mel jacobson on mon 20 sep 99
one of life's great confusions. `teaching design.`
i really do not know if it is possible. have been working
on it for almost 40 years,
some people get it, most don't.
i really think that over the years `courses in design`
ruin more natural designers than they help.
now, i realize that this is getting picky. but,
i truly believe that we can teach art theory.
color studies are very helpful, line, shape, texture, space.
we can learn them in theory. positive and negative space can be learned.
but design?
the entire package?
i have grave doubts.
most great designers that i have met are born that way.
mel/mn
experience and more experience is the critical element.
http://www.pclink.com/melpots
from minnetonka, minnesota, u.s.a.
Candise Flippin on tue 21 sep 99
Hi all!
Okay, so I'm going to step out on a limb here.....
I believe we are all creative, but not all of us are talented in art.
While I agree with Mel's point about natural designers being ruined by
courses in design, I believe that people can be taught how to identify
their own creative process and get in touch with their "magic". I do
not think that creativity is as mysterious and rare as some proclaim. I
am currently teaching it to teens with results that continue to amaze
me. I maintain that this is not a replacement for learning skills,
techniques, and craftsmanship. We are so bombarded everyday by stimuli
outside ourselves that some of us need help learning to look inside.
Thanks, Candise (in sunny San Diego, fall seems to arrived)
John Rodgers on tue 21 sep 99
I have to go with Mel on this one.
It's funny about this sort of thing. Over the years, I had quite a number of
artists(painters in this case) who worked for me in my studio in Alaska.
They turned their art painting skills to china painting. But of the whole
group, I had only one that could create an image in her mind, then paint it.
All the rest needed a picture..photograph, model, drawing, something to get
them started. But this girl could paint anything. Give her a pallette and a
canvas and she would run with it. It was awsome.
She was that way from childhood. She just had that special thing. The rest
didn't. There were a number of her school chums who went on to study art in
college, but for all their training, she could still paint rings around
them, and she never went on beyond high school. Most amazing ability.
John Rodgers
In New Mexico
mel jacobson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> one of life's great confusions. `teaching design.`
> i really do not know if it is possible. have been working
> on it for almost 40 years,
> some people get it, most don't.
> i really think that over the years `courses in design`
> ruin more natural designers than they help.
>
> now, i realize that this is getting picky. but,
> i truly believe that we can teach art theory.
> color studies are very helpful, line, shape, texture, space.
> we can learn them in theory. positive and negative space can be learned.
>
> but design?
> the entire package?
> i have grave doubts.
> most great designers that i have met are born that way.
> mel/mn
> experience and more experience is the critical element.
> http://www.pclink.com/melpots
> from minnetonka, minnesota, u.s.a.
clennell on tue 21 sep 99
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>one of life's great confusions. `teaching design.`
>i really do not know if it is possible. have been working
>on it for almost 40 years,
>some people get it, most don't.
Dear Mel: thank god, you wrote this post. I have thought it but never said
boo all.
I completely agree with you. I think "seeing" can not be taught. Some
people can not be taught to see pots (form and design). i have know
several potters that had the academic creditials but missed the point with
their pots.Lets say they were going to make a Svend Bayer type planter.
they would be generous with the clay, big full bellied pot and then they
would end with a wimpy, skinny thin rim. Where you not looking?? Are the
large full rims on Bayers pots not a big part of the form and its
completion? How could you not have seen that???
I think every pot has been made before, but it's those that can see to do
it properly again that are at the top of the design heap.
I know Victor Levin is lurking out there to jump in on this one. victor
will tell us that "seeing" can be taught. Learn me good Victor, cause I
just ain't about to see it.
Cheers,
Tony
Tony and Sheila Clennell
Sour Cherry Pottery
4545 King St.
Beamsville, On. L0R 1B1
Barney Adams on wed 22 sep 99
I might make the modification that seeing can not be taught, but it can be
learned. I just took a drawing class to help my seeing. It's seems to have
helped
from my point of view (not sure if others notice). If not anything else I'm
lookin'.
Barney
clennell wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >one of life's great confusions. `teaching design.`
> >i really do not know if it is possible. have been working
> >on it for almost 40 years,
> >some people get it, most don't.
>
> Dear Mel: thank god, you wrote this post. I have thought it but never said
> boo all.
> I completely agree with you. I think "seeing" can not be taught. Some
> people can not be taught to see pots (form and design). i have know
> several potters that had the academic creditials but missed the point with
> their pots.Lets say they were going to make a Svend Bayer type planter.
> they would be generous with the clay, big full bellied pot and then they
> would end with a wimpy, skinny thin rim. Where you not looking?? Are the
> large full rims on Bayers pots not a big part of the form and its
> completion? How could you not have seen that???
> I think every pot has been made before, but it's those that can see to do
> it properly again that are at the top of the design heap.
> I know Victor Levin is lurking out there to jump in on this one. victor
> will tell us that "seeing" can be taught. Learn me good Victor, cause I
> just ain't about to see it.
> Cheers,
> Tony
>
> Tony and Sheila Clennell
> Sour Cherry Pottery
> 4545 King St.
> Beamsville, On. L0R 1B1
Dannon Rhudy on wed 22 sep 99
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
... `teaching design.`
>>i really do not know if it is possible......
>
>Dear Mel: thank god, you wrote this post. I have thought it but never said
>boo all.
>I completely agree with you. I think "seeing" can not be taught.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
I've been following this discussion with interest. At first thought
I was inclined to disagree, to say no, you're wrong, seeing CAN
be taught. But I decided that perhaps I would just be making a semantic
quibble. I've taught for four or five years, now - not a very long
time. So far my experience as a TEACHER has been that
students who wish it can be taught to LOOK MORE CAREFULLY,
and in that sense perhaps they "see" better. I'm pretty good at
getting people to LOOK - but I'm not convinced that I've ever
taught anyone to see. And lurking in the back of my mind is always
the suspicion that it might not be possible to do that. When I was
a student in the formal sense, I had more than one teacher tell me
that learning to draw was really "learning to see". That if I would
"learn to see" I would be able to draw. But that is not what happened
in my experience. I could already see. Knew I could. Seethed with
indignation when told I did not "see" the image, the figure , the
whatever was the object of the exercise. What I could not
do was make my hand reproduce what my eyes/mind saw. But THAT can
be learned. It merely needs practice, and perseverance. Hands can
learn anything, pretty nearly. So
I learned that. And when I had done so (an ongoing, never-ending
process, like musical scales) then my eyes would see, the image and the
meaning of that image was filtered through my mind, messages
sent to my hands, and I would draw what I saw. The teacher would say
"ah, you are learning to SEE". I wasn't, though. I was learning how
to make what I saw visible to others. Not the same thing. Not the same
thing.
Dannon Rhudy
potter@koyote.com
Stephen Mills on wed 22 sep 99
Isn't this approach the way painting/drawing was traditionally taught in
China and Japan? Visualising the whole thing before committing brush to
paper (or pot).
Steve
Bath
UK
In message , John Rodgers writes
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I have to go with Mel on this one.
>
>It's funny about this sort of thing. Over the years, I had quite a number of
>artists(painters in this case) who worked for me in my studio in Alaska.
>They turned their art painting skills to china painting. But of the whole
>group, I had only one that could create an image in her mind, then paint it.
>All the rest needed a picture..photograph, model, drawing, something to get
>them started. But this girl could paint anything. Give her a pallette and a
>canvas and she would run with it. It was awsome.
>
>She was that way from childhood. She just had that special thing. The rest
>didn't. There were a number of her school chums who went on to study art in
>college, but for all their training, she could still paint rings around
>them, and she never went on beyond high school. Most amazing ability.
>
>John Rodgers
>In New Mexico
>
>mel jacobson wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> one of life's great confusions. `teaching design.`
>> i really do not know if it is possible. have been working
>> on it for almost 40 years,
>> some people get it, most don't.
>> i really think that over the years `courses in design`
>> ruin more natural designers than they help.
>>
>> now, i realize that this is getting picky. but,
>> i truly believe that we can teach art theory.
>> color studies are very helpful, line, shape, texture, space.
>> we can learn them in theory. positive and negative space can be learned.
>>
>> but design?
>> the entire package?
>> i have grave doubts.
>> most great designers that i have met are born that way.
>> mel/mn
>> experience and more experience is the critical element.
>> http://www.pclink.com/melpots
>> from minnetonka, minnesota, u.s.a.
>
--
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
home e-mail: stevemills@mudslinger.demon.co.uk
work e-mail: stevemills@bathpotters.demon.co.uk
own website: http://www.mudslinger.demon.co.uk
BPS website: http://www.bathpotters.demon.co.uk
David Hendley on wed 22 sep 99
Of course one can teach design.
"Design" is nothing but
theory
line
shape
texture
space
etc., etc.,
and all of these things can be taught.
Sure talent and experiences are important,
but so is practice and guidence from a teacher.
Saying that design cannot be taught is like saying
that there are very few Michael Jordans, so why
have a basketball coach?
Well, even a 5 foot, 2 inch fat kid can learn to
play basketball. He will never make the NBA, but
he'll be a better player than when he started, and
he'll have a greater appreciation for the game for
his entire life.
"Design principals" from Design 101 never cross the
mind of a great designer, but that is because it's all
natural and internalized.
You need to know the principals before you can forget
them. Some people are born just "knowing", so they are
ahead of the curve. The rest of us need help getting
started. Just making someone aware that there are
design considerations is a start.
--
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
hendley@tyler.net
http://www.farmpots.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: mel jacobson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 11:46 AM
Subject: teaching design,
| ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
| one of life's great confusions. `teaching design.`
| i really do not know if it is possible. have been working
| on it for almost 40 years,
| some people get it, most don't.
| i really think that over the years `courses in design`
| ruin more natural designers than they help.
|
| now, i realize that this is getting picky. but,
| i truly believe that we can teach art theory.
| color studies are very helpful, line, shape, texture, space.
| we can learn them in theory. positive and negative space can be learned.
|
| but design?
| the entire package?
| i have grave doubts.
| most great designers that i have met are born that way.
| mel/mn
| experience and more experience is the critical element.
| http://www.pclink.com/melpots
| from minnetonka, minnesota, u.s.a.
|
Earl Brunner on thu 23 sep 99
I am a visual learner. For example, I frequently have to write a word before
I'm certain of it's spelling. I have a pretty good sense of whether a word is
spelled right or not, I just have to "SEE" it. In my undergraduate program all
of my focus was on pottery. I chaffed at anything that divided my energy. I
resented all the other art disciplines. I hated drawing and was convinced that
I could not draw. I had professors tell me that I could never do good three
dimensional art if I couldn't do two dimensional art. ( I told them that in my
opinion then the reverse should be true, they weren't three dimensional
artists). After my BFA I went to Utah State University in Logan Ut. to work on
an MFA (never finished it) It was there that one of my professors taught me how
to "SEE" and I learned that I could draw if I wanted to pay the price (practice,
etc.). He took me into a large greenhouse on campus, sat me about a foot away
from a large philodendron and had me draw with out looking at the paper. ( I did
look once in awhile) I was to follow the line, edge of every leaf, stem, branch
etc., Oh yeah, and it was a pen drawing, no erasing. It wouldn't win a prize
but it is probably one of the 5 best drawings I've ever done.
Dannon Rhudy wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> So far my experience as a TEACHER has been that
> students who wish it can be taught to LOOK MORE CAREFULLY,
> and in that sense perhaps they "see" better. I'm pretty good at
> getting people to LOOK - but I'm not convinced that I've ever
> taught anyone to see. And lurking in the back of my mind is always
> the suspicion that it might not be possible to do that. When I was
> a student in the formal sense, I had more than one teacher tell me
> that learning to draw was really "learning to see". That if I would
> "learn to see" I would be able to draw.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
Ron Roy on thu 23 sep 99
Dear Candise,
A limb well worth stepping out on to I say - well said!
RR
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Okay, so I'm going to step out on a limb here.....
>
>I believe we are all creative, but not all of us are talented in art.
>While I agree with Mel's point about natural designers being ruined by
>courses in design, I believe that people can be taught how to identify
>their own creative process and get in touch with their "magic". I do
>not think that creativity is as mysterious and rare as some proclaim. I
>am currently teaching it to teens with results that continue to amaze
>me. I maintain that this is not a replacement for learning skills,
>techniques, and craftsmanship. We are so bombarded everyday by stimuli
>outside ourselves that some of us need help learning to look inside.
>
>Thanks, Candise (in sunny San Diego, fall seems to arrived)
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Ron Roy on thu 23 sep 99
Just a matter of time Tony - most give up too soon - many who teach it do
not understand it, just a matter of being interested enough to stick with
it. Not all of us are going to be great designers but most can get better
at it - and should.
I think many simply loose interest because good design does not sell pots -
maybe wins a prize now and then though.
It is easy to dismiss the importance of design when most pots are sold for
their superficial qualities like colour and price or hand made.
RR
>Dear Mel: thank god, you wrote this post. I have thought it but never said
>boo all.
>I completely agree with you. I think "seeing" can not be taught. Some
>people can not be taught to see pots (form and design). i have know
>several potters that had the academic creditials but missed the point with
>their pots.Lets say they were going to make a Svend Bayer type planter.
>they would be generous with the clay, big full bellied pot and then they
>would end with a wimpy, skinny thin rim. Where you not looking?? Are the
>large full rims on Bayers pots not a big part of the form and its
>completion? How could you not have seen that???
>I think every pot has been made before, but it's those that can see to do
>it properly again that are at the top of the design heap.
>I know Victor Levin is lurking out there to jump in on this one. victor
>will tell us that "seeing" can be taught. Learn me good Victor, cause I
>just ain't about to see it.
>Cheers,
>Tony
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Tom Wirt on thu 23 sep 99
At the risk of not getting my 20's in the back of my van....I'm going to
jump in here. I don't know if the discussion about Pattern Language and
Timeless Way inspired your post, Mel, about teaching design, but I think
Alexander's approach is the parts of design can certainly be taught. The
safe stuff. The things we know make a well balanced, pleasing whatever.
What he is also saying is that it is when you take the basics of design, and
add your own touches that things, be they buildings, pictures or pots, come
alive. It's those personal details that convey the humanity involved in the
creation. So David and Mel are both right.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Hendley
Subject: Teaching design,
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Of course one can teach design.
> "Design" is nothing but
> theory
> line
> shape
> texture
> space
> etc., etc.,
> and all of these things can be taught.
Some people are born just "knowing", so they are
> ahead of the curve. The rest of us need help getting
> started. Just making someone aware that there are
> design considerations is a start.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mel jacobson
> Subject: teaching design,
>
>
> | ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> | one of life's great confusions. `teaching design.`
> | i really do not know if it is possible. have been working
> | on it for almost 40 years,
> | some people get it, most don't.
> | i really think that over the years `courses in design`
> | ruin more natural designers than they help.
Dwiggins, Sandra (NCI) on fri 24 sep 99
Last night, one of my "advanced" wheel students said "My wife thinks I should
take a drawing class." Being that he is one of my better and consistent
throwers, and I have tried to get him to "SEE" for the last year what makes a
well designed pot, I was thrilled. He said he was going to do it. This guy is
one of the most tight-assed people I know, and needs to be in a drawing class
where they put a big piece of butcher paper in front of him and say "draw that
model in 5 seconds without looking down" or other such stuff. I told him that
he needs to take a "real" drawing class, not one from the local rec center.
Here's a guy who wants really badly to "SEE"---but I know he never REALLY will.
He's better than average, but I know he just doesn't quite have THAT SPECIAL
THING in him. But he'll never stop trying, and I think that's wonderful. I
feel I've made a dent.
Another guy in the class does have IT. What ever IT is, he's got IT. He SEES,
and tries really hard. I never have to explain more than once why I'm telling
him to do what I tell him to do. I've been doing a series of demos on altering
pots on the wheel. He tried it immediately. I gave him a mini-critique on a
few of the vases he'd done, and he understood completely.
I do believe you either have it or you don't. But, I know you can try and
appreciate what's there and aspire to it. Student #1 will keep trying and
making decent respectable well-thrown work. Student #2 has the potential to
do really good stuff. He's trying to break out of where he is, and I think
he'll move ahead rapidly once he gets some confidence in his ability to work
"outside the box" so to speak.
I think teaching people to SEE is quite difficult, but when you see real talent
it just makes you want to scream and shout.
Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Brunner [SMTP:bruec@anv.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 11:01 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: teaching design,
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I am a visual learner. For example, I frequently have to write a word before
I'm certain of it's spelling. I have a pretty good sense of whether a word is
spelled right or not, I just have to "SEE" it. In my undergraduate program all
of my focus was on pottery. I chaffed at anything that divided my energy. I
resented all the other art disciplines. I hated drawing and was convinced that
I could not draw. I had professors tell me that I could never do good three
dimensional art if I couldn't do two dimensional art. ( I told them that in my
opinion then the reverse should be true, they weren't three dimensional
artists). After my BFA I went to Utah State University in Logan Ut. to work on
an MFA (never finished it) It was there that one of my professors taught me how
to "SEE" and I learned that I could draw if I wanted to pay the price (practice,
etc.). He took me into a large greenhouse on campus, sat me about a foot away
from a large philodendron and had me draw with out looking at the paper. ( I did
look once in awhile) I was to follow the line, edge of every leaf, stem, branch
etc., Oh yeah, and it was a pen drawing, no erasing. It wouldn't win a prize
but it is probably one of the 5 best drawings I've ever done.
Dannon Rhudy wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> So far my experience as a TEACHER has been that
> students who wish it can be taught to LOOK MORE CAREFULLY,
> and in that sense perhaps they "see" better. I'm pretty good at
> getting people to LOOK - but I'm not convinced that I've ever
> taught anyone to see. And lurking in the back of my mind is always
> the suspicion that it might not be possible to do that. When I was
> a student in the formal sense, I had more than one teacher tell me
> that learning to draw was really "learning to see". That if I would
> "learn to see" I would be able to draw.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
Barney Adams on sat 25 sep 99
I think the ability to "see" requires a personality that is not too stuck in th
ways.
I imagine one could say seeing is the ability to have empathy for one's
surroundings.
Barney
"Dwiggins, Sandra (NCI)" wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Last night, one of my "advanced" wheel students said "My wife thinks I should
> take a drawing class." Being that he is one of my better and consistent
> throwers, and I have tried to get him to "SEE" for the last year what makes a
> well designed pot, I was thrilled. He said he was going to do it. This guy i
> one of the most tight-assed people I know, and needs to be in a drawing class
> where they put a big piece of butcher paper in front of him and say "draw that
> model in 5 seconds without looking down" or other such stuff. I told him tha
> he needs to take a "real" drawing class, not one from the local rec center.
> Here's a guy who wants really badly to "SEE"---but I know he never REALLY will
> He's better than average, but I know he just doesn't quite have THAT SPECIAL
> THING in him. But he'll never stop trying, and I think that's wonderful. I
> feel I've made a dent.
>
> Another guy in the class does have IT. What ever IT is, he's got IT. He SEES
> and tries really hard. I never have to explain more than once why I'm telling
> him to do what I tell him to do. I've been doing a series of demos on alterin
> pots on the wheel. He tried it immediately. I gave him a mini-critique on a
> few of the vases he'd done, and he understood completely.
>
> I do believe you either have it or you don't. But, I know you can try and
> appreciate what's there and aspire to it. Student #1 will keep trying and
> making decent respectable well-thrown work. Student #2 has the potential to
> do really good stuff. He's trying to break out of where he is, and I think
> he'll move ahead rapidly once he gets some confidence in his ability to work
> "outside the box" so to speak.
>
> I think teaching people to SEE is quite difficult, but when you see real talen
> it just makes you want to scream and shout.
> Sandy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earl Brunner [SMTP:bruec@anv.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 11:01 AM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
> Subject: Re: teaching design,
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I am a visual learner. For example, I frequently have to write a word before
> I'm certain of it's spelling. I have a pretty good sense of whether a word is
> spelled right or not, I just have to "SEE" it. In my undergraduate program al
> of my focus was on pottery. I chaffed at anything that divided my energy. I
> resented all the other art disciplines. I hated drawing and was convinced tha
> I could not draw. I had professors tell me that I could never do good three
> dimensional art if I couldn't do two dimensional art. ( I told them that in my
> opinion then the reverse should be true, they weren't three dimensional
> artists). After my BFA I went to Utah State University in Logan Ut. to work
> an MFA (never finished it) It was there that one of my professors taught me h
> to "SEE" and I learned that I could draw if I wanted to pay the price (practic
> etc.). He took me into a large greenhouse on campus, sat me about a foot away
> from a large philodendron and had me draw with out looking at the paper. ( I d
> look once in awhile) I was to follow the line, edge of every leaf, stem, branc
> etc., Oh yeah, and it was a pen drawing, no erasing. It wouldn't win a prize
> but it is probably one of the 5 best drawings I've ever done.
>
> Dannon Rhudy wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >
> > So far my experience as a TEACHER has been that
> > students who wish it can be taught to LOOK MORE CAREFULLY,
> > and in that sense perhaps they "see" better. I'm pretty good at
> > getting people to LOOK - but I'm not convinced that I've ever
> > taught anyone to see. And lurking in the back of my mind is always
> > the suspicion that it might not be possible to do that. When I was
> > a student in the formal sense, I had more than one teacher tell me
> > that learning to draw was really "learning to see". That if I would
> > "learn to see" I would be able to draw.
>
> --
> Earl Brunner
> http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
> mailto:bruec@anv.net
| |
|
