Art as Language: the rise, decline, and resurgence of inherent communication

Art as Language: the rise, decline, and resurgence of inherent communication

Rebecca Whitson

7/23/2014

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

Drawing is a visual and graphic language that is not solely an aesthetic skill or expressionistic device, but another avenue for conveying concepts, human communication, cognition, and nature.  In my proposal, I'd like to explore the structure and development of art as language, the progression of representational visual memory, the decline and stagnation of graphic expression without sufficient exposure and practice, and the resurgence of visual art ability when positive feedback, motivation and engagement are reintroduced.

 

Art as Language

As children, we attempt and experiment with communication physically and verbally by gesturing and babbling.  We also express it graphically by scribbling. At 2-3 years of age, children develop a foundation for a representational system of symbols that depict actions through basic shapes which such as dots, lines, curves, circles, squares, etc.  This beginning memory set of graphemes begin to form a working syntax children can call upon to create progressively more complex drawings.  At 5-8 years of age, a shift occurs from representation of actions to objects.  As we grow, our visual memory and vocabulary expands and we fine-tune our skill in articulating our perceptions graphically (Cohn, Youngblood).

 

Verbal language is formed from individual phonemes, morphemes, words, idioms, schematic construction, and possibly whole sentences.  The visual vocabulary is similar wherein graphemes (like phonemes), are the building blocks used in conjunction with a graphic syntax.  Syntax, or grammar, refers to the rules that govern sentence structure in a verbal language, therefore graphically, it refers to how we create an icon, or image.  The encoding process that specifies the order of drawing operations is the production script, which in turn connects fine and gross motor skills to the drawing system.  We use a visual feedback system to check our production of a drawing, and adjustments are made accordingly.  The conceptual structure or graphic schema is the particular meaning and outline of the icon that was made of all the smaller parts.  Schemas combine to form images like combining letters to form words, and we store all this information as a graphic lexicon, or visual vocabulary and image bank, in our long term memory for later recall (Cohn).  N. Cohn illustrated a graphic lexical item process of drawing a stick figure:  graphemes would be a circle and lines, the syntax would be the relationship of those graphemes to each other.  The production script would be the steps taken to construct the stick figure, and the conceptual structure would be the whole recognized by being made of the parts.

 

We acquire our graphic lexicon language to different degrees.  The structure and development of drawing is analogous to learning a verbal or physical language, but without sufficient exposure during the critical development period before puberty, there will be a lack of development.  Because of the lack of focus of developing a graphic language at the pace of a linguistic one, we consider children and adolescents “gifted” or “talented” in this regard if they do progress in learning.  To be proficient in art as a language, those considered skilled develop a longer visual memory, acquire  larger sets of graphic schemas and combinations, and have a greater access to articulating them.  Those who do not develop adequate graphic art skills or fluency may be in an environment where there is not a consistent system in place (impoverishment), or there is not enough exposure to art (poverty of stimulus) (Cohn, Youngblood).  Other factors may include those who may not have schematic or syntactic ability, lack proper motor skills, or poor working memory.  Another factor at work is the “period of oppression” between the ages of 11 and 14 where progress may slow or stagnate because of a lack of interest, innovation, motivation, encouragement or engagement which may take place.  If these considerations are not surpassed, individual drawing ability remains this way throughout adult life, making new progress difficult (Youngblood).  It is to the detriment of our society that art classes in schools are either cut or taken just as an elective at this critical stage of development, effectively cutting off another means of communication.

 

Learning to draw and continuing to build skill sets requires and improves creativity, expression, planning and intention, problem solving, discernment of spatial relationships, articulating mental imagery graphically, interpreting abstract concepts, and use of fine motor skills.   Technical drawing skills, or the ability to recreate the likeness of an outside image, are practiced by imitation.   Children and adolescents learn and accumulate knowledge by copying from the world around them (Gross).  In life drawing (view based depiction), a learner uses schematic information to draw the perceived surface of vision, drawing from memory (object based depiction) is the conceptualization of an object using stored references.  Schemas can change, however, when a drawing does not fit a set pattern (Cohn).  An example would be the schema of how to use a pencil to shade an object.  That concept will change according to the light source it interacts with, as objects are shaded on that relation.  This can be observed or worked into long term visual memory.  This interaction between mind and hand is important in the process of making art, and not just the end product.

 

When adolescents are comfortable and encouraged in their ability, certain art “styles” are developed.  The reason behind why certain people seem to draw differently is not because perceptions or conceptions are different from one person to the next, but based on styles built from conventional patterns shared by a group culture (Cohn).  When adolescents lean to imitate, they draw from images that surround them, therefore influences their individual stored patterns of drawing and spatial knowledge of visual objects (Gross).  We would not understand each other’s conversations if each person had their own particular verbal language, and so is true in the visual arts.  We build upon established knowledge and expand as we see fit, for human development is not a grown in a cultural vacuum (Youngblood).

 

 

The U-Shaped curve

Besides the technical formation of art as language, much research has been devoted to the analysis of representational aspects and expressionism of children’s drawings.  Since we can communicate graphically, we might as well say something with it.  One of the leading university-based cooperative research groups in aesthetic education is Harvard’s Project Zero, where Nelson Goodman and Howard Gardner, among others, have been instrumental in understanding the development of artistic growth.  Using zero as a starting point, as art education research was minimal in 1967, Project Zero developed to integrate cognitive theory, developmental psychology, semiotics, linguistics, philosophy, education and the arts (Gardner 1980, Winner and Gardner 1982, Rush and Lovano-Kerr).

 

Within Project Zero, Gardner developed a U-shaped curve model to illustrate the development and decline in aesthetic drawings produced by children and adolescents.  Through sample work given to age-specific groups, Gardner concluded that the resulting data could be charted on a “U”.   The top left of the U represents metaphorical aesthetic value in drawings done by 5-year old children, at which age demonstrated playfulness, directness, expressiveness, and were without inhibition (Gardner 1980, 1989).  In the downward slope and trough of the U, 8-11 year old middle aged children strive to acquire literalism through realistic or cartoon drawings imitated from adults.  If adolescents or adults progress in the arts, they ascend up the right side of the U.  If they do not continue with graphic art, the U forms an L, where literalism is the end result (Gardner 1980, Winner and Gardner 1982, Haanstra).  This would indicate a similarity between products of young children and of adult artists in measuring aesthetic expression through use of symbols.  The metaphorical use of line, color, shape or composition was absent in middle childhood, whom did not display symbols, but shapes to literally represent objects, showing no expression or emotion (Haanstra).

 

Subsequent Studies

Several subsequent researchers have tested the U-curve’s validity, including J. Davis, who compared artwork from children ages 5, 8,11, 14 year old adolescents, non artist and artist adults.  In the study, each individual in the target group was given the task to draw happy, sad, and angry examples.  The drawings were then judged on four criterion: symbolic vehicle (a precise graphic symbol, the representational or nonrepresentational meaning of a drawing), composition (placement of symbolic vehicle within parameters of space), balance (symmetric or asymmetric weight of symbol), and expression (metaphoric emotion being conveyed).  Results corroborated with Gardner’s hypothesis in terms of equal expressivity amongst 5 year olds and artistic adults, whom typically illustrated abstract forms for each graphic prompt, for example, dark, heavy scribbles to denote anger.  The 8 to 11 year olds showed decline in expressivity and the 14 year old adolescents showed the least and continued to do so into adulthood, often illustrating stereotypical literal representations: balloons, birthday parties, and rainbows for happy, rain and funerals for sad, fire for anger.  The 14 year old artistic adolescents progressed up, toward expressivity as originally hypothesized.   (Davis, Haanstra). 

 

An alternative way to studying expressive drawing development is through a more objective, quantitative approach, where the focus is on the number of expressive cues or techniques in aesthetic drawings.  D. Picard’s and C. Gauthier developed a study that charted children and adolescents’ ability to produce expressive drawings of human and nonhuman topics, where literal and/or metaphoric aesthetics were analyzed.  Here, a large sample of data was collected from participants aged 5-15 who produced expressive drawings of a tree, house, and a person, but in three different versions: normal, happy and sad. The study included symbolic vehicle prompts to differentiate between literal (such as a person crying, to denote a sad person) and metaphoric (such as a tree with a broken limb and use of dark, heavy colors for sad tree) expressions. In judging between the two, literal criteria showed expressive drawings that featured facial expression cues, and nonhuman topics were personified.  Metaphorical examples yielded expressive drawings featuring abstract elements, such as thickness of line, size comparisons, shapes, color or content clues, which include drawing aspects that would indicate environment, emotion, and social states.  Findings from this study indicated that young children predominately demonstrated literal expression, but showed decline between ages 5-10, then stabilized at ages 11-15.  Countering the decline, an increased application of a combination of literal and metaphorical expression was noted the older the children became.  Metaphorical expression application likewise increased with age (Picard and Gauthier).

 

The U-curve model as an approach to examine artistic development is largely subjective by means of measuring aesthetic quality of expressive drawings.  It has been criticized for reflecting preference for Western modernist art styles over traditional, representative aesthetic that demonstrates technical skill and naturalism (Duncum, Haanstra).  The 5 year old group’s drawings are considered to have a higher aesthetic value than that of middle childhood based on criteria that favors expression, spontaneity, abstraction, and the abandonment of perspective space characteristic of modernist painting (Duncum).  Indeed, comparisons have been made of children’s art to be similar to that of modernist artists’ work done by Picasso, Miro, Klee, and Kadinsky (Fineberg, Jolley).  Theorisists also disagree on the actual age period of decline, the exact features judged in work (Haanstra), and cultural assumptions and values (Jolley, Picard). 

 

Researchers hold different paradigms on art and artistic development.  In response to the expressive-based U (modernist) model, other assessment patterns have developed, including the inverted U (antimodernistic view), the linear upward slope (traditionalist view) and the flat line model (no aesthetic preference view) (Haanstra, Jolley).  Project Zero researchers are primarily psychologists rather than teachers or artists, so research is based more on psychological and philosophical models over pedagogy and technical skill (Rush and Lovano-Kerr)   In one study done by Haanstra, subjects of varying age ranges were asked to make a self-portrait and a “sad” drawing. Judges scored work based on what they considered good, medium, and poor. As a result, it was demonstrated that data formed a linear upward slope (Haanstra) where technical skill improved with age (Pariser). 

 

 

Proposed study

Many studies continue to prove or disprove the validity of the U-shaped curve.  I believe that if I replicated an emotion-based study such as Davis’, I will garner the same results.  The U curve does demonstrate graphic aesthetic expression, but lacks in addressing artistic skill.  In my proposed study, I plan to collect data from a variety of ages that demonstrates development of an artistic language through means of technical skill.

 

Hypothesis

I hypothesize that younger children will display typical graphemes of their developmental stage, increasing skill as age progresses and visual memory increases, and data reflected in an upward linear slope.  At around middle age to adolescence, I believe that artistic skill will plateau to adulthood if no other art instruction is pursued.  This will be indicated by the hypothesized similarity of adolescent drawing to that of non artistic adults.  If art instruction is provided after adolescence, I foresee similarity to drawings to that of artistic adults.  Additionally, I would like to prove that non artistic adults have the ability and capacity to improve and learn drawing skills as taught by artistic adolescents.

 

Participants

Participants will be made up of five groups: 1)one elementary school class, 2)one middle school class, 3)three introductory Art I high school classes, 4)an indeterminate number of pre-determined non artistic adults and 5)an indeterminate number of artistic adults. 

 

Materials

Participants will be given a short survey, several sheets of white computer paper, and a pencil.

 

Procedure

Participants will fill out a short survey that will ask age (for groups 1-3), gender, if they enjoy drawing, if they consider themselves artistic or creative, and in what ways (for groups 3-5), and when was the last time they participated in a drawing or art class (groups 4 and 5).  For the drawing portion of the study, each participant will draw their version of a tree, a house, and a person on three separate sheets of paper.  Results will be recorded. 

 

A second experiment will be conducted where adolescents in the high school Art I classes will have their initial results, labeled “before” drawings, then be compared to a set of retake “after” drawings, where students will have learned traditional skills to depict naturalistic trees, houses and people from their art teacher (myself). 

 

Thirdly, adolescents with the now acquired skills will then pair up with a non artistic adult, whether another teacher, or a parent or guardian.  Artistic adolescents will instruct non artistic adults how to draw traditional, naturalistic trees, houses and people, and the adults will replicate those prompts.  “Before” and “After” drawings of non artistic adults will be compared.

 

 

Coding of drawings

In the first study, two independent artistic adult judges (art teachers) and one non artistic adult judge will score technical and aesthetic skill based on a scale of what the judges determine as “good”, “fair”, and “poor”.  Results will be tallied according to age of the participant.  Comparisons will be made between all groups.

 

In the second study, the same judges will score “before” and “after” drawings based on skills learned as “improved”, “no improvement”, and “decline”.  Results will be charted, and then compared with the abilities of the artistic adults’ samples.

 

Lastly, judges in the third study will again score “before” and “after” drawings based on skills learned as “improved”, “no improvement”, and “decline” of the non artistic adult group.  Results will be charted, and then compared with the abilities of the artistic adolescents’ and artistic adults’ group samples.

 

 

Conclusion

By documenting the rise and stagnation of art as a language, and then providing examples of aesthetic expression research compared with technical skill studies, this paper had the intention to demonstrate a more practical and holistic approach to understanding the development of graphic art.  The addition of high school students learning a technique and then mirroring those skills to an adult will serve as a practical benefit in communication and in creating an art dialogue.  Non artistic adults, in turn, will be more invested in the students’ art class as they are now members of the learning process.  Non artistic adults, when asked to produce works of art, often, in my experiences, reply with “I can’t draw” sentiments.  As a result from the third experiment, my intention and hope is to reverse a small populations’ belief system through information and demonstration that drawing is a latent ability that everyone is able to express, even if it has been dormant for some time. 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

 

Cohn, N. (2012). “Explaining 'I can't draw': Parallels between the structure and development of language and drawing”. Human Development, 55(4), 167-192. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000341842

 

Davis, J. (1997). “Drawing's demise: U-shaped development in graphic symbolization. Studies in Art Education”, 38(3), 132. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199825150?accountid=14541

 

Duncum, Paul “Development Breaking Down the Alleged "U" Curve of Artistic Development

Visual Arts Research”, Vol. 29, No. 57, Special Issue Commemorating Our 30th Anniversary (2003), pp. 69-79 Published by: University of Illinois Press Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20716080

 

Fineberg, J. (1997). “The innocent eye: children’s art and the modern artist”.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; and Gardner, H. (1980). Artful scribbles: the significance of children’s drawings. New York: Basic Books.

 

Gardner, H. (1980). “Artful scribbles: the significance of children’s drawings”. New York: Basic Books; Gardner, H., & Winner, E. (1982). “First intimations of artistry”. In S. Strauss (Ed.), U-shaped behavioral growth (pp. 147–168). New York: Academic Press.

 

Gardner, Howard  “Zero-Based Arts Education: An Introduction to ARTS PROPEL”

Studies in Art Education, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Winter, 1989), pp. 71-83
Published by: National Art Education Association
Article DOI: 10.2307/1320774
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320774

 

Gross, Larry “Why Johnny Can't Draw”

Art Education, Vol. 36, No. 2, Art and the Mind (Mar., 1983), pp. 74-77
Published by: National Art Education Association
Article DOI: 10.2307/3192668
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192668

 

Haanstra, Folkert, Marie-Louise Damen. and Marjo van Hoorn. "The U-Shaped Curve in the Low Countries: A Replication Study." Visual Arts Research 37.1 (2011): 16-29. Project MUSE. Web. 21 Jul. 2014. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

 

Jolley, R. P., Fenn, K. and Jones, L. (2004), “The development of children's expressive drawing”. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22: 545–567. doi: 10.1348/0261510042378236

 

Pariser, D. A., Kindler, A. M., & van den Berg, A. (2008). “Drawing and aesthetic judgments

across cultures: diverse pathways to graphic development”. In C. Milbraith & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), Children’s understanding and production of pictures, drawings and art: theoretical and empirical approaches (pp. 293–317). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

 

Picard, Delphine and Christophe Gauthier, “The Development of Expressive 

Drawing Abilities during Childhood and into Adolescence”, Child Development 
Research, vol. 2012, Article ID 925063, 7 pages, 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/925063

 

Rush, Jean C. and Jessie Lovano-Kerr

“Aesthetic Education Research, Teaching Art, and Harvard Project Zero: Some Observations Journal of Aesthetic Education”, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter, 1982), pp. 81-91
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Article DOI: 10.2307/3332526
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3332526

 

Youngblood, Michael S. “Lowenfeld's Unremitting Legacy”

Art Education, Vol. 35, No. 6, Viktor Lowenfeld (Nov., 1982), pp. 32-36
Published by: National Art Education Association
Article DOI: 10.2307/3192579
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192579

 

Eight Studio Habits of the Mind

The art classroom has many working components, and art teachers have develop the extraordinary skill of switching between big picture, over-reaching lessons to individual attention and focus.  This process of macro to micro continual focus shift makes our teaching dynamic, over say, lecture-only style instruction.  Included in our methodology are the eight studio habits of mind, which cover: Develop Craft, Engage and Persist, Envision, Express, Observe, Reflect, Stretch and Explore, and Understanding Art Worlds.  These habits are a process that is non-hierarchical.

When I assess students in the art classroom, I first map out a set of units for the year that covers relevant concepts, skills, artists, techniques and media.  I have plans and expectactions how the year will progress, but more than in any other discipline, we must have fluidity.  Students may need remediation or enrichment, depending on the level a student grasps a project.
In my units, which are broad themes with several supporting projects to illustrate the concept, there is room to demonstrate application in multiple ways.  For example, when studying the color wheel:  we discuss as a class, using a smartboard and individual empty color wheel, what primary, secondary, tertiary, analogous, and complimentary colors are, and how we make them by mixing colors together.  Then we'll color in the color wheel with markers or colored pencils.  We'll do an exercise targeting complimentary colors by drawing an American flag, but coloring it in using the opposite colors.  Once flags are colored in orange, green and black, students are told to stare at the image, then quickly look at a blank page.  Our mind will trigger an afterimage of the correct color scheme.  A subsequent project will include physically mixing paint colors together, then including relevant artist Piet Mondrian and do a painting project based on his work.  Then we move into value scales, and how many shades and tints one could get out of one color.  Then finally students do a full scale monochromatic painting in grayscale with one small focal point of color.

Within the above mentioned sample unit structure, students are exposed to Developing Craft and Observation by introducing them to paint, how to mix colors, how to blend, how to create shades and tints, how to develop an eye to match and reproduce certain hues.  By playing with paint and experimenting, they are Stretching and Exploring. By building up more basic techniques to the Mondrian painting and the monochrome project, students learn to take the sequenced skills learned and Envision their own personal works and Express what they are drawn to.  By being exposed to a multiple amount of projects to understand color and the application of paint, students are Engaged and Persist in their own art making.  At the end of any art project, students are given a rubric that breaks down how I grade their work.  For more involved projects, such as the monochromatic painting, we will have a class critique, which focuses on constructive criticism and a chance for students to voice out what they liked the most and what they think could be improved of their own and their peers' work.  This is a chance for students to Reflect and Understand Art Worlds in an open-forum setting of evaluation.

I believe that students should be exposed to a broad range of materials, artists, techniques, presentations and concepts.  Engaging students must be varied so that students have the tools and means of expression to plan, develop and use critical thinking skills in their own work.  Some students may be drawn to just drawing, others sculpture.  Some may have never thought they would enjoy watercolor or clay without exposure.  Art history is vital to include as inspiration.  All of this, with direction, mentorship and encouragement allow students to grow as artists and as individuals.

proposal

In my proposal, I'd like to explore the structure and development of art as language, the progression of representational visual memory, the decline and stagnation of graphic expression without sufficient exposure and practice, and the resurgence of visual art ability when positive feedback, motivation and engagement are reintroduced. 
As children, we attempt and experiment with communication physically and verbally by gesturing and babbling.  We also express it graphically by doodling, then developing a foundation of symbols such as dots, lines, curves, circles, squares, etc.  This beginning memory set of graphenes begin to form a working syntax children can call upon to create progressively more complex drawings.  As we grow, our visual memory and vocabulary expands and we fine-tune our skill in articulating our perceptions graphically.  The period of decline and stagnation occurs around ages 11-14, where a lack of interest, motivation, encouragement, and engagement take place.  If students are not stimulated further, for example, not continuing an art class beyond Middle School, then learners flatline their ability that continues into adulthood, known as the "L" model.  If students continue in the arts directly or indirectly, they follow a "U" curve, which represents improvement and expansion in visual memory, fine motor skills, conceptual perception and planning, creativity, discernment in spatial relationships,  and problem solving.  Creating art is just another way to express yourself.
To demonstrate my research in action, I would like to start a dialogue between my Art I students and "non-artistic" adults in the community.  I plan on introducing small drawing projects throughout the year that will turn students into student teacher-leaders.  The assignment will include the student to find a parent/adult/teacher outside of class time, have them complete a questionnaire about the arts, have the adult complete a "Before" drawing based on a prompt, and then a second "After" drawing where the student teaches the adult how to draw the prompt using skills learned in class.  In this activity, student benefit from sharing their skills, creating an art dialogue with an adult, the adult realizing that art is a skill that anyone can be taught and improve upon, and hopefully spark an interest in learning more.
Another way I will gather information will be to do an informal survey on the local recreation center, poll how many adults in the community are taking are classes, and how they incorporate the arts into daily life.
Finally, during the conclusion and presentation of my findings in Richmond, I wish to set up several workstations that will invite attending adults to participate in.  Workstations will be set up to self teach several of the drawing examples that students were given to teach their adults.  This accessibility to small chunks of art instruction will further encourage self proclaimed "non artistic" adults a chance to experiment, learn, create and stimulate in a low-pressure, fun environment.

What is a Teacher-Leader?

Athena with owl, symbol of wisdom and leadership.  Louvre, Paris

 

I'll admit, I was wary at first.  Before I arrived at VCET, I had a very general, vague idea of what was going to be presented.  I knew it was going to be about developing a bigger voice as a teacher-leader, we were going to learn about education policy, and then develop a project based on a "problem" we saw could be researched and fixed back at our home schools.  It is this, but more.  Presenters have so far been prepared and organized, but not high-pressure.  Classes have been engaging and collaborative, and I feel that everyone is treated with respect and has a voice.  That being said, I want to review today:
We started with "What is Teacher Leadership" as a discussion point.  At first, I thought the presenter was going to continue entirely with Power Point, lecture-style, and I was bracing myself for the long haul.  But, as a good arts educator, the presenter quickly switched the focus from her to us, and we formed groups of five.  Here, we brainstormed, shared, and scaffolded answers to what was and wasn't good leadership.  You could feel our group's energy gain momentum when we found common ground and shared positive examples.  We concluded that good leadership demonstrated advocacy within the school and the community, communication, collaboration, risk-taking, passion, knowledge, and the ability to do what is right, amongst others.  I was especially struck with our group member Andrea who was fed up with being the sole recycler in her school, so she took it upon herself to convince her co-workers to take up the cause.  Small examples of strong leadership to create a worthwhile impact.
We also spoke of ineffective leadership, such as the "top-down" approach used by principals in some cases.  Principals have a visible role as school leader, but they can either collaborate with their teacher team to find solutions, or they can dictate their expectations and vision.  It's about teacher "buy-in"- whether or not they are involved in decision making is ultimately indicate if teachers feel like their treated as respected peers, and in turn, is reflected in dedication to the school and job turn over rate.  It was interesting to note that a member of our group is at a school where they are just beginning to take hold of PLC, whereas my school has gone through many incarnations of what was thought of the time as effective teaching styles within professional learning communities.  Sadly, my school's PLC has unraveled, being reduced to a monthly meeting of the un-core, "misfit" teachers to discuss "house cleaning" items.  I wished her luck.
Knowledge in the content area, although taken as a given for teachers, is not always so.  Teacher cannot be leaders without that foundation.  And it isn't just enough to have received a BFA or Masters, but to continuously research, practice and refine those skills to become a more effective teacher.  After-all, we expect our students to take risks with their art, so, too, must we.
We were then led to go into groups based on our discipline, mine being secondary visual arts.  Several brilliant topics were discussed for possible project ideas, including an idea to add another required arts credit to graduation requirements, which currently includes foreign language.  She hypothesized that shifting Computer Graphics to the technology requirement credit could be seen as more enticing if an Adobe certification was added.  STEM to STEAM was also a discussed topic to explore.
My previous post outlined my intention for my project, which was analyzing the disconnect between exuberant elementary students in art, versus adults who believe they "can't draw".  I am invested in this idea and researching the "L" curve, meaning students start fearlessly strong, decline, then bottom out, and the "U" curve of strong skill set, decline, then resurgence if the arts are continued after the Middle School years.  My project vision has been altered, however, and that in addition to having an area of small art instruction stations, I want to include and expand on something more measurable.  I would like to involve my up coming students to step up and become student-teacher leaders.  I envision several examples where students will have to bring home an informal survey to an adult who considers themselves "not artistic", answer a few questions on making art, draw, un aided, from a prompt, example, "draw a tree with branches", and then have the adult draw the prompt a second time, but with student instruction.  I'm not as concerned with the end result, but more the process.  I'm actually excited to see what kind of feedback I get from this.  Not only am I reinforcing the lesson with the student, but causing a "buy-in" from the parent/adult.
For the rest of class we were introduced to the library system, and briefed on our meeting with Senator Kaine tomorrow.  Look for my tweets! #imfinallyontwitterlol

VCET Spark

We got the ball rolling this Monday morning with introductions and general overviews.  What sparked real discussion was an image of one of Andy Goldsworthy's work, and then the controversial idea that the arts, where they can support and inter relate with other disciplines, does not in itself enhance a student's ability in other subjects.  Running through my head was how young kids have such an aptitude and desire to draw and experiment with art, and they're not afraid if they're not accurate in depicting drawings of people or objects.  There is no failure, only pure expression.  On the flip side, when those children grow to adults, many lose that desire and shut off any artistic side.  How many times have you heard an adult say "I wish I could draw" or "I couldn't draw a straight line with a ruler".  You would expect an adult to be literate in Math, Science, English, and History, but why are the Arts so foreign and unapproachable?
This disconnect interests me and I would like to explore it further.  Around Middle School, I notice students start their decline: less are eager to take risks, do not want to feel embarrassment in front of their peers, or disappoint themselves.  Some do not continue Art education into their HighSschool years, thus cutting off any more development.  So for my topic paper, I intend on researching this pattern, and ways how art can be incorporated so that anyone can find it accessible and non threatening.  For our February presentation, I would like to have a public art interaction station.  My vision is to set up tables of workstations of small, self directed art projects that I use with my Art I students.  For example, a station that demonstrates how to draw a tree, a station on how to use contour drawing, a color theory demonstration, a small painting project, a small paper sculpture project, etc.  I want viewers to interact and take away an idea, perhaps re spark an interest in wanting to learn more.