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).
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.
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. 71-83Published 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. 81-91Published 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
No comments:
Post a Comment