Karl P. Platt on thu 10 oct 96
Contrary to Mr. Pitelka's being "apalled" that anyone might be obliged
to deal with numbers in the abstract, I am apalled that anyone would
suggest that these elements of a well rounded education might "be a
complete waste of time to anyone who is not a math or science major."
In point of fact, a sound understanding of algebra facilitates potting
in many profound ways. Denying this is in the same class of notions as
Where to begin? Glaze calculations are probably a good place. No, they
aren't utterly essential. Indeed, humanity got along fine without them
for 5,000 years. Yet it wasn't until what went into the glaze became
quantifiable that crystalline glazes emerged or the entirely safe use of
lead in tableware glazes became standard practice in the hotel china
industry -- these glazes are nuts stable. I would take this latter
suggestion further by noting that in the absence of a quantified (or
qualified) understanding of not only what glaze materials are, but how
they behave in a mathematically/scientifically understood way have lent
cause to the bizarre hysteria that surrounds them -- which I'll submit
entirely born of ignorance. I'd welcome the opportunity to debate this
point.
I hear a lot of whining about how to make money at potting in this forum
and would note that a good basic grasp of statistics furnishes the basis
of analysing who wants pots, where they frequent, how much dough they
might have, how apt they are to spend it, where the best place to put
your booth might be, and so on. It's true that there are also
non-rational factors at work, but it's quite insensible to put the whole
of one's economic well-being on a non-rational basis. The best analogy
might be engaging in unprotected sex on Castro Street in San Francisco.
This says nothing to using this same mathematics to examine production
costs, the merit of capital expenditures, pricing, etc. This is pretty
elemental stuff. Especially when considering taking on debt to develop
your activities.
When I look over the propaganda for art/craft trade shows I know I never
see much relating to market analysis and hear people saying things like
"the ACC show in San Francisco was great!" or "the SOFA exhibition (flea
market) in Miami sucked, big time." Oh!? On what basis? Usually personal
success. This says nothing rational to the individual or small
enterprise considering their prospects. If show "x" saw $2 million in
exhibitor sales and there were 800 exhibitors, the average exhibitor
made $2,500.00. OOOOps. That involved division. Apologies to the
numerophobes. Some folks probably did real well and other miserably.
Knowing this average, however, is pretty lame information. What would be
better would be to know at what price-points did the largest number of
sales occur, etc. The point being that basic marketing decisions involve
the very real expenditure of one's hard earned and doing so without
aquiring or being able to analyze some of the basic data involved is
worse than a crapshoot.
You can be sure some sort of statistical analysis went into deciding
where a show is put on, when it occurs and so on. I'll observe that the
ACC isn't sponsoring wholesale trade shows in Buloxi, MS in November or
even in June.
Carl Ross on fri 11 oct 96
Are you a math teacher ?
By the way you snapped at Vince about his opinion of math i'd guess your job
is a stake when the subject comes up. I personally feel a basic understanding
of math is important in basic life activities however you don't need to
memorize the quadratic formula to creatively throw a pot. if I were going for
an art degree I wouoldn't see the need for any math education other then that
we learned in high school or at least we should have. People choose their
career path after high school and if they feel they have a good enough
understanding of the basic math involved in their area of life, why should
they need anything more. why be worrying about a math test when your true aim
is a career in art.
Gotta go,
Carl in Phillips
Vince Pitelka on fri 11 oct 96
My,my, Karl, you're a little testy about this. Are you purposefully trying
to insult all of us who are not comfortable with higher mathematics?
Actually, there is not much grounds for debate between you and I on much of
what you say in your post. I love glaze calculation and glaze chemistry, and
all of my students learn it, with as little math trauma as possible. I came
to a love of glaze chemistry via my love of ceramics, and learned it from
the tangible point of view of the medium I love. That's how math and
chemistry should be taught. You support this completely in your discussion
of all the applications of statistics in the craft world. I have never
taken a statistics course, but my point is simply that it is much easier to
learn, to understand, and to retain information through practical
application and experience than it is through abstract theorems and
exercises with the admonition "Trust me, you'll need this some day."
A well rounded education implies one that enhances our understanding,
appreciation, and enjoyment of life and our ability to survive in the world.
I have yet to discover a circumstance where my enjoyment of life or my
professional effectiveness would be enhanced by a further understanding of
higher math. That is not to say that I would avoid the opportunity to learn
more about it given the appropriate approach and the time, but for me there
are simply to many far more applicable and interesting things to learn out
there. The same goes for a well-rounded education. Leave the higher math
to those who need it, and instead teach foreign languages, art history,
philosophy, literature, etc.
Isn't it ironic that such a large percentage of those who graduate from
college can relate traumatic experiences with higher math, and confess to
never using that information again for the rest of their lives. It is the
small percentage of people who happen to have a special affinity for higher
math, especially the math and science professors themselves, who would like
to cram this information down the throats of people who don't care about it
and will never use it. This is doubly true in an age when sophisticated
computers and programs are within the grasp of any studio artist.
You are right about the amount of discussion on this forum concerning how to
make money at pottery, although I would hardly call it whining. Instead of
wasting time on calculus and statistics, I would recommend some training in
business practices, marketing, and computer use.
The "bizarre histeria" surrounding ceramic chemistry which you refer to has
nothing to do with general ignorance. It has entirely to do with the way
math and chemistry are taught in high schools and colleges. When those who
love ceramics learn ceramic chemistry in terms of practical application it's
no big deal at all.
You say that it would be "quite insensible to put the whole of one's
economic well-being on a non-rational basis." Is that really what you meant
to say? Who would ever do such a thing, and what does it have to do with
the discussion at hand? And you follow this with "The best analogy might be
engaging in unprotected sex on Castro Street in San Francisco." ??????????
Experts on art in education agree that an over-emphasis on rational,
objective learning and practice stifles the intuitive, subjective,
expressive, and creative facets of human endeavor. What a sad thing that
would be for anyone interested in a career in the arts.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@Dekalb.Net
Phone - home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801
Appalachian Center for Crafts, Smithville TN 37166
chull@startext.net on sat 12 oct 96
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Experts on art in education agree that an over-emphasis on rational,
> objective learning and practice stifles the intuitive, subjective,
> expressive, and creative facets of human endeavor. What a sad thing that
> would be for anyone interested in a career in the arts.
> - Vince
Ah, so very well put. I certainly stand in agreement with your views on
m, m, m, m, (AH-AH-AH-COOOOOOOOOOOOO) math. And we should be indignant
about it, left brain (itch) studies (itch) overrun our "educational"
(itch) systems.
Please excuse, the overdose has produced peculiar allergies.
Cynthia
TX
M. S. Davis on sat 12 oct 96
I have only recently gotten back to reading CLAYART and have not followed
the thread of this discussion. However, may I put in my two cents worth?
> A well rounded education implies one that enhances our understanding,
> appreciation, and enjoyment of life and our ability to survive in the world.
> I have yet to discover a circumstance where my enjoyment of life or my
> professional effectiveness would be enhanced by a further understanding of
> higher math. That is not to say that I would avoid the opportunity to learn
> more about it given the appropriate approach and the time, but for me there
> are simply to many far more applicable and interesting things to learn out
> there. The same goes for a well-rounded education. Leave the higher math
> to those who need it, and instead teach foreign languages, art history,
> philosophy, literature, etc.
Vince, if one follows your argument above, a logical conclusion would be:
why teach foreign languages if one has an aversion for grammar, or one is
not expecting to travel to foreign countries, or it is easier to read the
great literature in translation. Leave foreign languages to those who
have a need for it.
Why teach art history if it does not contribute to one's artistic skills or
if it wastes time that could be used better used in acquiring competence for
business success. Leave art history for those who have a need for it.
Why teach philosophy if it does not really matter how many angels can
dance on a pinhead, or if after 5 years later, 10 years later or 30 years
later you may not remember who Locke was or what he said, or Kant
or Spinoza or Descartes, or if their points of view really contribute to
one's understanding of the "real universe." Leave philosophy for those
who have a need for it.
A well-rounded education is an exposure to the great achievements of the
mind and civilization. It is also an exposure to methods of thinking and
discipline. It is also to open the mind to an understanding and
appreciation of art, the monuments and structures of history. What you
call "higher math" (I assume you mean algebra, trigonometry and the
calculus, and not differential equations, complex variables and topology)
helped to train you at the time you took it (and probably are not aware
of it now) in analysis of all kinds of problems, most not explicitly
mathematical in nature. The animus that many people have to math or
"higher math" is all too often the result of poor instruction by teachers
who themselves do not understand their subject and therefore cannot
impart the beauty and utility of their subject. There is indeed beauty
in mathematics as there is in art. Not everyone sees the beauty in
mathematics. Not everyone sees the beauty in art. That is a matter of
education and predilection.
> Isn't it ironic that such a large percentage of those who graduate from
> college can relate traumatic experiences with higher math, and confess to
> never using that information again for the rest of their lives. It is the
> small percentage of people who happen to have a special affinity for higher
> math, especially the math and science professors themselves, who would like
> to cram this information down the throats of people who don't care about it
> and will never use it. This is doubly true in an age when sophisticated
> computers and programs are within the grasp of any studio artist.
Those people who have been traumatized by "higher math" in college are
the same people who were poorly instructed in elementary and high
school. Though they confess to never using specific mathematical
information the rest of their lives, many unknowingly are better able to
analyze non-mathematical problems because they were taught at least some
systematic methods for getting the facts and questions marshaled for
solution.
I challenge the statement that it is especially the math and science
professors themselves who "would like to cram this information down the
throats of people who don't care about it and will never use it." I have
been associated with university teaching for over 50 years and know that
curricula are decided by committees representing *all* the liberal arts.
A consensus on what is important is arrived at on the understanding of
what a liberal arts education is for in the context of the times. Thus,
50 years ago foreign languages were considered necessary for the educated
individual. Today, computer courses and literacy replace some of the
foreign languages of the past.
>It has entirely to do with the way math and chemistry are taught in
>high schools and colleges.
Of paramount importance I agree with you that math and chemistry should
be taught with practical applications. The better the teacher, the
better the applications.
> Experts on art in education agree that an over-emphasis on rational,
> objective learning and practice stifles the intuitive, subjective,
> expressive, and creative facets of human endeavor. What a sad thing that
> would be for anyone interested in a career in the arts.
Who are these experts on art in education? Are these experts in
education or art? What is "over-emphasis?" It seems to me that it would
extremely difficult to prove this broad, wide-sweeping thesis. It
certainly does not accord with my own experience of people I know in art,
in music, or ceramics.
Ever seeking to learn more.
Morris Davis
Chapel Hill, NC
msd@unc.edu
Vince Pitelka on sun 13 oct 96
Morris -
Your response to my math-bashing is articulate and elegant, which comes as
no surprise, considering your occupation. Actually, I think we agree on
most points. You are simply approaching the issue from a great love and
understanding of complex math and science.
>Vince, if one follows your argument, a logical conclusion would be:
>why teach foreign languages if one has an aversion for grammar, or one is
>not expecting to travel to foreign countries, or it is easier to read the
>great literature in translation.
>Why teach art history if it does not contribute to one's artistic skills or
>if it wastes time that could be used better used in acquiring competence for
>business success.
>Why teach philosophy if it does not really matter how many angels can
>dance on a pinhead, or if after 5 years later, 10 years later or 30 years
>later you may not remember who Locke was or what he said, or Kant
>or Spinoza or Descartes, or if their points of view really contribute to
>one's understanding of the "real universe."
Morris, the difference is that so many math teachers do a miserable job of
teaching math. I know that my own experience was not at all unusual. When
I had a good math or science teacher I did very well. But most of the math
and science teachers I had sucked. And this was at Berkeley High, a pretty
good school. Sure there are bad foreign language teachers and art history
teachers (to say the least!!!), but in terms of most people's daily
experience math is much less tangible to the realities of everyday life. I
know from the things my mother and father told me in trying to get me more
enthused about math that there is an artistry and elegance in higher math,
and the great discoveries of mathematics are certainly worthy of study.
That fits in with my point. Why not teach math in terms of the great
discoveries and in terms of the practical connections. The abstraction
means nothing unless one already understands the practical applications. I
think that math is simply taught ass-backwards - if one learns the abstract
principles and relationships and then eventually one can apply the
information practically. That's a lousy way to teach. I love science. I
originally intended to be a scientist. But by the time I was in college I
had come to hate math so much that any further study in science was out of
the question. It's too bad, although I certainly do not in any way regret
my course of study or my career choice.
>Those people who have been traumatized by "higher math" in college are
>the same people who were poorly instructed in elementary and high
>school.
That's for sure, and there certainly seem to be a lot of us around.
>Who are these experts on art in education? Are these experts in
>education or art? What is "over-emphasis?" It seems to me that it would
>extremely difficult to prove this broad, wide-sweeping thesis. It
>certainly does not accord with my own experience of people I know in art,
>in music, or ceramics.
It has been too many years since I studied art education to quote names.
But in the study of art education it is widely believed that a fundamental
problem of Western public school education is that it places too much
emphasis on rational, objective, quantitative learning as compared to art,
music, dance, theater - the fields of study which teach visual thinking and
activate and energize the imaginative and creative side of human intellect,
which in turn enhance our abilities in the rational and objective. Don't
get me wrong. I am not saying that the intuitive, subjective, creative side
of human endeavor should supplant the rational and objective. I am saying
that standardized education is weighted too heavily in favor of the latter
at the expense of the former. Such an educational system makes it harder for
the average individual to become an artist, and harder for the general
public to understand and appreciate art, and it produces less imaginative,
less creative individuals.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@Dekalb.Net
Phone - home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801
Appalachian Center for Crafts, Smithville TN 37166
SLPBM@cc.usu.edu on sun 13 oct 96
Alright... I have listened to this rant a bit now and am obliged to step
in beside Vince. One key thing which every seems to be missing is that
Math does NOT need to be taught in school. Math needs to be learned and
used in context elsewise it is gibberish.
To this end, students from the age of 5 on up need to be taught
how to LEARN math and WHERE to gather information to bolster their
learning. Then they can take the reins of their education. Then again,
this wont fly because of the paternalistic nature of the power hungry primary
eduction system in this country.
Alex Solla
slpbm@cc.usu.edu
in Logan where the weather is a balmy 70-80 each day
but the leaves are falling big time
Don Sanami on sun 13 oct 96
Pardon me for jumping into this dancing circle: If you can't sell it,drop
it. If it works don,t fiddle with it. Math IS a language and it is
beautiful. I recall the great debate at MIT when mathemeticians decioded
that math became high Art. You are right,math is badly taught and rarely
is considered to have relevance (sorry,1960's concewpt) to "practical"
life.ie,money-making. ARt encompasses the mythology of the
middle-class.Art is useless therefore espouse Art as a cultural
necessity....as long as one does not go too deeply into it, This may be
one reason why the Canadian tax poeple have no category for "Professional
Artist." This is one good reason for setting yourself up as a business.
Perhaps mathemeticians should incorporate,as well! "Neither to laugh nor
to cry but to understand",(Spinoza?) Note: Helen Nearing was killed in a
one car crash ,during September.("Living the Good Life") kinoko.
Omer Artun on mon 14 oct 96
I coudn't put is better than Mr. Davis, and would like to add something.
(For those of you who studied french instead of higher math.)
I would like to quote my Ph.D. advisor Nobel Lauerate Prof. Leon Cooper,
" S'il est vrai qu'on construit des cathedrales aujourd'hui
dans la science, il est bien dommage que les gens
n'y pussient entrer, ne puissent pas toucher les pierres
elles-memes."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMER BERAT ARTUN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Brain and tel: 401 421 2879 (home)
Neural Systems, 401 863 3920 (office)
Department of Physics 401 863 3494 (fax)
Box 1843
Brown University URL: http://www.physics.brown.edu/people/artun
Providence RI 02912 e-mail: artun@cns.brown.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Howard Katz on mon 14 oct 96
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Omer Artun wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> I coudn't put is better than Mr. Davis, and would like to add something.
> (For those of you who studied french instead of higher math.)
> I would like to quote my Ph.D. advisor Nobel Lauerate Prof. Leon Cooper,
> " S'il est vrai qu'on construit des cathedrales aujourd'hui
> dans la science, il est bien dommage que les gens
> n'y pussient entrer, ne puissent pas toucher les pierres
> elles-memes."
I would like to add in transliterated Thai as your email readers probably
don't have Thai characters.
Thaam (l)mai khun (f) omyr kit (f)waa tuk khon (f)phuut pha(r)saa
farangset (f)dai?
***************************************************
*Louis Katz lkatz@falcon.tamucc.edu *
*Texas A&M University Corpus Christi *
*6300 Ocean Drive, Art Department *
*Corpus Christi, Tx 78412 *
*Phone (512) 994-5987 *
**************************************************
| |
|
