As many how to art books are written the easiest way to "teach" "art" is to break up the process into steps. This is about creating the end product and ensuring that the student will be happy with it.
It's step A to B. . . . C and so on.
It's logical and linear.
It's not how I work in my own art process. Back in school when I was required to show rough work of a process i would go back and fake it. Because the process happen rapidly in my head not on paper. In a lot of the the how to art type books it is clear this is often what the author is doing too. Going back and faking steps. There are even "steps" that no professional would wast their time with.
Like really they drew a square first instead of just going ahead and drawing the darn apple.
There is a concept about layout and size that the square is showing, but really many people have naturally already processed this information intuitively?
But the person looking at this book will mindlessly copy this step without assimilating the concept. Following it will ensure that they will be able to copy the example but NOT applie it to future independent endeavors.
I'm not really sure if intuitive is really even the right word for it. But when you have linar steps vs the seemly randomess of the other end, I don't know of any other word. But to assume that being intuitive is without logic would be a mistake.
I'm not sure who but when I was 8 someone taught me that if you used colour more darkly around the edges it would look better. I didn't know the word contrast. I just knew they were right. From this I started blending out the colour to the center as lighter cause it looked cool. This became a part of my personal esthetic. So I used contrast ever afterword. It looked good to me and it felt right. My work was self directed, nobody was standing behind me to see that my results were good.
As applied to pencil crayons I figured out I could lay in other colours on top for blending. In shading I intuitively knew that I needed to create a flow of dark to light. Latter seeing that it didn't always have to be from the center but from the light source.
This is an example of applied learning. Linear steps do not encourage independent applied learning, or independent problems solving. Which at it's heart is the basis of innovation and creativity. Not even being fully conscious of the problem of contrast I found a solution. The only problem I issue I was aware of was how to make art look cool. Unlike math in the area of art there is more then one answer to any problem. My answer was not the only way. But how easy it is to "teach" it like it is.
One of the most common issues I see with students of all ages is using contrast.
The problem is alien to me. So I had to go back into my memory and figure out why. The answer is not my solution but the thinking process that lead to many more solutions. When working on a painting now, I don't applied contrast at step five, but when ever the hell it feels right.
I think it is possible for step by step to become lessons to become assimilated knowledge and future applied learning but only by those who tend toward that kind of learning and thinking in the first place and even they will likely tend to experiment less.
I really don't think that being naturally good at visual art is a gift. It's more about a kind of problem soloving that some are more naturally inclined towards and or encouraged in.
It's step A to B. . . . C and so on.
It's logical and linear.
It's not how I work in my own art process. Back in school when I was required to show rough work of a process i would go back and fake it. Because the process happen rapidly in my head not on paper. In a lot of the the how to art type books it is clear this is often what the author is doing too. Going back and faking steps. There are even "steps" that no professional would wast their time with.
Like really they drew a square first instead of just going ahead and drawing the darn apple.
There is a concept about layout and size that the square is showing, but really many people have naturally already processed this information intuitively?
But the person looking at this book will mindlessly copy this step without assimilating the concept. Following it will ensure that they will be able to copy the example but NOT applie it to future independent endeavors.
I'm not really sure if intuitive is really even the right word for it. But when you have linar steps vs the seemly randomess of the other end, I don't know of any other word. But to assume that being intuitive is without logic would be a mistake.
I'm not sure who but when I was 8 someone taught me that if you used colour more darkly around the edges it would look better. I didn't know the word contrast. I just knew they were right. From this I started blending out the colour to the center as lighter cause it looked cool. This became a part of my personal esthetic. So I used contrast ever afterword. It looked good to me and it felt right. My work was self directed, nobody was standing behind me to see that my results were good.
As applied to pencil crayons I figured out I could lay in other colours on top for blending. In shading I intuitively knew that I needed to create a flow of dark to light. Latter seeing that it didn't always have to be from the center but from the light source.
This is an example of applied learning. Linear steps do not encourage independent applied learning, or independent problems solving. Which at it's heart is the basis of innovation and creativity. Not even being fully conscious of the problem of contrast I found a solution. The only problem I issue I was aware of was how to make art look cool. Unlike math in the area of art there is more then one answer to any problem. My answer was not the only way. But how easy it is to "teach" it like it is.
One of the most common issues I see with students of all ages is using contrast.
The problem is alien to me. So I had to go back into my memory and figure out why. The answer is not my solution but the thinking process that lead to many more solutions. When working on a painting now, I don't applied contrast at step five, but when ever the hell it feels right.
I think it is possible for step by step to become lessons to become assimilated knowledge and future applied learning but only by those who tend toward that kind of learning and thinking in the first place and even they will likely tend to experiment less.
I really don't think that being naturally good at visual art is a gift. It's more about a kind of problem soloving that some are more naturally inclined towards and or encouraged in.
