do you believe in obscenity

[Rob C]

A friend of mine commented that quite often those with natural talent are the ones who are most likely drift away whilst being taught. And it's something I have observed and also have done. The reason being is that they get bored as they find the subject easier than the level it was being taught at.
But the ability to work hard or to learn new tricks is also a great talent in itself. Which gets overlooked when people talk about these sorts of things. Possibly one of the most useful talents to have.

Indeed; I walked away from photographic night school for that very reason; the lecturer belittled Bailey, whom I'd mentiond as a sort of career beacon, and I realised there was nothing in that college that I wanted or needed. Never returned. Never regretted not returning.

Rob C

[WalterEG]

I realised there was nothing in that college that I wanted or needed. Never returned. Never regretted not returning.

Those who CAN, do.  Those who CAN'T, teach.  And, these days, maybe some of those who CAN'T run galleries.

Cheers,

W

[jjj]

Those who CAN, do.  Those who CAN'T, teach.

That's the sort of silly quote trotted out by those who've never taught. Teaching is in itself is serious skill/talent and there are plenty of people who are good at something and really bad at teaching it.
Also it's hard to teach something properly without completely understanding the subject.

[WalterEG]

That's the sort of silly quote trotted out by those who've never taught.

Well, actually, I have taught.

[jjj]

So you were saying that you were unable to do what you taught then?
Or do you not agree with what you posted?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So you were saying that you were unable to do what you taught then?...

What Walter is saying, and I concur, is that those who can, both do and can teach... those who can't, can only teach. Neither guarantees good teaching, by the way. Nor it diminishes great teachers who can't do.

[Rob C]

What Walter is saying, and I concur, is that those who can, both do and can teach... those who can't, can only teach. Neither guarantees good teaching, by the way. Nor it diminishes great teachers who can't do.

That, Slobodan, is a paradox too far.

How do you teach that which you cannot do? Indicate the books to read? That's 'teaching'? Of course, the rôle of the signpost is another matter altogether.

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That, Slobodan, is a paradox too far.

How do you teach that which you cannot do? ...

No paradox at all. Some of the best teachers in my business school, including Nobel Prize winners, never worked a day in their life outside of academia. At the same time, some of those "doers," like a sitting governor of the Federal Reserve Board, were pretty lousy teachers.

[Rob C]

No paradox at all. Some of the best teachers in my business school, including Nobel Prize winners, never worked a day in their life outside of academia. At the same time, some of those "doers," like a sitting governor of the Federal Reserve Board, were pretty lousy teachers.

Business School. That explains why you believe in fairies. Just like the Fed. does.

You must watch the video, Inside Job.

;-)

Rob C

[jjj]

What Walter is saying, and I concur, is that those who can, both do and can teach... those who can't, can only teach.

Except he didn't. Walter said you taught if you weren't good enough to do what you taught. With no equivocation.
 'Those who CAN, do.  Those who CAN'T, teach"

[jjj]

No paradox at all. Some of the best teachers in my business school, including Nobel Prize winners, never worked a day in their life outside of academia. At the same time, some of those "doers," like a sitting governor of the Federal Reserve Board, were pretty lousy teachers.

Yet there are plenty of crap academia only teachers and practitioners who are excellent teachers. Which only goes to show that some people are good at teaching and others are not.
The saying is simply a load of crock.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Except he didn't...

He did not have to... it is a simple logical deduction.

[jjj]

He did not have to... it is a simple logical deduction.

Except it isn't and that is certainly not what people mean when the use the phrase - which is actually the most important thing. It is specifically used as a sneering put down of people who teach.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Except it isn't and that is certainly not what people mean when the use the phrase - which is actually the most important thing. It is specifically used as a sneering put down of people who teach.

It is a perfectly accurate little saying. If being accurate is a put down, so be it. And it is only a put down in the sense that they can not pretend to be great writers, artists or business people. They can still be great teachers, however.

[Isaac]

Which brings us back to the "10,000 Hour Rule", which I am firmly convinced is a good yardstick.

I think a good yardstick would need to be about how good we think they are, rather than how many hours they've done.

... mastery of ones art or craft. It simply takes time...

On the contrary, that 10,000 hours researcher reported it does not simply take time -- "...continued improvements (changes) in achievement are not automatic consequences of more experience..."


But these are details which we've already been through at least twice, so for a little variety --

"Talent is Overrated: What Really Separated World-class Performers from Everybody Else" book

"What it takes to be great" Fortune Magazine

[Isaac]

Folks often confuse the "10,000 hour rule" with being up with the best. It just means you have mastered your craft, it doesn't mean people will like what you do.

It doesn't mean people will like what you do.

It kind-of is about being up with the best --

"For example, the critical difference between expert musicians differing in the level of attained solo performance concerned the amounts of time they had spent in solitary practice during their music development, which totaled around 10,000 hours by age 20 for the best experts,  around 5,000 hours for the least accomplished expert musicians and only 2,000 hours for serious amateur pianists."

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Seems this thread is becoming increasingly obscene the longer it grows ...

[Jeremy Roussak]

Shit! And I thought it was Ruskin.

Definitely Wilde, from Lady Windermere's Fan. I rather like the way it continues, which is almost never quoted:
"What is a cynic?"
"A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
"And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything, and doesn't know the market price of any single thing".

I know he (Ruskin) was reputed to have written to the effect that "there's nothing that one man cannot produce more cheaply than another; those whose only consideration is price are that man's legal prey" or like that.

Close: "There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey". I know only because it's on the wall of a (pricey, needless to say) sandwich shop in Manchester which I visit from time to time for my lunch.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A visual contribution to the above:

[jjj]

It is a perfectly accurate little saying. If being accurate is a put down, so be it. And it is only a put down in the sense that they can not pretend to be great writers, artists or business people. They can still be great teachers, however.

It's simply a sneering put down by people who are actually showing how ignorant they are and not as they think, how clever they are.
You cannot teach what you do not know. And why is being a teacher seen as inferior to doing other jobs anyway, particularly as most people get to learn what they know from…teachers.

I saw a very good comic strip the other day about this ignorant attitude towards teaching. But cannot remember who did it.