I’m willing to have a go simply for p7eaven but there are 1001 other things WAY more important and interesting to me.
No please don’t . I guessed that a 10 min sketch/basic anatomical drawing exercise would be fun and interesting to later compare our cognition/way of seeing things/compare difficulties encountered during completion.
If it’s not fun/reciprocally informative for you Steve then please ignore the suggestion. I just wanted to understand how/if you ‘see’ the process differently (than me, for instance) and was my thinking that 10 mins on that could have revealed much more than any hours of text/typing/back and forth.
Trying to imagine how you enjoy (?) or have no trouble drawing a car but not (say) a shark (or mechanical shark such as the Jaws animatronic shark) was keeping me awake pondering. Because it made me think about why I also struggle with constructive drawing/anatomy and why you have a ‘block’ with learning to sketch organic subjects (?) yet not mechanical subjects. Or maybe you never tried sketching because you don’t ‘get’ why/how anyone would sketch? Etc etc etc.
Anyone else want to have go, here it was:
We’re at cross porpoises again. My question was (and generally are) quite literal. So when I’m asking you ‘what did they win’ and enquire after a link – I want to know
It's just general and that picture is just a google. As it happens it's part of a good article but that's totally by accident on my part.
When were paleontologists first aware that Spinosaurus aegyptiacus was likely an aquatic dinosaur? Why would they since then commission/sign off on pictures of a more terrestrial creature? That makes them bad paleos/editors/examiners etc surely?
Don't view this as a conspiracy, rather it's tow the line.
Aware it ate fish? Since the first isotopic studies ..
Aware it was aquatic? - not a specific date.... more mounting evidence but 2014 was a year it got harder to pretend... however there was never any evidence it was terrestrial. It was just due to drawings that it was taught that way.
The first samples were limited and in any case destroyed in the Allied bombing...
Actually (and somewhat by random) the picture is part of this blog post I didn't read at the time.
Although this is leaning towards non terrestial it still seems to be partially defending the artist line (there is a whole para on notes for artists)
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2020/05/spinosaurus-2020-thoughts-for-artists.html
The thing here though is its not about the drawing or painting, like the Government with Covid it's about not asking the right questions and picking parts of scientific advice and ignoring others (perhaps due to lack of understanding).
An example of that is: (sic) just a made up conversation...
Boris: "Do you have evidence masks prevent infection of the novel corona virus"
Scientist: "No we haven't tested because it's obvious and we have other priorities"
Boris: "So you don't have evidence"
Scientist: "We don't have any evidence they don't"
Outcome: "Masks are harmful and cause the spread of coronavirus"
[This is all very stylised just to illustrate]
The funny thing is perhaps a lack of understanding could well be a "disability"
In this case having botched the PPE multiple times perhaps it's what he wanted to beleive. His orange counterpart had even crazier ideas... again either convinced or simply pretending it was science.
I guess one point of this is we all have different skills... in this case the "required skill" is listening to the scientists. (or previously economists)
Bringing it back on track a bit...
It's more than possible the people that like drawing fantasy dinosaurs don't actually understand much of the evidence. Perhaps a strange parallel considering but this is like creationists arguing fossils are created by the devil.
I'm not going to write a whole thing about how you tell the diet from isotopes. It's pretty definitive. Despite this spinosaurus is continually referenced as a "meat eating therapod".
It's huge paddle tail is excused a counterbalance so it can stand by the water (and catch fish)
Not mentioned in the blog but its been modelled and it is more efficient than crocodilian tails [Nature earlier this year]
Them main point is actually that we don't need artists impressions, we have computers and cameras.
My assertion is that artists impressions can actually be harmful to the science but that is just a distraction.
But to back up on everything....
The point is making some skills/talent that has nothing to do with a subject (at least contemporary) a pre-requisite.
We might as well test geography students based on how long they can hold their breath or history students should show a good level of flexibility and be able to touch their toes...
The assertion that biology/paleo students need to be able to draw isn't really linked to either reality or that an illustration can confer useful information. [As asserted by others]
In reality they don't need to draw... It's useful a physicist can hold a pen but noone told Stephen Hawkins he couldn't be a physicist and he found a way around it.
If you can't draw (or simply its quicker/easier and more accurate to use another method) then that is equally valid IMHO.
No please don’t . I guessed that a 10 min sketch/basic anatomical drawing exercise would be fun and interesting to later compare our cognition/way of seeing things/compare difficulties encountered during completion.
If it’s not fun/reciprocally informative for you Steve then please ignore the suggestion. I just wanted to understand how/if you ‘see’ the process differently (than me, for instance) and was my thinking that 10 mins on that could have revealed much more than any hours of text/typing/back and forth.
I don't mind I'm just doing stuff. I don't think it will help me draw but that doesn't matter if it helps you. As you say its 10 mins once I pens/pencils....
As it happens at the moment I'm concurrently
Trying to get access to a laser printer ...
Etching some brass and aluminium ...
Doing coats of paint of fork crowns...
Building another wheel... A rim arrived earlier.
Arranging blood tests and a Covid test as I can't have a colonoscopy without the negative Covid
Thanks for the link Steve. I notice that the blogger doesn’t credit/link that image either. To me that’s the very definition of bad practice in a scholarly/and or publishing sphere. Although this is becoming more and more common with the internet.
Still not seeing why/how
1. Biologist/paleos would (and if what you say is true, always have?) commission/ed fundamentally inaccurate and misleading artistic impressions? Even deferred to to them?
2. Being a (sic) ‘gifted’ scientific illustrator is a prerequisite for biology/paleo course entry? I was under the (maybe false) impression that a scientific illustrator (including paleo artist) was a vocation of its own?
https://work.chron.com/become-scientific-illustrator-17160.html
I don’t mind I’m just doing stuff. I don’t think it will help me draw but that doesn’t matter if it helps you. As you say its 10 mins once I pens/pencils….
I’m literally pleading you not to! Approx 99% of everyone I know say that they ‘can’t draw/play music/do equations*’ and ‘never will’ So I’ve got a huge number of options of people to annoy 😉
*Me included
Before I forget -
If only this had been available to you/us back in nineteensomethingsomething?
I wonder if someone might develop a similar resource for geology students?
Here’s an example of a ‘competent, well-labelled field sketch’
Surely a similar (to biorender?) app could be developed for students who have trouble with hand-eye co-ordination/motor skills (?)
It would have scales and labelling and a huge library of geological features in the same way?
1. Biologist/paleos would (and if what you say is true, always have?) commission/ed fundamentally inaccurate and misleading artistic impressions? Even deferred to to them?
It's not deliberately misleading, it's simply a function of taking the nicest drawing.
There then seems to be a reluctance to apply the scientific method until someone does a "nicer" drawing. I find this as bizarre as you.
2. Being a (sic) ‘gifted’ scientific illustrator is a prerequisite for biology/paleo course entry? I was under the (maybe false) impression that a scientific illustrator (including paleo artist) was a vocation of its own?
Yep and I have worked with many scientific illustrators and cartographers.
Hence why it seems so weird to have this as an entry requirement for biology in the 21C.
Biorender looks cool... the thing about the sketch is I don't actually know what's wrong or missing. I do in part since I know that cutting... and the caption also says the flute marks are missed.
However the geometry of the folds is a bit off from what I can see and no explanation why. Is it a fault missed, is it "poor drawing"? All of which I could tell from some photo's.
If I wanted to build a model from this (for example palinoplastic restoration where we incrementally remove folds and faults back to pre-tectonism) I strongly suspect the inaccuracies will prove a pain and need editing.
If this was "real" being honest and I wanted to build a model I'd jump in the car and just go and take a bunch of photos. Do a rough trace for labels on a mobile device then vectorise properly when I got back.
However imagine instead this is in the middle of a Brazilian jungle... not a 6hr drive away.
Even better would be to be able to draw/label over a variable transparency photo... (which is so easily done today).
Hence why it seems so weird to have this as an entry requirement for biology in the 21C.
^ (is skeptical)
It’s not deliberately misleading, it’s simply a function of taking the nicest drawing.
There then seems to be a reluctance to apply the scientific method until someone does a “nicer” drawing. I find this as bizarre as you.
It blows my mind that scientists/biologists have been so dumb/dishonest for so long.
Biologist- Here is your fee. Draw me an aquatic reptile. Here are the scale measurements, sketches/photographs and list of known and probable features..
Scientific illustrator - (draws a fat land mammal)
B - Hmmm. Not great. Let me ask someone else
SI2- (draws semi-aquatic beaverdinosaur)
B - That’ll do. Here is your fee.
Sack ‘em all. Better artists and biologists required. I really missed my calling (thanks ADD, also not recognised as a learning disability) Except it always stopped me learning/progressing to degree level/staying on task, still does. On the upside...hyperfocal and lateral-thinking skills are off the chart 😕
I've got no reason to doubt what Poly? posted...
Even a quick google
This justificati0on seems very weak to me... and is obviously going to put off someone who can't draw. (or just thinks they can't)
The drawing provides a permanent record of what
has been observed. There is a historic tradition within
biology of providing accurate records of specimens so that
the images could be used for future reference purposes.
Today’s taxonomists are often indebted to the illustrators
of the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly where the
‘type’ (reference) specimen may only exist as an illustration.
Even today, when digital photography can be used to
store images, artists are still often commissioned to record
biological specimens of interest by drawing or painting.
This is particularly true for flowering plants. This is partly
because all the features of interest can be combined in
one or several scientifically accurate, but aesthetic, images
with great clarity (see Figure 1).
Even better would be to be able to draw/label over a variable transparency photo… (which is so easily done today).
^ This did occur to me the other day. Tracing is just a technique of drawing. Us artists use it all of the time to this degree or that. Laypeople seem to think it ‘cheating’ and so mistakenly rule it out as an option. I would imagine many geology teachers and biology teachers are also laypersons in that respect.
Here are some listed requirements to pursue a ‘scientific illustrator’ as a career:
Admissions to master's degree programs are very competitive, as typically 16 or fewer students are accepted per academic year. Successful applicants have a bachelor's degree in science and a portfolio of work that includes both traditional and digitally-rendered examples. A personal interview is also required.
Undergraduate Preparation
College art courses should include drawing, life drawing, painting, color theory, graphic design and computer graphics. Undergraduate coursework in science should be of the same caliber as that required for science majors, including:
Anatomy and physiology.
Biology.
Cell biology.
Chemistry.
Developmental biology.
Vertebrate Anatomy.
Zoology.Source:
https://work.chron.com/become-scientific-illustrator-17160.html
(My bold)
As someone who has recently studied/continues to study drawing I know that tracing is just one basic tool/technique. It blows my mind that aspiring college-entrants are being barred from using such a basic tool of drawing in order to create a ****ing drawing/diagram!!!! Now I’m mad (again) at teachers/tutors who seem to know next to nothing not only about the subjects they are teaching, but also nothing at all about the subsidiary techniques they are required to employ.
The first thing I did in painting class was to trace the outlines and values (tonal areas) of a photograph of a classical bust sculpture. This was in order to quickly and efficientlydefine boundaries and proportions in order for the painting process* to begin. *What we were studying at that moment.
‘Drawing’ =/= ‘life drawing’
‘Drawing’ =/= ‘engineering drawing’
In the same way that
‘Cycling’ =/= ‘(insert advanced MTB technique)
‘Cycling’ =/= ‘Riding only a certain rail using only certain bike, using only prescribed methods, at a certain heading and not deviating more than Xmm‘)
?
I’ve got no reason to doubt what Poly? posted…
Even a quick google
I’m generally both skeptical and curious, with a (to many) annoying requirement for detail and context. So with that in mind, I looked at the link and read it.
A Level
GUIDANCE FOR BIOLOGICAL DRAWING
What equipment is needed?• Sharp pencil - HB is generally preferred, but H, 2H or B (for emphasis) can all be used according to preference.
• Pencil sharpener - A nail file may also be useful to keep the point really sharp.
• Eraser
• Ruler - For label lines.
• Plain paper
General PrinciplesWhen assessing biological drawing, marks are awarded for both quality of drawing and labelling. The latter may include annotation. The general principles described below apply to all types of biological drawing:
• Make the drawing large enough. If the specimen is a relatively large structure such as a plant or a section of
an organ, it should normally occupy more than half the available space on the page. In microscopy, individual cells drawn at high power should be about one to several centimetres in diameter.• Correct mistakes. If you make a mistake, use a good quality eraser to rub out the lines completely.
• Include a title. Include a title stating what the specimen is.
• Include a scale. Include a scale if relevant (see Labelling below). If you are drawing from a microscope, it is useful to state the combined magnification of the eyepiece plus objective lenses used when making the drawing, e.g. x100 (low power) or x400 (high power). Note, though, that this is not the same as recording the scale.Labelling
When labelling biological drawings, follow the guidance below:
• Use a sharp pencil.
• Label all relevant structures, including all tissues in the case of microscopy.
• Use a ruler for label lines and scale bars.
• Label lines should start exactly at the structure being labelled; don’t use arrowheads.
• Arrange label lines neatly and make sure they don’t cross over each other. It is visually attractive, though not essential, if the length of the label lines is adjusted so that the actual labels are right or left justified, i.e. line up vertically above each other on either side of the drawing.
• Labels should be written horizontally, as in a textbook, not written at the same angle as the label line.
• As previously mentioned, a title, stating what the specimen is, should be added at the top or bottom of the drawing.• Add a scale bar immediately below the drawing if necessary (see below).
• Use a sharp pencil only. Don’t use pens or coloured pencils.
• Use clear, continuous lines. A line which encloses a shape, such as a circle, should join up neatly without obvious overlap. Overlapping lines is a common error in hastily drawn sketches and is easily spotted and penalised by examiners.
• Don’t use any form of shading. This includes stippling, cross-hatching and shading. Students find this is a hard instruction to follow, and it is sometimes difficult to justify. Although shading may help to make the drawing look more realistic and/or to discriminate between areas of the specimen, it does not represent a permanent structural feature. Artistic impression is certainly not what is required.
• Accuracy is paramount. It shows good observation. Remember that observation is assisted by understanding, so a good knowledge of theory goes alongside good drawing. Pay particular attention to the outlines of structures and to the relative proportions of different parts of the specimen. Don’t draw what you think you should see, for example text book style drawings. Draw what you observe.
• Guidelines can help. Faint sketching of the main areas of the specimen which can later be erased may help. Some students find a simple grid helps them.
• Magnification and illumination. To help in the
drawing process it is often useful to use a hand lens or a magnifying glass for larger specimens and, for microscopy, both low and high power lenses when making preliminary observations. Field biologists usually carry a hand lens
as standard equipment. Dissection, and drawing from a dissection, is greatly aided by good illumination of the specimen by a lamp and by a tripod lens placed over the material where possible.
Nothing about fantasy dinosaurs or realistically-rendered 3D-looking diagrams and vistas (the jobs of a scientific illustrator (?), see separate requirements above)
The A Level guidelines you just linked to above also (of course) give examples of what they mean by ‘good biological drawings’
The following figures are good biological drawings. Figure 2 shows a drawing made from a heart dissection and Figure 3 shows two flowers during a fieldwork exercise
Figure 2: Drawing of the base of the aorta showing the aortic (semilunar) valve through which blood leaves the left ventricle of a mammalian heart. (Note the fibrous swelling at the middle of the cusps may not be present in some mammalian hearts.) This is a good biological drawing, fully labelled, and clearly showing detail from the dissection, although care should be taken to ensure lines do not overlap or are left incomplete. Also, a scale bar is not present.
Figure 3: The difference in arrangement of the sepals in two species of buttercup, Ranunculus bulbosus and R. repens. Again, this is a good biological drawing, showing specific details of the flowers and labelling them accordingly. However, care should be taken to ensure lines do not overlap or are left incomplete. Also, a scale bar is not present.
^ None of which examples or descriptions compare with the requirements I linked re the (profession) of ‘scientific illustrator’?
Of course, (ie) the above biological drawings may be difficult to achieve for some people for whatever reason/s - but with drawing tools such as grids, photos, tracing, etc it should be within the range of most? (Otherwise these days use biorender or similar)...
...but all of that is moot I suppose if a teacher/tutor/examiner is unqualified/misapprehended and somehow confused the (Masters Degree, artistic profession) of painting/rendering of photorealistic dinoramas etc...
...with A Level Biology Drawing as described above? Sack ‘em, because they can’t even read their own guidelines!
This justification seems very weak to me
But you didn’t quote the ‘justifications’, you only quoted (What I see to be) the addendum (ie the historical background) and somehow missed the ‘why bother’ part?
Why bother?
The ability to draw, label and annotate biological specimens
is an important and useful biological skill. These days students may well challenge the need for making biological drawings, particularly given the ease of using digital photography for record-keeping. So how can it be justified? The following points help to provide a rationale for developing biological drawing skills:
• Accurate observation and attention to detail is encouraged. Having to draw a biological specimen not only increases the amount of time spent examining the specimen, which in itself will aid learning, but requires a much greater level of accurate observation than a casual examination.
• Active recording aids memory. The educational philosophy behind this is neatly summarised in the well-known Chinese proverb:
I hear and I forget
I see and I remember I do and I understand
Confucius• The drawing* provides a permanent record of what
has been observed.
*as per guidelines. ie sharp pencil. Continuous lines. Labels. Scale. No shading.
You instead quoted only the end paragraph, which removes it from context. Because this last paragraph (from what I gather) describes the historical background of recording specimens *and* also differentiates ‘illustrators’, which I think I’ve shown is now a distinct profession from the days when a biologist would ‘ do it all’ (including often poor drawing and painting skills). Somewhat like in the days when a racing driver would not only drive a car but would build it, maintain and service it, and even help design and build the racetrack, while not being a ‘professional’ in any of these now distinct-yet-related professions in the way people are today.
....(addendum?) There is a historic tradition within biology of providing accurate records of specimens so that the images could be used for future reference purposes. Today’s taxonomists are often indebted to the illustrators of the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly where the ‘type’ (reference) specimen may only exist as an illustration. Even today, when digital photography can be used to store images, artists are still often commissioned* to record biological specimens of interest by drawing or painting. This is particularly true for flowering plants. This is partly because all the features of interest can be combined in one or several scientifically accurate, but aesthetic, images.
* Not biologists/biology students. Commissioned artists.
If your kid’s teacher was marking him/her higher in biology for their art/illustration/colour-theory/life-drawing skills achievements and not sticking to Biology Drawing guidelines, then again, I would be taking it up at the highest level available. Because our kid’s super-artistic (?) drawings/paintings wouldn’t help them (probably hinder them) at A Level or any degree level science (not art) subject. Especially if they hadn’t learned what the actual guidelines are, because they were being wrongly flattered/misled by a hopelessly uninformed and worse than useless teacher.
If that proved fruitless then I’d go public.
@stevextc - really, of all the fairground photos on the whole damn internet, did I choose one of yours to draw for Inktober ‘dizzy’??
(sorry for digression!)
Scientific drawings are an important part of the science of biology and all biologists must be able to produce good quality scientific drawings regardless of your artistic ability.
Drawings not only allow you to record an image of the specimen observed, but more importantly, they help you to remember the specimen as well as the important features of the specimen. You will be required to look at a large number of specimens during this course and you are much more likely to remember them if you have to draw each one.
Drawing a specimen requires you to pay attention to detail so that you can re-create it on the sheet. While doing this, your brain is recording these same features in such a way that you can recall them if necessary (for example in an exam). Simply observing pictures of specimens in a book or on a computer screen is less effective when it comes to remembering and understanding what you observed. All drawings done for this course must adhere to standard rules of scientific illustration. The following are some guidelines that you are to use when illustrating specimens:
This is what was quoted by someone else earlier. Just posting that before I answer any specifics.
What stands out to me is the assumption that drawing will somehow help me remember these.
As far as I'm concerned I remember nothing as my mind blanks out the entire trauma.
When assessing biological drawing, marks are awarded for both quality of drawing and labelling. The latter may include annotation. The general principles described below apply to all types of biological drawing:
From the A level (above)
In the same way that
‘Cycling’ =/= ‘(insert advanced MTB technique
So in that context it's like saying you need to do gap jumps to learn to ride a bike.
Assuming you survive then are you going to remember the rest of the terror of the gap jump?
Of course, (ie) the above biological drawings may be difficult to achieve for some people for whatever reason/s – but with drawing tools such as grids, photos, tracing, etc it should be within the range of most? (Otherwise these days use biorender or similar)…
None of which examples or descriptions compare with the requirements I linked re the (profession) of ‘scientific illustrator’
Exactly ... nor is it a case of NEEDING to do this which is my main point.
In real life drawing (as per the instructions) isn't required. Probably more than not required as actual photo's are expected in the real world. I've sent off dozens of paleo and palynolgy (pollen) samples since the late 90's and the reports always have actual photo's.
Field sketches get done from photo's by the scientific illustrators...
Accuracy or speed of being able to draw are pretty much defunct so giving marks for these is imho punitive to those who can't or take ages to get a single drawing looking anything even half decent.
Now I have to take some brass out of a ferric chloride bath.... wish me luck.
When assessing biological drawing, marks are awarded for both quality of drawing and labelling. The latter may include annotation. The general principles described below apply to all types of biological drawing:
From the A level (above)
In the same way that
‘Cycling’ =/= ‘(insert advanced MTB technique)
Eh?
They gave clear list and examples of what they mean by ‘quality of drawing and labelling’ in the context.
The context/classification is ‘biological drawing A level’ I don’t know how it could be any more clear?
^ If that to ‘biological drawing’ is equivalent to ‘advanced technique’ to ‘MTBing‘ (not ‘cycling’) then ‘advanced MTB techniques’ have a different classification/level to that which I understand. And anyway ‘advanced MTB’ may be ‘hopping a twig‘ for Jack vs ‘clearing a 30ft gap w/double backflip for Jill*
If the above (‘quality’) biological drawing example is prohibitively difficult and/or you haven’t got time/ability to learn to sketch such ‘from life’ (just one technique of drawing) then simply use other drawing techniques such as a grid, tracing a photo, camera lucida app, etc etc as a starting point?
Ultimately, if any whatsoever type of drawing technique method is simply impractical/impossible for you (including tracing from photo, camera lucida, etc) then I’d be surprised if allowances weren’t made. Maybe not. Dunno. Like I say, best take it up with a biologist/prof/examiner?
Whichever, I think it reprehensible that your way was barred liek that with no guidance, discussion, options etc(?)
For contrast - when someone asks me to teach them painting ‘but I can’t draw’ - then I say ‘OK...’
If someone asked me to teach them biology ‘but I can’t draw’ then I’d say ‘what kind of ‘drawing’ do you need to achieve in order to study biology...and how do we get there?
Standardised education is a big bugbear of mine (obviously). Not least because half of the time teachers don’t know what the **** their own guidelines are, especially for non-NT
really, of all the fairground photos on the whole damn internet, did I choose one of yours to draw for Inktober ‘dizzy’??
(sorry for digression!)
Possibly but probably not though mine is a copy/tribute to Cartier Bresson anyway...
They gave clear list and examples of what they mean by ‘quality of drawing and labelling’ in the context.
The context/classification is ‘biological drawing A level’ I don’t know how it could be any more clear?
^ If that to ‘biological drawing’ is equivalent to ‘advanced technique’ to ‘MTBing‘ (not ‘cycling’) then ‘advanced MTB techniques’ have a different classification/level to that which I understand.
• Use clear, continuous lines. A line which encloses a shape, such as a circle, should join up neatly without obvious overlap. Overlapping lines is a common error in hastily drawn sketches and is easily spotted and penalised by examiners.
• Accuracy is paramount. It shows good observation. Remember that observation is assisted by understanding, so a good knowledge of theory goes alongside good drawing. Pay particular attention to the outlines of structures and to the relative proportions of different parts of the specimen. Don’t draw what you think you should see, for example text book style drawings. Draw what you observe.
So those statements ?
Overlapping lines - a common symptom of being crap at drawing.
Accuracy is paramount - a common symptom of being good at drawing
relative proportions of different parts of the specimen - yeah something people that can draw do
[the point here is all these things are viewed as "hasty", "lazy" etc. and penalised AND this is meant to be biology not fine art being taught examined]
If the above (‘quality’) biological drawing example is prohibitively difficult and/or you haven’t got time/ability to learn to sketch such ‘from life’ (just one technique of drawing) then simply use other drawing techniques such as a grid, tracing a photo, camera lucida app, etc etc as a starting point?
Well exactly.... except you can't do that in practicals and exams.
The point is I could spend the entire 1hr practical trying to draw that and it would still be crap and penalised. I know people that can do that in < 1 min absolutely perfectly.
The practical isn't meant to be testing drawing ability but knowledge and understanding of biology.
…but all of that is moot I suppose if a teacher/tutor/examiner is unqualified/misapprehended and somehow confused the (Masters Degree, artistic profession) of painting/rendering of photorealistic dinoramas etc…
The confusion is deeper .. they are meant to be teaching/examining knowledge of biology (history/geography/whatever) drawing ability is irrelevant.
When I was doing yr1 paleo we would be given 10-20 samples in a 2 hour practical so basically a few minutes each.
The problem is for some of us the practical is simply an exercise in how crap we are at drawing.
For many of us the hurdle is the drawing so if Jack and Jill turn up for cycling proficiency and they are told they will be awarded marks for a no hands backflip it's irrelevant.
Whatever they learn about signalling and road position I'm pretty certain all Jack will remember from that day is terror and smacking his head into concrete.
If someone asked me to teach them biology ‘but I can’t draw’ then I’d say ‘what kind of ‘drawing’ do you need to achieve in order to study biology…and how do we get there?
My issue is why would you have to learn to draw at all to study biology?
It's 2020 ... after all
Trying to imagine how you enjoy (?) or have no trouble drawing a car but not (say) a shark (or mechanical shark such as the Jaws animatronic shark) was keeping me awake pondering. Because it made me think about why I also struggle with constructive drawing/anatomy and why you have a ‘block’ with learning to sketch organic subjects (?) yet not mechanical subjects. Or maybe you never tried sketching because you don’t ‘get’ why/how anyone would sketch? Etc etc etc.
Sorry, part of this explains the above.
Basically (and right now the STW ad shows a fallow doe under so I'll use that)
If I tried to draw that freehand then:
The lines wouldn't meet (by a long way)
Trying to adjust for them to meet... stuff just ends up in the wrong place.
I could print it out (as I'm sat on my computer) and then trace or put a grid over.
Much as that might work as a leisure activity it wouldn't work in a biology/paleo practical....
HOWEVER ... in REAL LIFE if I wanted to "do something" with that picture of the doe I'd just download and vectorise it.
As a example ...
Combination of techniques to produce this but ALL on the computer. The ferret is processed, vectorised, half deleted then mirrored. The shield is just pure maths defined. The chainring is processed and vectorised.
I've been trying to etch some badges from this and similar but where the resist (iron on from laser print) hasn't stuck I need to tart up by hand.
It's an absolute disaster for me to pick up a pen other than filling in black areas that already exist but just have holes. I can't even copy one side to the other... stuff doesn't meet, its the wrong proportions etc. etc.
I'm quite happy with this .. if I could just get the transfer correct.
So why would I even TRY and hand draw it. 1/2 hour on a computer vs a day to produce something completely rubbish by hand.
The confusion is deeper .. they are meant to be teaching/examining knowledge of biology (history/geography/whatever) drawing ability is irrelevant.
(assumes devil’s advocate stance)
With the greatest respect, do you know how and why biological drawings are created and used? For what purpose? In both teaching/learning and recording?
I find it crucial to fully understand a conflicting position if one is to argue against that position.
So in order not to attack strawmen, why not first make ‘their’ argument FOR them?
Why, how and where would biological drawings be important? In learning, teaching and recording?
Let’s say for instance if a (NT/non-savant) biology student had access to library of vector art which included every (so far discovered and observed) biological cell and feature. Ever conceivable diagram. pre-drawn and pre-labelled. Furthermore each 2d diagram/drawing also has a perfect 3d model and key.
How would that be an objectively inferior way to learn than current methods?
Would a student/biologist learn and remember less (and more slowly) by observing a construction rather than constructing from observation?
Also, as you claim to ‘just know things’ (advanced mathematics, geometry, perspective, ‘regional language’ etc...) and you ‘just know these things‘ without the prior requirement for learning - then this puts you in a very, very, very small category of ‘genius savant‘ (?)
But...how does your experience and knowledge of ‘the science of learning’ inform you about the learning process for most everyone else? So much so that you claim to know more (and better) about the science of learning?
With the greatest respect, do you know how and why biological drawings are created and used? For what purpose? In both teaching/learning and recording?
I read the arguments.... I don't think they are WHY though.
So in order not to attack strawmen, why not first make ‘their’ argument FOR them?
Teaching: "Cos that's how we did it". (and add in a smattering of your 10 points, resistance to change and lazyness to see it another way)
Learning: It's not a choice... as such it's dictated by teaching and examining. It might work great for some but doubtless very badly for others and OK for a load in the middle.
Recording: No... not in the real world
Let’s say for instance if a (NT/non-savant) biology student had access to library of vector art which included every (so far discovered and observed) biological cell and feature. Ever conceivable diagram. pre-drawn and pre-labelled. Furthermore each 2d diagram/drawing also has a perfect 3d model and key.
How would that be an objectively inferior way to learn than current methods?
Probably depends a lot on that specific student...
It's one way ... it doesn't need to be completed diagrams though... someone could drag and drop the parts of the cell for example.
So here's a off the wall idea.... what if instead of drawing a flower they make a virtual flower... from each cell up... [the Ranunculus bulbosus and R. repens. pics] to the circulatory system and ova.
Make the cells, clone them, grow the flower see how all this fits together... just like in a CAD model.
In the above there is a label "one of 5 petals" .. so why draw the other 4? The label makes little observation such as pentameral symmetry... (or not)...
I can't speak for EVERY student but that for ME would improve my understanding and learning considerably over being told "draw this".
Also, as you claim to ‘just know things’ (advanced mathematics, geometry, perspective, ‘regional language’ etc…) and you ‘just know these things‘ without the prior requirement for learning – then this puts you in a very, very, very small category of ‘genius savant‘ (?)
(advanced) mathematics, geometry, perspective are all the same thing.
The "beauty" of maths is it's self explanatory. You can go into an exam and know half the formulae or derivations but if you need to you can just derive a new one.
The genius savant thing is just how it looks for someone who thinks differently.
It's like magic or Clarke's 3rd law "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
To extend that to my regional language(s). It's about already knowing the basics and extending through context. My parents came from 2 different valleys with distinct dialect and certainly when I grew up the dialect from Burnley to Padiham to Todmorden to Accrington were all distinct.
when communicating with furriners from W. Yorkshire the base was the same but a few words are different but those are just picked up in the course of conversation.
But…how does your experience and knowledge of ‘the science of learning’ inform you about the learning process for most everyone else? So much so that you claim to know more (and better) about the science of learning?
My knowledge and experience suggests everyone learns differently.
HOWEVER … in REAL LIFE if I wanted to
“do something with”draw an image of the doe I’d just download andvectorisetrace it.
Just another method/technique of drawing (yet in digital format) - I use it all of the time, for particular applications.
So in order not to attack strawmen, why not first make ‘their’ argument FOR them?
Teaching: “Cos that’s how we did it”. (and add in a smattering of your 10 points, resistance to change and lazyness to see it another way)
Learning: It’s not a choice… as such it’s dictated by teaching and examining. It might work great for some but doubtless very badly for others and OK for a load in the middle.
^ To me that reads as if you just did the EXACT opposite to making their ergument for them. You instead just re-offered yiur argument/(strawman?). I asked you to ‘make their argument for them’
Let’s ask one of them and see what their argument is, and compare it with what you seem to think thwt their argument is?
Just another method/technique of drawing (yet in digital format) – I use it all of the time, for particular applications.
Right but that's my point... in REAL LIFE we have all these options available. [and have for decades as was pointed out I'm using decades old SW still]
So why when teaching or examining can't these options be made available.
No, your consistent point has been ‘why draw at all, it’s biology, not drawing’
Now you’ve changed it to ‘why can’t we use vector drawing?’
That is (to my mind) a valid question, so why not put it to the institution/s exam board/s?
No, your consistent point has been ‘why draw at all, it’s biology, not drawing’
Now you’ve changed it to ‘why can’t we use vector drawing?’
That is twisting or at least stretching the definition that dictates what pencil types ...
To me that reads as if you just did the EXACT opposite to making their ergument for them. You instead just re-offered yiur argument/(strawman?). I asked you to ‘make their argument for them’
Because to me their argument is a strawman that is just repeated.
From the video:
1) Attention to details
Structural information
2) Record scientific information
Just another way of recording information
Relevant/non relevant
3) Most important - demonstrates understanding
"belief based"
From #1: Forcing attention to detail... this is just the opposite if you can't draw a decent freehand drawing. All my attention would be taken up trying to draw. Probably as important is I'd only put any detail I could hope to freehand draw.
#2 It's just another way of recording information and allows the relevant/non relevant to be discriminated - but so what, so do other techniques don't require a pencil
#3 Being able to draw he believes demonstrates understanding. He clearly say's this is a belief not fact. It is of course a bit of a sod that he will then carry this belief into marking.
(devil’s advocate cap still on)
Being able to draw he believes demonstrates understanding. He clearly say’s this is a belief not fact. It is of course a bit of a sod that he will then carry this belief into marking.
(Video timestamp/cite please?) I listened three times)
And (if he did say that and I missed it) ...again with the assumptions/cherry-picking (delete as applicable) definitions of words?
For sake of argument - do not scientists, doctors, astronomers, psychologists, neurologists etc etc say ‘I believe, we believe, that (so, and so)’ ALL of the time? It most often means ‘I/we/currently believe, according to all the best research, and/or experience/results...’
In fact it’s bad scientific practice to declare most things as incontrovertible FACTS. Which would more akin to a religious belief system. Don’t you agree?
So aren’t you here putting/changing/assuming words in mouths/strawmanning again?
(Devil’s cap off)
I do believe (ie shorthand for ‘ convinced to the best of my knowledge, based my own research and experience/experiments, both personally and professionally) that drawing (or modelling/sculpting) ie in someway reconstructing something helps me better understand and memorise it, and no matter which drawing technique/method I use: ie camera lucida, tracing, freehand, vector-building, constructive drawing, blind contour drawing etc etc etc?...
...any method seems to help me understand and retain more than simply writing about it, or seeing it/seeing a picture or photo of the subject.
Now...
1. I’m not saying that it helps you or another savant/genius/non NT individual in the same way.
2. I’m not saying that I ‘believe it’ in the same way that someone would say ‘I believe the earth is flat’
3. I’m not saying that technology and psychology/neuroscience won’t find additional ways/techniques.
4. I’m not saying that examiners shouldn’t allow for other methods/techniques.
Additionally, there seems to be so much ignorance/assumotiin as to what ‘drawing’ actually is. It’s many things. The root definition is simple. The many techniques and methods and applications are wide and varied.
Again, I’d ask if/why they wouldn’t ‘allow’ computer-drawing methods such as vector-tracing? One can still erase and make simple lines (which AFAICS are the reasons behind them specifying ‘pencil’ in the OCR Guide)
I’ll make enquiries if you won’t. i’m actually more concerned that your horrendous experience is ‘the norm’ for other students than I am in interested in shooting the shit on STW. As fun as this is, it’d be such a shame if it wasn’t also utilised as a springboard to challenge F. Rossi et al? 😉
(I’ll later try my best to address your photography/art/drawing category/definition question you asked me before I head off)
For sake of argument – do not scientists, doctors, astronomers, psychologists, neurologists etc etc say ‘I believe, we believe,
Yes and he's not saying it in a "Flat Earth" way but he still say's it.
I’m not saying that examiners shouldn’t allow for other methods/techniques. Quite the opposite.
Additionally, there seems to be so much ignorance/assumotiin as to what ‘drawing’ actually is. It’s many things.
In this context I'm following the guidelines for A Level biology
There are many definitions but in the context of the OP I'm talking about how people get taught/graded/marked/examined in non fine art subjects.
Ultimately to go back to the "teaching", a probable reason is "because this is how you will be examined"
I’m not saying that examiners shouldn’t allow for other methods/techniques. Quite the opposite.
that drawing (or modelling/sculpting) something helps me better understand and memorise it, and no matter which drawing technique/method I use: ie camera lucida, tracing, freehand, vector-building, constructive drawing, blind contour drawing etc etc etc etc…
…any method will help me understand more than simply writing about it or seeing it/seeing a picture or photo of it.
Yes but who is to say that (for example) building a molecule from ping pong balls or blocks etc. isn't better for some people or creating a virtual 3D model.
However going back a bit the problem here is when given 20 samples in an exam the stated purpose of which is to test knowledge and understanding of XXX subject this isn't what is actually being tested if someone can't draw those 20 samples recognisably in that time frame.
which AFAICS are the reasons behind them specifying ‘pencil’ in the OCR Guide
I'm not hung up on erasability, I'm hung up that "pencil" goes with "paper"...
