The other day, I witnessed something which will help one of my question; Can we really teach others? Do great teachers really exist? or is there just good students?
It was one afternoon, my wife, her mum and her sister was singing ABC alphabet song to my seven months old son, to teach him alphabet.
I guess, they were just having a fun with him as he does not speak yet, so they can not expect him to sing a song straight away!
And, I have noticed there were a two years old girl sitting opposite to them.
I have noticed her, because awhile after they tried to teach my son the song, the girl suddenly started to sing the song which they have been trying to teach my son to sing! It was not clear and perfect, but she was singing! We all gob smacked! We asked her that, did she learn the song just by listening us singing repeatedly? She had a big smile on her face.
We had no idea we were teaching her the song.
As long as people learn something from the others, can we call it as teaching? or is there just good students?
What do you think?
Very interesting! I am currently looking at something similar, how much can we teach a student, but how much is 'natural'. In more specific dance terms, I think an experinced teacher can get the best out of a students in terms of their technique, repitoire of steps, knowledge of syllabus etc, but we have all experienced watching a dancer who for some reason we cannot put on our finger on, draws our attention. Often people might say 'they have a natural' gift, but what do we mean? This relates to your debate, can we have good students, I think so! I also think if the student has a passion for whatever they learn, their perserverance will mean they will ultimately be the best they can be in that specific field. I wonder if many of us have a 'natural gift' for something that yet remains undiscovered, perhaps a missed oppertunity?!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment Sophie.
ReplyDeleteYes, the word `Natural` can be quite tricky, I think.
When I look at some major big dance companies, and from my experience, most of ensemble dancers are often more talented than the principal dancers, physically.
However, when I analyse these principal dancers, there are extremely talented ones and ordinary dancers with very strong will and very clever mind.
If, we have a great car, but if we do not know where to go, we will never get there, even the car can drive 200 miles per hour.
However, even with an ordinary car, as long as we know where to go, the car can takes us where ever we want to go!
`Naturally Gifted` dancers.
Clearly, good looks and right type of body will help dancers to take them to certain level as performing arts is a visual art. It seems like most of ensemble dancers are people who have these factors above; visually pretty.
But, often do not have strong will or clever mind compare to principal dancers.
However, these natural talent take people to wrong direction some times. Some people are very confused, because of their natural talent, ironic.
Definition of natural talent can be individual, everyone has a different opinions about natural talent as a dancer.
For Example, dance schools look for talents; right body, right looks, motivated young dancers.
However, professional dance companies look for dancers who can dance. Right body, right looks are still very important. But, end of the day, they are DANCE companies, they can not employ dancers who can not dance. Well, depend on which part they are dancing; ensemble will never really need to dance, they need to look pretty as a back ground while principal dancers are dancing.
So, ensemble must be pretty physically, but principals must be able to dance. Same company, same job, but different roles requires different talent.
To me, natural gift is to be able to take them self where they want to go; ability to focus and see the bigger picture.
As long as dancers and students have a clear aim, that is already half way there, very easy for teacher to support them compare to very talented dancers but not to know where to go.