My older one has always had a flair for jigsaw puzzles. From the time he put together his first three piece puzzle a couple of months before his third birthday, he's consistantly been doing puzzles meant for an older age group. How he puts the puzzles together is a constant mystery to me. He doesn't follow any of the conventional techniques that I am familiar with, and neither does he ever refer to the main picture. He just puts them together.
The younger one couldn't be more different. He started working independently on jigsaw puzzles only a month or two before his fourth birthday, but made up for lost time by rapidly advancing in the level of complexity. Yesterday, I saw him working on a 24 piece puzzle. He constantly referred to the picture, and kept at it dilligently till the it was done. After celebrating, he took it apart piece by piece and put it together, then did it again, and again. By today morning, he was doing that particular puzzle much faster than I remember his brother doing at the same age.
Two kids. Same activity. Two radically different approaches. Same result.
No, this is not a thesis on which of the two is the better approach, it is merely my musings on how there are multiple ways of approaching the same thing. Music can have the rigour of a classical piece or the spontanity of jazz. A painter can have the attention to detail of a Michealngelo or indicate form like a Monet. A writer can go into excruciating detail, or indicate things and leave the rest to the imagination of the reader.
It was Ann's post on Action in the white space that got me thinking about various ways to approach the same thing. As a listener/ viewer/ reader, which do I prefer? I think the answer to that question depends on how I am feeling at a particular point of time.
I am not fussy. There are times when I want the details. There I times when I want white space. The only thing I am consitant about wanting is quality. What about you?