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.
I think that Jean hits it right on the nail head here.
> The PBS show "1900 House" discussed just this issue.
> The producers and parents were amazed at the
> creativity the kids brought to some of their play.
> The reasoning was, well maybe without TV, computer
> games (all that canned, passive-for-kids stuff) the
> children had loads of time to consider, think, play,
> invent.
>
> It surprises me to hear people say, kids get into
> trouble cause there is nothing to do, etc. Gee, there
> are more things to do now than ever but kids are used
> to being stimulated by something outside themselves.
All the media exposure that these kids have had, in general,
has taught them to be consumers of entertainment (and art)
rather than creators. You simply flip a switch and then react to
the resulting input. Creativity occurs when you play around with
the video game enough to discover its tricks and "easter eggs."
The point is primarily to have fun and avoid effort--the two
things being understood as mutually exclusive qualities. We live
in a culture that markets "fun." Fun is quite frequently
understood as
a state of normalcy. i.e. What life is supposed to be.
There may be a valid point in this perspective but,
unfortunately, it is
sunk by the general lack of appreciation for effort or work.
These two
concepts seem to have been successfully divorced from any notion
associated with fun. It is primarily an urban high-tech problem
and
not a simple one. Our Puritan heritage preaches the goodness of
hard work and bitter medicine, but few of us, including our
student's
parents, I'm sure, actually appear to truly appereciate and
thrive
on that perscription.
Right now the stats say that as a nation we are working harder
and
longer without any appreciable improvement in happiness--perhaps
even some loss. It only confirms for many kids the negative value
of
work. We face SlackerGen II.
Art offers, among other things, the opportunity to play hard AND
work hard
and do this in such a way that it is rather difficult to
distinguish the work
in the play--thus the complaints about artists being generally a
lazy dreamy lot.
The challenge for the teacher, I think, is how to get all the
kids so engaged in
the "play" of art that the experience of effort goes relatively
unnoticed. I can't
claim the knack for it yet but gosh durn it it's my primary goal.
Today kids experience boredom in what I think is a qualitatively
different way than
a number of of us ever did. Getting them really excited about
making something in
a spirit of craftsmanship and aesthetics is or at least can be a
tough proposition.
Contributions appreciated.
I do like the direction that Patty seems to be moving in. I share
her frustration
with the talented kids afraid of taking risks and with the kids
who can't recognize
any other authentically artistic talent than drawing.
Modernist paradigms in art have traditionally, and in part, been
about self-promotion
as well as lucking into others who will promote a particulart
artist. I find that today I
am more interested in the fine craft artists and the work of
outsider/folk/naieve/indigenous
artists than fine artists or university-trained artists. I can
generate more than enough subtly
intellectual bubble gum for my mind and am quite convinced of the
essential bankruptcy
of most political thought.
What I am interested in, artistically speaking, what I wish I
could find, are artists who
attempt to use culture and society as a medium of aesthetic
expression and maybe
even social mediation.
-henry
---
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 18:46:19 PDT