Quote:
Originally Posted by tboy
Yes sir! I teach a basic photo class 5 semesters, the exact same syllabus. It's a good program, and students get good info. But, finally, a kid has the gonads and the insight to tell me I might be spending a little too much time on surrealism. I review what I'm doing and realize that I'm messing up because of my own interests. A shift to increased focus (no pun) on basic composition, and the whole next class gets a "higher quality" product, with more value for that learning level.
|
Great example.
Quality can only be determined when measured against a 'desired outcome' I would say.
I mean it's not as if what you were teaching before was of poor quality I'm guessing. And certainly for the outcome you wanted at that time you followed all the steps to acheive it correctly.
What
has changed, as you've pointed out, is 'focus' or put another way the 'desired outcome' is different, not the level of 'quality'.
The level of quality has not changed but the criteria you use to judge 'quality' has changed to include the suggestions of the young man you mention.
Quality is a moveable feast it seems to me. If you ask 'it' to sit still you will only be disappointed by 'it's' reaction.
Here's how I would ultimately define Quality. Quality is a word. And like all words it is only symbolic of an experience our nervous system is having in relation to other perceptions.
Since none of us have exactly the same nerous system or perceptions it seems ludicrous to try to arrive at a universal description. That doesn't however mean it's not a worthwhile effort.