pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sun 22 aug 04
Hi Vince, Lili, Paul, all me buds...
As far as I can tell, generally speaking, adults have no
interest in Children
except from their 'adult' points of view, or to serve those
points-of-view, as make Children something incidental and
subservient to the interests or investments which those
points-of-view represent, which typically,.as
points-of-view, have long ceased to experience
things ingenuously, or, 'as' Children do.
One sometimes hears of so called N.D.E.s ('near death
experiences' ) which are occasionally found or reported, to
have a salutory effect on
both the quality and the depth of otherwise (so called)
'adult' experience. But, these eventualities remain far too
few and unreliable anyway, to be relied on for the desired
remedial adjustments,
or improved prognosis or outcomes.
Or, in effect,
the quality and kind of experience of adults, through which
they apprehend or regard Children, is merely
(parenthetically, one of) the
adult's
uses for Children in some form or other...which tend to be
about Children being 'less' than them, and of Children being
obliged to
patronize them in some way by adapting to them...and
adapting to the quality and kind of experience, adults tend
to have.
We may find, that Children are in-effect, not allwed to 'be'
Children...with unassayed problems culminating in the kinds
of 'adults' they one day will be...adults more-or-less, as
alienated and disjunctive, as those whose attentions they
once had no where to get away from, but to adapt to the
import of them, one way or the other.
Which
generally is
actually the adults ad-hoc managment of their own habituated
denial dynamics, their own loss of innocense, openness and
vulnerability,
and their various unassayed anxieties as keep it that way,
in
which "Children" or anything else, may be of an ostensible
interest in some way, or that is, Children ( nor anyone
else) are experienced as sentient beings, but, as something
to use in some
way, as serves the interests of those
anxiety-denial-management investments.
This makes it difficult for adults to defer to Children in
other terms,
or, to even concieve of what those 'other' terms would or
could be.
What we (broadly, casually, confusedly, habitually,
normatively, or
otherwise, in daily-use) call 'Art', does not exist for
Children in their own terms, nor does it exist for us,
anywhere in other than
the attribution we
make or assign to catagorically excise "Art" from everything
else in Life.
And 'Art' excised from Life - even as Children, excised from
Life, in the experience of 'adults' is tantamount, to
psychosis.
It is bad enough that no one may speak of someone 'Drawing',
'Painting', or 'Sculpting'...but, that instead, we are
almost allways told, in their stead, that someone 'makes'...
"Art".
If we mean to say merely, that Children may be observed to
naturally exhibit or express or
acquire some facility in Drawing, or shaping things, or to
explore or to 'play', or in self-expression to do so
variously, whether
anyone interferes with them or not, may we not just say so,
as that?
Children are not in their own ( or in anyone else's terms,)
"Artists"...Children are Children.
The roles you or others assign them, are not "what" they
"are", but, are the roles you assign them.
They will, as a Natural disposition, as an andemic
propensity, express themselves in many ways...in more than
'adults' are in any charitible depth or breadth loikely to
be aware of or to realize for themselves...and Children,
if allowed to do so, unfold their becomeing innocently, to
acquire any
number of facilities and 'talents'...
How else could it be?
The more un-natural their disposition is obliged to become,
the more subtley or grossly insulted or punished or coerced,
the less they will express themselves, or the less they will
do so ingenuously. The more they will be trying to diminish
the rejection or the threats they subtley or grossly
recieve, as bend innocense into something else.
Or, the more interfered with, the more evaluated, the more
'told', the more wary, or
internalized-other of then psuedo 'self-judgeing' they will
do, they will become,
even to where they shall not permit themselves to retain
awareness of themselves in terms as are not permitted by
the internal (role assigning or other thence,) critic...thus
entering the psychotic normative adaptation to which the
adults they are surrounded by, have long since, succumbed.
They will become every 'careful', to learn to be skilled at
that, to appease if they can, the subtle and other cues of
anxiety or emotional 'distance; the adults manifest, they
will do so in the
expressions or disclosures they permit themselves to have,
and they will do so even to themselves privately,
about elements of their experience expression, or potential
experience or sp[ontenaities or other disclosures or
expressions
of them, and they will become very careful and or frustrated
as
well, in how, or to whom, or among whom, and in what way,
they may or do disclose or
express...or experience...anything.
Adults attribute or assign to Children, the kinds of things
adults
claim licence to
attribute or assign...and likely, do not question doing so
very
often or very much. They no longer retain the conscience or
the ingenuousness to do so. Or with any insight but what is
endemic
to a normative psychotic disjunctive relation to (their own
long lost 'selves' beyond the voice and the 'peace' made
with their internal critics and the assigned roles they
adapted to and identified with, recognised as such, or not,
thense, in relation to) the Child, let alone 'with'
them, in the first place, which of course, is just that much
more of it.
They cannot 'be'...'with' Children, rather, Children are
expected to move to such 'places' as where adults may or
will recognise them, for 'that'...
Anyway...
I was a Child once...
I remember...
Most people do not seem to...remember...
Do you?
Love,
Phil
el ve
Marta Matray Gloviczki on mon 23 aug 04
>Anyway...
>
>I was a Child once...
>
>I remember...
>
>
>Most people do not seem to...remember...
>
>Do you?
yes!
i do remember phil,
but thanks so much anyway for reminding us!
there are hard times in life, when it is sooo easy to forget
the sweet things and the joy of play.
and
it is so thoughtful of you to write Children
with a capitol "C".
thank you phil,
marta
=====
marta matray gloviczki
rochester,mn
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/marta/
http://users.skynet.be/russel.fouts/Marta.htm
http://www.silverhawk.com/crafts/gloviczki/welcome.html
Vince Pitelka on mon 23 aug 04
> Anyway...
> I was a Child once...
> I remember...
> Most people do not seem to...remember...
> Do you?
Phil -
Yes, clearly, distinctly, I remember, which is why I write what I do about
children and art. I guess my outlook on children and art is quite a bit
more optimistic than yours. Having had a son who was an ever-present
contributing, participating member of the family, constantly involved in
dialogue and activity, I formulate my opinions of children and art based on
the way things were for me and my son rather than how they might be for
others. I have very high expectations of how child rearing should be done
and the expected results. Many people really screw it up, and it is so easy
not to. This ain't rocket science. All you have to do is love and respect
kids and genuinely treat them like little autonomous human beings with ideas
and opinions that really matter. It seems like common sense to me.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 24 aug 04
Hi Vince,
I can tell already I will be a little rambly, not too
much, but, happily,
candidly, below...and amid...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
> > Anyway...
> > I was a Child once...
> > I remember...
> > Most people do not seem to...remember...
> > Do you?
>
> Phil -
> Yes, clearly, distinctly, I remember, which is why I write
what I do about
> children and art.
I believe you.
But also, I am curious, how far back do you remember?
Most people, as far as I have ever found out, do not
remember much before say 'five'...or they do not do so to
any marked degree, nor to a very
early
age, and virtually never to a pre-verbal age, and less
often, from 'there' back, but some do, none-the-less,
though
Jung and Freud and Rank and Adler et al, forbade them to do
so, and, their successors do too, and about all of 'science'
and
neurology, continue to do so, yet. As, for one thing, it
emarasses them when people do 'remember'.
But overall, so fas as I can tell, most people remember
little or nothing before the age of say
five or six...and...
I think this is interesting...
> I guess my outlook on children and art is quite a bit
> more optimistic than yours. Having had a son who was an
ever-present
> contributing, participating member of the family,
constantly involved in
> dialogue and activity, I formulate my opinions of children
and art based on
> the way things were for me and my son rather than how they
might be for
> others.
It sounds like your are talking about your own situation,
rather than the situation as confronts the overwhelmingly
vast majority of people in industrialized nations, or, as
confront the vast majority of people
here-in-the-states. Your situation is different than
theirs, and, is, among other things, a happier one.
There are very very few 'others' where the circumstances are
such that the Father is even present during the day, for the
Son or Daughter to be with him. Or to ever see or be 'with'
what he does. Nor, for the Son or Daughter
to be home during the day, even if 'he' was...
Unless he is an unemployed drunkard or debilitated or
something, then..he might be 'home'...
Mothers are less frequently home now in the daytime, as
well...where, for a long time, even after the Father was
absent daytimes, the Mother still tended to be, whether
happily, or not...or whether she per-se did much of
anything, or not.
Where, overall, generally, aside form the rare exception,
when he is 'home', he tends to be emotionally
ill-equipped to be 'present' in any ingenuous or authentic
way to be 'with' his Children.
What they are 'with' is the absence in is 'presence'.
Which occasions also, by progressive degrees of adaptation
and 'training', an absence of their own 'presence' in
them, to adapt to the quality of 'what' there is to be
'with'...in both parents, for that matter...and by then, no
one
feels anything about that as can be much told of...and the
cullusion which exiles
any kind of
(true) sentience, is innured more or less, to itself.
They may watch 'tee-vee'...they may interact in some
ways...they may have
emotions...but already, they have become 'ghosts'...
Or, too, he (the Father,) may have little remaining
capacities to be
ingenuous or authentic or emotionally or sentiently
'present' in any ('real') way, anywhere, anytime, with
anyone, including himself, ( which by people's late 20s, is
pretty much the arrived at norm anyway, if not sooner...)
regardless of whether at 'home' or not. And so too the
Mother, for that matter, but by then also, "who" is there to
notice?
Who anylonger posess the sentience to notice?
Certainly not 'them'...or their friends...
But anyway, a Father who is at home by day, has
been,
very rare now, for generations. Regardless of ontological,
or other
dimensional qualities of that 'presence', if or when he is
home.
> I have very high expectations of how child rearing should
be done
> and the expected results.
I too have my felings and insights about it...
Do you find your expectations are satisfied in the
broader social-familial realities of the approximately
300,000,000 (three hundred million, if you count the ones
the census missed, of ) people who compose this
teeming
Nation of ours?
Do you find their 'results' to be satisfying?
How do we experience these 'results'?
Who defines them, for whom?
As an aside, as is related...(as I know I have mentioned
before, forgive me, but, ) few colledge graduates now,
have the cognitive facilities, the cognitive agility, the
abstract reasoning abilities, the general
vocabulary, or the level or quality of literacy, or the
Worldly
knowledge, or the symbol and
metaphor and simile and allusion
literacy, which anyone 'now' may find represented in sundry
examples of
teenager's "Letters Home" which were written during the so
called
Civil War...or in
juvenile compositions of that time period generally, and for
decades after that, for
that matter, and,
especially so, if we exclusively regard those
'Letters Home' or juvenile compositions
as were from, the 'South'...or agrarian regions of the
Nation.
I think...this is interesting, and curious...yet I also
know, it 'interests' almost no one else. leat of all,
'Teachers'.
Nor are their (college graduate's, now)
Penmanship and font literacy and use, anywhere near as
'good' - if 'penmanship' it is at
all valued now anyway, and overall, it isn't...( - does that
matter? - and if so, to whom? Maybe the means and medium of
communication, or the range or quality of
expression do not matter? - and then, as well, the content
of such? - as for attributions as may be made - by whom? -
about
"quality"? Where, by then, how shall we say what is left
'then', as
does, 'matter'? )
Is this because the quality of up-bringing and 'education'
is so much higher now?
Or is there some other 'reason'?
> Many people really screw it up, and it is so easy
> not to. This ain't rocket science.
Yes...
I was a Carpenter a long time. There was a saying as
prevailed when I was first new to it, and after - the
saying went "You
gotta work with whatchu got", and this was true.
It meant,
you realistically (and immediately) evaluated the many
things about the actual
Work that was to be done, for whom it was to be done, the
materials, the logistics of the situation, the time it will
take, and the
time one is alloted, the elevations or plans if any, and who
made
them, the budget, the weather, one's actual Tools and
Tooling and know-how and so on...and...to decide just what
could be done with it. for which, the result would be, the
result.
It is true here, with this, too...
The question resolves less on what-it-is we do 'got' in a
cursory or naive way, as that it resolves on our ability to
assay or understand or evaluate it, and to do something with
it as can
be more than cursory or wan or expedient or acquiescent or
appeasing to others, merely, and so on.
Even as with Ceramics - give the average person some Clay
and access to a Wheel and a Kiln, and say, "You got to work
with whatchu got" and see how well they do...some things, if
not or if no longer endemic, or if have they have not been
acquired, may take
a lot of time to
amount to much of anything TO 'work with'...the what-we-got,
is more than anything else, ourselves...the what we got in
most of Ceramics, is not so much the 'Clay', it is the
quality of the relation we will have, in what we
'do'...'with' it.
Now I am not saying children are "like" Clay, but I
mentioned Clay because most of us are to one degree or
another, Potters or Ceramic Artisans in some way...
I do not find that most people are in any position to have
'enough' to 'work with', to do much with it..in Child
custodial or relating matters, or, in Life...which is not to
say 'it' is not in some way not 'there', but, it is not in
them
to evaluate or assay or understand what TO do, or
how-to-do-it.
I also had many occasions of making the same
observation...as a Carpenter.
As I now-a-days drive or walk places, I (
as-a-non-practicing-carpenter,
but still, to )
see this in the uniquity of ugly and cynical and
ethically penurous and gruesomely sorry for themselves
posturing of perfunctory 'expensive' buildings and houses...
What did they have to 'work with'?
Wood, Concrete, Brick, Stucco...?
Why even do "that"...(what they did) at all...?
I would have 'walked'...
So could they have.
And said, "Forget it, you want this damned thing, built it
yerself...I want nothing to do with this ugly assed
insult..."
That does not tend to happen, does it?
> All you have to do is love and respect
> kids and genuinely treat them like little autonomous human
beings with ideas
> and opinions that really matter. It seems like common
sense to me.
Too, all one has to 'do' is Love and respect one's "Work"
for there to be no more ugly,. penurous, gruesome, wan and
sorry 'buildings' and housing developements...and so on...
If one Loved and respected one's self...that would also do
it...that, would be the "end"...of "that"...
No?
That is a big 'all-you-have-to-do' Vince, and I do not think
the doing-so is other than to be found in a very small
minority of occasions. It is a rare exception as far as I
can tell. In relating 'to' or 'with' Children, or, 'to' or
'with' Buildings, or...'to' or 'with' anything...
If people did Love their Children, they would not 'send'
them...to 'school', they would be responsible 'to' them
instead, personally, intimately, wholesomely, and they would
be
'with' them.
They would not hand them over to strangers and to inturn
them in
perfunctorate institutions run by
the state...they would not do that if they were awake enough
to Love own Life or their own Children or own selves...
But while maybe 'own', little is 'owned'...
It would not happen...
"That" would be the end...of 'that'...
Love...is 'behavior'...(as A. Vauchs hath observed, and, I
say, he is 'right'...)
People should claim or exume or retain or rediscover their
conscience, not to 'have' Children if they will not Love and
be
"with" them...
That too would be 'common sense', if...'sense' were
'common', and, it is not...or, it is not commonly hoonored
or employed in how people live.
It is not 'Common Sense' to most people...to do so...
'With' anything...
Not that I ever saw...
Rather...it is rare...it is the exception...
> Best wishes -
> - Vince
Best wishes here too...
Thank you for the brave ramble...
Yer pal,
Phil
el ve
Vince Pitelka on tue 24 aug 04
Phil wrote:
> I can tell already I will be a little rambly, not too
> much, but, happily, candidly, below...and amid...
Hey, Phil, I read the WHOLE THING! So apparently I don't have the
attention-span problems that afflict so many people today. Regarding the
writing abilities of Civil War era teenagers, reading and writing were all
they had. No distractions in terms of high-pressure mass media and popular
culture. So, no wonder their English was so good!
Nothing you say changes my convictions about children and art. In fact, it
confirms that the wonderful potential for art-making in every child gets
screwed up most of the time. Some young kids are lucky enough to develop
their own natural inclinations, and I have seen that happen enough (and read
the research) to know that kids left to their own natural inclinations will
be artists, along with whatever else they become. I am not saying that they
will be professional artists. I am saying that art-making will become a
natural and permanent part of their lives, like writing and speaking. That
is the natural sequence in creative evolution.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
| |
|
