Is this not what we so strive for and then forget in our
pursuits of standards and proficiencies?
If only all of us could let go of of what we think and think
instead of of the purity of the innocent expression
and then nurture and value that expression
instead of what?
As I continue to read article and article about the importance and
necessity of creative thought for the future of our economic
existence, I wonder why and why we do not see that art practices,
when the child is left to simply express, are not the best practices.
Only when we art teachers see the expression as more important than
the technique can we forward the content of our curriculums.
The major artists of the 20th century ALL took that step beyond
that; maybe was a step back too . Why do we keep trying to pigeon
hole are kids into expectations that are not theirs?
I review my rubrics constantly . My rubrics are all about what what
was and what I expect. There is only a little part in there about
the kids that fool me. I want to promote the fooling me.
Back in March we had a district art show. My favorite piece was by a
7th grader. It was a print of 2 pieces of toast with a cinnamon
swirl. I don't know why I loved this piece so much. It is well done
technique wise, and something about it showed me "that childhood
sense." I got it in the mail yesterday. The student sent it to me
as a gift. To me, it's as Warhol as can be and I HOPE that child
knows that I will cherish it. I could see that she took the
lesson and made it her own. And somehow I will let her know that
that piece of toast was significant. That's all it takes. One by one
telling them that their little deviations is what art is about.
On Jun 18, 2006, at 1:49 PM, email@example.com wrote:
> <<WHEN Paul Klee laboriously copied a mountain landscape by his 12-
> year-old son, Felix, into his own 1920 painting "Untitled (Tent
> City in the Mountains)," he paid tribute to the vitality and
> inventiveness of childhood, a source of creativity celebrated at
> least since Rousseau. His homage put him squarely in a modernist
> tradition that sought refuge from academic constraints in the
> somewhat mythical paradise of an untrained eye that sees the world
> afresh, a childlike hand still unshackled by habit and skill.
> Decades earlier, when Klee had just finished his art studies, he
> discovered a cache of his own childhood drawings. He described
> them, in a 1902 letter to his fiancée, as "the most significant"
> ones he had yet made. Three of those drawings are included in "When
> We Were Young: New Perspectives on the Art of the Child," an
> exhibition opening this weekend at the Phillips Collection in
> This exhibit was put together by the author of a beautiful and
> compelling book that should be on every art teacher's reading list:
> THE INNOCENT EYE Children's Art and the Modern Artist, by Jonathan
> Feinberg (Princeton University Press)
> http://www.phillipscollection.org/html/programs.html#symposium > http://www.phillipscollection.org/html/exhibits.html#upcoming >
> I wish I could go see it; it will be at the Phillips in Washington
> DC until September 10.
> The free, _unschooled_ drawings of children are a rich source of
> inspiration to many artists, including me.
> kathy douglas
> in steamy, summery Massachusetts, heading for the hammock