05-29-2016, 01:33 AM
Sure i agree there are two definitions, but i defined the terms at the start so arguing against a different definition would be intellectually dishonest, and nobody has argued like that, so no that isn't where the controversy comes from. It comes from that I have the gall to suggest that one specific activity might be demonstrably hindering students, one which I might add that nobody has thought of a redeeming quality of said activity.
I agree that you can pick-up multiple skills at the same time, and yes you are correct in that people learn these things by juggling lots of different ideas, but the core idea at play here is that abstracted drawing concepts hide the true nature of what is going on from the student. In fact you are actually arguing for everything I agree with except for this.
There is a theory in psychology referred to as cognitive loading, [science paper] which proposes that there is an upper limit to what the human brain can process at one time.
Here is a direct quote
So what you say has elements of truth. If the student is able to learn multiple things at once then great, but I think you are seriously misunderstanding just how difficult the problem of form and accuracy actually are. I know artists that are top of industry but they still practice it daily.
The entire point of using the method I pointed out of splitting out fundamentals is specifically because they are the lowest possible cognitive load, because otherwise learning is "severely reduced". Of course we can never fully reduce any skill to being completely by itself, you will always need line or value to represent perspective for example.
I agree that you can pick-up multiple skills at the same time, and yes you are correct in that people learn these things by juggling lots of different ideas, but the core idea at play here is that abstracted drawing concepts hide the true nature of what is going on from the student. In fact you are actually arguing for everything I agree with except for this.
Quote:Pushing boundaries by trying to learn some kind of fundamental principle and 'moving up' from there is much less efficient than using different modes of understanding to tackle problems according to ones current ability to comprehend them, move on to different problems, find new methods of comprehending, and repeat that process over and over again. Anything can be a 'fundamental' principle at a certain point in time, meaning that it serves as the basis for you to build upon at that point in time.
There is a theory in psychology referred to as cognitive loading, [science paper] which proposes that there is an upper limit to what the human brain can process at one time.
Here is a direct quote
Quote:The elements of most schemas must be learned simultaneously because they interact and it is the interaction that is critical. If, as in some areas, interactions between many elements must be learned, then intrinsic cognitive load will be high. In contrast, in different areas, if elements can be learned successively rather than instantaneously because they do not interact, intrinsic cognitive load will be low.
So what you say has elements of truth. If the student is able to learn multiple things at once then great, but I think you are seriously misunderstanding just how difficult the problem of form and accuracy actually are. I know artists that are top of industry but they still practice it daily.
The entire point of using the method I pointed out of splitting out fundamentals is specifically because they are the lowest possible cognitive load, because otherwise learning is "severely reduced". Of course we can never fully reduce any skill to being completely by itself, you will always need line or value to represent perspective for example.
Drawing out of perspective is like singing out of tune. I'll throw a shoe at you if you do it.
Sketch Book
Sketch Book