Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

[Ron Bell]

Eventually, I would like to get back to the idea of teaching, teacher qualifications or certifications and how we can deal with less-than-competent teachers... so stay tuned.

Tony

I don't want to get on a rant about it but...

I am inclined to agree with Ron's observations about instructors. The less than competent ones will tend to fall by the wayside on their own.

There is also the issue of what makes a good instructor. It is not the ability to produce a beautiful glass object, or the understanding of what devit really is, or knowing how to properly prepare a shelf with new kiln wash. It is more the ability to communicate with the student... that sense of empathy that allows the instructor to understand the students questions even when they are asked in a unlikely context.

Certifying an instructor implies a "this one's good" - "this one's not" approach that comes from some group judgment. Is what we do that cut and dried, that defineable? And of course who certifies the certifiers?

Pick a few folks from this board who give classes on a regular basis. Then search the archives for what people have to say about them and their classroom techniques and results. I have more faith in that process than any certification. The people who take their classes will be the final certifiers! I don't take a class unless I either talk with the instructor or someone who has been through the class.

But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong!

[Tony Smith]

Ron Bell wrote:

I don't want to get on a rant about it but...

I am inclined to agree with Ron's observations about instructors. The less than competent ones will tend to fall by the wayside on their own.

Well, that brings up a real good question: Do the less than competent teachers really fall by the wayside on their own? Or do they just move on to another topic and another group of unwary students thirsty for more techniques and information?

At the local level, it's probably hard to know who is a good fusing instructor and who is a bad fusing instructor, so a lot of bad results get blamed on the glass, the kiln, a bad batch of kilnwash, or "something the student did" when the teacher wasn't looking. The student doesn't know any better, so they accept as fact that not all fusing projects work out.

But at the national level, I believe the teacher ought to demonstrate a depth of knowledge about what they are teaching that exceeds the current literature (IOW: booklearning PLUS experience), but they should also be able to produce quality student projects using each of the techniques they are teaching. Under the teacher's supervision, some percentage, maybe >90% of all student projects should turn out acceptable or better... no surprises.

So the signs of a good teacher are that they possess in-depth knowledge of the subject matter including hands-on experience, they can point out pitfalls and traps to students as (or before) they happen which results in their student's producing high quality results consistently, and they inspire the student to try the techniques being taught in a creative way. The "creative way" is often a stumbling block for teachers. But one thing that helps students is to see how the techniques can be used... Since students learn by example, the teacher should bring in a variety of example pieces produced using the techniques that are being taught.

I can think of several excellent teachers who possess all of the "signs of a good teacher" as I've described above.

Any thoughts or opinions?

Tony

[Nickie Jordan]

I'm enjoying the way this thread is going....and keeps going... - Nickie

[The Hobbyist]

It is nearsighted to look at just the teacher and their credentials. The success/failure of a class comes from matching the teacher with the students. Beginning students don't need Klaus Moje and the class would likely be a total failure. Whereas, many of us could teach a basic class in such trivial matters as kilnwash, cutting, compatibility, etc. and probably better than the luminaries.

This responsibility of setting up the correct balance falls on the sponsoring studio since that is where most of the classes are taught. They should know and/or have researched the teacher they're bringing in and they should also inform/screen the students so the match will work. After all, they are selling a product when they charge for the class. They should know as much about the teachers they promote as they do about the other products they carry. A studio that promotes a class that is unsuccessful should be held accountable just as they would be if they sold defective equipment.

Thanks for thread Tony, it's a good one......................G'pa Jim

[Phil Hoppes]

I keep on thinking of a comparison between glass and a guitar. Anybody that buys a guitar gets the exact same thing... six stings attached to a resonating box...we all start with the same six strings. I had a Martin D-28 ( an incredibly beautiful guitar) that I could not play very well. I sold it to buy my first kiln. It is now (hopefully) in the hands of a musician who can make it sing. I remember seeing a professional musician make a "Stella" guitar ( a clunker cheap guitar that could be bought in a Sears catalogue) absolutely shine. All the old blues masters from the deep south played with an emotion that has become the standard on the only instruments that were available. I somehow don't think they were top of the line instruments. I guess I am looking for the emotion rather than the technique (or tools/instruments).

The analogy to glass? Look at the work that Brian and Bert do with the "common" or "ugly duckling" called float glass. Look at what Ana Skribska (sp?) does with a butane lighter and glass shards.

Cheers,

Bob

Bless you Bob. I think you just expressed with sublime purity the difference between technique and artistry.

Technique survives without aristry, but artistry stands alone. Can one copy artistry? Doubtful. That is why I find this debate, like the art and craft debate intersting but perhaps moot ( I am willing to be wrong here).
Again, technique is common (it's all been done before), what you do with it in terms or your atristry is not.

We all can teach techniques, but to foster artistry in a student is the hallmark of a true teacher. Once we embrace this concept we quit worrying about propriety.

If you want to teach, teach. If you have a newfangled and unique technique, don't teach it if you don't want it absorbed into the nework. It seems simple enough.

Well put Cynthia and Bob. This too is what I was trying to say but was doing a very poor job of it.

But at the national level, I believe the teacher ought to demonstrate a depth of knowledge about what they are teaching that exceeds the current literature (IOW: booklearning PLUS experience), but they should also be able to produce quality student projects using each of the techniques they are teaching. Under the teacher's supervision, some percentage, maybe >90% of all student projects should turn out acceptable or better... no surprises.

So the signs of a good teacher are that they possess in-depth knowledge of the subject matter including hands-on experience, they can point out pitfalls and traps to students as (or before) they happen which results in their student's producing high quality results consistently, and they inspire the student to try the techniques being taught in a creative way. The "creative way" is often a stumbling block for teachers. But one thing that helps students is to see how the techniques can be used... Since students learn by example, the teacher should bring in a variety of example pieces produced using the techniques that are being taught.
Tony

Excellent point Tony but I don't thing that certifying is the key here. The market will weed out bad ones. I would take this board as an example. There is enough communication here on what happens at classes as to give rapid feedback to both instructors and studios on what is good and bad about classes, both public (on the board) and private (email).

Phil

PS - This is a good thread Tony. Stirred lots of emotion and ideas and discussions. I've missed these types of "involved" threads on the new board form. It is good to pick a topic like this and have throw it out there and have the members have at it!

[Bert Weiss]

Bless you Bob. I think you just expressed with sublime purity the difference between technique and artistry.

Technique survives without aristry, but artistry stands alone. Can one copy artistry? Doubtful. That is why I find this debate, like the art and craft debate intersting but perhaps moot ( I am willing to be wrong here).
Again, technique is common (it's all been done before), what you do with it in terms or your atristry is not.

We all can teach techniques, but to foster artistry in a student is the hallmark of a true teacher. Once we embrace this concept we quit worrying about propriety.

If you want to teach, teach. If you have a newfangled and unique technique, don't teach it if you don't want it absorbed into the nework. It seems simple enough.

AMEN

[Lani McGregor]

I want to agree and disagree with Jim Wolverton.

"Beginning students don't need Klaus Moje and the class would likely be a total failure." - JM

Ironically, some Moje’s teaching method involves doing just what this thread is about: copying technique. Moje introduces students to kilnforming - at least in short Pilchuck-style classes - by having them replicate his process in small works that are sometimes pretty incredible facsimiles of his own pieces (I’ve seen a few in collector’s homes and listened to the tours oohing-and ahh-ing over them). I assume that he is comfortable doing this because if they’re done badly, they will be recognized as copies and if they’re done well the collecting world is left with the impression that his work is even more widely collected than it is. And finally, I think it – usually - gets plagiarizing out of the student’s system.

Of course, Moje “ownedâ€

[Tony Smith]

Excellent point Tony but I don't thing that certifying is the key here. The market will weed out bad ones. I would take this board as an example. There is enough communication here on what happens at classes as to give rapid feedback to both instructors and studios on what is good and bad about classes, both public (on the board) and private (email).

Phil

I agree that teacher "certification" may not be the solution here. Since there is no independent certifying agency for warmglass instructors, it would be difficult to develop a certification process free of bias toward a specific manufacturer, technique or method. Although, I'm sure a few of us would be gracious enough to offer to take all of the classes available to provide unbiased ratings of them.

In lieu of certification, I think it's important for people to communicate about classes. Perhaps participants could provide reviews of classes they have taken. With a standard format to the review, we could minimize flaming, and perhaps make the reviews available via an archive or summary page. Maybe Brad could chime in and let us know how doable something like that would be. This would be a first step in keeping the quality of classes high.

Thoughts?

Tony

[Lani McGregor]

[Perhaps participants could provide reviews of classes they have taken.]

Tony, I've seen rave reviews for really bad classes (full of technical misinformation, but "fun"). How does the beginning student know what they're not getting?

No answers, just questions. L

[Tony Smith]

[Perhaps participants could provide reviews of classes they have taken.]

Tony, I've seen rave reviews for really bad classes (full of technical misinformation, but "fun"). How does the beginning student know what they're not getting?

No answers, just questions. L

Lani, I love this thread... it raises the questions in a logical way.

I agree completely. That was a point I raised a few posts back. The novice doesn't know any better, so are their failed projects going to discourage them from pursuing kiln-forming further?

One of the reasons I added the point about succesful student projects is that I don't believe an incompetent teacher can do that. For a teacher to be able to consistently produce high quality student projects, they have to be able to analyze the student's projects as they are doing them and point out the traps and pitfalls that will affect their first work. This requires knowledge of the material and experience with the techniques to be able to foresee the problems...

There is a significant difference among teachers and teaching philosophy. There are many teachers who believe the way to learn fusing is to have students cut a square of glass, then cut a couple pieces of glass and lay them on, then sprinkle a little frit on it and come back the next week to a coaster or a trivet. The problem is that all of the projects look alike and they can't be told apart. There is no individual contribution to the project. There are others who take the class to another level and allow the students to use their own creativity and ideas, and show them how to use the tools and materials to achieve something greater. When that happens, the students are excited and enthusiastic about continuing. That sells more kilns, and that sells more glass.

I've been fortunate to see the results of Patty Gray's classes and workshops because I update her website. She is really good about photographing her student's work. I think it would be eye-opening for people to look at the photos that she took of a one-day beginner's workshop that she taught last Saturday. http://www.pattygray.com/kac/kacapril2003.html There are before and after photos of each of the student projects. None of them are alike and each reflects the student's own creativity. I know I wouldn't want to show the project that came from my first fusing class. I would like to add that these students don't walk out of a one-day workshop with all of the knowledge that they need to fuse glass on their own. But they are excited and inspired by what can be done with the medium.

I would have to disagree with Jim Wolverton because from what I've heard, Klauss is an amazing instructor. Even for beginners (and maybe especially for beginners) exposure to a person like that can be inspiring.

Tony

[rosanna gusler]

on the klaus example, i am sure he (or any other primo fuser) can do a really good job with beginners as well as more experianced folk. i think however that too wide a gap in experiance between students can be a problem. too wide a gap can fragment the limited amount of time available in a class especially if that class is more specialized in topic. rosanna

[The Hobbyist]

Tony, I think we may be talking about separate issues. When I mentioned that Moje teaching a class of beginners how to cut glass, kilnwash a shelf, and do those basic things that are the first steps in fusing was a misfit I was concerned with credential requirements and matching teacher with students. It is unreasonable to expect that ALL teachers of ALL fusing classes be equally qualified and especially that they be of the Moje caliber.

Lani's comment that Moje believes that we need to have the "knowledge of the material" is exactly correct. I call that basic technique and any competent fusing instrutor can/should be able to teach how glass behaves in the kiln and why. That would also include troubleshooting. Fortunately, I, and I'm sure many others, have learned most of that from good books like Brad's, from daily reading on this fantastic BB and experimenting.

Knowledge of the material leads to and is necessary for artistic techniques and expression. To teach that is another matter altogether. I wholeheartedly agree that the teacher of this aspect of fusing MUST be able to inspire the students and bring their projects to high levels of satisfaction.

Many, maybe most, of the classes being taught today I would guess, since I've only taken one, are trying to do both. It may be too much to ask or expect.

An analogy: A typing teacher need not inspire the students to be effective. A writing teacher must be inspiring the students and should not be expected to also include typing skills as part of the content. Good writing requires both and noone would/should expect one teacher to try to teach both.


[quote]But this keeps getting back to the difference between technique and art. The former is step-by-step, the latter is a leap. It takes both, but they are not the same. And IMO only the latter can be truly “ownedâ€

[Ron Coleman]

I agree that teacher "certification" may not be the solution here. Since there is no independent certifying agency for warmglass instructors, it would be difficult to develop a certification process free of bias toward a specific manufacturer, technique or method. Although, I'm sure a few of us would be gracious enough to offer to take all of the classes available to provide unbiased ratings of them.

In lieu of certification, I think it's important for people to communicate about classes. Perhaps participants could provide reviews of classes they have taken. With a standard format to the review, we could minimize flaming, and perhaps make the reviews available via an archive or summary page. Maybe Brad could chime in and let us know how doable something like that would be. This would be a first step in keeping the quality of classes high.

Thoughts?

Tony

For the new student to make an educated choice of classes and teachers, maybe a good list of topics that should be taught in a beginning class might be helpful. New students may not have the foggiest idea of what they should be learning besides fusing glass.

To me, the first few hours of a beginning class should be nothing but booklearning about glass and how it behaves when heated, fused and cooled. Without the fundamental physics of the process, an intorductory level class would only lead to frustration when the student tries the first fusing project on their own.

Ron

[JimV]

Well, you certainly got your wish re a lively discussion.

Two cents more:

* Only people who can't create from scratch steal. They can't create a new idea - you can. Their bottle doesn't have a genie.

* There are no new ideas, just some some of us haven't seen yet.

* The genie won't go back in the bottle: if you don't want people to share your idea, don't teach it. If you do - it will get shared.

* You can't keep the idea secret if you make stuff with it.

It is the anacronism of that oxymoron "military intelligence": there is no point in gathering it if you never use it. If you use it you have to do it in a way in which you maximize your own benefit. Teach it in a way that it is your idea/process. Sell stuff as a product of your idea and process. Your stuff will sell better... your rep as a teacher who can will grow.

Jim V

[ellen abbott]

Without the fundamental physics of the process, an intorductory level class would only lead to frustration when the student tries the first fusing project on their own.

Not sure I agree. The purpose of a first class is to inspire or discourage. If inspired, they'll learn the physics and seek out better instruction. So what if they fail if they try it on their own. You don't fail anymore? I do. But I'm inspired. Failure doesn't stop me. My partner took a glass casting/blowing course from Kent Ipsen & Fritz Driesbach 21 years ago. They never did cast any glass. Spent the whole time building the kiln that took longer and was more difficult than they thought. Nevertheless, he came back inspired enough to pursue it and we are still today. I imagine that class would have been considered a failure by today's standards. They didn't make anything.

If you're not willing to do the learning curve, you will be easily discouraged and that is as it should be, I think. The only thing I learned from the one workshop I took is that there is no secret trick (you mean I have to practice?!!).

ellen

[Tony Smith]

To me, the first few hours of a beginning class should be nothing but booklearning about glass and how it behaves when heated, fused and cooled. Without the fundamental physics of the process, an intorductory level class would only lead to frustration when the student tries the first fusing project on their own.

Ron

Ron, I think this is a clear case where we can agree to disagree. For the student with a technical bent, having the first class contain nothing but the physics of glass might be riveting, but you will lose your non-technical student... they will be bored to tears. Show them what can be done with the medium, and excite and inspire them by letting them do their own work (under supervision of course) and they will come back to learn the technical part.

Tony

[Lynne Chappell]

Well, I try to balance both. I talk at them for an hour and a half. They only absorb a small portion of what I'm saying, but at least they know that there's more to learn. Then I get them started with what I call "samples". The class immediately gets lively. Really, no one takes this kind of class for a long lecture. They want hands-on. On the second session, the samples are fired and most of the time half of them don't even recognize their own work. It's hilarious.

I like their projects to turn out well, but that's not really what the class is about. What I really want is for them to be excited about the possibilities and to have a little more knowledge the next time they see fused glass in the galleries. If they're keen, they will learn more. If it was just something to do (you know, every year they try out a new craft or medium), then they're a little more educated.

Anyway, in this area there aren't many opportunities to learn about fused glass. It's probably the same in many places. Perhaps a bad teacher is better than none?

[Tony Smith]

Lynne,

I agree that there has to be a balance, and I think spending a quarter of the class providing technical information is about right. Every teacher has a comfort zone that they fall into after the technical part of their presentation and every teacher is different. It's not always easy to inspire students, but that often comes from the teacher's own enthusiasm and ability to make suggestions in a creative and constructive way. It also has to do with the teacher's varied experience and their ability to suggest methods and designs that are appealing to the student.

While I agree that the goal is to excite the students about the possibilities with fused glass, it's important to be able to show them the possibilities and how to get there. If their first projects turn out well, then the excitement will come quickly. With a one-day workshop, the teacher has to work a little harder to make sure that the projects turn out well... it may be their only shot.

Tony

[Sara]

If you're not willing to do the learning curve, you will be easily discouraged and that is as it should be, I think. The only thing I learned from the one workshop I took is that there is no secret trick (you mean I have to practice?!!).

ellen

I'm really going to be unpopular here but while everyone is touting this thread it seemed to me the same ol same ol until I read what Ellen said.

Last week while I was doing a show at Chicago I spent quite a bit of time with a glass instructor who has been teaching dichroic for years and years. We tried to stay off the glassmobile although we started talking about how many people are so impatient to make a glob and then make a dollar that they don't spend the time learning glass.

Yes, classes can be fabulous and the sharing of knowledge is wonderful and we're often inspired by friends, glass cohorts and instructors. I went to Higgins Studio and came away with ideas to explore yet so often in todays hurry up world we forget to take the time to learn glass for ourselves, learn our own equipment and practice over and over and literally over. Many of you would be astounded at the amount of time and energy I've been putting in making a 1/2" cube of dichroic glass, yep it's been done before and will be done again, yet I'm putting a new spin on it from my perspective.

I've taken a couple of classes and will take a couple more, yet the best advice that any instructor can give is practice practice practice and develop your own voice. It doesn't matter what tricks are shared the bottom line is how you make them your own. If you've a curiosity and love of glass no class is bad there is always something to be gained then take it home and tweak it. Why fret over someone elses poor ethic, simply do glass to the best of your ability.

Am starting to ramble here so adios the studio is calling,

Sara

[Tony Smith]

If you're not willing to do the learning curve, you will be easily discouraged and that is as it should be, I think. The only thing I learned from the one workshop I took is that there is no secret trick (you mean I have to practice?!!).

ellen

I'm really going to be unpopular here but while everyone is touting this thread it seemed to me the same ol same ol until I read what Ellen said.
Sara

I don't know about the same old, same old, because this thread seems to be the first in-depth thread of the new board. But I think what we were talking about was getting people over the initial hump, getting their interest and keeping it long enough so that they would want to practice, practice, practice.

But I know what you mean. The people that get to me are the ones that say they want to buy a kiln so they can make a glass sink. They have no concept of glass, they have no concept of fusing, and they have no concept of what type of experience and cost it will take to get to the point where they can make architectural glass... (you'd think it would be cheaper to buy a sink!).

Tony