded.
you've got it backwards.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
R Blanchard
William DeRaymond wrote:
>
> Mdeli wrote:
> >
> > I wrote
> > >> If someone who has no skill produces crap I'm not
> > >> interested in whether or not he claims to be sincere.
> > >> Sincerity has nothing to do with art. Only the
> > >> resulting work is of any consequence.
> > >>
> > >> Mani DeLi
> > >> ...no skill no art
> >
> > William DeRaymond/Artist writes:
> > >Yo mani, you don't know the first thing about art. and your skill is
> > >no skill at all.
That makes at least two of you so far.
> Was this the first time you stopped by? Have you read my Artist's Manifesto?
Manifesto? How quaint.
> >...better than Picasso at his worst.
In your dreams maybe, but closer than you, Mani. Have you ever produced anything but large
amounts of bandwidth waste? You are, however, entertaining.
> ...I express my self, my own 'voice' as i will.
Sums it up for me. That's art. Making it more than that is the realm of scholars and teachers, so
they will have a job in the fall.
> > Perhaps some others here might take a look at your
> > websight (http://www.worldlightproductions.com) and
> > express their opinions.
Smells like art to me? What are you expecting, Mani, a mirror?
--
Rick Blanchard
rb Art -- http://members.aol.com/rbArtzo/web/
Mdeli
I wrote:
>> > Perhaps some others here might take a look at your
>> > websight (http://www.worldlightproductions.com) and
>> > express their opinions.
website.
R Blanchard apparently has taken a look and says:
>Smells like art to me? What are you expecting, Mani, a mirror?
Interesting that you can smell art. I hope you are
leaving your nose to science after your demise?
Here is what I expect from work which purports to be
art:
Something that has a unique look in terms of subject
matter ideas and technique. Not something I can see if
I look at the work of mediocre students and vane
incompetents who produce most of the drivel that
inhabits the web. Nothing that lacks uniqueness in
skill has any artistic value.
Nor do I expect to have to read idiotic cryptic
statements, stupid manifestoes, mystical revelations
and vane personal confessions written in order to
excuse glaring incompetence.
Mdeli
CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net> wrote:
>CAT
The guy doesn't even have a sense of humor. I guess
thats a result of Zen Boobism, mystical vanity and
compulsive manifesto production..
Mani DeLi
R Blanchard
Mdeli wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >> > Perhaps some others here might take a look at your
> >> > websight (http://www.worldlightproductions.com) and
> >> > express their opinions.
> website.
>
> R Blanchard apparently has taken a look and says:
> >Smells like art to me? What are you expecting, Mani, a mirror?
>
> Interesting that you can smell art. I hope you are
> leaving your nose to science after your demise?
Plan to have just my nose cryogenically frozen for future art students to
use for modeling and copying.
>
> Here is what I expect from work which purports to be
> art:
>
> Something that has a unique look in terms of subject
> matter ideas and technique. Not something I can see if
> I look at the work of mediocre students and vane
> incompetents who produce most of the drivel that
> inhabits the web. Nothing that lacks uniqueness in
> skill has any artistic value.
>
> Nor do I expect to have to read idiotic cryptic
> statements, stupid manifestoes, mystical revelations
> and vane personal confessions written in order to
> excuse glaring incompetence.
Helps to have something called 'insight' or 'original thought', but then,
they be rare commodoties these days.
--
Rick Blanchard
Greg Scheckler
In article <4p1djv$g...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
He...@been-there.com (Helen Bakk) wrote:
>In article
<Bruce.Attah-03...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
>
>>I don't think that the problem is that the teachers seek to
>>correct their students, but that they do so without sufficient
>>knowledge themselves of the art they are trying to teach.
>[clip].. the
>teachers I have known and those I had the good fortune to study
>under, were weak in their teaching methods for EXACTLY opposite
>reasons to those you state. Most of those I lump together
>are ARTISTS FIRST and not trained as teachers at all, in most
>cases. To be a first rate teacher, one must first love teaching and
>see it as the all-consuming reason for teaching. [clip]
Indeed there are extremely few people out there who are
BOTH exceptional teachers and exceptional artists. We could
probably rid ourselves of all those artists who want to be
teachers to earn money, if as a culture we somehow rewarded
artists better for their efforts. How many artists who have
become teachers, have failed, once they realized they had to
work eighty hours a week on thirty different university
committees?
>The problem with being an ARTIST FIRST and a teacher second, is
>that you bring to class all of your own prejudices and egoisms and
>then want to project those onto your pupils INSTEAD of teaching
>them by some proven or thoughtful method.
in my experience, every "proven" or "thoughtful method" contains
within it all sorts of prejudices and egoisms. To some extent,
every method excludes some other method. Not all prejudices are bad.
Therefore we should carefully study our own prejudices and egoisms,
so that we can choose when it is useful to apply them:
>From my own experience, the hardest thing for me to do is realize,
>when teaching someone I don't know, that one must NEVER assume the
>pupil has certain knowledge. It is always difficult to have the
>"patience of Job" and take the time to go back and start a pupil
>with the basics that you yourself may long ago have rejected or
>moved beyond.
yes... this is extremely difficult. The fun part is when
students pick up on some aspect of those early ideas, that the
teacher rejected/moved beyond, and then makes a fascinating
series of works based on avenues of exploration that the
teacher had never previously explored. That, I think, is the
reward of patience.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Mdeli
sbr...@ix.netcom.com (Steve Browne) wrote:
>Mani, why are your messages from hu...@interlog.com? Are you ashamed
>of your real name? Are you underage and this is your daddy's account?
>Are you just a fiction of some very squalid imagination?
>Stephen B. Browne
>sbr...@ix.netcom.com
There was a mixup when they assigned my Email adress
and it will cost a new regestration fee to change it.
So I left it. It has no deeper meaning
MD
Bruce Attah
...a long-delayed reply.
In article <1996Jun6.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
> hey, nice post.
Well, thank you.
> i certainly want to do away with grading, especially if, as you say later,
> many art teachers are inept. Nothing like having one's record scarred by
> well-meaning teachers who lack the skills...
Very true, but the way you put it here makes it sound like you're about to
fall into a baby/bathwater-type problem. That bad teachers hand out
misleading grades does not mean the problem is in grading as such. I
happen to think that grading is *not* the problem. So, if you chuck out
grading, the way I see it, you'd be chucking out the wrong thing, when
what you really want to get rid of is ineptitude among art teachers.
Then again, I'd say the point of grading was to give feedback to the
student, *not* to advertise the student's achievement to the world. The
world can judge an artist from his or her work, without having to refer to
academic grades.
> >> perhaps the greatest problem with teaching art today is the notion that
> >> teachers "correct" their students, that a teacher in some way
> >> "knows better" and prescribes appropriate castor-oil medicine. ...
>
> > ... Many art teachers have poor knowledge
> > of the techniques of painting and drawing, or simply lack any flair, so
> > instead of imparting useful knowledge to their pupils, they pass on tricks
> > and shortcuts which will move the students on from the novice stage but
> > latterly come to hinder them when they seek full mastery...
>
> mastery involves no tricks?
Oh, no! I don't mean that! Mastery involves even more tricks than mere
competence involves. What I'm talking about here is a situation whereby
the student is provided with a set of recipes or formulae without being
given a proper understanding of the mechanisms that make them work. If,
instead, the student acquires a thorough grounding in the principles, that
student is enabled to make up his or her *own* recipes better suited to
his or her own expressive purposes than any hand-me-downs might be.
>
> i definitely agree about the problems with "rules" vs. "principles."
> i wouldn't even use the term "principle" and prefer instead the more
> apparently flexible term "practices" which implies working
> towards some of goal(s) -- an action that you do to get where you
> wanna go. A principle to me is sort of a holy something that you
> *follow* to get where the principles says to go. The drawback is that
> "practice" seems too casual to some people. in any case a "principle"
> tends to be its own goal, whereas a "practice" tends to work towards
> a goal... if the practice don't work, bag it and keep the goal and
> try, invent, find some other practice. you can't throw out a
> principle that easily.
I don't think I'd swap my "principles" for "practices". The latter sound
to me like custom and tradition, and those are quite a different thing, in
my opinion.
> i believe that there are many as of not yet invented practices, that
> artists may use. To that extent, originality may arise out of thinking
> up new things/processes/techniques, etc., as opposed to necessarily
> arising out of pre-existing principles. This belief of mine provides
> me many routes of escape... what routes of escape are there in your
> description of interacting, preset principles?
None. I don't see art as some sort of confined space (hemmed in perhaps
by rules or convention) from which one needs to escape; rather, I view it
as a vast geographical space much of which might be quite uninteresting,
but certain parts of which are like beautiful oases. An artist explores
this space with greater or less effectiveness according to how well
equipped he or she is in energy and imagination and in useful techniques.
> > There are two methods for acquiring an understanding of the principles of
> > art, and they are both inescapably necessary. The first is the experience
> > of looking at the application of these principles in a wide variety of
> > existing work, and the second is the experience of attempting, again and
> > again, to apply these principles in a variety of circumstances for a
> > variety of particular ends, in one's own work.
>
>...
>
> The second method here is kind of a trap -- not for everybody -- but for
> me anyway. First there's the "again and again" thing and that just gets
> futile and repetetive... I keep thinking of art students banging their
> heads against tables while trying to do master copies.
If they're banging their heads against tables, then perhaps they should be
doing something simpler. When people express frustration at doing
exercises, it is usually because the exercises are set at the wrong level
of difficulty for them.
Doing master copies can be a very open-ended exercise, and students may
have difficulty in knowing how exact their copies need to be, given their
current level of accomplishment.
> The professors also believe
> still life drawing *IS* basic drawing, and so see no need to teach
> any other kind of drawing which would just as easily help inform the
> students of many sorts of techniques
If I want to know how to produce the effect of glass in a drawing or a
painting, my best method is to get some practice drawing actual glass
objects. Perhaps if some students are unenthusiastic about doing still
life, the reason is that they mistake a set of learning exercises in
drawing as exercises in *still life* drawing (as a genre).
Exercises should always be understood to be what they are. I think it
rather amusing the way life drawing classes are nowadays regarded by many
as creative. They are not, but those who think they are are mistaking a
type of exercise for a genre of art.
> >> In any case, students with poor drawing
> >> ability don't need to be told that they have poor abilities (by
> >> some professor who believes he/she must 'correct' the student). The student
> >> probably already knows that...
> >
> > I have to say, that is not true. Students of mediocre ability very often
> > think they are far better than is actually the case. The trouble is,
> > *because* they are as poor as they are, they actually CANNOT SEE the
> > difference between their own drawing and far better drawing.
>
> I have no qualms about recognizing that many young students have not seen
> much art, and have little to compare their own art with. This is not
> because they "CANNOT SEE" or that they are poor artists.
> It is simply a matter of exposure, NOT inability.
>
> > They have to be taught to see (i.e., to look with expert skill).
>
> No they don't "have to." Art does not have seeing as a prerequisite.
> You could be blind as a bat and still make art.
> maybe you're confusing seeing with critical thinking skills.
No. Seeing *is* a critical thinking skill. This fact is easy to
overlook, though the behaviour of brain-damaged patients sometimes makes
it apparent. The exposure of which you speak is one way of improving a
person's ability to see. And students "have to" learn to see *if* they
wish to become adept at producing visual art that others (adept at seeing)
will find rewarding rather than frustrating to look upon.
> > Total mastery makes success very likely, because armed with such, one is
> > able to concentrate on the imagination, confident that whatever is
> > imagined can be realised. By contrast, utter ineptitude makes significant
> > success impossible and worthwhile originality completely unfeasible.
>
> one cannot have acheived total mastery unless one has already succeeded.
> you've got it backwards.
No, I don't think so. If I have total mastery, then it is likely that I
have also achieved career success, but that is not what I am talking
about. I am talking about the <em>next work</em>. With mastery, I have
some confidence that my next work will be a success, without it, I hope
against hope.
William DeRaymond
R Blanchard wrote:
>
> William DeRaymond wrote:
> >
> > Mdeli wrote:
> > >
> > > I wrote
> > > >> If someone who has no skill produces crap I'm not
> > > >> interested in whether or not he claims to be sincere.
> > > >> Sincerity has nothing to do with art. Only the
> > > >> resulting work is of any consequence.
> > > >>
> > > >> ...no skill no art
> > >
> > > >Yo mani, you don't know the first thing about art. and your skill is
> > > >no skill at all.
>
> That makes at least two of you so far.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
>
> > Was this the first time you stopped by? Have you read my Artist's Manifesto?
>
> Manifesto? How quaint.
Well is that all you can say? Did you read it, it's obvious you think me arrogant and
a fool. But my manifesto isn't quaint. That is my opinion of some of your work
however. There is some technique manifested and certainly an aesthetic sense but i
would say not very original in either sense. Kind of tight assed.
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
William DeRaymond
R Blanchard wrote:
>
> William DeRaymond wrote:
> >
> > Mdeli wrote:
> > >
> > > >> If someone who has no skill produces crap I'm not
> > > >> interested in whether or not he claims to be sincere.
> > > >> Sincerity has nothing to do with art. Only the
> > > >> resulting work is of any consequence.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mani DeLi
> > > >> ...no skill no art
> > >
> > > William DeRaymond/Artist writes:
> > > >Yo mani, you don't know the first thing about art. and your skill is
> > > >no skill at all.
>
> That makes at least two of you so far.
What gives you the impression I know nothing about art? Is it my seeming arrogance?
Or do you think my work isn't up to it? And if so, Why? My work is based in what I
call the aesthetics of spontaneity, which is what I value in anyone's work. The
Motif, the medium and the artist's personality all in harmony.
>
> > Was this the first time you stopped by? Have you read my Artist's Manifesto?
>
> Manifesto? How quaint.
My manifesto is anything but quaint. Did you read it? Were you put off by it? Why?
I did stop by your website. Your work is very proficient, but not to be cruel, I found
IT kind of quaint. There was a very nice sense of color and composition, on which I
have to congratulate you for your work, but I think a little more feeling in the moment
to moment flow of life energy couldn't hurt.
>
> > >...better than Picasso at his worst.
>
> In your dreams maybe, but closer than you, Mani. Have you ever produced anything but large
> amounts of bandwidth waste? You are, however, entertaining.
>
> > ...I express my self, my own 'voice' as i will.
>
> Sums it up for me. That's art. Making it more than that is the realm of scholars and teachers, so
> they will have a job in the fall.
So you agree with these statements of mine? Philosophy does however enter into an
aesthetic discussion, and can help to clarify certain issues, like the issue of style
versus stylized. Paint, paint, paint, ...is good, but guidance is important in order
to get through those difficult conceptual traps that we all tend towards because of the
cultural inertia.
>
> > > Perhaps some others here might take a look at your
> > > websight (http://www.worldlightproductions.com) and
> > > express their opinions.
>
> Smells like art to me? What are you expecting, Mani, a mirror?
> --
> Rick Blanchard
>
> rb Art -- http://members.aol.com/rbArtzo/web/Best wishes,
Greg Scheckler
In article Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>....a long-delayed reply.
well this is my last response to a post in r.a.f.
i hope everybody continues with these energetic interchanges
as much as always. :)
>In article <1996Jun6.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>
>> i certainly want to do away with grading, especially if, as you say
>> later, many art teachers are inept. Nothing like having one's record
>> scarred by well-meaning teachers who lack the skills...
>[clip: baby/bathwater] So, if you chuck out grading, the way I see it,
>you'd be chucking out the wrong thing, when what you really want to get
>rid of is ineptitude among art teachers.
as a teacher i've been thinking about this a lot. I don't really want to
be rid of ineptitude among art teachers, or for that matter, at any
level of teaching. Teachers should strive towards excellence at every
level, I agree... but my experience as a student has been that even
seemingly inept teachers have taught me lots, in many different ways.
besides that, in art it's extremely difficult to define "correctness"
in terms of artmaking. We can talk about whether a certain teacher is
an effective communicator or not... but this is very complicated, and
not really a measure of how much a student can learn from a teacher.
the only thing that bothers me is when a teacher is intolerant of
other teachers' methods or teachings, as if one form of artmaking
were holier than another. As I see it, all artmaking is
essentially good, and thus the difficulty is in choosing the
greater of the good things that one could create.
As for grading, in the U.S. there are a couple of logistical problems.
One is the conflation of high grades with the ability to apply for,
receive or continue to get financial aid, scholarships, etc. Just as
standardized I.Q. tests, SAT's etc., certain forms of grading are
highly culturally determined... with certain members of varying cultures
doing consideribly poorer than others. So this adds up to subtle forms
of cultural discrimination, once the equation with money-for-school
is made. This is made worse when teachers are inept (as already
discussed). Furthermore, good teachers give their students so much
feedback that a little letter "A" is totally irrelevant in terms of
what the student has learned. So grading seems to me irrelevant and
extra paperwork.
>Then again, I'd say the point of grading was to give feedback to the
>student, *not* to advertise the student's achievement to the world.
but the grades *do* advertise so-called *achievement*... do people
keep in mind the particular context for a particular grade given by
a particular teacher in a particular course? what is this little
competition for anyway? why compare students to each other on some
kind of mangled bell curve, or other standard? making art is not
a race to some finish line.
>>The world can judge an artist from his or her work, without having to
>>refer to academic grades.
yet another reason to bag grading altogether. if the world is going
straight for the art, than what does the grade matter? nothing.
>>>[tricks and shortcuts]
>> mastery involves no tricks?
>
>Oh, no! I don't mean that! Mastery involves even more tricks than
>mere competence involves. What I'm talking about here is a situation
>whereby the student is provided with a set of recipes or formulae
>without being given a proper understanding of the mechanisms that make
>them work. If, instead, the student acquires a thorough grounding in
>the principles, that student is enabled to make up his or her *own*
>recipes better suited to his or her own expressive purposes than any
>hand-me-downs might be.
i just don't buy that. in art there's no rules. no principles
other than that the artist must make art. And that's easy...
just decide to make art. it's that simple. Of course there are things
that people tend to do, things that traditions tend to do, etc.,
but probably invention comes from outside all of
those tendencies. generally i think a thorough grounding in the
*principles* adds up to thoroughly uninventive work, because all
the time invested in learning the *principles* ends up convincing
that there are principles, whatever they are, whether loosely
defined or tightly defined. "liberal" art school's students learn
to be liberal, or rebel against it. "conservative" art school's
students learn to be conservative, or rebel against it. (this is
an oversimplification.) Schools tend to have each their own "look,"
some more so than others. This tells me that students do put a lot
of faith into what their teachers tell them. This can be a good
thing, when the teachers are excellent. But because the student
may not early on know whether the teacher is good or not, I would
advocate that every student rigorously apply his or her own innate
curiousity, and thoroughly question every teaching, in depth.
>> [clip: rules, principles, practices?]
>I don't think I'd swap my "principles" for "practices". The latter
>sound to me like custom and tradition, and those are quite a different
>thing, in my opinion.
yeah hmmm, "practice" does have that overtone, like 'what religion
do you practice?' What if we just said "well, here's one way to do
this..." and "here's another way to do this..." and "what ways might
you invent for doing this?" i just want to allow this all to be as
open and flexible as possible, because:
>> i believe that there are many as of not yet invented practices, that
>> artists may use. To that extent, originality may arise out of
>>thinking up new things/processes/techniques, etc., as opposed to
>>necessarily arising out of pre-existing principles. This belief of
>>mine provides me many routes of escape... what routes of escape are
>>there in your description of interacting, preset principles?
>None. I don't see art as some sort of confined space (hemmed in
>perhaps by rules or convention) from which one needs to escape; rather,
>I view it as a vast geographical space much of which might be quite
>uninteresting, but certain parts of which are like beautiful oases.
i like the metaphor. but where does art come from? it comes from
me, the artist. I make it.
I didn't mean art was a confined space. I meant my thoughts about
art sometimes confine me, and so insofar as at certain times I harbor
certain thoughts, I want routes out of those thoughts, such that
I may quickly and easily get beyond them on any path towards
greater and ever greater expansiveness. It helps then, to foster
a seamless integration of all activities.
>An artist explores this space with greater or lesser effectiveness
>according to how well equipped he or she is in energy and imagination
>and in useful techniques.
in my experience all i've ever needed was exposure. I remember
when i tried out my first piece of charcoal. I was amazed. Burnt
twigs can help make marks! Suddenly forest fires seemed somehow
miraculously useful. I wasn't graded on the fact that I'd learned
that I could pick up a piece of charcoal and draw. I was graded
on whatever the assignment was and whether i'd rendered an egg
right or something, which was for me of no real importance
compared to the realization that charcoal was unleashed potential.
And so it was, with brushes, paints, substrates, other marking
tools, clay, plaster, and so on. and then the things other artists
and my colleagues have done! amazing!
[clip: 2 methods: exposure and practice like copying of masterworks]
>> The second method here is kind of a trap -- not for everybody -- but
>>for me anyway. First there's the "again and again" thing and that just
>>gets futile and repetetive... I keep thinking of art students banging
>>their heads against tables while trying to do master copies.
>If they're banging their heads against tables, then perhaps they should
>be doing something simpler. When people express frustration at doing
>exercises, it is usually because the exercises are set at the wrong
>level of difficulty for them.
there is truth to the idea that tasks beyond one's abilities may
cause frustration. boredom is even more frustrating. so
meaningless oversimplified busywork could be avoided too.
>Doing master copies can be a very open-ended exercise, and students may
>have difficulty in knowing how exact their copies need to be, given
>their current level of accomplishment.
it's probably from having done so many copies of dead artists' works
that i've gained great respect for what they've done. i'd
recommend the process as open-endedly as possible. Do it if you'd
like to, that's all.
>> [re: sill life drawing = basic drawing, problems of "curricula"]
>If I want to know how to produce the effect of glass in a drawing or a
>painting, my best method is to get some practice drawing actual glass
>objects.
yeah, that's understandable and direct. But what if the artist desires
to produce the effect of a thing or event that is not visual, for
which there is no (not yet) objective correlative?
>Perhaps if some students are unenthusiastic about doing still
>life, the reason is that they mistake a set of learning exercises in
>drawing as exercises in *still life* drawing (as a genre).
that might be one reason why. another reason might be that the
subject matter is boring. or that the exercises aren't geared
towards enough subtlety to be meaningful. a lot of potential
reasons.
>Exercises should always be understood to be what they are. I think it
>rather amusing the way life drawing classes are nowadays regarded by
>many as creative. They are not, but those who think they are are
>mistaking a type of exercise for a genre of art.
i think figure drawing can be stunningly creative. it provides
a lot of unique and poignant problems and ideas, and punctuates
technique with recognizability. and it is creative in the deep
sense, in that you begin with a blank page and end up with
something you have made -- it is an act of creation. and it is
destructive in the deep sense too, in that the artist changes the
character of the tools and relationship with the figure, often
irrevocably. But anyway, yes, exercises should be seen as exercises
and not much more. Which is why all artists should avoid them
altogether. Make art instead.
>>>> [clip: ability to "see" or not] i added:
>> I have no qualms about recognizing that many young students have not
>> seen much art, and have little to compare their own art with. This >>
is not because they "CANNOT SEE" or that they are poor artists.
>> It is simply a matter of exposure, NOT inability.
in fact I'd like to add this: the teacher's role should not be to
determine whether someone has the ability to do something or not.
the teacher's role should be to help the student develop and
discover abilities, find ways of using what the student's got towards
making art. someday the teacher is student, and student is teacher.
>>> They have to be taught to see (i.e., to look with expert skill).
>
>> No they don't "have to." Art does not have seeing as a prerequisite.
>> You could be blind as a bat and still make art.
>> maybe you're confusing seeing with critical thinking skills.
>No. Seeing *is* a critical thinking skill.
even dragonflies see. are they critically thinking?
>This fact is easy to
>overlook, though the behaviour of brain-damaged patients sometimes
>makes it apparent. The exposure of which you speak is one way of
>improving a person's ability to see. And students "have to" learn to
>see *if* they wish to become adept at producing visual art that others
>(adept at seeing) will find rewarding rather than frustrating to look
>upon.
Is it true that more or less everybody see the same general stuff,
wavelengths of light, pattern, etc.? If so, then the difference is in
how one interprets what one sees. that's the critical thinking part.
If it is not true, then we have a great number of new possibilities
to explore, among which we may make choices... and as such, the
act of decision-making involves critical thinking yet again: curiosity.
are those little brown depressions in the dirt or raccoon tracks,
or both or neither? should we examine them more closely?
>>>Total mastery makes success very likely, because armed with such,
>>>one is able to concentrate on the imagination, confident that
>>>whatever is imagined can be realised. By contrast, utter ineptitude
>>>makes significant success impossible and worthwhile originality
>>>completely unfeasible.
Mastery and ineptitude don't make things happen. You do. Maybe culture
helps you when you need it. And you can choose other routes as well,
such as allowing things to occur, as opposed to "making" them happen.
Aside from force and forcelessness, how else might you create success?
I hereby declare, by my power as an artist, that everybody who reads
this post is a master of artmaking. Now, should you choose to, you
may create art in all its strange beauty.
Greg Scheckler
Bruce Attah
In article <1996Jun22.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg
Scheckler) wrote:
> In article Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> >....a long-delayed reply.
>
> well this is my last response to a post in r.a.f.
> i hope everybody continues with these energetic interchanges
> as much as always. :)
So maybe you won't see this reply. Oh, well, cheerio anyway. Good discussion.
> [grading]
I think the case you put against grading is fairly strong, so I won't
trouble to push the point further here.
> ...in art there's no rules. no principles
> other than that the artist must make art. And that's easy...
> just decide to make art. it's that simple.
I don't think it is. You can decide to make art only if you have an idea
of what art is. And you can decide to make good art only if you have a
notion of art that permits some art to be better than other art. And
every time you try to make good art, you are exploring the nature of the
difference between good and bad art, between what you like and what you
don't like. You are exploring your preferences and tastes. These are not
random, but are principled. Your efforts to create good art are therefore
an exploration, or negotiation, of a set of principles. The art itself
causes the evolution of the principles. The more complex the work, the
more principles come into play, and the more subtle an awareness of these
principles and their interaction is required for the creation of a work
that satisfies in every way. Producing a complex work of art amounts to
exploring the complex, non-random structure of human desire.
> ...generally i think a thorough grounding in the
> *principles* adds up to thoroughly uninventive work, because all
> the time invested in learning the *principles* ends up convincing
> that there are principles, whatever they are, whether loosely
> defined or tightly defined...
I understand your sentiment, but I do not think you are arguing against
*my* position. It seems to me that you imagine I advocate that students
be taught a set of rules with the idea that these were infallible (or
nearly so), and that there were no other rules yet undiscovered, and that
the work of an artist was to apply the rules taught in order to produce
successful works in the [or an] established tradition. But that is not
what I'm advocating. Rather, I'm saying that students need to be given a
thorough grounding in the techniques of their chosen medium in order that
they will be equipped to produce whatever their imagination or ambition
impels them in the future to produce. Gaining a technique does not imply
losing a bit of imagination.
As for principles versus rules. I chose this terminology, borrowed from
legal thinking, to draw attention to a distinction: a "rule" always
applies, while a "principle" can never be guaranteed to apply in every
case, and when it does apply, its weight can be affected by the
application of other, possibly competing, principles. Also, rules are
permanently fixed, while principles may evolve.
Principles in art take the form "If you want to achieve a, you should do
b." For instance "In order to make the landscape recede convincingly,
apply aerial perspective." Clearly, if you don't want the landscape to
recede convincingly, this principle is quite irrelevant, and also you may
find that in some circumstances it doesn't work, and in others it is not
necessary, because the effect is achieved by some other means. So, in
full, a principle in art goes "If you want to achieve a, you should do b
or c, or d, or... except in circumstances p, or q, or r...", where nobody
quite knows how long the lists {b, c, d...} and {p, q, r...} are.
What this means is that observation of existing art will show that there
are generally many ways to do any particular thing, while practice enables
the student not only to do what others have done, but also to do what he
or she wants to do, which may be quite different.
Knowledge of what has been discovered in art enables the practitioner to
"stand on the shoulders of giants", and to discover new things that are
not merely retreading of old paths.
> [clip: 2 methods: exposure and practice like copying of masterworks]
> >> The second method here is kind of a trap -- not for everybody -- but
> >>for me anyway. First there's the "again and again" thing and that just
> >>gets futile and repetetive... I keep thinking of art students banging
> >>their heads against tables while trying to do master copies.
>
> >If they're banging their heads against tables, then perhaps they should
> >be doing something simpler. When people express frustration at doing
> >exercises, it is usually because the exercises are set at the wrong
> >level of difficulty for them.
>
> there is truth to the idea that tasks beyond one's abilities may
> cause frustration. boredom is even more frustrating. so
> meaningless oversimplified busywork could be avoided too.
Quite. That's why I said "wrong level of difficulty" rather than "too
difficult".
> >Doing master copies can be a very open-ended exercise, and students may
> >have difficulty in knowing how exact their copies need to be, given
> >their current level of accomplishment.
>
> it's probably from having done so many copies of dead artists' works
> that i've gained great respect for what they've done. i'd
> recommend the process as open-endedly as possible. Do it if you'd
> like to, that's all.
I'm just talking about doing such copies in the context where there is a
teacher who is going to assess them. In that circumstance, it needs to be
made clear just what the teacher requires from the student. When one
copies under one's own direction, one sets one's own agenda, and there is
no problem.
> >> [re: sill life drawing = basic drawing, problems of "curricula"]
> >If I want to know how to produce the effect of glass in a drawing or a
> >painting, my best method is to get some practice drawing actual glass
> >objects.
>
> yeah, that's understandable and direct. But what if the artist desires
> to produce the effect of a thing or event that is not visual, for
> which there is no (not yet) objective correlative?
Then this is not the appropriate exercise. However, once one has decided
what an invisible thing will look like, one again needs to know how to
make one's painting look like the imagined invisible thing.
> >Perhaps if some students are unenthusiastic about doing still
> >life, the reason is that they mistake a set of learning exercises in
> >drawing as exercises in *still life* drawing (as a genre).
>
> that might be one reason why. another reason might be that the
> subject matter is boring. or that the exercises aren't geared
> towards enough subtlety to be meaningful. a lot of potential
> reasons.
The "subject matter is boring" only because a direct connection (as above)
has not been made between the exercises and the student's purpose. There
is no reason why still life drawing as an exercise has to have anything to
do with the typical subject matter of the traditional still life, since
the exercise has nothing to do with still life as an artistic genre. So
if bottles and flowers are boring, bottles and flowers are out.
> >Exercises should always be understood to be what they are. I think it
> >rather amusing the way life drawing classes are nowadays regarded by
> >many as creative. They are not, but those who think they are are
> >mistaking a type of exercise for a genre of art.
>
> i think figure drawing can be stunningly creative.
> ...But anyway, yes, exercises
> should be seen as exercises and not much more. Which is why all artists
should
> avoid them altogether. Make art instead.
Make art *and* do exercises.
> [...]
> >No. Seeing *is* a critical thinking skill.
>
> even dragonflies see. are they critically thinking?
In their little way, and to the limited degree that is available to them, yes.
> Is it true that more or less everybody see the same general stuff,
> wavelengths of light, pattern, etc.? If so, then the difference is in
> how one interprets what one sees. that's the critical thinking part.
> If it is not true, then we have a great number of new possibilities
> to explore, among which we may make choices... and as such, the
> act of decision-making involves critical thinking yet again: curiosity.
> are those little brown depressions in the dirt or raccoon tracks,
> or both or neither? should we examine them more closely?
Seems to me that you use the word "seeing" far more narrowly than I do.
Interpreting what falls on the retina is, in my understanding, "seeing".
To you, it is not seeing, but thinking. Fine. But my use of the word is
well established in the literature of perception.