|
|
wave-particle duality and TV reception
Norman Wells wrote:
But 'art' isn't about producing 'useful' drawings. We have machines that do that called cameras and computers. It's about expression and interpretation, not realism. And it's not about an educational production line churning out identical pupils drawing formulaic pictures of each other either. So why have art schools? It is possible to teach better ways of self-expression. Bill |
wave-particle duality and TV reception
Bill Wright wrote:
Norman Wells wrote: But 'art' isn't about producing 'useful' drawings. We have machines that do that called cameras and computers. It's about expression and interpretation, not realism. And it's not about an educational production line churning out identical pupils drawing formulaic pictures of each other either. So why have art schools? It is possible to teach better ways of self-expression. Specialist schools in my view should develop the talent that has been displayed prior to entry, teach other skills, and give further opportunities in a wider range of art than a school can give. At any ordinary grade school where art is only a small part of the curriculum, they don't have the time to do everything, so they have to pioritise. I think what they should concentrate on is individual creativity and experimentation rather than formal techniques and tuition. That at least won't crush the spirit, which is vital for art, and should leave the enthusiasm to go on further. |
wave-particle duality and TV reception
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Norman Wells wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Max Demian wrote: It might have been nice to have some proper Art in secondary school, like teaching us to draw, paint and model. All we did was fiddle about and make models out of drinking straws, and see how many shades of black we could make with pencil. I realised long after I'd left school that the art 'teachers' I'd encountered at school had *never* made any actual attempt at teaching us *how* to draw or paint. All they'd done is have us sit down and 'try'. I actually think that's the right approach as regards art. Get the pupils to free themselves of their inhibitions and express themselves, however they choose to do that. Well, as I recall most of the artists who've become famed for their non-representational work can actually draw and paint very well. Art is based on having a set of relevant skills. Jackson Pollock? Mark Rothko? Do they /need/ to be able to draw faces? And a good friend of mine who went to art school was, indeed, taught the relevant methods and techniques. And so he should have been. We can't have idle art students just throwing paint at a canvas for three years now, can we? But we're talking about lessons at school as part of a much wider curriculum, not an in-depth 3-year intensive study of the subject as a whole. The penny dropped many years later when I watched a TV series on 'how to paint' that gave the viewer some basic ideas about how to construct simple shapes into useful drawings of people, etc. I then realised that being shown this at school might have made a real difference. But 'art' isn't about producing 'useful' drawings. Misunderstanding of useful. I meant the ability to draw or paint and get a result that looks as you intended. Some artists, I suspect, don't get such results. If they are wise, they say they do, and convince themselves that what they have produced is actually what they wanted. It's much easier that way. And no-one can say they're wrong. We have machines that do that called cameras and computers. Which misses my point. And as artists will tell you even a 'representational' work is *not* something you'd get using a camera. Even biologists and field-workers like archeologists know that a drawing or painting will show details in a way that a photo often fails to show. Yes, there's a skill in being a detailed illustrator, but it's a bit mechanical and anal. Art is not real art to me if it slavishly reproduces something in front of you. What I want to see is some interpretation, and something different from what my eyes can see. It's about expression and interpretation, not realism. Have a feeling that the art establishment moved past that false dichotomy ages ago. :-) I doubt it. The art world isn't capable of resolving anything. And it's not up to them anyway. In order to write you need to know how to use a pen or keyboard or similar, and to know the rules that allow scribbled to be read by others as words. A visual artist who wants to "express their interpretation" in paint or drawing has to have the skill to actually be able to draw and paint what they want to appear on the canvas or paper. After a fashion. And particularly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But we've moved on. |
wave-particle duality and TV reception
|
wave-particle duality and TV reception
On 17/12/2014 13:29, Terry Casey wrote:
In , says... Big nip So I ... played with electronics (all valves in those days - transistors hadn't been invented) as a hobby. So you completed your secondary education before the transistor was invented in 1948? No, but my sources of components was the local Army Surplus shop and various radios dumped on local bomb sites, so I didn't realise transistors were around. I never bought magazines either, just learned from a couple of books picked up from jumble sales. I had no money apart from what I earned from a Saturday job, so hobbies had to be done on the cheap. By 1960, when I left school, magazines like Practical Wireless carried lots of projects based on surplus Red Spot and White Spot transistors and the transistor radio was starting to dominate the portable radio market, albeit at a premium over their valve counterparts ... After I started work, I became a programmer, because Assembler, Coral66 and Cobol were just different foreign languages ... That's a bit of a gap, isn't it? CORAL didn't appear until 1964 and CORAL66 followed six years later. COBOL first appeared slightly earlier, in 1959 (about the time the original Bush TR82 was released) and were well on their way out by the time it was standardised in 1968 ... Assembler (in two different flavours, one for maintaining inherited code and another for new applications) came first, for an IBM1401. Then I did systems analysis for a few years before going back to programming. The list was illustrative, not a complete CV. I also didn't include Ferranti Argus Assembler nor ICL 2900 "S3" language. Jim |
wave-particle duality and TV reception
Bob Latham wrote:
In article , Norman Wells wrote: At any ordinary grade school where art is only a small part of the curriculum, they don't have the time to do everything, so they have to pioritise. I think what they should concentrate on is individual creativity and experimentation rather than formal techniques and tuition. That at least won't crush the spirit, which is vital for art, and should leave the enthusiasm to go on further. I have to say I don't agree. I spent my secondary school years dreading Art because I was quite clueless and useless at it. I have found out since that I could have been taught to draw and that it wasn't something you just could or could not do. But no, I was left to fail at it. My spirit was well crushed. But is it something worth teaching to one who doesn't have it naturally? Or is it better to encourage that person to develop creatively in other directions? Obviously, a bit of both if you have the time, but if you haven't? |
wave-particle duality and TV reception
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 19:49:53 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote: Indy Jess John wrote: She is not in the least scientific though, and is the type who needs the instruction book to change the batteries in a torch. But you see, often a woman will use the book and succeed when a bloke will struggle on without it. Bill The strong advice, "RTFM!" and "Look at the damned map!" is usually targeted at the male of our species. :-) -- J B Good |
wave-particle duality and TV reception
In article , Norman Wells
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Norman Wells wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: Well, as I recall most of the artists who've become famed for their non-representational work can actually draw and paint very well. Art is based on having a set of relevant skills. Jackson Pollock? Mark Rothko? Do they /need/ to be able to draw faces? Have you asked them? :-) If you bother to research the subject you may find that they could indeed draw faces. As could Picasso. So they did work on being able to paint and draw for some years before they developed their work in various ways. Pollock was certainly working for some years before he changed to the 'drip and dribble' method. It would seem odd to assume that had no effect whatsoever on him. Although how much their 'success' is based on allowing others to read meaning into random is another matter. .. Have a feeling that the art establishment moved past that false dichotomy ages ago. :-) I doubt it. The art world isn't capable of resolving anything. And it's not up to them anyway. So some with think so and others don't. In order to write you need to know how to use a pen or keyboard or similar, and to know the rules that allow scribbled to be read by others as words. A visual artist who wants to "express their interpretation" in paint or drawing has to have the skill to actually be able to draw and paint what they want to appear on the canvas or paper. After a fashion. And particularly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But we've moved on. Not all of us, it would seem. Some still seem saddled with the false dichotomy. :-) Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
wave-particle duality and TV reception
Johny B Good wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 19:49:53 +0000, Bill Wright wrote: Indy Jess John wrote: She is not in the least scientific though, and is the type who needs the instruction book to change the batteries in a torch. But you see, often a woman will use the book and succeed when a bloke will struggle on without it. Bill The strong advice, "RTFM!" and "Look at the damned map!" is usually targeted at the male of our species. :-) In our house it's "Don't get mad with it darling. Wait while Kate comes round. She'll do it for you in a flash." Kate is 12. Bill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com