John Post on sat 21 aug 10
On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:19 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Kids abstract art naturally and
> intuitively until we screw up that inclination with some sort of
> perverse
> dogma about pictorial realism.
Young kids want to make things look as realistic as they can get
them. They anoint who the artists are in their homeroom class based
on who can make things look the most real. Kids do not pursue
abstraction. Their art may look abstract to adults, but the child's
goal is not to create an abstract work of art.
Kids make loose brushstrokes and gestural lines when they are young.
Kids in kindergarten and first grade often write letters backwards. I
have seen kids write entire sentences with every letter backwards,
it's normal. The first time a kid writes the letter "a", the strokes
he or she uses are not nearly as confident as the strokes he or she
will use after writing thousands of a's. The same goes for their art.
Their mark making grows tighter and tighter as they move towards
junior high and high school. Junior high and high school are a great
time to teach technique, because kids want to learn "how" to do
things. Even though there may be many ways to do something, kids at
that age often want the structure of learning how to do it properly.
Realism is a big deal to them at that age and smart secondary teachers
capitalize on this by teaching the kids skills.
The worst art made by young kids is when the teacher strips out the
content or subject matter and tries to teach an abstract lesson about
one element or principle of design. Because little kids don't think
abstractly, they don't see any beauty in working with just lines, or
shapes or patterns. Making recognizable images is much more appealing
to kids than working abstractly.
The worst art at our district K-12 art show is made when teachers try
to get the kids to create abstract works of art. The best abstract
works of art that kids make happen because of the ways that kids make
marks. They are accidental abstract artists. They make beautiful
abstract marks while they are in pursuit of representation and realism.
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
http://www.johnpost.us
Robert Harris on sun 22 aug 10
I wonder (yet again as with many things on ClayArt) if definitions are
at issue here.
What age group does John mean? 7-13, 5-11? or 3-8. Or specifically 5 year o=
=3D
lds?
When Vince talks about the researchers he quotes what age group are
they talking about?
I would have thought that this sort of thing matters quite a bit.
I think it is inarguable that the children that John talks about are
striving for representation of objects. It IS a flower or bus or
whatever - I really don't think children are aiming for the "idea of a
bus". Certainly not 3 year olds or 5 year olds.
Does this mean they are striving for pictorial representation (IMHO I
believe it does).
On the other hand what they produce probably is their "idea" of a bus.
But to me INTENT is what matters, so even if they produce the abstract
"idea" of a bus, since that is not what they actually intend (and get
quite frustrated that it isn't right) then they aren't being naturally
abstract they just can't get eye and brain and hand in sync.
But then Vince uses words like "abstract", which often carries the
notion of NOT being truly representational of objects (although
perhaps being representational of ideas and concepts). But perhaps
Vince actually means abstract representation of actual objects. What
does this involve?
Vince you are not actually very good at presenting evidence, even
anecdotal stories. Your arguments are opinions backed with fluff, or
"my experts say". Perhaps you could give us some concrete examples of
the stories of abstraction that your 40 years of experience have given
you? What does "Abstract" mean to you? Could you be more precise in
your meaning?
For me (even when I disagree with him) Mel's short stories are at
least useful illustrations of his points. Anecdotes make good bedtime
reading, please regale us :).
Robert
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:00 PM, John Post wro=
=3D
te:
> Vince,
>
> I pointed you in the direction of two well respected researchers in
> the field of children's art and your response is that you can clearly
> see that they are full of shit. =3DA0I teach 800 little kids a week and
> from what I observe on a daily basis these two researchers are right
> on the money.
>
> You wrote:
> "I guess there is no point in me posting any more on this subject. The
> degree to which some of you misunderstand children and art scares me,
> and doesn't bode well for the future of art in America. =3DA0Damn right I
> am stubborn about this."
>
> Please point us in the direction of what you have read that leads you
> to the conclusion that kids start out intuitively abstracting and
> interpreting what they see in their surroundings. =3DA0As a teacher I
> would be interested in reading this research, it might be more
> persuasive than your declaration that the researchers I cited are full
> of shit.
>
> John
>
>
>> "As has been extensively studied by child psychologists and observed
>> by
>> parents, teachers, and others, kids start out intuitively
>> abstracting and
>> interpreting what they see in their surroundings, and see no reason to
>> make things look realistic.
>
>
>> That's a real problem in art education today,
>> and the sources you cite show how badly misunderstood this subject is.
>> Yeah, you can call them the experts, but I can clearly see that they
>> are
>> full of shit. =3DA0I have been thinking about this and reading about it
>> and
>> talking to teachers and children for 40 years,
>
--=3D20
----------------------------------------------------------
Vince Pitelka on sun 22 aug 10
John Post wrote:
"Young kids want to make things look as realistic as they can get
them. They anoint who the artists are in their homeroom class based
on who can make things look the most real. Kids do not pursue
abstraction. Their art may look abstract to adults, but the child's
goal is not to create an abstract work of art."
John -
As has been extensively studied by child psychologists and observed by
parents, teachers, and others, kids start out intuitively abstracting and
interpreting what they see in their surroundings, and see no reason to
make things look realistic. It serves no purpose to them, because they ar=
=3D
e
not trying to copy their surroundings, they are responding to their
surroundings and commenting on them. As I said in another post, if kids
are encouraged to keep doing that, they will develop a very strong sense
of abstract composition, which will serve them well whether they choose t=
=3D
o
make abstract or realistic work. It is an aberration of
European/Mediterranean-based Western culture that so many people think
that realistic pictorial art is somehow more appropriate or correct, and
it is a tremendous disservice to children when well-meaning parents,
peers, or teachers try to steer them towards realistic, pictorial art.
You wrote:
"The worst art made by young kids is when the teacher strips out the
content or subject matter and tries to teach an abstract lesson about
one element or principle of design. Because little kids don't think
abstractly, they don't see any beauty in working with just lines, or
shapes or patterns. Making recognizable images is much more appealing
to kids than working abstractly."
This may be true if the kids have already been indoctrinated to pictorial
art, but otherwise it is not true at all. Kids who are still making art
naturally and intuitively will have a great time creating completely
abstract compositions, just playing with line, shape, color, pattern,
texture, value, etc. I am very sorry to see that a teacher like you just
assumes that "Making recognizable images is much more appealing to kids
than working abstractly." You are referring to the kids who have already
been indoctrinated to realism, and then making generalizations about all
kids, and that does not serve them well.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
--=3D20
phil on sun 22 aug 10
Hi Vince, all,
Something I have noticed since I was a kid, is that many adults are always
way
too interested in what kids are doing, and, in all the wrong kinds of ways.
Or, they are indifferent, and respond only to their own 'triggers' and or t=
o
the persecution of their ( own ) 'shadows'...and that then is the
characterization of their involve with Children.
It is very rare than any adult has any wisdom at all ( or rather, the self
respect and self posession to see straight or to respct anyone ) in how the=
y
manifest a suposedly constructive interest in a child.
Were it not for the smug insular condescention implicit as primary
instruction from adults, in any of their interferences guised however so, I
doubt most of the SOBs would have any interest at all, other than in the
preliminary fornicating parts, from which, of course, as a sorry incidental=
,
children are invited to form and be born into this wilted salad landscape o=
f
cannibal cretins and all their myopic delusions of motive or reason and
self.
The constant 'evaluating' ( whether 'positive' or 'negative' if not measure=
s
of both at once, ) is a
neurotogenic or schitzogenic introjection and imposition adults do, out of
their own un-resolved and subterfuged anxieties, out of their own normative
psychosis and incompleteness, and it is not good for
Children to have to be endlessly cornered by it...lest they learn it, as
primary if parenthetical mandate and implicit instruction, which, of course=
,
is exactly what they DO 'learn' - it is what they are 'taught'...no matter
the pretense of subject or reason.
In our species, it is the measure, in disguise, of the failure of 'adults'
to ever reach adulthood, or to avoid being mobilized by the needyness with
which they impose
and exploit Children, in the guise of 'helping' them.
This is very different than the ingenuous or endemicly wholesome interest
and attention and interaction which adut Creatures in what otherwise one
could call 'Nature', have for for to their Young...in guiding, showing,
demonstrating things.
The latter, in my opinion, is infinitely preferable, and, infinitely more
self respecting, and, respecting to the youngster and his or her developmen=
t
and authenticity and true autonomy/self-posession, wholeness...than the
former.
Adults need to find something of their own to do, instead of fussing and
leaning over children so much...and making such a big deal out of the thing=
s
Children do...and needing them to do things which can flatter the adults
pretentions or status.
Oye...
As someone almost old now, I look back, and I am sorry I did not torch the
god damned 'school', and my parent's house, ideally with them in it.
Oh well, if there IS Re-Incarnation, maybe 'Next time"...
Hell, maybe that is what I had said LAST time???
Or maybe, if there is a 'next time', I can damned well be a little more
choosey as for among whom, and where, I land.
Lol...
Love,
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
John Post wrote:
"Young kids want to make things look as realistic as they can get
them. They anoint who the artists are in their homeroom class based
on who can make things look the most real. Kids do not pursue
abstraction. Their art may look abstract to adults, but the child's
goal is not to create an abstract work of art."
John -
As has been extensively studied by child psychologists and observed by
parents, teachers, and others, kids start out intuitively abstracting and
interpreting what they see in their surroundings, and see no reason to
make things look realistic. It serves no purpose to them, because they are
not trying to copy their surroundings, they are responding to their
surroundings and commenting on them. As I said in another post, if kids
are encouraged to keep doing that, they will develop a very strong sense
of abstract composition, which will serve them well whether they choose to
make abstract or realistic work. It is an aberration of
European/Mediterranean-based Western culture that so many people think
that realistic pictorial art is somehow more appropriate or correct, and
it is a tremendous disservice to children when well-meaning parents,
peers, or teachers try to steer them towards realistic, pictorial art.
You wrote:
"The worst art made by young kids is when the teacher strips out the
content or subject matter and tries to teach an abstract lesson about
one element or principle of design. Because little kids don't think
abstractly, they don't see any beauty in working with just lines, or
shapes or patterns. Making recognizable images is much more appealing
to kids than working abstractly."
This may be true if the kids have already been indoctrinated to pictorial
art, but otherwise it is not true at all. Kids who are still making art
naturally and intuitively will have a great time creating completely
abstract compositions, just playing with line, shape, color, pattern,
texture, value, etc. I am very sorry to see that a teacher like you just
assumes that "Making recognizable images is much more appealing to kids
than working abstractly." You are referring to the kids who have already
been indoctrinated to realism, and then making generalizations about all
kids, and that does not serve them well.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Randall Moody on sun 22 aug 10
Couldn't it be argued that the kids are not actually abstracting at all but
rather simply making a poor representation of what they are trying to draw?
I have heard that the term abstract is misused in relation to Pollock and
others and that non-representational is more correct since they were not
abstracting an image, object or scene. I am of the opinion that Pollock had
much less control over his medium than he is thought to have. Does anyone
have any links to his early work? Picasso proved his technical chops early
on. I don't see that facility in Pollock's early work.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
phil on sun 22 aug 10
Hi Randall,=3D20
I would believe so.
I recall drawing when I was like four, five, six, and, I drew as I drew, =
=3D
for want of being able to represent more approximately 'realistic' =3D
depictions.
My drawings were a way of combining elements of the to me salient-most =3D
and roughly poetic allusions and approximations of, both the qualities, =3D
and forms, or identities I was depicting with lines and =3D
colors...according to my skill for doing so at that time.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I knew very well what my intentions were, and, what I wished to realize =3D
in depicting the subject matter, and my skills to do so were very =3D
limited, if innocent and leaning to the 'poetic' as content.
This was how my mind worked then...and, it is how my mind works now...if =
=3D
it is to concern volitional drawing of subject matter I elect, for =3D
purposes of personal interest to depict it.
Isometric or technical drawings, of course, tend to be much more =3D
disciplined toward a standard of outcome, for others to be able to =3D
interpret along standard expectations for the subjectmatter being dealt =3D
with.
My own 'Work Notes', do not, of course, have to be anything but =3D
interpretable to me...which is where my 'drawings' were at, when I was a =
=3D
kid.
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----=3D20
From: Randall Moody=3D20
Couldn't it be argued that the kids are not actually abstracting at =3D
all but rather simply making a poor representation of what they are =3D
trying to draw? I have heard that the term abstract is misused in =3D
relation to Pollock and others and that non-representational is more =3D
correct since they were not abstracting an image, object or scene. I am =3D
of the opinion that Pollock had much less control over his medium than =3D
he is thought to have. Does anyone have any links to his early work? =3D
Picasso proved his technical chops early on. I don't see that facility =3D
in Pollock's early work.=3D20
--=3D20
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
John Post on sun 22 aug 10
> Vince wrote:
> As has been extensively studied by child psychologists and observed by
> parents, teachers, and others, kids start out intuitively
> abstracting and
> interpreting what they see in their surroundings, and see no reason to
> make things look realistic.
Kids don't start out abstracting anything. What they do is make
marks. As they gain more control over their mark making they progress
towards realism. To some, realism implies Western art, a better word
to use here might be representation. They start to make marks that
represent things. In the book Analyzing Children's Art by Rhoda
Kellogg there is a very nice table that illustrates the natural
developmental progression that kids go through. Here is a link to it...
http://cl.ly/e0724e4e5621c0878873
Before school age most kids have already developmentally moved to the
top row of this chart. What I find so compelling about Rhoda
Kellogg's work is that she looked at the works of art that kids made
from around the globe and found that this hierarchy holds true for
all cultures, not just Western cultures.
Victor Lowenfeld describes stages of artistic development that kids go
through and they too include the move from mark making to
representation and realism. You can read about Lowenfeld's stages
here...
http://www.arteducationstudio.com/viktor.htm
I am not aware of any child psychologists who posit that kids start
out intuitively abstracting and interpreting what they see in their
surroundings (but I would like to read about them if you can point me
to them).
You often post the quote "imitate, assimilate, innovate" by jazzman
Terry Clark. I am wondering why this would be true for adults, but
not for kids?
> It is an aberration of
> European/Mediterranean-based Western culture that so many people think
> that realistic pictorial art is somehow more appropriate or correct,
> and
> it is a tremendous disservice to children when well-meaning parents,
> peers, or teachers try to steer them towards realistic, pictorial art.
Kids steer themselves toward representation. It is a natural part of
their development as artists and people. My position on this is that
kids choose to work towards representation, I did not say that I
steered them in that direction. My original post is more about
observation than it is a prescription. Teaching kids about abstract
art is a worthwhile endeavor but I do not believe they are naturally
inclined towards abstraction. Or put another way, they grow out of
their early abstract mark making into more representational imagery.
> This may be true if the kids have already been indoctrinated to
> pictorial
> art, but otherwise it is not true at all. Kids who are still making
> art
> naturally and intuitively will have a great time creating completely
> abstract compositions, just playing with line, shape, color, pattern,
> texture, value, etc. I am very sorry to see that a teacher like you
> just
> assumes that "Making recognizable images is much more appealing to
> kids
> than working abstractly." You are referring to the kids who have
> already
> been indoctrinated to realism, and then making generalizations about
> all
> kids, and that does not serve them well.
This statement is like saying kids are indoctrinated into puberty.
Kids are not indoctrinated into pictorial art. It is part of their
natural development.
Here is a link to where you can purchase Rhoda Kellogg's book...
http://cl.ly/64a282b820a2895cce37
And for those interested, here are a few more images from the book
that I put up on the web to illuminate this discussion...
People:
http://cl.ly/878ca2a37fda3e00ccc4
Animals:
http://cl.ly/e10461517ad3d68a1316
Science: (the apple, carrot and milkweed are quire abstract, but the
goal is representational)
http://cl.ly/d83d4a1b710d13290739
Ballpark:
http://cl.ly/8cc1b5f834395d80c42d
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
http://www.johnpost.us
Elizabeth Priddy on sun 22 aug 10
John and Vince's opposing philosophies break down into whether
your desire in teaching children is to give them what they desire
or to mold them into your idea of what is good.
I actively taught children for 15 years in parks and rec programming.
My experience is that children as young as 3-4 want to be able to recognize=
what they are making. Their natural interest in abstraction is not in pla=
y.
Psychologically, it would not even make a lot of sense for it to be. Very =
young children are acquiring language and the ability to identify and commu=
nicate about the real world in an effective manner. Abstraction is an elem=
ent of synthetic reasoning and is not asked of children until they are at l=
east about 7-9 years old depending on the developmental progress of the chi=
ld.
Abstraction, at that age is a useful concept, but not before. And it is no=
t beat out of them by simply waiting until it is conceptually meaningful to=
introduce it.
I think high school is a bit late for introducing it, and Vince has a point=
that it is undervalued for the most part. But not everyone will want to g=
o there regardless of their artistic training.
Neither of them is wholly right about this, as it usually is with every dog=
matic approach to anything.
- ePriddy
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
James Freeman on sun 22 aug 10
Randall, John, Robert, Phil...
I started drafting a post on this subject this morning, but had to
leave before finishing. I came back to find that you have made some
of my points already. John, I of course defer to you as a trained,
proven, and practicing expert in this field. Nonetheless, here are my
ideas:
I have read and pondered on this topic for a number of years. I too
believe that children do not abstract at all, but rather simply do a
poor job of representation, due to a combination of lack of technical
skill, lack of dexterity, and most importantly lack of observational
skills. I believe that they are trying their hardest to make a
representational image. This can be easily confirmed simply by
talking to the child. When you point to a certain part of the drawing
and ask what it is, you will get a very concrete answer. You won't
hear anything even remotely related to abstraction, nor anything about
attempts to express feelings or impressions about an object. You will
get a precise explanation of what the object in the drawing "is".
When my 5 year old nephew was here last week, he drew a rather
abstract looking agglomeration of squares, circles, triangles, and a
few lines. When I asked what it was, he stated quite emphatically
that "This is a motor home. These are the wheels. This is the door
where the driver gets in. This part on the back folds down to be a
ramp..." Nothing abstract at all. Everything in the picture was
something quite specific.
Phil, I don't often differ with you, but I do not believe schools nor
adults can choke anything out of us, even when they try. They can
make us miserable through their attempts, but no one changes in any
material way. Think back to those golden days. The kids who we all
knew were bad remained bad despite all efforts to snuff out that
particular flame. The artistic kids remained artistic, nothing
changed or lost. The math kids remained mathematically inclined, the
sensitive kids remained sensitive, the bullies remained bullies. The
bad kids are now bad adults, the artistic kids are now artistic
adults, and perhaps the worst failing of the system, the bully kids
are now bully adults. In light of mountains of such experience
demonstrating the absolute failure of schools or adults to change
anyone, whether they were trying or not, it seems unsupportable to
claim that schools and adults somehow choke us all into abandoning
some supposed innate sense of abstraction. (Phil, I know you did not
make this last claim at all.)
I believe that the primary reason why people, both children and
adults, have trouble drawing representationally stems from the way in
which most human brains seem to be wired. The human mind works
largely through a process of categorization. We subconsciously try to
classify all new data, all new sensory input, in terms of things we
have already classified. If no category exists, we create a new one,
which then becomes a new drawer in our filing system. A good example
of power and benefit of this categorization phenomenon is those
computer screen security boxes filled with distorted text which the
user must type out to prove his or her humanity. Called "captcha",
this test relies on the fact that a human will see the distorted
letters and be able to categorize them, "this is an S, that is a
numeral 2, not a letter Z, that wiggly thing is an A...", while a
machine, which must follow strict instructions, is incapable of making
such leaps. This propensity to generalize and categorize explains the
absolutely fascinating phenomena of pareidolia and apophenia, whereby
we see pictures in the clouds, hear a radio when the furnace is
running, see ghosts, see faces on cars and other inanimate objects, or
find Jesus or Mary or Elvis on a burnt waffle.
The drawback to our mental processes is that we tend to rely on
categorization, and since we can ordinarily get by just fine this way,
we tend never to develop true observational skills. In short, it
causes us to think iconographically, to take a mental shortcut. If we
put a chair in front of someone, child or otherwise, and say "draw
this", why do we typically get a rather poor or "abstract" result? It
is because most folks do not really observe the chair, then transfer
the observations to paper. Rather, we look at the object and our
brain instantly says "chair". Once categorized, the specific chair
almost ceases to exist for us, and we draw not the object in front of
us, but rather a representation of our iconographic mental image of a
chair, at best with a few of the more peculiar features appended.
An even better example of this phenomena is found in the typical
drawing of a human face, by child or adult. Absent training, most will
place the eyes somewhere on the forehead, and typically too close
together. The ears are likewise often too high on the head, the mouth
is much too wide, and the nose is simply a mess. How can the drawings
come out this way time after time when numerous examples of human
faces abound? It is clearly not out of any kind of conscious or
unconscious propensity toward abstraction, but rather out of the
simple fact that we are not really seeing nor drawing what is in front
of us. We are rather merely copying our own iconographic face, and
unfortunately such icons tend to be quite vague and inchoate. It is
not a human propensity toward abstraction we are witnessing, but
rather only a human propensity toward mental laziness.
The case of the drawing of a human face also allows us to largely
discount lack of technical skills as the culprit, leaving lack of
observational skill as prime. Even lacking technical skill, the
parts, though perhaps poorly drawn, would still be in about the right
places and of about the right sizes if we were to actually "see" our
model, yet they are not.
As this is turning into a book, I shall stop now. I hope that I have
been clear in the limited space allowed, but would be happy to expand
upon anything that appears hazy.
Oh, Robert, Mr. Pollock's drippy paintings were largely just temper
tantrums, though they inadvertently turned out to be honest
statements. His question to his champion, Clement Greenberg, to the
effect of "If I am the greatest painter in the world, how come nobody
buys my paintings?" is quite telling. For an academic understanding
of that "artistic" era, Gombrich is hard to beat. For a sociological
understanding, read Thomas Wolfe's The Painted Word. Pure gold.
All just my thoughts and opinions.
Seemingly though sadly necessary preemptive defensive note: If anyone
plans to tell me I am arrogant, pompous, contentious, that my ideas
"are entirely without merit", or that "you are obviously pulling our
leg, as no thinking person could ever hold such ridiculous views",
then please save your breath and bandwidth. Such statements are
entirely without substance or meaning. Also, as I have blocked
through the magic of Gmail the common sources of such thought, I
likely won't even see it.
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Vince Pitelka on sun 22 aug 10
Randall Moody wrote:
"Couldn't it be argued that the kids are not actually abstracting at all
but rather simply making a poor representation of what they are trying to
draw? I have heard that the term abstract is misused in relation to
Pollock and others and that non-representational is more correct since
they were not abstracting an image, object or scene. I am of the opinion
that Pollock had much less control over his medium than he is thought to
have. Does anyone have any links to his early work? Picasso proved his
technical chops early on. I don't see that facility in Pollock's early
work."
Hi Randall -
Have you watched young kids making abstract art? They do not care a whit
about copying reality. They are making art ABOUT what they feel and see,
and copying reality is irrelevant.
To say that "Picasso proved his technical chops early on" is to
misunderstand the normal sequence of learning to make art. Picasso himsel=
=3D
f
said "As a young man, I learned to draw like Raphael, but it has taken me
a lifetime to learn to draw like a child." What he was saying is that it
took him a lifetime to let go, to abstract and interpret his subject
matter. I don't know if I would agree with him, because he made that
statement fairly late in life, and yet he painted Guernica in 1937, and I
cannot say that anything he did after that was any better or more
powerful. But if he had "let go" and accepted pure intuitive abstract
composition even earlier, who knows what else he might have accomplished?=
=3D
=3D20
Are you saying that doing realistic work somehow proved his technical
chops more than doing abstract work? Every artist has to prove their
technical chops before they can make great art.
Learning to draw realistically is not a requisite to being a good or grea=
=3D
t
artist, nor is it associated with any natural human artistic inclination.=
=3D
=3D20
It's a good discipline as a form of training, but a committed art student
can learn 2-D and 3-D composition, color theory, and gesture drawing, and
with enough art-making in the trenches can move on to making good (or eve=
=3D
n
great) art without ever having focused on rendering (drawing realistic
images). Again, I appreciate pictorial realism when it is done well, but =
=3D
I
do not agree that pictorial realism is in any way a more valid form of ar=
=3D
t
than non-objective abstraction (as in the work of Kandinsky, Malevich,
Miro, the Abstract Expressionists, etc.), or a necessary step to becoming
a good artist.
"Non-representational" or "non-objective" art imply creation of an image
or sculpture with no direct pictorial adherence to a specific subject
matter, while "abstracted" simply means that you are focusing on the
compositional structure rather than the pictorial subject. Charles Sheele=
=3D
r
is one of my favorite American painters, and his paintings are
photo-realistic, and yet he focused primarily on abstract composition
rather than pictorial meaning.
In conventional terms, when we say that a work of art is "abstract," we
are usually implying that it has been fairly radically altered from the
original subject matter, even if it is still a pictorial image. French
Cubism and the works of the Italian Futurists are good examples.
Jackson Pollack's works from the 1940s are the ones where he shows the
most facility, as compared to the contrived quality and gimmickry of his
drip paintings. Look at works such as "Mural," "Gothic," "Guardians of
the Secret," and "She-Wolf." They are by far his most powerful. He was
the first "Neo-Expressionist, even before Abstract Expressionist was
defined. After his studies with Thomas Hart Benton, he absolutely
exploded with potential and expression. He completely re-defined the
concept of expressionism in this work. From my own point of view it is
hard to understand how anyone cannot experience the power in this work, o=
=3D
r
the vitality of that period in his altogether-too-short career. Please do
not take that personally. The lack of understanding and appreciation of
his early work reflects poorly on our educational system in the arts.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
--=3D20
Vince Pitelka on sun 22 aug 10
I wrote:
"As has been extensively studied by child psychologists and observed by
parents, teachers, and others, kids start out intuitively abstracting and
interpreting what they see in their surroundings, and see no reason to
make things look realistic.
In response, John Post wrote:
"Kids don't start out abstracting anything. What they do is make marks.=3D=
20
As they gain more control over their mark making they progress towards
realism. To some, realism implies Western art, a better word to use here
might be representation. They start to make marks that represent things.=
=3D
"
Goodness John, you are a teacher. What do you think those kids are doing
when they are making marks? From the first mark-making, they are
responding to their experiences and their surroundings in some ways.=3D20
Sometimes their work might develop into pictorial realism, but it should
never be steered in that direction, nor should it ever be assumed that it
will go in that direction. That's a real problem in art education today,
and the sources you cite show how badly misunderstood this subject is.=3D20
Yeah, you can call them the experts, but I can clearly see that they are
full of shit. I have been thinking about this and reading about it and
talking to teachers and children for 40 years, and it is clear to me that
young children do visually abstract and interpret their surroundings and
experience. In my opinion that just seems to be a "well duh!" concept,
because that is just what they do intuitively. Certainly they are
experimenting with art materials and mark-making, but in everything they
do and make, they are always responding to circumstances, imagery, and
experience in some way. It is obvious that they are not just making marks
in a vacuum.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
--=3D20
Vince Pitelka on sun 22 aug 10
I guess there is no point in me posting any more on this subject. The
degree to which some of you misunderstand children and art scares me, and
doesn't bode well for the future of art in America. Damn right I am
stubborn about this. Apparently I give young the artmaking inclinations
of young children a lot more credit than most people. The idea that they
would just want to draw realistically is completely lame, and counter to
everything I know about children and their natural, intuitive
inclinations. It doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't correspond t=
=3D
o
what we see in the artmaking of young children, and it does not correspon=
=3D
d
to what happens to kids who grow up in cultures that do not emphasize
pictorial realism, such as tribal cultures and East Asian cultures. This
saddens me.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Robert Harris on sun 22 aug 10
Good post James. I just watched a Discovery program on Kim Peek the
original "Rainman", he was not autistic, he was missing his corpus
collosum. His memorisation talents were a direct result of having
problems interpreting his observations, and assigning meaning to them
(he had particular trouble with metaphors - he interpreted them
literally - for example getting a :grip" on himself). Because of this
he could remember what he observed (he knew the town name/region of
every Zip code in the USA), since nothing was interpreting it. This
more or less backs up what you are saying. We filter our observations
through all sorts of processes including recognition categorisation
and iconography. This means we don't actually see things as they are,
but as we expect to see them, or as they are filtered through our
categorization filters.
To take your example of child's drawing of the minibus, the
perspective is skewed because he wanted to include all of the parts
that he notices and makes them as large as they are important to him
(I once, as a young child, drew a police wagon with the word POLICE
taking up more than it's share of space, it was important to me). It
is interesting is that this is often what caricaturists do. If a
politician has a large nose they will enlarge it beyond its normal
dimensions, because it is one of his defining features. So it is a
lack of observational skill (due to our intellect) that creates this
problem.
Training an artist is as much training accurate observation as it is
motor skills.
Robert
James Freeman on sun 22 aug 10
BINGO!
I believe the art "prodigies" are those whose own peculiar brain was
so wired that they did not think or observe iconographically. My own
eldest son is seemingly such an individual. At age 3, while spending
the day at his grandmother's house, he drew a picture of a train. His
grandmother asked him why the engine was so big, but the other cars
got smaller and smaller. He replied that it was because the other
cars were farther away. No one had taught him about perspective, and
I doubt anyone could have at that age, as the concept is too abstract.
He had simply observed that things in real life looked smaller as the
distance to them increased, and translated this information to his
drawing.
I further believe that most of us are not possessed of such a mind.
Aside from the requisite imparting of technical skills (which could in
fact be acquired on one's own), I believe that good artistic training
consists mostly of breaking our lazy habit of iconographic thinking,
and forcing us to really see, perhaps for the first time. And yes,
even if that "seeing" is seeing what is in our mind, and not
necessarily what is directly in front of us.
Thanks also for the mention of Mr. Peek. I shall read up on him forthwith.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Robert Harris wr=
=3D
ote:
> Good post James. I just watched a Discovery program on Kim Peek the
> original "Rainman", he was not autistic, he was missing his corpus
> collosum. His memorisation talents were a direct result of having
> problems interpreting his observations, and assigning meaning to them
> (he had particular trouble with metaphors - he interpreted them
> literally - for example getting a :grip" on himself). Because of this
> he could remember what he observed (he knew the town name/region of
> every Zip code in the USA), since nothing was interpreting it. This
> more or less backs up what you are saying. We filter our observations
> through all sorts of processes including recognition categorisation
> and iconography. This means we don't actually see things as they are,
> but as we expect to see them, or as they are filtered through our
> categorization filters.
>
> To take your example of child's drawing of the minibus, the
> perspective is skewed because he wanted to include all of the parts
> that he notices and makes them as large as they are important to him
> (I once, as a young child, drew a police wagon with the word POLICE
> taking up more than it's share of space, it was important to me). It
> is interesting is that this is often what caricaturists do. If a
> politician has a large nose they will enlarge it beyond its normal
> dimensions, because it is one of his defining features. So it is a
> lack of observational skill (due to our intellect) that creates this
> problem.
>
> Training an artist is as much training accurate observation as it is
> motor skills.
>
> Robert
>
John Post on sun 22 aug 10
Vince,
I pointed you in the direction of two well respected researchers in
the field of children's art and your response is that you can clearly
see that they are full of shit. I teach 800 little kids a week and
from what I observe on a daily basis these two researchers are right
on the money.
You wrote:
"I guess there is no point in me posting any more on this subject. The
degree to which some of you misunderstand children and art scares me,
and doesn't bode well for the future of art in America. Damn right I
am stubborn about this."
Please point us in the direction of what you have read that leads you
to the conclusion that kids start out intuitively abstracting and
interpreting what they see in their surroundings. As a teacher I
would be interested in reading this research, it might be more
persuasive than your declaration that the researchers I cited are full
of shit.
John
> "As has been extensively studied by child psychologists and observed
> by
> parents, teachers, and others, kids start out intuitively
> abstracting and
> interpreting what they see in their surroundings, and see no reason to
> make things look realistic.
> That's a real problem in art education today,
> and the sources you cite show how badly misunderstood this subject is.
> Yeah, you can call them the experts, but I can clearly see that they
> are
> full of shit. I have been thinking about this and reading about it
> and
> talking to teachers and children for 40 years,
phil on sun 22 aug 10
Vince!!!
Stay on it...be patient, hone and clearify the depictions, make 'em, you
know, 'realistic'...
Understand that individuals may have various ways of 'Slicing the Pie'...
I sure as hell do.
So do you.
So do others.
So do Children.
Do not be discouraged if disagreement/disjunction occurs...or if one view o=
r
another may not dominate.
The 'Pie' remains innately 'Mysterious'...and bigger and more interesting
than anyone's manner of 'slicing'...( or vivisecting ).
How we slice it, is the shapes we assign to the slices we make...then we ca=
n
look at them, and it is patently obvious they are shaped the way they are!
If we keep digging, it will get 'deeper'.
What would the Pie be like...if we did not 'slice' it?
Oh! The compulsions! But one MUST slice it!!! and one must slice it like
daddy or whomever taught us!!! See these old Welts on my ass!!! YOU bet I
'learned'!!!
It is the way-of-our-peep-hole! ( people ) Lol...
Otherwise, so long as it stays superficial or dogmatic, "that" is all we
have to work with in our inquiry.
Be-ware any or all high degress of emotional 'charge'.
Always, they were put there, by forces or conditions which make us blind an=
d
bound... a Slave's 'Collar'...to a Leash...who holds the Leash?
The first Shovel full of dig, ought to get us into or past that layer.
That's when things will start to get difficult.
After that, we gotta lean over to see 'in'...
One may well learn what Vertigo is, too...
Love,
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
I guess there is no point in me posting any more on this subject. The
degree to which some of you misunderstand children and art scares me, and
doesn't bode well for the future of art in America. Damn right I am
stubborn about this. Apparently I give young the artmaking inclinations
of young children a lot more credit than most people. The idea that they
would just want to draw realistically is completely lame, and counter to
everything I know about children and their natural, intuitive
inclinations. It doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't correspond to
what we see in the artmaking of young children, and it does not correspond
to what happens to kids who grow up in cultures that do not emphasize
pictorial realism, such as tribal cultures and East Asian cultures. This
saddens me.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3088 - Release Date: 08/22/10
11:35:00
Snail Scott on mon 23 aug 10
I was gonna stay out of this, but it seems to me
that it's become unnecessarily polarized.
Much of this argument seems to pivot around
the notion of 'abstraction'. Let's remember that
it really means taking the important stuff (as
determined by the artist) and leaving out (or
modifying) the rest, not unlike an 'abstract' of
a scientific paper (or Cliff's Notes) which give
a vastly edited version of the full document
while retaining its most essential features.
(The rhythmic pattern of treetrunks, but not
their color, or the geometry and color of a city
with no actual buildings or people, etc...)
When 20th century art began to include art that
made no reference at all to the real world, it
was still called 'abstract' for many years, but
eventually the inappropriateness of this made
a new term necessary: non-representational art
(also called non-objective art).
In my personal experience , kids want to
acquire skills to communicate clearly in both
language and visual arts. When they draw,
though they may sometimes make squiggly
lines or marks (non-representational art)
just for the fun of it, they do see that as play,
and don't approach it with the focus and
intensity that they bring to their more 'purposed'
drawings.
When they draw a tree or a house or a person,
they consistently include elements that are
iconic of that thing, even when not visible or not
even present at all, to ensure communication.
When drawing the family, a sibling who is taller
or who has longer hair will have that clearly
shown as an identifier. However, 'Mom' will often
be drawn in a skirt even if she never wears one,
because kids learn these iconic elements
(only females wear skirts) very, very early. Kids
in New Mexico will draw a house with a pointy
roof even if their own house and those of all their
friends have a flat roofs, because that is learned
early on (from external sources of all sorts) as
the icon for 'house'.
I haven't read much on the subject; this is just
my own observation, but it seems to me that
kids don't exactly seek 'representation' as we
would use the term (close visual similarity to the
real thing), but recognizability, which may be
well served by representation but isn't quite the
same thing. This leads to common usages like
tables with all four legs visible even at the cost
of one sticking oddly into the air, and other
Egyptian-like efforts to show all of the most
definitive aspects of something even if they
can't all be seen from one angle in real life.
So, I would suggest that to some extent, kids do
make abstract art (not non-representational art)
because they focus on the things that seem most
important and essential to them. They seldom
(in my experience) make changes to the real
things they see just for the sake of experiment or
free play. That comes later. They may not color in
the entire sky with blue, but there will be a blue
line at the top because sky is 'up' and blue, and
there will be a sun because that's another indicator
that it's the sky. It's yellow not from observation but
because that's what they've learned is iconic for
the sun. (Kids do not live in a vacuum, and for
everything they seem to do instinctively, there are
as many that are learned behaviors, even very
young.) They may draw purple trees if it's the most
convenient crayon, but most will see green trees
as preferable.
In my perception, kids use both representation
and abstraction as tools to the same end:
recognizable imagery, and thus communication.
-Snail
Jeff Jeff on mon 23 aug 10
Robert,
While I appreciate your thoughtful tone I have to say your suggestion that
we need to present "evidence" to support our opinions is a bit much.
If we were child psychologist's that would be one thing, but to the best of
my knowledge, we're not.
Why the need to debate things all the time? Can't you simply air your
opinions and allow others to do the same?
Jeff Longtin
Minneapolis
In a message dated 8/23/2010 7:02:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
robertgharris@GMAIL.COM writes:
I wonder (yet again as with many things on ClayArt) if definitions are
at issue here.
What age group does John mean? 7-13, 5-11? or 3-8. Or specifically 5 year
olds?
When Vince talks about the researchers he quotes what age group are
they talking about?
I would have thought that this sort of thing matters quite a bit.
I think it is inarguable that the children that John talks about are
striving for representation of objects. It IS a flower or bus or
whatever - I really don't think children are aiming for the "idea of a
bus". Certainly not 3 year olds or 5 year olds.
Does this mean they are striving for pictorial representation (IMHO I
believe it does).
On the other hand what they produce probably is their "idea" of a bus.
But to me INTENT is what matters, so even if they produce the abstract
"idea" of a bus, since that is not what they actually intend (and get
quite frustrated that it isn't right) then they aren't being naturally
abstract they just can't get eye and brain and hand in sync.
But then Vince uses words like "abstract", which often carries the
notion of NOT being truly representational of objects (although
perhaps being representational of ideas and concepts). But perhaps
Vince actually means abstract representation of actual objects. What
does this involve?
Vince you are not actually very good at presenting evidence, even
anecdotal stories. Your arguments are opinions backed with fluff, or
"my experts say". Perhaps you could give us some concrete examples of
the stories of abstraction that your 40 years of experience have given
you? What does "Abstract" mean to you? Could you be more precise in
your meaning?
For me (even when I disagree with him) Mel's short stories are at
least useful illustrations of his points. Anecdotes make good bedtime
reading, please regale us :).
Robert
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:00 PM, John Post
wrote:
> Vince,
>
> I pointed you in the direction of two well respected researchers in
> the field of children's art and your response is that you can clearly
> see that they are full of shit. I teach 800 little kids a week and
> from what I observe on a daily basis these two researchers are right
> on the money.
>
> You wrote:
> "I guess there is no point in me posting any more on this subject. The
> degree to which some of you misunderstand children and art scares me,
> and doesn't bode well for the future of art in America. Damn right I
> am stubborn about this."
>
> Please point us in the direction of what you have read that leads you
> to the conclusion that kids start out intuitively abstracting and
> interpreting what they see in their surroundings. As a teacher I
> would be interested in reading this research, it might be more
> persuasive than your declaration that the researchers I cited are full
> of shit.
>
> John
>
>
>> "As has been extensively studied by child psychologists and observed
>> by
>> parents, teachers, and others, kids start out intuitively
>> abstracting and
>> interpreting what they see in their surroundings, and see no reason to
>> make things look realistic.
>
>
>> That's a real problem in art education today,
>> and the sources you cite show how badly misunderstood this subject is.
>> Yeah, you can call them the experts, but I can clearly see that they
>> are
>> full of shit. I have been thinking about this and reading about it
>> and
>> talking to teachers and children for 40 years,
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
paul gerhold on mon 23 aug 10
Vince,
Your comments on Pollock seem to be more a reflection of your opinion rathe=
r
than what most of the larger art world believes. I used to think of
Pollock's drip paintings as gimmicky till I saw a retrospective at the
Philadelphia Museum and came to appreciate the work and the thought that
went into it. Drip painting definitely went through some serious evolution
and were clearly a striving toward a conceptual goal.
I seriously doubt that the greater art word is wrong and you are right. No=
w
if you were honest and said "I just don't like the work or I don't
understand the work then I could have more respect"
Paul
P.S.- His early work is good too. Bet you like early Voulkos more than
later Voulkos.
phil on mon 23 aug 10
Hi Vince, all...
I will try again...but I am way too overtired and worn thin lately to feel =
I
can string much of a sentence together...
Below, amid...anyway...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
> I guess there is no point in me posting any more on this subject.
My own acceptance, is that left to their own devices and peers, Children
will aspire
to represent things and events in ways which are effecient to an exercise o=
f
their
values and communication-modes with eachother...which may mean, in some
cases, to strive for reasonably communicable-intelligible offerings
to others in general then as well, as a manner of communication
satisfaction, and, in detailed and or accurate
enough ways of depiction to permit
satisfaction for themselves, and others, according
to the kind of realization or emphasis they are after.
Some sorts of drawings or other representations/depictions are successful
for minimally suggesting the thing or event in
question...or suggesting it idiomatically, or symbolically, or by allusion
of whatever sort.
Others, succed for the detail and accuracy of a more literal or universally
verifiable-likeness sort of rendering.
Whether verbally, or graphically, either way, the trend seems to me to be
after the same
satisfactions or quality of result...however it may end up in parabola or
deteur or change or de-rail, or styalistic flair or indulgence, of
course...from other influences or guidances or reasons, which can occur.
Thus Pictogrammes, Hieroglyphs, Pictoglyphs, Wriutten Language, or whatever
else, and end up possibly carrying some quite complex information even as
single characters...far beyond their literal interpreation.
'Secret Languages', signs, symbols, or other means of communication or
representation, between isolated 'twins', among isolated peoples, or other
contexts, also pursue
results which will satisfy the values and conditions and interests accordin=
g
to those
participating.
This trend in ordinary social conditions always seemed to me to aim toward
some measure
of 'realism', or reliability anyway in communication, in steering toward
accuracy of form and proportion and detail, or to have enough desire for
realism in that sense, to be realized, for others to be able to understand
what is being
depicted, or even admire it, and, for the child doing the drawing, to feel
satisfaction in what he or she can see in the acomplishment...even when
styalistic emphasis may occur.
If guided or adapted otherwise, Children can certainly be guided or adapted
otherwise.
> The
> degree to which some of you misunderstand children and art scares me,
I do not understand...what it is which everyone is supposed to not be
understanding here with this?
Is it that you believe young Children prefer to draw as they do, rather tha=
n
to conceed that under the conditions prevailing, they have no choice anyway=
?
I think they do have a choice, but, I do not think they know how to elect
the choice...but over time, and subtlety of interior glimpses, the choice
does call to them, even if few locate the place from which to elect it.
> and doesn't bode well for the future of art in America.
There are choices...and, there are conditions or difficulties within people
which qualify being able to locate, have, or elect the choice(s).
> Damn right I am stubborn about this.
> Apparently I give young the artmaking inclinations
> of young children a lot more credit than most people.
It is not clear to me what 'credit' you are giving them.
> The idea that they
> would just want to draw realistically is completely lame, and counter to
> everything I know about children and their natural, intuitive
> inclinations.
What age are we talking about with this 'they'?
They draw according to the confluence of their skills, and facility with
electing the necessary operative Neurology...to do so...whatever thair age,
even if 90.
> It doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't correspond to
what we see in the artmaking of young children, and it does not correspond
to what happens to kids who grow up in cultures that do not emphasize
pictorial realism, such as tribal cultures and East Asian cultures. This
saddens me.
- Vince
There is no reason why a three or four or five or six year old would not
produce entirely faithful and well executed likenesses in drawing, of
anything they look at, provided the Child actualize and maintain the
operatively necessary Neurological network or Circuits to do so.
Historically, some Children have done this, too.
Most do not.
Most adults do not...
Etc...
Those who do, do...
Some kinds of eloquence can sometimes be expressed with very minumal skills
or cogency,
in any medium.
Eloquence with minimal skills or cogency to describe or express or
represent, is just
that.
I do not see where or why there needs to be a problem here with any of this=
.
If you feel the incomplete, partial, awkward, dis-arrayed, mix of misformed
things, overlapping 'impressions',
usually seen as 'childrens drawings' or some ancient people's drawings,
represent
a higher measure of attainment than
other orders of depiction or representation, then
maybe that is part of the problem here with this, since almost no one else
would come to that conclusion...including the Children or Ancients,
themselves, if they had a choice to exercise, or could actualize the choice=
,
in how they draw.
No doubt Children may have or retain awarenesses, or appreciations,
which are not present
in adults usually.
I know they do.
If they had more effective means of expressing these, I am sure they would
be glad to do so.
However, this does not per se have anything whatever to do with an
operative, on-demand, Neurological facility
permitting one to represent well and corrrectly, what visually, anyone
would conceed to be
the reasonably well executed likeness of a 'Tree', 'Horse', 'House',
'Automobile', other humans, or
anything else...leaving aside composition, parallax, planning, and other
factors which then would be part of the Work.
I am confident that the Cave Painters of post Glacial France or other
places, upon seeing, say, a painting of a Horse or Bovine by Durer or other
able Paiter of his time, that they would have been very impressed, and
probably vexed, indeed, in wishing to emulate it.
Were he to have set up some friendly lessons in perspective, composition
planning, and proportion, I am confident their Work would have soon
improved, along with the magnitude of their satisfactions and mutual
admirations of one another's Work...and seen a welling of the general Espri=
t
de Corps surround it.
That their Work as it was, to us may sometimes qualify as Genious, does not
mean that had they been able to improve, or to solve some of the vexations
of composition and parallax and scale/proportion, and planning, that we or
they would have been disappointed with what they would have done then.
> Vince Pitelka
Love,
Phil
Lv
James Freeman on mon 23 aug 10
I offer for consideration the case of Wang Yani. She is from China,
not the west. She began painting at age 3. Not abstract, not mark
making, not impressions, but actual paintings; monkeys and cats,
mostly. She never stopped painting.
While she is clearly a prodigy, I believe she differs from other
children, western or otherwise only in her unusual ability to see, and
in her unusual technical and manual felicity. Like the rest, she was
trying to depict her world, but was just a bit better at it than her
peers.
I read this book about her some years ago:
http://www.amazon.com/Young-Painter-Paintings-Yani-Extraordinary/dp/0590449=
=3D
060
Here is a bit about her work: http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=3D3Dw=
_y=3D
ani
And her wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Yani
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, phil wrote:
> My own acceptance, is that left to their own devices and peers, Children
> will aspire
> to represent things and events in ways which are effecient to an exercise=
=3D
of
> their
> values and communication-modes with eachother...
> This trend in ordinary social conditions always seemed to me to aim towar=
=3D
d
> some measure
> of 'realism', or reliability anyway in communication, in steering toward
> accuracy of form and proportion and detail, or to have enough desire for
> realism in that sense, to be realized, for others to be able to understan=
=3D
d
> what is being
> depicted, or even admire it, and, for the child doing the drawing, to fee=
=3D
l
> satisfaction in what he or she can see in the acomplishment...even when
> styalistic emphasis may occur.
| |
|
