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.

Lesson Plans


Re: Is it the product or the process?

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Teresa Tipton (ttipton.wa.us)
Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:59:24 -0700 (PDT)


I used to be a purist about drawing on kids work and would never do it,
using Gary's example as my method of demonstration - drawing on the side
away from the work, but over and over I would see that the students still
didn't "get it" - either verbally or by demonstration - and recently,
I've begun demonstrating on a work when someone is absolutely "stuck" -
they don't know what to do next and can't seem to execute what they
envision. So, I show them what they want to do on their work - not
extensively - and not so it creates this discrepancy Gary writes about.
In every case, the student connects with what is possible. I don't think
it's damaging at all but it could be if used inappropriately.

It's not an either or situation. It's both product and process. One
begets the other. To separate them as pedagogical constructs is an
intellectual abstraction. We do what is necessary to get students to the
next step, whatever that is, understanding that questions create answers
which create new questions, like the process of art - a finished product
begets a new cycle of gestation, experimentation, problem-solving, and
execution. We need to trust the process and ourselves as mentors and
facilitators of the process of art, in all its manifest forms.

Teresa Tipton

On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Gary LaTurner wrote:

> Your comments were excellent. Another issue is the teacher and his/her
> willingness to draw and or paint etc. on student work. My preference is
> to quickly create a similar form on a separate piece of paper and do my
> work for the students there. I've always found teachers' drawing shows
> and makes the students work inconsistent and for the most part takes away
> ownership of the work. Students suffer more than they gain by having a
> teacher work on their work.
> G. LaTurner
>
>
> 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
> >
>