Somewhere in my personal "academic archive" I have a letter Gary Monroe left for me in my final portfolio for a b&w photography class I took when I was just starting off as a photographer. In many ways it was the standard "teacher letter" full of positives and a couple of suggestions but at the end I remember it said that I had "the eye."
At the time I thought this was a Gary phrase but as I continued through school I heard it used by others and eventually found myself using the term for some of my own students. A quick search on Google didn't produce much on this, but the basic idea behind "the eye" is one who possesses an innate sense of aesthetics - Someone who is able to see a good composition almost instinctively.
"The eye" is often described something you have or don't have. Usually the comment would come up in a conversation such as:
"Jimmy is such a sloppy printer. Look at all those developer stains."
"Yeah, but he's got the eye."
"The eye" is separate from technical proficiency. Mechanical mastery is a separate occurrence from having "the eye." It seems that most are resigned in the belief that this wasn't something that could be taught. Or could it?
In an hour's time I will start a new semester of a digital photography and imaging course entitled The Digital Image in Art. In revising my course materials I started to think more and more of this issue of "the eye" and whether or not I could "teach" this ability to my students. Is "the eye" really just the process of thinking creatively? Or is it an observational tool?
In either case these are both learned skills. We can teach students how to think creatively. We can teach students how to observe differently. Technical proficiency is a valuable skill. It should be a significant part of education, but the real value of education is to impart that which seems intangible. I think we can learn "the eye." I think the eye is a measurement of both creative and observational skill.
In an hour's time I will start a new semester of a digital photography and imaging course entitled The Digital Image in Art. In revising my course materials I started to think more and more of this issue of "the eye" and whether or not I could "teach" this ability to my students. Is "the eye" really just the process of thinking creatively? Or is it an observational tool?
In either case these are both learned skills. We can teach students how to think creatively. We can teach students how to observe differently. Technical proficiency is a valuable skill. It should be a significant part of education, but the real value of education is to impart that which seems intangible. I think we can learn "the eye." I think the eye is a measurement of both creative and observational skill.
That sounds like the argument I've heard in creative writing that "you can't teach creative writing". I've discovered that that's mostly bull. Yes, there are artistic aspects to writing in which each of us will present a unique vision. But there is also a craft to writing which can be taught. I wonder if "the eye" is similar to this idea.
ReplyDelete