> Dear Dabass,
> Yes, Art is play...BUT art as play will not keep our programs on the
> public school budget.
Yeah, but if we abandon our beliefs will it still be "OUR" programs that
the budget includes?
> Dear Thersa,
> I felt like I had responded harshly the moment I wrote my original
> response to your suggestion of play as art. I can only say...been
> there...done that. Coming from the Lowenfeld generation has been a long
> and rocky path. Art needs to be connected with thinking because the
> creative process is thinking ...even if implicit.
Let me propose the possibility that thinking can only occur as a result
of perception and some sort of aesthetic (and of course memory). Thinking,
then, needs to be connected to art. Play comes increasingly into play in
species as the cortex develops. If, thru some miracle of science we could
isolate and burn out some hypothetical "play center" in the brain, I'd
bet everything that cognition would go down the drain with it. Likewise,
if we removed the neocortex I doubt we would see much evidence of play.
I "did" (have done) the cognitive approach myself. It's over-rated, I
think, as is creativity for that matter. We are already "creating" and
producing more "stuff" than we can consume. New creations appear on the
market while the old creations remain viable. All we seem to be achieving
with all this creativity is using up materials faster. All this rush...
I feel like Alice, running as fast as I can just to stay in place.
By itself, creativity may be something of the equivalent of speed or
heroin in the economic system.
At least, in the "olden days" one would scrape the old image from the
parchment or paint over old dated canvases...
Art has so many possibilities, thinking is only a small part.... I think.