I am a photographic scholar sustained by a journey of working in a variety of professional and educational work environments during the previous thirty years, and this variety has nourished my career with deep comparisons of numerous photographic image capture devices, image construction strategies, and image output media. Each new idea or technical component encountered offers me another opportunity to compare and weigh the choice to integrate it into my workflow — all with the intent of garnering experience. As I find myself always working to stay current and credible as a teacher, it is obvious that students need to deal with the same cultural trends, tools, and techniques to enter the work force with marketable skills. Comparison then, is a bedrock principle of my practice as a teacher, and a value that I frequently demonstrate to students, in conjunction with an empathetic voice. Contemporary photo-education curricula demands more than ever before that professors implement an effective strategy of instructional units and learning outcomes that incrementally offer comparisons, and a firm technical foundation. As an example, all one needs to do is compare how much of the jargon of digital imaging technology is rooted in analog systems and traditional processes, and how these fully manual systems inform a sound foundation of proficiency for students to step into the new technologies with. Regardless of any further technological advancement, it must be made apparent to students that photographs are visual constructions, and that there are still some very real and tactile ways of creating them. When tactfully delivered by the teacher, these foundation skills can unleash the potential of creativity that resides within the student. It is my experience that one of the greatest challenges teachers face in this post-photographic era is to prevent digital imaging technology from overshadowing the creative process. We must emphasize that the technical devices are merely tools, and although marvelous, the machines cannot do the work for us nor become a substitute for poorly executed original data. I have always enjoyed and favored a hands-on instructional model in teaching because it enables students to learn from each other. I can point to my years as a commercial assistant as the reason why I value this method. The studio lighting classes I teach require students to work in groups of three, due in part to facility space, but also because it simulates a real-world studio workflow. While students assist one another, they clearly see their peers experience similar moments of learning and similar moments of confusion. This dynamic enhances retention and builds peer empathy and support, and therefore makes the task of resolving visual problems a deeper learning tool. I always encourage students to experience equipment in a tactile way, to get their hands-on it, see how it works, resolve the intimidation of it, take some creative and technical risks, and most importantly, allow themselves to make mistakes. Making mistakes is part of the image making process and the best learning tool students can allow themselves to embrace. Yet I think it's a difficult thing for many to accept at first because the culture instead demands precision, quick thinking, and correctness. In all my classes, I encourage students to slow down and think, and I make every effort to provide them with a safe working environment to make mistakes. Better to make them here, I feel, than with a client looking over their shoulder. |
Don Werthmann
digital photography instructor
The School of Visual Arts
washtenaw community college