Herschel,
I agree the R12 isn't much to look at but I'm a great fan of Raymond Loewy and his Avanti! I think I could give you a thorough critique of both. One has to critique the success or failure of formal design based on principles rather than taste. And you have to understand and incorporate cultural values into the discussion. Mostly it involves convincing yourself that things like slacker art and so-called "edginess" isn't pure crap!
One part of teaching is to confess to your shortcomings (but not your prejudices).
One part of teaching is to confess to your shortcomings (but not your prejudices).
If you only deal with formal elements you are still giving much to your students. You reserve a few stock remarks for stuff you hate or simply don't get. You might say something like "How does (whatever part you just don't get) inform the picture?" I'd look at it as a challenge to the student to begin thinking that in a photograph everything counts.
AZ
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] criticism and teaching
From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 16, 2007 9:01 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Alan writes: Herschel, There are two definitions for the word. The only one I have in mind is the second: "evaluate." A critique of work one uses in a class has nothing to do with being severely judgmental. One would presume (hope!) the instructor's opinion is informed, respected, and eagerly sought after! Once ground rules are understood the instructor doesn't have to timidly tipy-toe around delicate feelings. It is simply about learning to talk about a picture in a way other than its technical success or shortcomings. Look at it this way - a commercial photographer should have an advantage if they can communicate better with their customers and employees. AZ I would suggest cropping, suggest alternative angles, different choice of focal length, whatever was needed when it was apparent the image faltered, but when I was confronted with something I couldn't comprehend, I left it to their eyes. Easy enough to see whether they were proud of the image, happy with what they'd produced or whether it was a half-hearted attempt to just get an assignment done. I did after all have to award marks! However as I said it was a science diploma and these ladies and gents were dentists, doctors, police, veterinarians, future medical or forensic photographers and the like and aesthetic was less of an issue for the bulk of what they would be producing. Creative stuff was as common if not more so than the 'dry' photos though, but hey - there is SO much stuff in this world of creativity that I do not get that I can't help respect each persons personal aesthetic and felt I'd be better guiding them in getting what *they* want rather than what *I* would like to see. After all, who in their right mind thinks a Studebaker Avante or a Renault 12 is a beautiful car? Someone did! Enough so to buy a heap of them.. And clearly the designer was SO driven they managed to see the cars all the way through to production! A lot of conviction there. Who as a teacher would not have guided the student away from such ghastly mistakes! ;) Herschel: Creativity is like a wild but very timid animal hiding in a dark cave. We need to lure it out into the light with tenderness, care and caution. One wrong move and it'll dart back in and never come outa there. We are pretty creative animals and I think creativity is a driving force in most of us. It's pretty tough and resiliant and tends to persist. What *is* fragile is the ego that is willing to put their ideas and creations forward for scrutiny. allow a person to feel belittled and you'll never see their work again. Doesn't mean they won't keep producing, you will just never see it Technical first or aesthetic.. Well, people will create their own reality, no stopping that. I've seen some strong potential in folks limited by their technical ability but I've yet to see anyone stifled by their technical know-how. Sure you can all the technical knowledge in the world and still not take a picture that satisfies anyone - no argument there! I know a guy who's a DOP (cine) here in Perth who used to be a student of mine. He said in one recent catch up that he really didn't see the point of a lot of the technical stuff I taught but when he started working in the field he realised a lot of the shoots he assisted on were suffering from a poor knowledge of the media - film. Exposure issues, lack of understanding of contrast, lack of lens knowledge - he noted the guys who were considered good and well regarded DID know the tech stuff .. and those around them simply attributed their success and skill to them being 'good' - end of thought process.. How odd! Anyone CAN learn the tech stuff but most found it too boring or hard and subsequently wanted to be free of 'all that' and just explore their vision. hmm. hard to get your vision across when you don't understand the fundamentals. Now we're talking professionals here working in the field not just rank amateurs.. Anyway this guy in time also became known as 'good' as his suggestions for improvements led to better results. Back to our conversation - he was explaining that the tech stuff I was boring the class with began to make sense as he started working and it came back to him, and obstacles for others were easily solved with what he knew. His creativity was free to flourish, he was noted for his skill and he rose to DOP. if I don't know how to make a good wood joint I'm going to find it hard to build a strong piece of furniture. k
