On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
"Rather, the (good) teacher says, "When you do it
this way [pointing to a drawing or painting], the viewer will
(usually) perceive [or react to] it in such and such a way."
Which viewer?
That's the question which this style of critique is begging --
especially if
the student is still not sharing that perception or reaction.
That's why the teacher, here, is being a bit dishonest/deceptive --
because
the "viewer" is primarily the teacher herself -- and what she's
teaching is
not just "how to do" but also "how to see" -- i.e., the teacher is
teaching
taste -- without being upfront about it.
Has this little deception always been necessary for good teaching ?
No, I'm talking about perception, mainly. For example, "If you paint
two shapes with square corners in such a way that they meet at a
point, then most people (with normal visual perception) will perceive
a horizontal line crossing a vertical line, and that will flatten the
space in picture."
Or, "If you make all the shapes in the painting approximately the same
size, and space them the same distance apart, the picture will appear
uniformly dense and the viewer will not be able to discern a hierarchy
by responding to the shapes in the picture."
Or, "If paint with aggressive brushwork, a viewer may easily find that
technique jarringly inappropriate for a tranquil scene."
These aren't matters of taste, sensu strictu, but Miller, of course,
wants everything to fit her preformed categories in order to get back
to her rant about "deceptive teachers." Miller will never be up-front
about her intent to oppose any assertion that teaching is good and
learning in an art school isn't being subjected to brainwashing.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
