Is anything without the underpinning of theory? What is the role of theory in education? Ought one to teach theory before or after practice? Many actions can be executed without formal theoretical knowledge: fighting for example can be known theoretically, yet one can still win a fight without formal martial training. It seems to be the same in Fine Arts–from my own experience. I was never trained to do art formally until college; however, I was a proficient artist before then. I am wondering, which comes first practice or theory? With regard to a pedagogical model, it seems to me one could either begin with the theory behind something (how to draw in perspective for example) and then say, “now go do that,” or one could have them actually practice and perhaps succeed (at drawing in perspective) and then tell them, “what you were doing was this thing called perspective.” But which is more beneficial? Does anyone have a handy dandy Aristotle quote, or an experience with this? I guess it could also depend on the circumstances, but for the practice of art. The idea is to literally create an abstraction of reality that attempts to conform to reality. So is it better to know tricks of the trade if it were or is it better to do it the other way. I have one student who knowing the laws of perspective has no ability to draw anything unless he can put it in a plane. But the human figure isn’t in perspective, so he can only draw things that look very mechanical. I wonder how he would do with abstraction. If he didn’t have perspective it may be that he would actually have to look at the world closer, but now I’m just rambling. So my question again, which do you have them know or do first? Or is it a bit of both? I usually will start with the theory and then have them practice the theory in specific ways. That is working for some, but others have a hard time digesting the theory. I would greatly appreciate any philosophically based answers, as this is somewhat a philosophy of education question.
Cheers,
Peter
