Antoinette Badenhorst on fri 11 jul 08
I was amazed to see the high quality artwork that came from the hands of children as young as 6 years at one of the local private art schools. The teacher will draw a line and then the children will follow; the teacher will form a head from clay and the children will follow etc. Me on the other hand will show an example and then try to get the students to do their own thing and then the results will be less "parent approved". So lately my mind went back and forth a lot about which one of the 2 methods is the best for the child or if there is room for both. At what stage does the copy-cat method become harmful if it will be harmful at all or at what stage is the "you-get-my-example-and you-create your-own" really effective.
Betty Edwards says in her book "Drawing with the right side of the brain" that it is often times adults that discourages children when they would ask the adult to help them correct something and the adult tells the child that there is nothing wrong with , for example the drawing of a hand. The child has the ability to see there is something wrong , but when the adult tells him/her there is nothing wrong, instead of satisfying the child, the message that the child gets is that he/she does not have the ability to do it correctly.
So now back to a right or wrong, effective or ineffective way of teaching young children, my mind still hang in mid-air......
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
Patti Petit on sat 12 jul 08
A couple of weeks ago one of my srtudents who has come to clay after mid life asked me to plan a workshop for his grandchildren all under 7 years of age. He wanted to do something different from going to the waterpark. Clay is something he has come to love and he wanted his grands to have a piece of what he loves too. The workshop was two hours under the carport at his mountaintop home. I had thrown a piece for each to glaze. We drew numbers for order of picking the pieces. As the children finished I handed out clay balls and let the kids go. It was fun to watch their natural instincts take over. I helped a little by showing how to roll a piece of clay or how to pull the clay by dropping it on the floor. SInce kids can never do that with play dough it was great fun. Some made figures, some just made different sized balls, Two of the girls made plaques that they decorated by drawing designs of their choosing. The parents got into the act by
suggesting the kids make some shapes to hang on the tree at Christmas time. When they got tired of shaping I had made plaques, each one different shaped with their name scratched on the surface. They glazed the plaques and we had used up almost 2 hours. I left a tile so the parents could trace their child's hand on it. Granddad will glaze those and the other pieces which will make his Christmas gifts for his children and grandchildren. As I left one was saying we want to do that again. Did they learn anything? I think they learned a lot; that Clay is fun. It makes dishes, and tiles and stuff that Mom and Dad get excited about. If we do it again next year, I'll bet you we get a few pretty good pieces and another day to remember.
Patti in NE GA
http://www.runningrabbitpottery.com
Overall's on sat 12 jul 08
Antoinette,
I purchased a used book; Leonardo translated on
creating one's art.
In there he is of the opinion to copy nature, not others.
If others make mistakes or not widely accepted art,
the students don't understand the rules of nature to get better.
I thought this was interesting to have nature as our teachers.
The teachers teach us the principals and rules so we understand
when we work.
Now we know why everyone hung out in nature so much.
Besides it being cooler than inside for sure here in the south.
Kim in Houston
John Post on sat 12 jul 08
Hi Antoinette,
I teach over 700 elementary age school kids a week. Here are some
thoughts on the process...
Because these kids are in a public school they are conditioned to do
what their teachers expect from them.
Some kids love to work to please the teacher and feel lost with direct
instruction. Other kids have lots of ideas but don't have an
understanding of how to go about improving their art. They don't yet
have an understanding of the elements and principles of design that go
into an artwork. Usually kids will label the kid who draws the most
realistic as the artist in the class. Naturally as an art teacher, I
believe that all of the kids I teach should be able to develop art
skills (craftsmanship) and learn to express their ideas visually.
Here are some strategies I use to teach kids at both ends of the
creative spectrum.
I do this Egyptian mummy time capsule with my 6th grade students.
They must meet these requirements in order to have their mummy fired...
The mummy must have a face that is a portrait of them.
The mummy must have hands and arms.
The mummy must have textures on the top of the sarcophagus.
The slabs used in the construction of the mummy must stay together.
I do demonstrate how to roll slabs and make a mummy... but I let them
add whatever they want to theirs. When they ask if they can add a hat
or make a snake on the head I answer yes.
When they want to put a baseball bat or pom poms in the mummy's hands
my answer is yes.
(I once had a 7th grade student put a dozen roses in her mummy's hands.)
The creative kids figure out that if they meet the basic requirements
of the assignment that they are free to embellish and add details to
their projects.
The mummy time capsules get sealed with artifacts inside of them. I
give them two of the writing assignments but they have to come up with
two more ideas that will be meaningful for them to look at in the
future. The artist kids usually come up with way too many ideas and
then have to edit things down to fit in the mummy.
I think of teaching art like building a scaffolding or a support. I
want to give the elementary students enough support to get them going,
but not so much that it limits their choices or makes them feel they
are working for me instead of themselves.
When I teach the kids how to draw or paint, I have them make a sketch
along with me on a small 6x6 inch paper. Then when they get the 12x18
paper for the painting they are going to make, they already know how
to use basic geometric shapes to layout their drawings. (The littler
the kid the bigger the paper they need to paint on.) By having them
make a practice sketch first it teaches them how I think as an artist
when I look at something complex... I try to describe what shapes I
look for when drawing a giraffe or a picture of the principal, etc.
Whenever kids make something in clay, they always want to make
something extra with the leftover clay. I let them do this as long as
they can get their name on it. One of their favorite things to make
is baby animals. We make lots of different animals in clay, and they
just love to make babies for them.
This year I had my 3rd grade students make a variety of different
animals from various regions of the United States. This aligns with
their social studies curriculum. Then I had the kids research an
animal of their choosing and make it in clay They had to find its
geographic region, learn about the animal's habitat and then describe
how it lives. I have one student who other kids say is always making
gross farting noises. When I asked him why he does it, he said "he is
compelled to do it." The research your own animal project was this
kid's favorite thing to do...... ever. He made a Maryland soft shell
crab that is just too cool. This kid was the first one to turn in his
report so he could get his clay and was the first kid to turn his
animal in.
Some kids just respond well to taking charge of their own learning.
Others have no clue where to start. Its a hard balancing to act to
provide just enough structure to get 'em going without over mandating
what they are to do. I try to build choices into as many lessons as I
can and also try to say yes to as many of their ideas as I can. As
long as they achieve the main goal of the lesson, they can embellish
and alter till their heart's content:)
(some of the lessons I teach are on the elementary art website link
below)
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
:: cone 6 glaze website :: http://www.johnpost.us
:: elementary art website :: http://www.wemakeart.org
Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
> So lately my mind went back and forth a lot about which one of the
> 2 methods is the best for the child or if there is room for both. At
> what stage does the copy-cat method become harmful if it will be
> harmful at all or at what stage is the "you-get-my-example-and you-
> create your-own" really effective.
>
> Betty Edwards says in her book "Drawing with the right side of the
> brain" that it is often times adults that discourages children when
> they would ask the adult to help them correct something and the
> adult tells the child that there is nothing wrong with , for example
> the drawing of a hand. The child has the ability to see there is
> something wrong , but when the adult tells him/her there is nothing
> wrong, instead of satisfying the child, the message that the child
> gets is that he/she does not have the ability to do it correctly.
>
> So now back to a right or wrong, effective or ineffective way of
> teaching young children, my mind still hang in mid-air......
Antoinette Badenhorst on sun 13 jul 08
John, it sound to me like you have a special skill with children. You're right about the fine balance that must be kept and it sound like you found the perfect way to do that by providing the borderlines and then allow them to work within those lines.
A few weeks ago I was doing an architectural design project with a group of middle and high school students. I showed them some architectural elements from books and then took them outside to show them designs around them on buildings. I also connected some of the designs to its original sources; example: a zebra's stripes in nature and zig-zag designs on roof tops.
Then I took them back inside and they had to make little models after which they had to make the final product.
With the exception of one of those students that followed my instruction to the T, all the rest made unrelated little objects the first day and ended up making houses or buildings of some sort. This one student used his model to create a piece, unrelated to a building but with very distinctive architectural elements on it. I wondered afterwards if the project was a bit over their heads, but this one student( not the oldest in the class) proved to me that it was not too difficult. Each student was on their own level of development.
Personally I think I will die if I have to teach the copy cat way, but I do think there is room for it, within limits.
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: John Post
> Hi Antoinette,
>
> I teach over 700 elementary age school kids a week. Here are some
> thoughts on the process...
>
> Because these kids are in a public school they are conditioned to do
> what their teachers expect from them.
>
> Some kids love to work to please the teacher and feel lost with direct
> instruction. Other kids have lots of ideas but don't have an
> understanding of how to go about improving their art. They don't yet
> have an understanding of the elements and principles of design that go
> into an artwork. Usually kids will label the kid who draws the most
> realistic as the artist in the class. Naturally as an art teacher, I
> believe that all of the kids I teach should be able to develop art
> skills (craftsmanship) and learn to express their ideas visually.
>
> Here are some strategies I use to teach kids at both ends of the
> creative spectrum.
>
> I do this Egyptian mummy time capsule with my 6th grade students.
> They must meet these requirements in order to have their mummy fired...
>
> The mummy must have a face that is a portrait of them.
> The mummy must have hands and arms.
> The mummy must have textures on the top of the sarcophagus.
> The slabs used in the construction of the mummy must stay together.
>
> I do demonstrate how to roll slabs and make a mummy... but I let them
> add whatever they want to theirs. When they ask if they can add a hat
> or make a snake on the head I answer yes.
> When they want to put a baseball bat or pom poms in the mummy's hands
> my answer is yes.
> (I once had a 7th grade student put a dozen roses in her mummy's hands.)
> The creative kids figure out that if they meet the basic requirements
> of the assignment that they are free to embellish and add details to
> their projects.
>
> The mummy time capsules get sealed with artifacts inside of them. I
> give them two of the writing assignments but they have to come up with
> two more ideas that will be meaningful for them to look at in the
> future. The artist kids usually come up with way too many ideas and
> then have to edit things down to fit in the mummy.
>
> I think of teaching art like building a scaffolding or a support. I
> want to give the elementary students enough support to get them going,
> but not so much that it limits their choices or makes them feel they
> are working for me instead of themselves.
>
> When I teach the kids how to draw or paint, I have them make a sketch
> along with me on a small 6x6 inch paper. Then when they get the 12x18
> paper for the painting they are going to make, they already know how
> to use basic geometric shapes to layout their drawings. (The littler
> the kid the bigger the paper they need to paint on.) By having them
> make a practice sketch first it teaches them how I think as an artist
> when I look at something complex... I try to describe what shapes I
> look for when drawing a giraffe or a picture of the principal, etc.
>
> Whenever kids make something in clay, they always want to make
> something extra with the leftover clay. I let them do this as long as
> they can get their name on it. One of their favorite things to make
> is baby animals. We make lots of different animals in clay, and they
> just love to make babies for them.
>
> This year I had my 3rd grade students make a variety of different
> animals from various regions of the United States. This aligns with
> their social studies curriculum. Then I had the kids research an
> animal of their choosing and make it in clay They had to find its
> geographic region, learn about the animal's habitat and then describe
> how it lives. I have one student who other kids say is always making
> gross farting noises. When I asked him why he does it, he said "he is
> compelled to do it." The research your own animal project was this
> kid's favorite thing to do...... ever. He made a Maryland soft shell
> crab that is just too cool. This kid was the first one to turn in his
> report so he could get his clay and was the first kid to turn his
> animal in.
>
> Some kids just respond well to taking charge of their own learning.
> Others have no clue where to start. Its a hard balancing to act to
> provide just enough structure to get 'em going without over mandating
> what they are to do. I try to build choices into as many lessons as I
> can and also try to say yes to as many of their ideas as I can. As
> long as they achieve the main goal of the lesson, they can embellish
> and alter till their heart's content:)
>
> (some of the lessons I teach are on the elementary art website link
> below)
>
> John Post
> Sterling Heights, Michigan
>
> :: cone 6 glaze website :: http://www.johnpost.us
> :: elementary art website :: http://www.wemakeart.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
>
> > So lately my mind went back and forth a lot about which one of the
> > 2 methods is the best for the child or if there is room for both. At
> > what stage does the copy-cat method become harmful if it will be
> > harmful at all or at what stage is the "you-get-my-example-and you-
> > create your-own" really effective.
> >
> > Betty Edwards says in her book "Drawing with the right side of the
> > brain" that it is often times adults that discourages children when
> > they would ask the adult to help them correct something and the
> > adult tells the child that there is nothing wrong with , for example
> > the drawing of a hand. The child has the ability to see there is
> > something wrong , but when the adult tells him/her there is nothing
> > wrong, instead of satisfying the child, the message that the child
> > gets is that he/she does not have the ability to do it correctly.
> >
> > So now back to a right or wrong, effective or ineffective way of
> > teaching young children, my mind still hang in mid-air......
Antoinette Badenhorst on sun 13 jul 08
Kim it is interesting that you mention nature as the "teacher". I did the very same thing this past weeks when I taught a group of middle school boys on the wheels. The first week I pampered them and manipulated their pots as much as I could. There is a lot to learn and remember about working on the wheels. Of cause; they are these little brave daredevils at that age, so what do I know! As long as they can "spin" those wheels and get it going as fast as they could, they'll make it!
The second week I told them that it's time for the clay to teach them and then I told them that one can ran a stop light every once in a while, but there will be a day that one will be caught. I also told them that nature teaches us that when it rain, one do not swim or cook out; there is nothing to change about that. As I connected the examples to clay I said that clay also teaches us its rules and I only taught them the rules that clay taught me. It was time for the clay to teach them directly.
So I stood back and watched them from a little distance. I watched with amusement how they got tamed down. Some complained that they can not get "anything made" After I explained to them that I did not teach them my rules, but the rules of nature, they were ready to learn those rules and as they started using them, they suddenly started making little bowls on their own. This time if I said slow down your wheel, or remember your elbows, they acted as if I was the drill instructor and they the soldiers.
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Overall's
> Antoinette,
>
> I purchased a used book; Leonardo translated on
> creating one's art.
>
> In there he is of the opinion to copy nature, not others.
> If others make mistakes or not widely accepted art,
> the students don't understand the rules of nature to get better.
>
> I thought this was interesting to have nature as our teachers.
> The teachers teach us the principals and rules so we understand
> when we work.
>
> Now we know why everyone hung out in nature so much.
> Besides it being cooler than inside for sure here in the south.
>
> Kim in Houston
Ivor and Olive Lewis on sun 13 jul 08
Dear Antoinette Badenhorst,
I suppose the simplistic question to ask would be, are these children
being taught craft skills? or are they being encouraged to be artists
?
You tell us <follow; the teacher will form a head from clay and the children will
follow etc. Me on the other hand will show an example and then try to
get the students to do their own thing >> If you present an example
of what is to be achieved how do your students know what to do? If you
wish your students to "Do their own thing" never show them an example.
If you wish to learn more about the acquisition of Drawing or
Modelling skills by young people I suggest you consult Rhoda Kellog's
book on the development of Childrens art. "Analysing Children's Art"
There is also a lot to be learned from Gottfried Tritton, "Teaching
Colour and Form" , Diarmuid Larkin, "Art Learning and Teaching" and
E. W. Eisner, "Educating Artistic Vision". And that is but a minute
fraction of the literature available.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
Antoinette Badenhorst on mon 14 jul 08
Well, Ivor, that is a good question. I would think a little bit of both; artists
as well as good crafters. So once again it boils down to balance and the
question of when to stop the copy-cat way and allow some initiative.If it will
benefit the child to learn the copy-cat way, there should be something in it.
If it benefit the parent that want to see "performance" I wonder what's in it for
the child. When and how do one separate the really talented from the rest and
how do one handle pushy parents? What is at the child's best interest?
What I mean by "own thing" is that the student will for instance create any
animal of his/her choosing and not for instance all do dogs the same way,
or paint the same still life picture. I will show how pinch pots are made
and the student should follow. Suggest and show to them how to add on legs,
ears snout etc. but then leave it up to them to come up with the details.
There should be some room for initiative and that is just what John Post suggests.
I have often times experienced it that children need very specific instruction
and/ or samples to work from. Unless you have a child that was stimulated
from very early on, they will very seldom create something off by head, but how
far should one one push the example?
Thanks for the book suggestion. The subject always interests me. I do believe that
any stimulation is good for children. I've seen it particularly with my own children.
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Ivor and Olive Lewis
> Dear Antoinette Badenhorst,
> I suppose the simplistic question to ask would be, are these children
> being taught craft skills? or are they being encouraged to be artists
> ?
> You tell us <> follow; the teacher will form a head from clay and the children will
> follow etc. Me on the other hand will show an example and then try to
> get the students to do their own thing >> If you present an example
> of what is to be achieved how do your students know what to do? If you
> wish your students to "Do their own thing" never show them an example.
> If you wish to learn more about the acquisition of Drawing or
> Modelling skills by young people I suggest you consult Rhoda Kellog's
> book on the development of Childrens art. "Analysing Children's Art"
> There is also a lot to be learned from Gottfried Tritton, "Teaching
> Colour and Form" , Diarmuid Larkin, "Art Learning and Teaching" and
> E. W. Eisner, "Educating Artistic Vision". And that is but a minute
> fraction of the literature available.
> Best regards,
> Ivor Lewis.
> Redhill,
> South Australia.
Kelly Johnston on tue 15 jul 08
Thanks Antoinette for starting this thread, and for everyone who has
contributed -- I have really appreciated it. I know exactly your
dilemma, with parents wanting to see their kids "achieving" a certain
sort of thing with art classes. I've been teaching kids pottery
classes for 18 months now and have learned alot myself! As I've said
in the past, I generally will not make an example for the kids to see
of most projects, as they will almost all want to do exactly as I
have done. I'm sure as others have suggested, that this all comes
down to human nature -- the wanting to please teachers, the wanting
to stay within the peer group and all do the same, as sticking your
neck out and doing something from ones own imagination is risky. I
love to see what interesting ideas the kids who are natural risk
takers come up with. For them, free time at the end of class is
usually the best, and they have learned to use the skills taught to
create for themselves. One boy in particular just loves to
do "sketches" in clay -- figures, aliens, vehicles etc. I still fire
them, as I love how they capture that moment of learning, but he
really couldn't care less, as it's in the making that the fun is.
And realistically, that's when the real learning takes place too.
That's when the laws of nature teach -- I can only bend this clay so
far before it cracks, if I don't attach my pieces properly, they will
fall off during drying. Cause and effect. The copy-cat approach is
appreciated by most parents, because the kids are making realistic
representations of things and that's the level that most parents are
working at. It is also quantifiable -- did the child follow the
instructions given and in the right order to produce a piece as much
as possible like the given example? You can grade a child on that.
Like John Post suggested, the kid who can draw the most realistically
is given the title "artist" of the class. In the end we have to
decide if that is the path we want to take with kids. Can they have
an appreciation for the hand that they have drawn even tho it doesn't
look like a real hand, and every child can see that. Being able to
draw realistically (which is not so dissimilar to learning a method,
like in folk-art painting) can be taught, as we all know, but does
that make it art or simply a skill like being able to learn to
parellel park your car with ease? Does it become art when you start
to create your own work using the various skills you have learned?
Does it become art when you push the boundaries of those skills?
Does it become art when other people recognize some intrinsic value
in the work that you produce and declare it to be art?
Kelly in Emerald, Qld Australia
Susan Fox Hirschmann on tue 15 jul 08
I think you really have the crux of teaching kids:
What ever project or technique you might be teaching them,
the important thing is the JOURNEY and not the DESTINATION!
It is in the process of creating that the real creative energy takes place.
The process when they are learn, feeling, expressing.
I have taught kids that are very judgemental about their work. Sometimes
their moms, the school system puts the pressure on them to perform at a certain
level?(I hate when a mom drops off her kid for class and announces that she
feels "here is my daughter and she is not very good at art!" (HOW DARE SHE SAY
THAT IN FRONT OF HER EVEN IF SHE IS THINKING THAT!)....how I handle it.:
I tell each of them, that everyone is great at art, and I know that she is
too! "Wait til she does clay" I usually add, enthusiastically! I am 100%
positve with them and whatever they create.....call it an "art piece:" to be
apprciated, and give them a sense of self confidence in what they have done and what
they have created, no matter what.
So much learning in just playing with clay. But then you all knew that!?
Susan
Annandale, VA
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
DRB Seattle on tue 15 jul 08
right vs wrong
Betty Edwards says in her book "Drawing with the right side of the
brain" that... The child has the ability to see there is something wrong...=
=20
Seeing what's wrong and making changes is the key whether or not your hon-k=
yo is nature or your master's pot.=A0 The seeing training of going back and=
forth is the point.
=A0
The concern of stiffling creativity is at best miss placed sentimentallity.=
=20
From what I've seen in studios when some-one tried to copy another's work t=
here was always a residual of the copier's character in the pot.
=A0
Finding one's own voice is the flip side- looking at the differences "what'=
s wrong" and finding what's you and what's the master's. {"wrong" may be wr=
ong. As a value judgement it can lead you astray.=A0 May "differences" woul=
d work if not too P.C., pusilaneous and namby-pamby.}
DRB
Seattle
--- On Fri, 7/11/08, Antoinette Badenhorst =
wrote:
Betty Edwards says in her book "Drawing with the right side of the
brain" that... The child has the ability to see there is something wrong...=
=20
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk=0A=0A=0A
Kelly Savino on wed 16 jul 08
The carrot-and-stick, measure-and-grade, results-oriented way we teach
children in all other subjects doesn't mesh well with the teaching of
art. If anything like a creative voice can survive and be nurtured in a
traditional school environment, that's a testimony to the hard work and
innovation of a good art teacher. Art instruction often amounts to
"deprogramming", and it's a tall order for large batches of kids dumped
in a teacher's lap for measured periods of time (and on a pathetic
budget).
Education researchers have claimed a child's attitudes toward learning
are pretty much set by the age of seven. So what do we teach little
kids? The kindergarden trace-your-hand-and-make-a-turkey projects are
all about following instructions and making it "right". How else can it
be graded? I put the beak on the BACK of the thumb, so my turkey could
admire his lovely finger-tail... I was told it was wrong and eyed
suspiciously. Slow student, or troublemaking anarchist? Granted, it was
1966, and some things have changed.. but a teacher who is required to
process 30 students and produce grades can hardly be expected to nurture
the little Jackson Pollock who would rather throw paint than trace
turkeys and color pilgrims.
In the culture of school in general, kids are taught to value the "A",
and to get an "A" the work needs to be perfect. Bayles and Orland
consider, in "Art and Fear", Ansel Adams' contention that "the perfect
is the enemy of the good".
"To require perfection is to invite paralysis. The pattern is
predictable; as you see error in what you have done, you steer your work
toward what you imagine you can do perfectly. You cling ever more
tightly to what you already know you can do - away from the risk of
exploration, and possibly further from the heart of your work."
(Grad school, anyone?)
We forget when we applaud and fuss over a child's first scribbles that
we are applying pressure.. that when we hang the green-cloud-on-a-stick
tree and the wobbly but recognizable house on the refrigerator, ooohing
and ahhing, that we are assuring that our child will repeat that image
again and again... and still be confused when the 400th bit of art
offered for the fridge doesn't get the excited parental reviews as last
year's. (What parent can sustain that level of excitement year after
year?)
So the kid decides that he/she used to be good at art but isn't anymore.
Couple that with graded art projects at school, and it's no wonder most
adults draw like third graders. That's when we quit trying.
Two radical ideas I'd like to throw out, though I could likely be talked
out of either of them:
First: Maybe art education should be about technique, mastery of tools,
practice in using a brush, a pen, a wheel, wood carving tools, print
making, etc -- with the end product be dismissed as less important than
some kind of improvement or evolution with the hands-on, technical part.
That would avoid situations where a child's creative vision, however
valid, is invisible to the teacher... or worse, where a well intentioned
teacher goes all self-esteem-camp, gushing over a piece that the student
barely applied himself to, and knows is no good. It tarnished the coin
of the realm (praise,a nd approval) when it is dished out to all.
Meanwhile kids could be exposed to the widest possible variety or art
and artists, images and demos and visits to museums and guilds, without
expectation that they should choose one or follow a path.
Those who have the hunger to create or the confidence to express
themselves can then do so safely outside the realm of teachers, peers,
grades and expectations, having been handed the tools to do so. We can
teach a child handwriting and grammar but can not teach her how to write
her own poem; the soul of artistic pursuit cannot be taught, and takes
place internally anyway, outside of the academy. We see more inspired
individuals without the material skills to make their work than the
other way around.
Second radical notion: maybe not every kid was meant to make art, any
more than they were all meant to be mathematicians or mechanics. The
"every child was born an artist" idea is a good one, but in a more
organic culture, some might best express their muse in architecture, or
gardening, singing, cooking, or civil engineering. What we are born with
(and what can be squashed) is an imagination unique to our souls, and a
potential to find a channel for it.
But until industrialized civilization (and education) it was a given
that not every citizen was fit to be a "scribe". Some personalities,
intellects and body types were better suited to herding sheep, building
cathedrals, shoeing horses, making cheese. Now, they would all be lined
up in rows at desks (and medicated if they were unable to sit still),
and taught the same stuff. Those who can't read or write well learn that
they are stupid, not that they are possibly ill suited to bookishness.
The sad part is that those who might have been happy to put
transmissions in jeeps or tend and nurture the elderly, or fly in
ambulances to help the wounded -- are made to feel "less" than the
academics with extra degrees and bigger paychecks.
By the same token, kids give themselves up as "bad at art" (how many
parents tell their kids, "I can't draw... I'm no good at that..." as a
model?) The truth might be, "That's not my medium"... or "I have not
practiced enough with these tools and skills to be able to make anything
satisfying". Pile on an expectation of instant mastery -- by Friday, for
a grade -- and no chance to learn from mistakes -- and it's not
surprising that so many budding artists die on the vine.
If we teach skills, tools and technical abilities, with no regard for
the product, we remove the pressure and provide every opportunity for a
kid to find the one medium that sings, that matters, that inspires. And
if they don't... OK. It's not their road.
In the end, I am less concerned about students who come out of school
unable to make art, than I am about what I see as the cause: too many
students come out of school (and home, and life) unable to trust their
own ideas in ANY realm. They are taught to emulate teachers, peers and
TV stars. They are obsessed with doing it "right", as if there is only
one way. And when you have lost touch with your own soul, what source is
left for creativity? If you don't know yourself anymore, what is there
to make art about?
Ralph Waldo Emerson:
"We teach boys to be such men as we are. We do not teach them to aspire
to be all they can.. We do not give them a training as if we believed in
their noble nature. We scarce educate their bodies. We do not train the
eye and the hand. We exercise their understandings to the apprehension
and: comparison of some facts, to a skill in numbers, in words; we aim
to make accountants, attorneys, engineers; but not to make able,
earnest, great-hearted men."
and
"The popular education has been taxed with a want of truth and nature.
It was complained that an education to things was not given. We are
students of words: we are shut up in schools, and colleges, and
recitation-rooms, for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last with a
bag of wind, a memory of words, and do not know a thing. We cannot use
our hands, or our legs, or our eyes, or our arms. We do not know an
edible root in the woods, we cannot tell our course by the stars, nor
the hour of the day by the sun. It is well if we can swim and skate. We
are afraid of a horse, of a cow, of a dog, of a snake, of a spider. The
Roman rule was, to teach a boy nothing that he could not learn standing.
"
Albert Einstein:
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."
and
"It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of
instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands
mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wrack and ruin
without fail. It is a grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of
seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of
duty."
OK... that's all I've got. Anybody who read this far... why? It's a nice
day, go play outside (lol)
Yours
Kelly in Ohio
Hank Murrow on wed 16 jul 08
GEEEeeeeeZZZZ Kelly!
Sounds like you would like the pass/no pass option that we struggled
to bring about at the U. of Oregon back in the early 60s. I love your
quotes and lines of thought. Wish you were close enough to come for
tea and treats at our little bit of Provence in the garden.
Cheers, Hank
On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Kelly Savino wrote:
> The carrot-and-stick, measure-and-grade, results-oriented way we teach
> children in all other subjects doesn't mesh well with the teaching of
> art. If anything like a creative voice can survive and be nurtured
> in a
> traditional school environment, that's a testimony to the hard work
> and
> innovation of a good art teacher. Art instruction often amounts to
> "deprogramming", and it's a tall order for large batches of kids
> dumped
> in a teacher's lap for measured periods of time (and on a pathetic
> budget).
>
> Education researchers have claimed a child's attitudes toward learning
> are pretty much set by the age of seven. So what do we teach little
> kids? The kindergarden trace-your-hand-and-make-a-turkey projects are
> all about following instructions and making it "right". How else
> can it
> be graded? I put the beak on the BACK of the thumb, so my turkey could
> admire his lovely finger-tail... I was told it was wrong and eyed
> suspiciously. Slow student, or troublemaking anarchist? Granted, it
> was
> 1966, and some things have changed.. but a teacher who is required to
> process 30 students and produce grades can hardly be expected to
> nurture
> the little Jackson Pollock who would rather throw paint than trace
> turkeys and color pilgrims.
>
> In the culture of school in general, kids are taught to value the "A",
> and to get an "A" the work needs to be perfect. Bayles and Orland
> consider, in "Art and Fear", Ansel Adams' contention that "the perfect
> is the enemy of the good".
>
> "To require perfection is to invite paralysis. The pattern is
> predictable; as you see error in what you have done, you steer your
> work
> toward what you imagine you can do perfectly. You cling ever more
> tightly to what you already know you can do - away from the risk of
> exploration, and possibly further from the heart of your work."
>
> (Grad school, anyone?)
>
> We forget when we applaud and fuss over a child's first scribbles that
> we are applying pressure.. that when we hang the green-cloud-on-a-
> stick
> tree and the wobbly but recognizable house on the refrigerator,
> ooohing
> and ahhing, that we are assuring that our child will repeat that image
> again and again... and still be confused when the 400th bit of art
> offered for the fridge doesn't get the excited parental reviews as
> last
> year's. (What parent can sustain that level of excitement year after
> year?)
>
> So the kid decides that he/she used to be good at art but isn't
> anymore.
> Couple that with graded art projects at school, and it's no wonder
> most
> adults draw like third graders. That's when we quit trying.
>
> Two radical ideas I'd like to throw out, though I could likely be
> talked
> out of either of them:
>
> First: Maybe art education should be about technique, mastery of
> tools,
> practice in using a brush, a pen, a wheel, wood carving tools, print
> making, etc -- with the end product be dismissed as less important
> than
> some kind of improvement or evolution with the hands-on, technical
> part.
> That would avoid situations where a child's creative vision, however
> valid, is invisible to the teacher... or worse, where a well
> intentioned
> teacher goes all self-esteem-camp, gushing over a piece that the
> student
> barely applied himself to, and knows is no good. It tarnished the coin
> of the realm (praise,a nd approval) when it is dished out to all.
>
> Meanwhile kids could be exposed to the widest possible variety or art
> and artists, images and demos and visits to museums and guilds,
> without
> expectation that they should choose one or follow a path.
>
> Those who have the hunger to create or the confidence to express
> themselves can then do so safely outside the realm of teachers, peers,
> grades and expectations, having been handed the tools to do so. We can
> teach a child handwriting and grammar but can not teach her how to
> write
> her own poem; the soul of artistic pursuit cannot be taught, and takes
> place internally anyway, outside of the academy. We see more inspired
> individuals without the material skills to make their work than the
> other way around.
>
> Second radical notion: maybe not every kid was meant to make art, any
> more than they were all meant to be mathematicians or mechanics. The
> "every child was born an artist" idea is a good one, but in a more
> organic culture, some might best express their muse in
> architecture, or
> gardening, singing, cooking, or civil engineering. What we are born
> with
> (and what can be squashed) is an imagination unique to our souls,
> and a
> potential to find a channel for it.
>
> But until industrialized civilization (and education) it was a given
> that not every citizen was fit to be a "scribe". Some personalities,
> intellects and body types were better suited to herding sheep,
> building
> cathedrals, shoeing horses, making cheese. Now, they would all be
> lined
> up in rows at desks (and medicated if they were unable to sit still),
> and taught the same stuff. Those who can't read or write well learn
> that
> they are stupid, not that they are possibly ill suited to bookishness.
>
> The sad part is that those who might have been happy to put
> transmissions in jeeps or tend and nurture the elderly, or fly in
> ambulances to help the wounded -- are made to feel "less" than the
> academics with extra degrees and bigger paychecks.
>
> By the same token, kids give themselves up as "bad at art" (how many
> parents tell their kids, "I can't draw... I'm no good at that..." as a
> model?) The truth might be, "That's not my medium"... or "I have not
> practiced enough with these tools and skills to be able to make
> anything
> satisfying". Pile on an expectation of instant mastery -- by
> Friday, for
> a grade -- and no chance to learn from mistakes -- and it's not
> surprising that so many budding artists die on the vine.
>
> If we teach skills, tools and technical abilities, with no regard for
> the product, we remove the pressure and provide every opportunity
> for a
> kid to find the one medium that sings, that matters, that inspires.
> And
> if they don't... OK. It's not their road.
>
> In the end, I am less concerned about students who come out of school
> unable to make art, than I am about what I see as the cause: too many
> students come out of school (and home, and life) unable to trust their
> own ideas in ANY realm. They are taught to emulate teachers, peers and
> TV stars. They are obsessed with doing it "right", as if there is only
> one way. And when you have lost touch with your own soul, what
> source is
> left for creativity? If you don't know yourself anymore, what is there
> to make art about?
>
> Ralph Waldo Emerson:
>
> "We teach boys to be such men as we are. We do not teach them to
> aspire
> to be all they can.. We do not give them a training as if we
> believed in
> their noble nature. We scarce educate their bodies. We do not train
> the
> eye and the hand. We exercise their understandings to the apprehension
> and: comparison of some facts, to a skill in numbers, in words; we aim
> to make accountants, attorneys, engineers; but not to make able,
> earnest, great-hearted men."
>
> and
>
> "The popular education has been taxed with a want of truth and nature.
> It was complained that an education to things was not given. We are
> students of words: we are shut up in schools, and colleges, and
> recitation-rooms, for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last
> with a
> bag of wind, a memory of words, and do not know a thing. We cannot use
> our hands, or our legs, or our eyes, or our arms. We do not know an
> edible root in the woods, we cannot tell our course by the stars, nor
> the hour of the day by the sun. It is well if we can swim and
> skate. We
> are afraid of a horse, of a cow, of a dog, of a snake, of a spider.
> The
> Roman rule was, to teach a boy nothing that he could not learn
> standing.
> "
>
> Albert Einstein:
>
> "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."
>
> and
>
> "It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of
> instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
> inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation,
> stands
> mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wrack and ruin
> without fail. It is a grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of
> seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a
> sense of
> duty."
>
> OK... that's all I've got. Anybody who read this far... why? It's a
> nice
> day, go play outside (lol)
>
> Yours
> Kelly in Ohio
Antoinette Badenhorst on wed 16 jul 08
Three applauds for this essay Kelly! I mean it. We need to publish it somewhere. It is very well said and very insightful.
Thanks.
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Kelly Savino
> The carrot-and-stick, measure-and-grade, results-oriented way we teach
> children in all other subjects doesn't mesh well with the teaching of
> art. If anything like a creative voice can survive and be nurtured in a
> traditional school environment, that's a testimony to the hard work and
> innovation of a good art teacher. Art instruction often amounts to
> "deprogramming", and it's a tall order for large batches of kids dumped
> in a teacher's lap for measured periods of time (and on a pathetic
> budget).
>
> Education researchers have claimed a child's attitudes toward learning
> are pretty much set by the age of seven. So what do we teach little
> kids? The kindergarden trace-your-hand-and-make-a-turkey projects are
> all about following instructions and making it "right". How else can it
> be graded? I put the beak on the BACK of the thumb, so my turkey could
> admire his lovely finger-tail... I was told it was wrong and eyed
> suspiciously. Slow student, or troublemaking anarchist? Granted, it was
> 1966, and some things have changed.. but a teacher who is required to
> process 30 students and produce grades can hardly be expected to nurture
> the little Jackson Pollock who would rather throw paint than trace
> turkeys and color pilgrims.
>
> In the culture of school in general, kids are taught to value the "A",
> and to get an "A" the work needs to be perfect. Bayles and Orland
> consider, in "Art and Fear", Ansel Adams' contention that "the perfect
> is the enemy of the good".
>
> "To require perfection is to invite paralysis. The pattern is
> predictable; as you see error in what you have done, you steer your work
> toward what you imagine you can do perfectly. You cling ever more
> tightly to what you already know you can do - away from the risk of
> exploration, and possibly further from the heart of your work."
>
> (Grad school, anyone?)
>
> We forget when we applaud and fuss over a child's first scribbles that
> we are applying pressure.. that when we hang the green-cloud-on-a-stick
> tree and the wobbly but recognizable house on the refrigerator, ooohing
> and ahhing, that we are assuring that our child will repeat that image
> again and again... and still be confused when the 400th bit of art
> offered for the fridge doesn't get the excited parental reviews as last
> year's. (What parent can sustain that level of excitement year after
> year?)
>
> So the kid decides that he/she used to be good at art but isn't anymore.
> Couple that with graded art projects at school, and it's no wonder most
> adults draw like third graders. That's when we quit trying.
>
> Two radical ideas I'd like to throw out, though I could likely be talked
> out of either of them:
>
> First: Maybe art education should be about technique, mastery of tools,
> practice in using a brush, a pen, a wheel, wood carving tools, print
> making, etc -- with the end product be dismissed as less important than
> some kind of improvement or evolution with the hands-on, technical part.
> That would avoid situations where a child's creative vision, however
> valid, is invisible to the teacher... or worse, where a well intentioned
> teacher goes all self-esteem-camp, gushing over a piece that the student
> barely applied himself to, and knows is no good. It tarnished the coin
> of the realm (praise,a nd approval) when it is dished out to all.
>
> Meanwhile kids could be exposed to the widest possible variety or art
> and artists, images and demos and visits to museums and guilds, without
> expectation that they should choose one or follow a path.
>
> Those who have the hunger to create or the confidence to express
> themselves can then do so safely outside the realm of teachers, peers,
> grades and expectations, having been handed the tools to do so. We can
> teach a child handwriting and grammar but can not teach her how to write
> her own poem; the soul of artistic pursuit cannot be taught, and takes
> place internally anyway, outside of the academy. We see more inspired
> individuals without the material skills to make their work than the
> other way around.
>
> Second radical notion: maybe not every kid was meant to make art, any
> more than they were all meant to be mathematicians or mechanics. The
> "every child was born an artist" idea is a good one, but in a more
> organic culture, some might best express their muse in architecture, or
> gardening, singing, cooking, or civil engineering. What we are born with
> (and what can be squashed) is an imagination unique to our souls, and a
> potential to find a channel for it.
>
> But until industrialized civilization (and education) it was a given
> that not every citizen was fit to be a "scribe". Some personalities,
> intellects and body types were better suited to herding sheep, building
> cathedrals, shoeing horses, making cheese. Now, they would all be lined
> up in rows at desks (and medicated if they were unable to sit still),
> and taught the same stuff. Those who can't read or write well learn that
> they are stupid, not that they are possibly ill suited to bookishness.
>
> The sad part is that those who might have been happy to put
> transmissions in jeeps or tend and nurture the elderly, or fly in
> ambulances to help the wounded -- are made to feel "less" than the
> academics with extra degrees and bigger paychecks.
>
> By the same token, kids give themselves up as "bad at art" (how many
> parents tell their kids, "I can't draw... I'm no good at that..." as a
> model?) The truth might be, "That's not my medium"... or "I have not
> practiced enough with these tools and skills to be able to make anything
> satisfying". Pile on an expectation of instant mastery -- by Friday, for
> a grade -- and no chance to learn from mistakes -- and it's not
> surprising that so many budding artists die on the vine.
>
> If we teach skills, tools and technical abilities, with no regard for
> the product, we remove the pressure and provide every opportunity for a
> kid to find the one medium that sings, that matters, that inspires. And
> if they don't... OK. It's not their road.
>
> In the end, I am less concerned about students who come out of school
> unable to make art, than I am about what I see as the cause: too many
> students come out of school (and home, and life) unable to trust their
> own ideas in ANY realm. They are taught to emulate teachers, peers and
> TV stars. They are obsessed with doing it "right", as if there is only
> one way. And when you have lost touch with your own soul, what source is
> left for creativity? If you don't know yourself anymore, what is there
> to make art about?
>
> Ralph Waldo Emerson:
>
> "We teach boys to be such men as we are. We do not teach them to aspire
> to be all they can.. We do not give them a training as if we believed in
> their noble nature. We scarce educate their bodies. We do not train the
> eye and the hand. We exercise their understandings to the apprehension
> and: comparison of some facts, to a skill in numbers, in words; we aim
> to make accountants, attorneys, engineers; but not to make able,
> earnest, great-hearted men."
>
> and
>
> "The popular education has been taxed with a want of truth and nature.
> It was complained that an education to things was not given. We are
> students of words: we are shut up in schools, and colleges, and
> recitation-rooms, for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last with a
> bag of wind, a memory of words, and do not know a thing. We cannot use
> our hands, or our legs, or our eyes, or our arms. We do not know an
> edible root in the woods, we cannot tell our course by the stars, nor
> the hour of the day by the sun. It is well if we can swim and skate. We
> are afraid of a horse, of a cow, of a dog, of a snake, of a spider. The
> Roman rule was, to teach a boy nothing that he could not learn standing.
> "
>
> Albert Einstein:
>
> "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."
>
> and
>
> "It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of
> instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
> inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands
> mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wrack and ruin
> without fail. It is a grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of
> seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of
> duty."
>
> OK... that's all I've got. Anybody who read this far... why? It's a nice
> day, go play outside (lol)
>
> Yours
> Kelly in Ohio
Ivor and Olive Lewis on thu 17 jul 08
I wonder, reading the replies to this thread, just how many schools
or educational institutions have defined curricula that give an
analysis of Educational Aims and Objectives for Learning in Arts,
Crafts and Design.
How many of you who are teaching consider ways of testing and
assessment methods for these aims and objectives?
What do you do if you have no guidelines?
Could you construct an Arts, Crafts and Design syllabus to cover the
formative years? or for the Middle School? Or for university entrants
?
How many of you are able teach your students, of any age, to evaluate
and judge the works they and others make?
I could, by the way, make the same challenges about Mathematics, the
Sciences or Languages.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
Lee Love on thu 17 jul 08
This is really interesting to me. The focus on evaluation, rather
than process.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
John Post on thu 17 jul 08
Teaching is as much about the teacher as it is about the students. My
best teachers had a passion for what they taught. Mike Volchko, my
7th grade government teacher taught me enough about government that I
never had to attend my college class on the subject. Tom Parrish was
the first college professor I met who had real passion for his art.
Just being around these two teachers was inspiring because of their
commitment to what they did and who they were as people.
I noticed that every year that I teach I tend to focus on different
aspects of being an artist and making art. I think of it like a
searchlight that illuminates something in the dark. While you are
lighting up one thing, other things are still in the shadows. As a
teacher, you can't shine the light on everything at once... but it is
your job as the teacher behind the searchlight to choose where to
shine it.
Every lesson can't teach every idea about making art.
Sometimes with elementary age kids a lesson might have a few simple
concepts. A portrait painting might be about how to fit the bust on
the page, what proportions artists look for to layout the face and
then how to use hues to make realistic flesh tones. Inspiration in my
classroom usually comes from a variety of images shown on a tv monitor
using PowerPoint software that is set to loop, so it repeats over and
over during a class. Of course the kids need to see what other
artists before them have done, just like adults, they don't make art
in a vacuum. The skills they learn in the portrait painting can be
applied to other painting assignments further down the road.
I teach a lesson about contrast and comparison. It is a concept that
they are supposed to use when they write essays. I make it visual for
them. The kids compare and contrast "Faith Ringgold's Tar Beach with
Georges Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte.
The kids are more than willing to spend an entire class discussing
these two paintings and often will make very high level observations
about both of them. But when the searchlight is shining on aesthetics
and art history in this lesson, it isn't shining on the production of
an art work.
Little kids like the rest of us are good at getting information and
learning how to do stuff in small chunks. My son who is going into
the 8th grade knows a pretty significant bit of information on how to
read music and make his lips do what he wants them to on the
trumpet... but he didn't learn it all in one big chunk. A little at
time is how he got it. Some days his class works on note reading,
other days they work learning new lip and tongue skills, other days
they learn about playing in group. But all of these little chunks add
up to the kid learning how to play the trumpet. ...and naturally in
music they learn skills and how to play and read other people's
music. No one gives them a trumpet, shows them how to play a few
notes and then asks them to compose a song.
These are some observations and opinions I have formed about teaching
elementary art for the last 10 or so years...
Little kids like to make representational art. Abstract and non-
objective art does not sustain them and they lose interest in it.
Making art about the elements and principles of design does not hold
much meaning for them. Sneak the elements and principles of design
into various lessons a little at a time. The links below show a
lesson I teach that marries the elements and principles to
representational content.
http://www.macomb.k12.mi.us/utica/Schwarzkoff/art-archives/art-04-05/!art-pages/!art-princess.htm
http://www.macomb.k12.mi.us/utica/Schwarzkoff/art-archives/!art-06-07/princess-birds/emotion%20in%20art.htm
Elementary artists need repeated exposure to the same materials from
year to year and from project to project. A mistake that some
elementary art teachers make is that they make one thing with glitter,
another thing with milk cartons, then move onto a project with paper
towel tubes. I only use 4 main media in my classroom. I teach how to
paint with tempera, paint with watercolor, draw with pencil, markers
and crayons and how to work with clay. Since the kids get repeated
exposure to these materials they can see their growth at using them.
They grow from project to project and from year to year. Every kid in
my school if they attend from Kindergarten through 6th grade should
make between 25-35 art works in clay. In some schools in my district
kids are lucky to make one clay object a year.
Elementary kids love to work in clay. They get to go from an
amorphous mass to something they have actually made using their own
hands. It is by far the most popular material in the art curriculum.
They love to paint too, but they always ask if their clay work has
been fired yet.
Kids are most likely to share their paintings and drawings with their
parents as soon as they are finished. I try to send those home the
same day when the excitement about making them is still high. If you
display them in the hall for a month or two, they are more likely to
end up in the trash as the high of making them is over for the kid.
Elementary kids are great at seeing the basic geometric shapes and
forms in objects. This is where the copy cat way comes in handy.
Describe to them how artists look for basic shapes and explain your
thought process as the kids make small practice sketches with you.
This way they can add the basic shape strategy to their toolbox for
drawing. Using basic geometric forms in clay like spheres, cylinders
and cones is a way to make a connection to working and thinking about
forms in clay.
Elementary kids are not that good at rendering 3 dimensional space.
The space in their paintings and drawings is flat. Teach them how to
place on object in front of another to create a sense of depth. This
they are good at and it makes their paintings seem richer.
Little kids need bigger paper than 9x12 when they paint. The littler
the kid, the bigger the paper I like to use.
12x18 inch paper works great for elementary kid tempera paintings.
With watercolor I like to use many, many 6x6 inch squares with them so
they can try many different color combinations of washes.
I like to give the kids goals to meet in each lesson, if they meet the
goals of the lesson, they are free to add/change and embellish the
lesson. When a kid asks me if their artwork is good I respond by
critiquing it based on the goals of the lesson and not on whether or
not I like it.
My principal asked us to create some portraits of him for his office.
Every kid in the school K-6 made a portrait of him. We discussed what
a commission was and looked at a huge variety of portraits by artists
throughout history. The kids made their paintings and my principal
picked what I would call the neater, crisper portraits for his
office. I selected a few for frames in the hall that were more
expressionistic. All of these paintings met the goal of the
assignment but we each liked different paintings. The nice thing is
that when I get to talk to the kids in the classroom about their art
process, I can keep it focused on the learning objectives and not
critique it in terms of a value judgment as to whether or not I like it.
(Whew....I may have written a post longer than one of Kelly's.... she
must be a faster typist than I am.)
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
:: cone 6 glaze website :: http://www.johnpost.us ~this site is
under reconstruction
:: elementary art website :: http://www.wemakeart.org
>
>
Ivor and Olive Lewis on fri 18 jul 08
Dear Lee Love,
Evaluation and Judgement are processes that need to be learned. They
should form part of the Taxonomy of Educational Aims and Objectives
around which the Teaching Curriculum is constructed and expressed in
the Subject Syllabus.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
<than process.>>
Lee Love on fri 18 jul 08
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Ivor and Olive Lewis
wrote:
> Dear Lee Love,
> Evaluation and Judgement are processes that need to be learned.
Process and evaluation are both needed and one should not be
neglected over another. That was my point.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Antoinette Badenhorst on sat 19 jul 08
I was teaching 10 year olds on the wheel this past week. It was their first experience on the wheel, so I just allowed them to use both hands cupping the clay and then when it was "centered" let them open it with both thumps. If they could, they lifted the clay to create a taller cylinder or bowl with both hands. They also made these cylinders with no bottom and then stacked them on top of each other to create an object. So it happened that one child made fish and other teapots and one girl made a dog.
This discussion about teaching was all the time in the back of my mind, but it is a tall order for a 10 year old to do a dog( for me also!) so we grabbed a book to find samples and there was also a plastic dog available. I had to decide what was the most important things this girl (and those around her) had to learn for this project. I ended up teaching her clay techniques( obviously the most important for now) and I tried to teach her to observe a few things, like positioning of legs and tail and eyes. I encouraged her to carry what she observed over to her project.
The dog is sitting on the shelve. It is not perfect, does not look too much like a Golden Retriever, but I am very proud of her and I am proud of myself that I could guide her to do her best without forcing her to do it perfect. I am also proud of the fact that I could take these kids "beyond the wheel" and since this was their first experiences on the wheel, I hope that they will remember for ever that the wheel is just another tool(and not the ultimate tool) to use in the bigger clay environment.
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Ivor and Olive Lewis
> Dear Lee Love,
> Evaluation and Judgement are processes that need to be learned. They
> should form part of the Taxonomy of Educational Aims and Objectives
> around which the Teaching Curriculum is constructed and expressed in
> the Subject Syllabus.
> Best regards,
> Ivor Lewis.
> Redhill,
> South Australia.
>
> <> than process.>>
| |
|
