Richard Aerni on tue 30 sep 97
A couple of points on this discussion...
A few years ago, I got one of the national ceramic supply companies to
trade me some underglazes, commercial glazes, brushes, etc, that would
work well in our local school's elementary art program for some of my
pots. Now, they were very generous, and sent boxes of the stuff, cases
of the stuff, enough to last the year out and more, for the whole school.
I brought them round to the art teacher, with whom I had volunteered my
time the previous year, and she was ecstatic about them all. I noticed
throughout the year, however, that whenever my son brought home a clay
project it was merely bisque fired and painted with poster paints for the
"glaze". At the end of the year, when I went into the art room for some
reason, there were all of the supplies, still neatly boxed. When I
wondered to the teacher why they hadn't been used, she responded that
they were "too nice to let the kids use" (!!!). Needless to say, there
have been no further donations of materials by me over the years. I had
contemplated complaining to the administration, but, knowing how things
go in the ed bureaucracy(particularly in our school district), that would
have created lots of friction but no light, so I let it go. I hope that
this is not the usual state of affairs in most schools (and I'm not
wishing to start another thread of teacher bashing).
The year I taught ceramics in college, at a school where most every
student is in art ed, ie future elem/high school art teacher, I decided
to do something a bit different about the glazes. Mostly, the attitude
there was, (and I paraphrase a sign that hung above the entry to the
studio) "Make every pot as though it were the last one you'll make in
your entire life", or some such, and as a potter verging on production,
that attitude bothered me a bit. It tended to make everyone just agonize
over every little detail, rather than getting into the spirit and the
possibilies of what one could do with clay. And the glazes reflected
that attitude...mostly commercial, pre-mixed, bottled glazes (after all,
these students were going to teach kids in an environment where clay
would not be emphasized, and so why go into the details of the
materials), and what few were mixed in the studio were just tired old
recipes that were faithfully mixed up from some other era.
I had read Robin Hopper's approach to glazing and glazes (the
substitution method that he writes of in _The Ceramic Spectrum_, and
detailed in his multi-part Ceramics Monthly article some years ago), and
had been using it intuitively in my studio for years. Thinking that this
would be a good way to introduce beginning students into the wonders and
possibilities of the materials, at the beginning of the term I divided
them up into teams, gave them the "materials list" and told them to come
up a list of different glazes by the end of the semester, when the pots
would be fired. I gave them "limit formulas" for a typical matt glaze,
semi-matte, and glossy glaze. They were to plug in different percentages
(within limits) of the various clays, glass formers, fluxes, oxides, etc,
and come up with their own glazes and glaze palette. MUCH grumbling the
first few weeks, when everyone was into the touch and the feel of clay.
TOO MUCH science, TOO MUCH detail, etc, TOO LITTLE art...you get the
picture. Well, hundreds of test tiles later, most everyone had a handful
of glazes they liked and a working knowledge of the function of the
materials within the glazes. The pots came out well and the students
were proud of themselves, and rightly so. I heard from a number of them
that they had had a fear of science, math, chemistry, etc, and that this
had made them realize one way it could be approached.
In a roundabout way, what I am trying to say is that no matter who a
teacher is teaching, it is very important for them to have a knowledge of
the subject they are teaching, not just the various teaching
methodologies. Let your students jump in, and encourage their efforts.
It will probably pay off in way you can't even begin to imagine.
Off the soapbox and into the studio...
Richard Aerni
Bloomfield, NY
Teresa Murphy wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Cheryl,
> According to what I have witnessed during my internships, If an activity,
> lesson plan, etc., is not prepackaged with full instructions including
> illustrations and a 1-800 number, or doesn't include a script depicting every
> move, every action, or requires even an iota of thought or imagination etc.,
> "teachers" today have no interest in it. I have spent thousands of dollars
> on my educational expenses just to find out that curriculums being sold to
> schools tell the "teacher" when to introduce picture A, what to say while
> showing picture A. and even when to smile! Why did we spend countless hours
> and money studying how, when, where, why, children learn and techniques for
> teaching them if it is all going to be neatly packaged to the point where any
> moron could read the script and point to a picture! Where is the imagination
> and creativity?! I apologize for getting on my soapbox, this is just a sore
> spot with me. Thank you for you indulgence!
> Teresa
kinoko@junction.net on wed 1 oct 97
All,+Richard A., The business of kits really took-off after WW2 when it was
realized that "thinking workers" were a liability in industry. (How to make
people believe they were 'thinking' when in fact they were only following
instructions?) Prior to WW2, model airplane kits usually consisted of a
block of balsa and a crude sketch. (I note that a current TV commercial
depicts a woman instrructing her family on installing a roll of toilet
paper. This is followed by seat closing instructions.) The power of the
media continues to encourage dependancy in each succeeding generation. Work
is demeaning/ Employment is elevating. Thinking is bad/ Instruction is
necessary to efficient operation. With 1000years of design from which to
plagiarize...who needs 'creativity'? Don M.----------------------- couple of
points on this discussion...
>
>A few years ago, I got one of the national ceramic supply companies to
>trade me some underglazes, commercial glazes, brushes, etc, that would
>work well in our local school's elementary art program for some of my
>pots. Now, they were very generous, and sent boxes of the stuff, cases
>of the stuff, enough to last the year out and more, for the whole school.
>I brought them round to the art teacher, with whom I had volunteered my
>time the previous year, and she was ecstatic about them all. I noticed
>throughout the year, however, that whenever my son brought home a clay
>project it was merely bisque fired and painted with poster paints for the
>"glaze". At the end of the year, when I went into the art room for some
>reason, there were all of the supplies, still neatly boxed. When I
>wondered to the teacher why they hadn't been used, she responded that
>they were "too nice to let the kids use" (!!!). Needless to say, there
>have been no further donations of materials by me over the years. I had
>contemplated complaining to the administration, but, knowing how things
>go in the ed bureaucracy(particularly in our school district), that would
>have created lots of friction but no light, so I let it go. I hope that
>this is not the usual state of affairs in most schools (and I'm not
>wishing to start another thread of teacher bashing).
>
>The year I taught ceramics in college, at a school where most every
>student is in art ed, ie future elem/high school art teacher, I decided
>to do something a bit different about the glazes. Mostly, the attitude
>there was, (and I paraphrase a sign that hung above the entry to the
>studio) "Make every pot as though it were the last one you'll make in
>your entire life", or some such, and as a potter verging on production,
>that attitude bothered me a bit. It tended to make everyone just agonize
>over every little detail, rather than getting into the spirit and the
>possibilies of what one could do with clay. And the glazes reflected
>that attitude...mostly commercial, pre-mixed, bottled glazes (after all,
>these students were going to teach kids in an environment where clay
>would not be emphasized, and so why go into the details of the
>materials), and what few were mixed in the studio were just tired old
>recipes that were faithfully mixed up from some other era.
>
>I had read Robin Hopper's approach to glazing and glazes (the
>substitution method that he writes of in _The Ceramic Spectrum_, and
>detailed in his multi-part Ceramics Monthly article some years ago), and
>had been using it intuitively in my studio for years. Thinking that this
>would be a good way to introduce beginning students into the wonders and
>possibilities of the materials, at the beginning of the term I divided
>them up into teams, gave them the "materials list" and told them to come
>up a list of different glazes by the end of the semester, when the pots
>would be fired. I gave them "limit formulas" for a typical matt glaze,
>semi-matte, and glossy glaze. They were to plug in different percentages
>(within limits) of the various clays, glass formers, fluxes, oxides, etc,
>and come up with their own glazes and glaze palette. MUCH grumbling the
>first few weeks, when everyone was into the touch and the feel of clay.
>TOO MUCH science, TOO MUCH detail, etc, TOO LITTLE art...you get the
>picture. Well, hundreds of test tiles later, most everyone had a handful
>of glazes they liked and a working knowledge of the function of the
>materials within the glazes. The pots came out well and the students
>were proud of themselves, and rightly so. I heard from a number of them
>that they had had a fear of science, math, chemistry, etc, and that this
>had made them realize one way it could be approached.
>
>In a roundabout way, what I am trying to say is that no matter who a
>teacher is teaching, it is very important for them to have a knowledge of
>the subject they are teaching, not just the various teaching
>methodologies. Let your students jump in, and encourage their efforts.
>It will probably pay off in way you can't even begin to imagine.
>
>Off the soapbox and into the studio...
>
>Richard Aerni
>Bloomfield, NY
>
>
>Teresa Murphy wrote:
>>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> Cheryl,
>> According to what I have witnessed during my internships, If an activity,
>> lesson plan, etc., is not prepackaged with full instructions including
>> illustrations and a 1-800 number, or doesn't include a script depicting every
>> move, every action, or requires even an iota of thought or imagination etc.,
>> "teachers" today have no interest in it. I have spent thousands of dollars
>> on my educational expenses just to find out that curriculums being sold to
>> schools tell the "teacher" when to introduce picture A, what to say while
>> showing picture A. and even when to smile! Why did we spend countless hours
>> and money studying how, when, where, why, children learn and techniques for
>> teaching them if it is all going to be neatly packaged to the point where any
>> moron could read the script and point to a picture! Where is the imagination
>> and creativity?! I apologize for getting on my soapbox, this is just a sore
>> spot with me. Thank you for you indulgence!
>> Teresa
>
*****************************************
*****************************************
** Don and Isao Morrill **
** Falkland, B.C. **
** kinoko@junction.net **
*****************************************
*****************************************
Richard Aerni on thu 2 oct 97
Don,
All that you say may be well and good, but what is being pushed in the
educational fields today is "critical and creative thinking",
interdisciplinary thinking/working, co-operative problem solving,
as well as self-directed learning, in large part because the powers that
be realize that the factory model of education is no longer valid. What
is ironic about it all is that these same forward thinking individuals
seem to feel it necessary to delineate exactly how this process should be
taught, in order to foster these creative, independent children.
Richard, going off to do do some creative, critical work (I hope!)...
Bloomfield, NY
kinoko@junction.net wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> All,+Richard A., The business of kits really took-off after WW2 when it was
> realized that "thinking workers" were a liability in industry. (How to make
> people believe they were 'thinking' when in fact they were only following
> instructions?) Prior to WW2, model airplane kits usually consisted of a
> block of balsa and a crude sketch. (I note that a current TV commercial
> depicts a woman instrructing her family on installing a roll of toilet
> paper. This is followed by seat closing instructions.) The power of the
> media continues to encourage dependancy in each succeeding generation. Work
> is demeaning/ Employment is elevating. Thinking is bad/ Instruction is
> necessary to efficient operation. With 1000years of design from which to
> plagiarize...who needs 'creativity'? Don M.-----------------------
Ardis Bourland on thu 2 oct 97
Richard,
I also taught glaze making to my high school students because I had gone to
Alfred for a summer session and learned how to do it. However, we are
potters and the majority or art teachers are not and have no training in this
area. They (we) are trained to be able to teach all facets of art and
usually each teacher has a specialty be it printmaking ,watercolor, whatever,
and they tend to emphasize that which they know and love. I don't think you
should expect that kind of expertise from your average public school teacher.
I'd venture to say that elementary teacher had no clue about how to apply
glazes & fire them. Most don't. And if you don't, a kiln can be a very scary
object!!! As you progress from elementary school to h.s. to college teaching
you go from a highly child centered approach to a subject centered one. I
really think most of them do the best that they can with school situations
that seems to be getting more difficult every day. I'm glad I've retired.
Ardis
Sidra@aol.com
Richard Aerni on fri 3 oct 97
Ardis,
Well, I'm sure she knew how to apply glazes and fire the kiln because I
had helped in her classroom the previous year and saw her do it several
times. I think it was more a question of lack of time to fire the kiln
(or rather, firing it took too much time), underestimating the kids, or
else lack of desire on her part to go the extra mile. I think she has
just about burned out on teaching, as she was always making references to
wanting time to work on her own, wishing to get away, etc. I can
understand her feelings, as it must be a constant source of frustration
to try to deal with a different batch of kids every 40 minutes, and also
try to teach them about, and make, art in a 40 minute module. After 20
or 25 years, it's very possible for the bloom to wear off.
Unfortunately, my son has had her in art for 5 straight years, and his
feeling is that art is boring. I'm not making a direct correlation of
his feelings to her teaching, but I must confess to not being inspired by
her approach either. (and no, I don't run her down in our house, I am
supportive of her) In comparison, he is VERY excited by his instrumental
music course, where the instructor is dynamic and very organized and
focused.
As to how appropriate it is to actually work with and fire clay in the
early grade levels, I would say that it is just as easy to have the kids
brush on underglazes as it is to have them brush on poster paint and then
have the teacher apply varnish over all. The teacher could then dip the
pieces in a clear glaze and fire them up. It's hard to beat the feel of
a fired piece. I have our town's nursery school classes out to my studio
every spring (3,4 5 year olds), and I've got to say that they do grasp
the concept of the intense heat of the firing kiln, and what it does to
the clay, and how awesome the whole process is.
Once again, I'm not trying to run down art teachers in our schools. I
believe they have a most difficult job, and need the support and
encouragement of parents and the artists in the community. What I was
writing about was my reaction to having volunteered my help, volunteered
materials, and then find out that they weren't used at all. (And I won't
go into the story of when I tried to get the high school to buy a wheel,
which I would pay for 3/4 of the cost)
Richard Aerni
Bloomfield, NY...not solving any of the world's problems or getting any
studio work done today!
Ardis Bourland wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Richard,
> I also taught glaze making to my high school students because I had gone to
> Alfred for a summer session and learned how to do it. However, we are
> potters and the majority or art teachers are not and have no training in this
> area. They (we) are trained to be able to teach all facets of art and
> usually each teacher has a specialty be it printmaking ,watercolor, whatever,
> and they tend to emphasize that which they know and love. I don't think you
> should expect that kind of expertise from your average public school teacher.
> I'd venture to say that elementary teacher had no clue about how to apply
> glazes & fire them. Most don't. And if you don't, a kiln can be a very scary
> object!!! As you progress from elementary school to h.s. to college teaching
> you go from a highly child centered approach to a subject centered one. I
> really think most of them do the best that they can with school situations
> that seems to be getting more difficult every day. I'm glad I've retired.
> Ardis
> Sidra@aol.com
Roxanne Hunnicutt on sat 4 oct 97
> "I really think most of them do the best that they can with school situation
> that seems to be getting more difficult every day. I'm glad I've retired.Ardi
> Sidra@aol.com "
As a newly disabled middle school teacher, I must say a BIG DITTO! If you knew
how hard it is to teach 30 kids, any 30! And these days the normal class will
range from the talented and gifted ( often somewhat spoiled) ones to those who
are in the class due to the new policies of full inclusion (read mentally
challenged and often deprived if not abused). Whew ! And you just don't have
time for a life what with papers to grade, activities to chaperone, parents to
contact, texts to read, materials to prepare! ANYTHING simple is just so
welcome!
So my point is: teachers mostly do their best and try it if you think it is easy
Rox in OR where it poured yesterday but is clearing.
Kris Baum on sun 5 oct 97
I heartily agree with this post. Last year, I volunteered for a
third grade teacher whom I truly admire. Just being there for three
hours once a week was totally exhausting. The ability and behavioral
range of the children is mind-boggling. Although I am frustrated by
the teachers sometimes, I have much more sympathy after seeing
first-hand what they go through every day. It's easy to sit at home
and expect them to be perfect (I'm guilty! I correct their
spelling on the stuff that comes home!) from the quiet solitude of
our office or studio. You get a different perspective watching them
juggle 26 kids who, in this one particular third grade class, ranged
from barely reading to doing sixth grade work. (This saint of a
teacher actually had them all working at their own appropriate
level! And, she's almost retirement age, not someone young and
sprightly!))
I do take exception to the statement that the GT kids are spoiled,
being as how I have two myself. Often, they are bored to
tears and amazingly well behaved while they wait around for something
interesting to happen. The counselor for my middle schooler made a
very interesting observation last year, "The gifted children in the
past were truly gifted. Today, so many are simply the ready and
willing." What a sad observation, that the fairly intelligent,
well-behaved, ready-to-work kids have to go into a gifted program
just to get the challenge and attention that they cannot get in the
regular classroom...
===============================================
Kris Baum, Shubunkin Pottery
mailto:shubunki@erols.com
===============================================
| |
|
