The Arts teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups.
All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the on the quantity of work and all those on the right solely on its quality.
His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his weighing scale and weigh the work of the “Quantity” group: fifty pound of completed pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on.
Those being graded on “Quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot albeit a perfect one to get an “A”.
The first half of the class immediately grabbed fistfuls of clay and started churning out pots.
Several crumbled right at the onset, a few mid-way and there were others that did not look complete even at the end.
Over the weeks they made big pots, small pots, simple pots, and intricate pots, adding to the growing numbers.
The second half of the class threw themselves into their research, planning, and design.
Then they set about creating their one, perfect pot for the competition.
At the end of the class term came the grading time.
A curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality came from the students that were tasked with quantity .
It seems that while the Quantity group was busily churning out piles of work and learning from their mistakes to complete each pot, the Quality group had spent much of their time theorizing and planning perfection, and its implementation was just a small part of the whole process. In the end they had little more to show for their efforts than a pot that was comparatively just about average.
The practice the Quantity group gained made them significantly better at pottery than the planners on a quest for a single, perfect pot.
As this group executed more, practiced more and hence, delivered better than those who chased perfection.
Source: Art and Fear by David Bayles & Ted Orland,
All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the on the quantity of work and all those on the right solely on its quality.
His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his weighing scale and weigh the work of the “Quantity” group: fifty pound of completed pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on.
Those being graded on “Quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot albeit a perfect one to get an “A”.
The first half of the class immediately grabbed fistfuls of clay and started churning out pots.
Several crumbled right at the onset, a few mid-way and there were others that did not look complete even at the end.
Over the weeks they made big pots, small pots, simple pots, and intricate pots, adding to the growing numbers.
The second half of the class threw themselves into their research, planning, and design.
Then they set about creating their one, perfect pot for the competition.
At the end of the class term came the grading time.
A curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality came from the students that were tasked with quantity .
It seems that while the Quantity group was busily churning out piles of work and learning from their mistakes to complete each pot, the Quality group had spent much of their time theorizing and planning perfection, and its implementation was just a small part of the whole process. In the end they had little more to show for their efforts than a pot that was comparatively just about average.
The practice the Quantity group gained made them significantly better at pottery than the planners on a quest for a single, perfect pot.
As this group executed more, practiced more and hence, delivered better than those who chased perfection.
Source: Art and Fear by David Bayles & Ted Orland,
