When I say it wasn't exciting, what I mean is that there were times when it seemed like it would be more fun to dig out parts of my brain with a crochet hook.
Oh, that's not nice.
There were some good ideas, and good tips and some things I may actually use. As usual, there were a couple of light bulb moments where I realized how I can take a concept or a tool and apply it to what I, personally, do.
Overall, though, it seemed an awful lot like the class itself wasn't organized very well. It also seemed a lot like the class presenters didn't entirely *get* the process they were supposed to be presenting.
That's always awesome.
I stepped out of my normal "box" and left them what I hope is constructive and valuable feedback. It's not that the class was BAD, just that it could use some reorganization. I did not, however, mention the part about how I wasn't entirely sure the presenters knew how to do the job they were teaching.
Also, I must say that now that "thinking outside the box" has an acronym, maybe it's time to move on? I mean, doesn't that make it an oxymoron?
I always find it amusing the things I realize or learn in classes that have nothing to do with what's being taught or the intended purpose of the information.
Today we were discussing critical thinking, and took a little "informal" assessment. Of course, I passed as a "critical thinker" with flying colors. We also spent some time today discussing creative thinking. After the critical thinking assessment, it was brought up that if you are better at one, the other is usually harder for you.
This is the part where I did the total blink-blink realization thing.
Because both things come easily for me, and I never really *got* that it doesn't work that way for other people. So when I take these classes that act like you have to work at one or the other, and I get irritated about that, it's because I'm weird and not because everyone else is stupid.
Can someone clarify that for me? Because I still feel like this can't possibly be that abnormal.
We also watched a motivational video made by a famous photographer (National Geographic & otherwise). I won't mention any names, because I'm about to be probably not so nice. What I noticed was how similar his work and approach was to mine*. He talked about different perspectives, and getting outside of the box and looking beyond the ordinary. He uses angles, but also study and crafting his timing to get really awesome shots. But he also made the point that it takes an average of 400 rolls of film to get the 30 shots that go into one article.
He also kept making some really annoying references involving "ordinary" in conjunction with "extraordinary" that really ticked me off. Because, you know... It's not like I didn't come up with a slogan similar to that or anything.
In the end, what I was left with was the impression that the only difference between him & me is that he has more time, more money and better equipment.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll have more to write in the coming days. Tomorrow is back to work for two whole days before I head out for Christmas vacation.
One final note: if I owe you mail, it hasn't gone out yet. I'm working on it. Kind of. No, really, I swear it will go out between now & the first week of the year. And I apologize.
*While I can't speak for her, I imagine that SweetPea would have felt the same way about her photography while watching the film.
Oh, fine. Have some pictures: