Teaching

Would you become a good painter if you were taught about the chemistry of paint, the properties and geometry of the paper, the materials in the paint brush and the properties of light?

So why do teachers tell theories and equations and not the questions that got to it?

You know I often found in university the methods that skirted around the theory were the most confusing. I recall a magneto hydro dynamics course where they taught this method for solving an equation by giving this vague explanation and then doing many examples on the board. I'd have much rather seen a mathematical proof of the method and unsurprisingly i did badly on that question in the exam.

Just look at special relativity. Before Einstein maxwell had written 4 equations for electromagnetics and, i think, poinicare had observed that it was invariant under the poinicare transforms. only later did Einstein come along and notice that this meant all frames of reference, moving or other wise, were equivalent for measuring the speed of light and electromagnetic forces and so adopted the maths of poinicare as a basis for his relativity. In short the origin of the theory was not some airy fairy qualitative statement but a set of quantitative equations.

Now it may be a little different in painting but you'd better believe that the painter needs a firm understanding of perspective and geometry, shadow and light.

Incidentally you know perspective in painting only really caught on in the renascence where this painter Filippo Brunelleschi developed a consistent theory for painting pictures in perspective, allegedly using geometrical methods much like those used today.

I've no doubt that providing solid and testable proofs of historical analyses gives a firm basis on which to develop things in the future. Providing this kind of education would give a sure and steady route to get us to a new state. And - to a certain extent - this is core to education. When you really recall though what kick starts enthusiasm and appreciation for a certain subject we look to the place of the personality of the teacher. How a subject - or how a art - is taught reflects in the desire to absorb, but more importantly, to push boundaries. With this, then the firm principles of past study can be taught - and in this light the person can see the finished answer with an insight into how it was originated. From this, then, the clogs click and the understanding is established.

University is more thelatter stage. I refer more to early stages of education; this is why I say teacher and not lecturer (note difference in words). We do not want robots going through the system with a large brain but no capacity to imagine.

Japanese have managed wonders with their cars; performance, efficiency; safety. But they look like the work of someone who has not been exposed to anything outside of a textbook. Italian cars look, by contrast, like they have been designed by imagination. How many sources do you think lie behind this inspiration to design like this?
More to the point, what is the cause of the designer to produce something elegant in the end?

Much of history has been carved by great men, with still greater men causing tidal waves.

I've seen "artists" with the highest technical ability produce "art" that is boring and stagnant. And I've been moved by some artwork that was made by children with almost no technical ability at all.

Essentially I believe that any person with a vision will naturally stumble upon any theory necessary for their vision in a feel kind of way, rather than something conscious, depending on the strength of the will of the creator.

Having a big screen TV that can produce a crystal clear picture but with no stations makes it as useful as a rock.

I've always prized ingenuity and creativity over technical ability. That's all schooling is today for the most part; theory. Knowing how to do something and how to execute it but not what to do.

Wait, doesn't that sound like something?

I like this question.

To me, as an artist, I've never been concerned with technical aspects in the creative process. It's not that I knowingly ditched the rules and rebelled into my own niche in the art world or anything like that. Really, it's just that I was too poor to have as many art supplies as I would've wanted. So all I had was paper and pens or pencils.

Learning about different sorts of paper (vellum, watercolor, canvas, etc) as well as different tools and different mediums altogether really just served to inspire me. It let me know that there was a world to be experienced with my fingertips. It felt like there was no end to possibilities. (whoops, digression...)

Back to the point, I think that technical aspects can be utilized to improve on some pieces of work, but only with purpose. Is the purpose to portray a predictable, calculable structure? Is the art piece better supported with these formulas?

If you look at architecture, you can see that technique helps a great deal. It has indeed produced a ton of awe-inspired work.

It's all in what the artist wants in the end. Spontaneity? A message? A story? A moment?

I hope I didn't ramble more than explain and that this made Some sense...
But I'll come back and add some more thoughts.

I like this question.

To me, as an artist, I've never been concerned with technical aspects in the creative process. It's not that I knowingly ditched the rules and rebelled into my own niche in the art world or anything like that. Really, it's just that I was too poor to have as many art supplies as I would've wanted. So all I had was paper and pens or pencils.

Learning about different sorts of paper (vellum, watercolor, canvas, etc) as well as different tools and different mediums altogether really just served to inspire me. It let me know that there was a world to be experienced with my fingertips. It felt like there was no end to possibilities. (whoops, digression...)

Back to the point, I think that technical aspects can be utilized to improve on some pieces of work, but only with purpose. Is the purpose to portray a predictable, calculable structure? Is the art piece better supported with these formulas?

If you look at architecture, you can see that technique helps a great deal. It has indeed produced a ton of awe-inspired work.

It's all in what the artist wants in the end. Spontaneity? A message? A story? A moment?

I hope I didn't ramble more than explain and that this made Some sense...
But I'll come back and add some more thoughts.