On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Barbara Bridges wrote:
> 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.
> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996,
> Teresa Tipton wrote:
> > The real problem I have with art teachers is that they talk too much
> > period. Sometimes the intellectual constructs which dissect the world and
> > words into this and that, either or, yes and no, good and bad, trivializes
> > the real meaning of questions and responses. If we explained and analyzed
> > less perhaps there would be more art. And perhaps we, as teachers/artists
> > would also do more art. Which is not to say don't analyze!
> > But this position of concern based upon assumed fear of program reduction
> > somehow misses the point of the question, and perhaps has missed the point
> > of connecting art with play. How terribly unplayful!
> > Art education has been in the position of justifying itself for over
> > twenty-five years in american public schools, and in case anyone cares to
> > notice, more programs are being cut than are being supported with
> > increased teachers, classtime for students, and funding. So all of our
> > words have somehow failed in this most basic of battles for a rightful
> > place in the education of the whole child/student/adult.
> > What do you have to lose? Why not be daring, bold, provocative, eccentric,
> > and unconventional in how you promote art? Maybe art as play will redirect
> > physical education budgets to the arts.
> > play on!
> > teresa tipton
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 1996
> > mamjam
> > wrote:
> > > Dear dabssw,
> > >
> > > Of course art is play. With the right approach and some knowledge, even
> > > mathematics is play. But I think there are problems with art teachers
> > > talking too much about the play part, though. There are problems with how
> > > the frivolous sound of the word 'play' impacts on the politics of the
> > > situation. If we emphasize the play part, our programs might be in danger
> > > of reduction, to make way for more serious studies. So when we rationalize
> > > why and explain how we teach what we do, lets talk about the essential
> > > tools and skills we art teachers must impart to the next generation. The
> > > truth of the matter is, people learn best while playing. So when we talk
> > > to the next generation, lets just introduce the games and play. If we do
> > > our jobs well, they'll learn without even being aware of it.
> > >
> > > Mark Alexander
> > > 1-8 art teacher
> > > Lee H. Kellogg School
> > > Falls Village, CT
> > > USA
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/16 dabssw wrote:
> > > >Is art play? Before you all take a gasp of air at this as a possible thought,
> > > >please take a moment read on and think in a broad context.
> > > >Is there a part of art that might be play?
> > > >If there is a part of art that is play, what part is it?
> > > >Is there anything wrong in part or all of art being play?
> > > >Isn't it possible to learn through play?
> > > >Can play touch and open alternative areas of thought and so increase
> > > >creativity?
> > > >Play is enjoyment, fun, exploration, research, and daring to go beyond.
> > > >Thank you.
> > >
> > >
> > >