Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 KatCascio wrote:
> In response to the question of how much input the teacher should have into
> "Student Art/School Art", I'm glad this issue has been raised. In writing
> curriculum, I've been dealing with the discrepancy between what we say and
> what we do. When we discuss aesthetics and try to get kids to understand what
> art is, it must be very confusing when we never allow them to actually BE
> artists. I have come to the conclusion that I would like teachers to
> understand and communicate the difference between "skill-builders" and
> "art-making activities". When we ask 23 kids to draw a scene using 2-point
> perspective, can we really call that art? No, but it can be argued that it
> is an important thing to teach. But there must another step. Once they've
> learned the skills that artists use, they need to be afforded the opportunity
> to include or exclude those skills in their own work. I like the analogy
> I've heard about skills (perspective techniques, color theory, etc) being
> related to vocabulary words. Once they understand the meaning of the word
> and how to use it, they can synthesize them into a sentence all their own to
> express themselves (not to express something on the part of the person who
> taught them the word). So if we teach kids tricks of the trade that we know,
> we should also respect them enough to allow them to make artistic decisions
> for themselves. Therefore the criteria for a lesson can be much broader. An
> example would be studying Faith Ringgold's work as personal narratives and
> having students explore that function of art. What can they tell us about
> themselves through their art?
>
> Kathryn Cascio
>