I always dislike this method of teaching for the reasons you note.
If we are teaching people to look,
Do not our eyes , hearts and minds emerge from a fresh vision and
unique universe?
Looking at something and seeing anew and fresh as if for the first
time, in a state of emergence?
Why are we asking people to copy?
It is one technique to look closely at a great master etc and
understand the technique and appreciate it etc
but what about the joy of playing with and manipulating and
experimenting with the technique, rather than only copying.
I am interested in looking /listening and challenging what we see/
hear - that is the excitement.
Does anyone out there get excited from copying?
Maybe they do, Andy Warhol and yet every image printed was different
again.
His duplicated images were been playing with repetition and
variation, but not mere copying.
A thought?
Maureen Kendal
On 15 Jun 2008, at 13:59, Y.A.Raw wrote:
> I have an issue with the notion of asking students to paint like
> famous artists.
>
> Does anyone have any tips or advice on getting students to 'apply'
> the methods and techniques used by other artists, as opposed to
> just copying them?
>
> I'm asking because I have just taught a one-day workshop on
> 'Drawing like Matisse' to adult learners of varying abilities. I
> just wondered what other teachers' methods might be. Explaining
> Matisse's use of gesture, line, colour, pattern, mood etc. wasn't
> really the problem. Getting students to apply these to their own
> work was tricky. They wanted to create pictures that looked like
> Matisse's, as opposed to creating their own pictures and applying
> Matisse's techniques. There is a difference...
>
> (I appreciate that teaching/learning this in one day is a
> relatively tall order...)
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Yvonne
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391),
> an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in
> Scotland (SC 038302).
|