To put it with maximum extremity, should a student be able to turn-in a traced photograph for their homework in a life drawing class?
I mean, human beings have produced a lot of tools for aiding themselves in tasks that were previously done by hand. Whether a given hand-skill should be learned and preserved kind of has to decided on a case-by-case basis. I learned cursive in school and I wouldn't object to that skill being utterly forgotten by humanity.
Which is to say that I don't think we should assume all learning should begin without automatic tools at hand or that we should suppress automatic tools. Rather, we need to look carefully at which hand-skills are worthwhile and "uplifting" and how much use of those skills should be required.
> should a student be able to turn-in a traced photograph for their homework in a life drawing class?
I did just that. It wasn't a life drawing class, just a drawing class. And it wasn't homework, but the do-it-at-home final. I photocopied my hand. Then I covered a sheet of paper with ground graphite (turning it all nearly black), and then used an eraser and a light-box to trace my photocopied hand. Did I cheat? Perhaps, but I used tools that I had access to. Did Vermeer cheat? [1] Perhaps, he may have used tools he had access to.
Afterwards, I framed that drawing and hung it up at work. It was stolen. Go figure.
> I don't know. You could have also let someone else do your homework for you. Does that also count as "using tools that you have access to"?
Keep in mind that the reverse is also true: If he did try to do it all manually & without the tracing method, is his use of already-available graphite "using tools that you have access to"? Should he be made to go to a mine & dig out coal for graphite in order for it to count as his work?
> Should he be made to go to a mine & dig out coal for graphite in order for it to count as his work?
That argument doesn't make any sense. There are restrictions for any homework, some explictly given by their professor (such as the deadline), and some implicitly known from general academic guidelines and common sense (such as "not using a photocopier in an art class"). Obviously mining coal is not among those restrictions.
> That argument doesn't make any sense. There are restrictions for any homework, some explictly given by their professor (such as the deadline), and some implicitly known from general academic guidelines and common sense (such as "not using a photocopier in an art class"). Obviously mining coal is not among those restrictions.
...is it?
"general academic guidelines and common sense" is a subjective term that is (context, culture, & environment) dependent: If the social norm was "Your work isn't valuable unless you made the materials yourself", then the use of non-self-made materials (graphite not mined by yourself) is frowned upon.
Relying on "general academic guidelines and common sense" is not a good thing, as it helps to reinforce unequal social norms & anti-non-heteronormative ideologies, as a downstream consequence of majority rule by statistically normal people. Neurodivergent individuals that have significant difficulties grasping "common sense" will & already have been negatively impacted under such a system, where they're told to just "get it" with no guidelines whatsoever.
I wouldn't call myself neurodivergent, yet I don't support relying on common sense either. That being said, you can't make me believe that a student (neurodivergent or otherwise) would assume that they are expected to mine coal as part of their homework.
If a neurodivergent person uses a photocopier because they thought that it would be fine, then yeah, I'd understand that. The person who started this thread stated that they were perfectly aware that they were cheating, though.
> Yes that’s cheating. We don’t give runners roller blades right?
The context surrounding both scenarios couldn't be more different:
GP's context: An assignment wherein the process of getting there isn't placed on a pedestal, rather that it's supposed to showcase a basic understanding of how to get to a desired result. Furthermore, objectivity within the assignment's field is nearly non-existent.
Your context: A highly-competitive scenario wherein *BOTH* the process of getting to the goal & the goal itself are important, and where *there are* objective metrics that can be used to rank & sort the participants involved in said competition.
> To put it with maximum extremity, should a student be able to turn-in a traced photograph for their homework in a life drawing class?
Vermeer may have done effectively that and painted projections (from a camera obscura or similar device). He's still widely considered one of the greatest artists of the Dutch Golden Age.
Possibly. It's not proven that Vermeer used any device, though it does seem likely. The Camera Lucida was extremely obscure in Vermeer's time, so it's less likely he used one than the (much older and simpler) Camera Obscura.
It comes down to what the goal is. If it's to learn to draw people, no. If it's to learn composition and this gets you past struggling to draw and onto the actual goal then sure.
I mean, human beings have produced a lot of tools for aiding themselves in tasks that were previously done by hand. Whether a given hand-skill should be learned and preserved kind of has to decided on a case-by-case basis. I learned cursive in school and I wouldn't object to that skill being utterly forgotten by humanity.
Which is to say that I don't think we should assume all learning should begin without automatic tools at hand or that we should suppress automatic tools. Rather, we need to look carefully at which hand-skills are worthwhile and "uplifting" and how much use of those skills should be required.