This week I started a new job working with Kindergarten class at a local school here and as I observe the school and its culture and each of the students, I can't seem to organize all of my questions and thoughts, but I hope that I can sort through a few here.
I've been doing my fieldwork at an IB Junior High known for its high population of minority and at-risk students-- openly and obviously the school with the greatest diversity in the city. The elementary school I am working at is also an IB school, but certainly does not have the diversity of the Jr. High.
Each day, there are parent volunteers in the class, helping with small groups and classroom management. Earlier this week, I was grading some homework and overheard one such parent talking to the teacher about her 5 or 6 year old son, who is "getting confused because he is reading too many chapter books at a time." There are two students in the class who came in without knowing any English-- it is exciting to hear them saying two and three word sentences now. You can pick out the girl who is the socialite-- always organizing relationships, always seeming to know just the right thing to say. There are the kids who may be a bit developmentally delayed. The student who is in constant need of attention-- not getting in trouble, just being a bit disruptive. Even in Kindergarten, you have the social structure. You see immediately the kids who have everything, the students (I will repeat in kindergarten) discussing who has their own phones.
I have to confess my own bias, my own tendency to get angry or judge. I was one of those kids who had support from my parents-- I was a child who had access to books, reading, writing, learning at home. But I don't like kids like that because I wonder if they will ever learn to see the kids who don't have it. I hate to see it when students are saving seats for each other at snack time for reasons outside of true, heartfelt companionship. I hate it when children fight over who gets to sit next to one particular student. Sometimes I walk into a class of kids and one of the girls will look up at me with her big, adoring eyes and say, "I think you're pretty." (Trust me, it's happened more than once). And although I want to be open and approachable, I never want to be liked or admired just for that. We have this system in our society that seems to build in admiration for surface while the marginalized get lost.
I don't know what to do with this cumbersome thing that is division. I suppose I just need to give up on "fairness," but I hate this group of privileged elite that don't see that disadvantaged that are there, ten feet away. This sense of disconnect between the haves and have-nots.
Even in the two days that I've been spending time with this young class, it is impressed upon me the reality that this is the place where these children are being introduced to society and the way the world works on the most primary levels. These kids are learning not only how to read and write, but social realities, hierarchies and norms. Kindergarten is the place where children are beginning to see how the world works. And I just wonder, how much of that social education is colored by the academic aspect of learning. Will the students who have parents to give them extra worksheets at home ever learn that this does not have to create a distinction between them and the other human beings in the classroom who may happen to only have access to books at school.
Do the students who ride the bus home have the opportunity to be known by the students whose parents are actively involved in their schooling and are there to pick them up each day?
I was thinking today as I noticed the brand new TV and DVD player present in the kindergarten class how different this IB school is from the IB Junior High that I am at in the morning, with old technology and awkward classrooms. I found it slightly jarring to realize firsthand the inequality between schools within this small city, within schools that both proudly adhere to the standards of IB. How different things are. As I looked at these two wonderfully creative spanish-speaking girls sitting on the floor, disoriented by a room full of language they hardly know, I almost felt sick to my stomach thinking about how unfair it is. Struggling not to be angry at these precious, intelligent children, who do not even understand the gifts they've been given in parents who can afford to focus on them.
I have been struck by the reality of what it must do to a child to be thrown into a school without understanding the language. What a disadvantage they have. While the other students are struggling with cutting, gluing, handwriting, these ESL kids are dealing with language. I watch them as the class sits in a circle listening to stories and having discussions, and hope that their eyes will somehow loose their gloss, that somehow they will be able to understand and engage. What brilliantly intelligent kids these are! And how heart wrenching it is to be unable to connect to it-- how tragic it is to hardly know the sound of their voices.
Although I am not planning to teach at the elementary level (although that may change) being able to be a part of this class has been wonderful in its display of the earliest foundation laid for students in education. This is the place where we get to see exactly how much of a head-start students have or how difficult the road is going to be ahead for them. It is exhilarating and heartwrenching, all at the same time.
I still have this question though-- what do you do with the inequality? How do you, as a teacher, help students keep from walking over each other or feeling the invisibility imposed by prior knowledge or intelligence? How do you help intelligent students understand there is more to them than what they know? How do you keep advantaged students from separating themselves from those who could benefit from their experience? How do you set up a community of learning in your classroom that bridges the gaps between those with resources and those who simply have less? How do you communicate to the marginalized, the disadvantaged that they are wonderful and brilliant, just like everyone? How can you empower them, even as 5 and 6 year olds-- to be all that they can be? Is it really possible to teach a system that does not place value on what you know, but rather creates a community where everyone has beauty and value? Here-- an even bigger question-- how do you help those parents who are involved in their children's education see that they may be perpetuating system in which some students are getting marginalized? How can we get parents to be resources for other students who may not have that same parental support rather than encouraging their children only to build relationships with other students who are like them, with kids whose parents they may know because they are at school too.
So, ther are a few of the same old questions that are still there, waiting. Lurking in the shadows. What do you do when you can see it, but human beings are a bit more complex than a simple fix?
I've been thinking this week that maybe the challenge/ struggle/ intrigue of teaching is the breadth of complexity there are in human beings and teachers are the people who get to sort all that out. We are the people to try to make at least a little bit of sense out of what makes a person become who they are and then jump right in the middle of the mess. Its a paradox of love and hate-- exhilaration and difficult, difficult struggle. Am I up to the challenge? Oh, Lord, I hope so.
27.3.08
21.3.08
How to Mount Your Own Canvas
Because I've found it very difficult to find good resources for new artists on things like how to effectively and inexpensively present your work, I'd like to devote some parts of this blog to sharing my own discoveries on this topic. So, since today I made a few discoveries of my own about mounting canvas and Masonite, I'll go ahead and share them with you. You can use some simple lattice to create an nice frame for your work-- keep in mind that your frame will only be as wide as the thickness of your lattice. I apologize for the absence of photos, but I hope this will at least give you a start.
Materials:
1. Lattice trim (you can find this at a local home improvement store or lumber yard in the trim section: look for things like molding and door jambs. You can also find lower quality lattice for a smaller price if you are going to paint it or look through it to find some good peices)
2. Hand Saw
3. Wood Glue
4. 5/8 inch nails
5. Pencil
6. Clamps
7. Measuring tape
8. Painting on Masonite or Stretched Canvas
Process (canvas)
1. Find a place with a hard floor and level ground (since I do this in my apartment usually, the kitchen is the best place for me)
2. Place first piece of lattice upright next to the edge of your canvas and another piece on top. Mark the upright piece of wood where it meets the top of the lattice on top (you want the cut edge of your upright lattice to be flush with the other lattice to create a seamless edge.)
3. Cut the first piece of lattice with a handsaw where you marked it
4. With one end of the cut wood lined up with the edge of your canvas (the other side should go past the end of your canvas as much as the width of your lattice) nail the wood flat to the edge of the stretcher bar in the center and on the ends. The front edge of the lattice should also be flush with the face of the canvas (it will look like a shadow box on the back side, depending on the depth of your stretchers)
5. Set the canvas upright with the lattice you just attached on the floor. Set another piece of lattice upright on top of the overhanging edge of the side you just nailed. You can clamp it or get a friend to hold it next to the canvas while you grab a third piece of lattice. Set this piece on the top side of the canvas. Mark the upright piece of lattice as in step 2 so it is flush with the third piece of lattice.
6. Cut and nail.
7. Repeat steps 1-6 all the way around. You may want to apply a small amount of wood glue to each corner to seal the joints.
8. At each corner, set with nails (from the outside of the overlapping piece into the end of the wood of the meeting lattice.)
9. Sand each corner to smooth any uneven joints.
10. If you want wider frames, you can also attach lattice to the front side of the work by nailing it flat to the frame you just created (and covering a bit of the painting as well)
You can also paint the lattice black (or any color you want, really) or choose a color of wood that will suit your piece. Also, be careful to measure carefully. Due to my own carelessness, I found that even if I am 1/16th off in my measurement, it is the difference between a professional presentation and a home-made hack-job. This is why I recommend measuring and marking one piece at a time, especially because sometimes stretcher bars (especially ones I make myself) can have a few irregularities that will affect the way the lattice sits on the edge.
For Mounting Masonite or Panel:
Repeat the same measuring steps as above, except instead of attaching to the outside edge, I just used wood glue to attach the lattice to the back of the panel. Again, the lattice will be sitting on the skinny edge (it creates a shadow-box effect on the back). You can use some C-clamps to set the glue or apply some small nails at the corners (if you don't mind putting the nails through your painting).
It is amazing what these small touches can do to a painting-- when you take time to present your work with a frame, it demonstrates your own care in how others enter it. This method is fairly inexpensive, depending on the wood you choose and a fairly simple process. I've done all of this in my apartment.
Materials:
1. Lattice trim (you can find this at a local home improvement store or lumber yard in the trim section: look for things like molding and door jambs. You can also find lower quality lattice for a smaller price if you are going to paint it or look through it to find some good peices)
2. Hand Saw
3. Wood Glue
4. 5/8 inch nails
5. Pencil
6. Clamps
7. Measuring tape
8. Painting on Masonite or Stretched Canvas
Process (canvas)
1. Find a place with a hard floor and level ground (since I do this in my apartment usually, the kitchen is the best place for me)
2. Place first piece of lattice upright next to the edge of your canvas and another piece on top. Mark the upright piece of wood where it meets the top of the lattice on top (you want the cut edge of your upright lattice to be flush with the other lattice to create a seamless edge.)
3. Cut the first piece of lattice with a handsaw where you marked it
4. With one end of the cut wood lined up with the edge of your canvas (the other side should go past the end of your canvas as much as the width of your lattice) nail the wood flat to the edge of the stretcher bar in the center and on the ends. The front edge of the lattice should also be flush with the face of the canvas (it will look like a shadow box on the back side, depending on the depth of your stretchers)
5. Set the canvas upright with the lattice you just attached on the floor. Set another piece of lattice upright on top of the overhanging edge of the side you just nailed. You can clamp it or get a friend to hold it next to the canvas while you grab a third piece of lattice. Set this piece on the top side of the canvas. Mark the upright piece of lattice as in step 2 so it is flush with the third piece of lattice.
6. Cut and nail.
7. Repeat steps 1-6 all the way around. You may want to apply a small amount of wood glue to each corner to seal the joints.
8. At each corner, set with nails (from the outside of the overlapping piece into the end of the wood of the meeting lattice.)
9. Sand each corner to smooth any uneven joints.
10. If you want wider frames, you can also attach lattice to the front side of the work by nailing it flat to the frame you just created (and covering a bit of the painting as well)
You can also paint the lattice black (or any color you want, really) or choose a color of wood that will suit your piece. Also, be careful to measure carefully. Due to my own carelessness, I found that even if I am 1/16th off in my measurement, it is the difference between a professional presentation and a home-made hack-job. This is why I recommend measuring and marking one piece at a time, especially because sometimes stretcher bars (especially ones I make myself) can have a few irregularities that will affect the way the lattice sits on the edge.
For Mounting Masonite or Panel:
Repeat the same measuring steps as above, except instead of attaching to the outside edge, I just used wood glue to attach the lattice to the back of the panel. Again, the lattice will be sitting on the skinny edge (it creates a shadow-box effect on the back). You can use some C-clamps to set the glue or apply some small nails at the corners (if you don't mind putting the nails through your painting).
It is amazing what these small touches can do to a painting-- when you take time to present your work with a frame, it demonstrates your own care in how others enter it. This method is fairly inexpensive, depending on the wood you choose and a fairly simple process. I've done all of this in my apartment.
First Steps
Today I spent the day framing and installing hanging hardware to a few things to submit to the Local Emerging Artists Show at FCMOCA-- although after doing all that work I found out that they moved the show until June, it still felt good to have things done and ready to go. I feel ready to start putting things out there. Something I've learned about myself is that sometimes I feel like I ought to be able to do certain things right away, but it takes me a while to really get to the point where I am actually ready. And oh, what a wonderful thing when I get to that point.
Strangely, this semester I see myself "growing up" a little bit. It is beginning to sink in that after this semester, I'll only have one more year of classes before student teaching. It's crazy to think about in a year from now, I'll be taking my last set of classes in my undergrad.
With that comes with a bit more confidence about what to do with my art, what I want it to be in my life. It also makes me feel like I know a little more about what I am doing and makes me feel more equipped and empowered to do it. I'm to that point where I am ready for a lot of things, a ready that can't be pushed, but must be waited for.
So, I'm waiting for the MOCA show, but am also planning to submit something to the undergraduate show that will be coming up very soon here!
Thanks to my ever-researching roommate, I also found a wonderful artist blog. Check it out.
Strangely, this semester I see myself "growing up" a little bit. It is beginning to sink in that after this semester, I'll only have one more year of classes before student teaching. It's crazy to think about in a year from now, I'll be taking my last set of classes in my undergrad.
With that comes with a bit more confidence about what to do with my art, what I want it to be in my life. It also makes me feel like I know a little more about what I am doing and makes me feel more equipped and empowered to do it. I'm to that point where I am ready for a lot of things, a ready that can't be pushed, but must be waited for.
So, I'm waiting for the MOCA show, but am also planning to submit something to the undergraduate show that will be coming up very soon here!
Thanks to my ever-researching roommate, I also found a wonderful artist blog. Check it out.
18.3.08
Wondering What I Read?
For those of you who are interested in what I read, you may subscribe to my Shared Items here. I'm required for my technology class to read and share information about education and/or art and have been learning so much. It is amazing how we are being asked to take part in the ways that our students collect so much information each day. I can hardly get my regular homework done because I find so many interesting things this way. Take a look! (I'll also be posting a feed on the sidebar if you would just like to look there.) Enjoy!
13.3.08
Another Reason to Continue Marginalizing Art Education
This week's reading for my Methods in Art Education class comes from the article, "Negotiating 'Fit' in Student Art Work: Classroom Conversations," which discusses the art educator's dilemma regarding how to negotiate with students in how they approach and complete their artwork (see citation below). The author sets this discussion in the context of a field study and a specific example of one student's approach to the assignment of an "Expressive Painting," involving the representation of how people are or are not relating to one another. The focus of the study is on how the student and the teacher may interpret the "requirements" of the assignment differently and how these two differing approaches may affect the outcome of the project.
Although the article deals with important aspects of student-teacher conversation about the work, I found it frustrating in its failure to address the importance of keeping students from dwelling in their comfort zones and challenging them to take risks so that learning takes precedence over product in the classroom. Throughout the narrative, the teacher is working with a student to decide between a concept that features a generalized over-head view of a crowd in a stadium and a face-on representation of the same group of people. When the teacher asks which sketch would best express his idea, the student advocates for his bird's-eye representation by saying, "It's just that i like to draw more like this, like stadiums and structures than people's faces." The teacher didn't press the student much further, but in a later interview with the researcher, the student said the following:
The teacher ended up allowing the student to work in a more generalized way because she recognized this was "the way he liked to draw," but I find it very strange that she did very little to probe the student further on the reasons why exactly he liked working this way. Based on his later interview (and some common dialogues that artists must fight concerning fear) it seemed fairly obvious that his decision making came out of his product-motivated beliefs about his own abilities rather than even addressing the question posed by the teacher: Which idea better conveys the idea?
As I've been discussing already here and pondering quite extensively as I move about my day to day life, I find a primary problem with this way of teaching and working in its dependence upon product rather than process. Throughout the article, interviews with students and the focus on the teacher's interaction zones in on the issue of requirements. The teacher provided various methods of creating certain expressions, the how of the assignment, if you will, but most comments made by students revolved around what the teacher asked them to complete. Furthermore, the crux of the article seems to fall on the ways that teachers and students negotiate technicalities of how the project can be fulfilled. The question is not how the student can improve, learn, or move out of previous patterns, but rather how the student is able to move inside the boundaries already set by the teacher to create an object they feel comfortable with at the end of the unit.
The problem that I see here is that there is an important requirement missing that should supersede the entire class. Based on the format presented in this single assignment, it appears that the class is built around a structure in which the teacher dictates a a series of certain parameters and the students must navigate their way within this perimeter to manufacture a "successful" product. Although this structure makes sense in terms of class organization, it stifles a more important goal: challenge and learning. Although the class may be technically abiding by the rules, it ignores a more important rule the teacher should be following: never allow fear to keep students from learning how to best communicate what they have to say.
If this teacher had questioned the student further (and dare I suggest she employ some insight as a thinking adult) she probably would have discovered that the student made a choice based on past experience that told him that he has produced something successful before and therefore could do it again, rather than the motivation of how to most effectively communicate his message. I find it interesting too, that she didn't seem to notice he didn't even answer her question at all-- She asked which idea better conveyed his idea and he responded with a defense of the way he liked to work. It is as if she asked, "How do you feel about war?" and he responded with, "Well, I just love the color purple."
The problem with the way people are taught about art is that it often perpetuates the idea that realistic art automatically means good art (a notion that naturally develops in the upper elementary grades and often serves to squelch the natural creativity of children and causes many people to quit making art altogether). Many people who draw on the identity of "artist" throughout school rely on old schemas of making that have gotten them praise and attention before and fear risking the demolition of assurance of their success, and therefore never push through to learning how to really say things that are meaningful. The problem, I think, is that art has become about earning kudos and shallow searches for identity rather than communication. As artists, we want to find our identity in our image as "art-maker" rather that allowing our art-making to flow out of who we are outside of the studio. Maybe this is why some self-portraits of artists in their studios seem so prosaic and circular. Maybe this is why it frustrates me so much when "art-people" dress quite abnormally in order to express a creativity that is not really present in their artworks.
Imagine this: Visual communication is the same as writing a novel or giving a speech. Do you give a speech just so that you can call yourself a "Speaker"? Or do you speak because you have something to say? How many people do you know who go around proud of their ability to emit sound from their vocal chords that actually sound like words? Or is it more important that they actually communicate ideas worth listening to? (I suppose there is one stage that the ability to form words is quite a novelty, but last I recall, that ends at about age two or three). And then there are those people who talk just to hear the sound of their own voice-- they are a little annoying, aren't they? So then why do we encourage people to make art that only proves that they have mastered eye-hand coordination? Perhaps the person who speaks for the love of their own voice is the vocal equivalent of "art for art's sake."
I wonder what would happen if we began to teach students that art has this incredible capacity to provide the means by which we can say deeply meaningful things to one another. And I wonder what would happen if we stopped trying not to step on toes so much and start giving students the power to push through their fears to speak in the best "words" possible. We don't avoid helping students write better sentences for the sake of their handwriting, do we? When we ask students to increase their vocabulary, we don't allow them to excuse themselves, saying, "No thank you, I'd rather just keep using these same five words because I know they sound really good in my voice." That would be absurd, yet we allow students to settle for small visual vocabularies for the sake of their feelings.
When we challenge students to push through their comfort zones, we aren't asking them to change what they have to say, we are just asking them to communicate in a way that other people can understand them. I've heard many people say they have decided not to study art formally because it will "destroy their natural creativity." They claim that an institution will somehow keep them from saying whatever it is that they want to say. And, I suppose, as long as teachers keep pussy-footing around "what students like to do," this will be true. Students will never gain the benefit of the criticism that hones their ability to speak powerfully.
The problem I see with the example in this reading is the failure of the teacher to give this student the power to really speak. Instead of finding out that the student just was afraid of the failure he may when he tried to draw faces and giving him the tools to learn it, the teacher let him stay in an old comfort zone. As teachers, our jobs are not to let kids keep doing what they already know they can do-- that is just a waste of time. If we are creating classrooms where we are more concerned with having enough finished masterpieces to hang up at the year-end art show than we are passionate about sending brave, risk-taking students out into the world, we are doing a service to no one. Not all of the students who pass through our classrooms are going to go on to become artists, but each one will be valuable members of society with important things to say, and it is up to us to instill in them the value of pushing through obstacles to lead their most meaningful lives. We do no favors by allowing them to settle for mediocrity for the sake a few minutes of pride stuck to their parent's refrigerators.
The power of the art classroom is only maintained by the transcendence of deep and concentrated thought over a shallow dependence upon end result. When students are allowed to do "what they like to do," instead of challenged to more effectively say what they want to say, we communicate that they are powerless, incapable of doing what they ultimately want to do in the world. But we will never endow our students with this power until we give them freedom to explore, make mistakes, and make discoveries without regard to the "cleanliness" of their product. No matter the "museum quality" a work of art is, no product will be more valuable and long-lasting than the lessons in self-discovery and risk that take place throughout a process of true searching and risk.
Until we do the hard work of digging into our own fears and experiences, we can expect the arts to continue to become marginalized white-noise-- speaking simply for the pleasure of the sound of its own self-soothing voice, rather than for the sake of the healing words art speaks to both the viewer and the maker.
--Hafeli, Mary. "Negotiating 'Fit' in Student Art Work: Classroom Conversations." Studies in Art Education; A Journal of Issues and Research, 2000, 41 (2), 130-145
Although the article deals with important aspects of student-teacher conversation about the work, I found it frustrating in its failure to address the importance of keeping students from dwelling in their comfort zones and challenging them to take risks so that learning takes precedence over product in the classroom. Throughout the narrative, the teacher is working with a student to decide between a concept that features a generalized over-head view of a crowd in a stadium and a face-on representation of the same group of people. When the teacher asks which sketch would best express his idea, the student advocates for his bird's-eye representation by saying, "It's just that i like to draw more like this, like stadiums and structures than people's faces." The teacher didn't press the student much further, but in a later interview with the researcher, the student said the following:
"She was asking me which sketch I like better. And I guess I said the one with the faces because it brought more people's faces.. And I said since we were all, like, in one stadium, we didn't know each other, that's why I didn't put faces cause I can't put each one's face, so there was nothing really. But then, I wasn't good at that kind of thing. I like drawing, like, structures and overhead views and stuff, so that's why I did this one." (emphasis mine)
The teacher ended up allowing the student to work in a more generalized way because she recognized this was "the way he liked to draw," but I find it very strange that she did very little to probe the student further on the reasons why exactly he liked working this way. Based on his later interview (and some common dialogues that artists must fight concerning fear) it seemed fairly obvious that his decision making came out of his product-motivated beliefs about his own abilities rather than even addressing the question posed by the teacher: Which idea better conveys the idea?
As I've been discussing already here and pondering quite extensively as I move about my day to day life, I find a primary problem with this way of teaching and working in its dependence upon product rather than process. Throughout the article, interviews with students and the focus on the teacher's interaction zones in on the issue of requirements. The teacher provided various methods of creating certain expressions, the how of the assignment, if you will, but most comments made by students revolved around what the teacher asked them to complete. Furthermore, the crux of the article seems to fall on the ways that teachers and students negotiate technicalities of how the project can be fulfilled. The question is not how the student can improve, learn, or move out of previous patterns, but rather how the student is able to move inside the boundaries already set by the teacher to create an object they feel comfortable with at the end of the unit.
The problem that I see here is that there is an important requirement missing that should supersede the entire class. Based on the format presented in this single assignment, it appears that the class is built around a structure in which the teacher dictates a a series of certain parameters and the students must navigate their way within this perimeter to manufacture a "successful" product. Although this structure makes sense in terms of class organization, it stifles a more important goal: challenge and learning. Although the class may be technically abiding by the rules, it ignores a more important rule the teacher should be following: never allow fear to keep students from learning how to best communicate what they have to say.
If this teacher had questioned the student further (and dare I suggest she employ some insight as a thinking adult) she probably would have discovered that the student made a choice based on past experience that told him that he has produced something successful before and therefore could do it again, rather than the motivation of how to most effectively communicate his message. I find it interesting too, that she didn't seem to notice he didn't even answer her question at all-- She asked which idea better conveyed his idea and he responded with a defense of the way he liked to work. It is as if she asked, "How do you feel about war?" and he responded with, "Well, I just love the color purple."
The problem with the way people are taught about art is that it often perpetuates the idea that realistic art automatically means good art (a notion that naturally develops in the upper elementary grades and often serves to squelch the natural creativity of children and causes many people to quit making art altogether). Many people who draw on the identity of "artist" throughout school rely on old schemas of making that have gotten them praise and attention before and fear risking the demolition of assurance of their success, and therefore never push through to learning how to really say things that are meaningful. The problem, I think, is that art has become about earning kudos and shallow searches for identity rather than communication. As artists, we want to find our identity in our image as "art-maker" rather that allowing our art-making to flow out of who we are outside of the studio. Maybe this is why some self-portraits of artists in their studios seem so prosaic and circular. Maybe this is why it frustrates me so much when "art-people" dress quite abnormally in order to express a creativity that is not really present in their artworks.
Imagine this: Visual communication is the same as writing a novel or giving a speech. Do you give a speech just so that you can call yourself a "Speaker"? Or do you speak because you have something to say? How many people do you know who go around proud of their ability to emit sound from their vocal chords that actually sound like words? Or is it more important that they actually communicate ideas worth listening to? (I suppose there is one stage that the ability to form words is quite a novelty, but last I recall, that ends at about age two or three). And then there are those people who talk just to hear the sound of their own voice-- they are a little annoying, aren't they? So then why do we encourage people to make art that only proves that they have mastered eye-hand coordination? Perhaps the person who speaks for the love of their own voice is the vocal equivalent of "art for art's sake."
I wonder what would happen if we began to teach students that art has this incredible capacity to provide the means by which we can say deeply meaningful things to one another. And I wonder what would happen if we stopped trying not to step on toes so much and start giving students the power to push through their fears to speak in the best "words" possible. We don't avoid helping students write better sentences for the sake of their handwriting, do we? When we ask students to increase their vocabulary, we don't allow them to excuse themselves, saying, "No thank you, I'd rather just keep using these same five words because I know they sound really good in my voice." That would be absurd, yet we allow students to settle for small visual vocabularies for the sake of their feelings.
When we challenge students to push through their comfort zones, we aren't asking them to change what they have to say, we are just asking them to communicate in a way that other people can understand them. I've heard many people say they have decided not to study art formally because it will "destroy their natural creativity." They claim that an institution will somehow keep them from saying whatever it is that they want to say. And, I suppose, as long as teachers keep pussy-footing around "what students like to do," this will be true. Students will never gain the benefit of the criticism that hones their ability to speak powerfully.
The problem I see with the example in this reading is the failure of the teacher to give this student the power to really speak. Instead of finding out that the student just was afraid of the failure he may when he tried to draw faces and giving him the tools to learn it, the teacher let him stay in an old comfort zone. As teachers, our jobs are not to let kids keep doing what they already know they can do-- that is just a waste of time. If we are creating classrooms where we are more concerned with having enough finished masterpieces to hang up at the year-end art show than we are passionate about sending brave, risk-taking students out into the world, we are doing a service to no one. Not all of the students who pass through our classrooms are going to go on to become artists, but each one will be valuable members of society with important things to say, and it is up to us to instill in them the value of pushing through obstacles to lead their most meaningful lives. We do no favors by allowing them to settle for mediocrity for the sake a few minutes of pride stuck to their parent's refrigerators.
The power of the art classroom is only maintained by the transcendence of deep and concentrated thought over a shallow dependence upon end result. When students are allowed to do "what they like to do," instead of challenged to more effectively say what they want to say, we communicate that they are powerless, incapable of doing what they ultimately want to do in the world. But we will never endow our students with this power until we give them freedom to explore, make mistakes, and make discoveries without regard to the "cleanliness" of their product. No matter the "museum quality" a work of art is, no product will be more valuable and long-lasting than the lessons in self-discovery and risk that take place throughout a process of true searching and risk.
Until we do the hard work of digging into our own fears and experiences, we can expect the arts to continue to become marginalized white-noise-- speaking simply for the pleasure of the sound of its own self-soothing voice, rather than for the sake of the healing words art speaks to both the viewer and the maker.
--Hafeli, Mary. "Negotiating 'Fit' in Student Art Work: Classroom Conversations." Studies in Art Education; A Journal of Issues and Research, 2000, 41 (2), 130-145
4.3.08
Great multimedia art history resources
I found a link via The Carrot Revolution to some wonderful youtube videos that would be great for presenting art history information to students in a way that they may more readily engage in. I think some of these videos are just wonderful tools for presenting information in a way that students will be interested and will help them make connections with the material you are presenting.
1.3.08
Art as an essential enrichment
As this semester I find myself more deeply emersed in my eduction studies, I find myself combining all sorts of observations about art and what it means to people and the classroom from different classes to books to everyday conversations. Something I have also been sorting out is my own art education and some differences and similarities between the painting class I am in now and love more than maybe any other class I've taken and a very difficult (in a non-academic way) last semester.
The question that keeps emerging is this: What is it that makes the art classroom so marginalized these days and how do we as teachers go about the difficult task of making art appropriately rigorous? Often, I have struggled with the question of how do deal with the issue of talent versus skill in the art classroom-- how do you deal with the concenption that the art class is really only for students who already love art naturally?
They tell us over and over that our focuse as content teachers must go beyond content, that the walls have to come frown between contents as we teacher students to be learners. In light of this advice and my own studies, I find a lot of answers to the questions above in the difference between approaching art as product and process.
As artists in our culture, it is difficult to get away from the notion of art as commodity. We are taught that our art making must always serve as a means of selling ourselves-- students are taught to hone their skill in order to create a product that will sell just like a clothing designer or car manufacturer.
In Chri Tovani's book, "Do I really have to Teach Reading," she includes this quote from Marcia D'Arcangelo in "The Challenge of Content-area Reading: A conversation with Donna Ogle":
"Many middle and high school teachers think of themselves as content experts. When I started teaching, I thought of myself as a historian. I wanted to teach history, and I really didn't think much about how students learn. I always focused on content. A lot of secondary teachers enter the field because of their passion for what they are teaching. It's an unusual teacher who comes into secondary education wanting to teach students how to learn. Yet, if we're going to be good teachers, that's really essential."
This quote interested me because it is a strong call to teachers to consider their motives. Am I an art teacher because I want all students to love art like I do, or do I want to open possibilities to students to disvoer things that they lovesas much as I love art? It is so easy to get into a rut of thinking that my content is best without thinking about the greater level of learning in students. What is best for them?
Art become much more meaningful when we allow it to move beyond the product. When we restrict our work in the art classroom to teaching students how to make a product that pleases others, we rob art and the student of all kinds of more important learning that goes on beneath and beyond the artwork. Art is so important because of all the exploration and discovery that takes place in the process. Art making involves all sorts of risk-taking and problem solving in a deeply holistic way that is not present in other subjects.
There are some art classes that I have observed or heard about that make me understand why people view the arts as enrichment or recess-- not necessary for people who are not naturally artistically inclined. When we treat art as only a means of producing a pleasing product, we are naturally going to eliminate many students in our classrooms or else make our own lives a great deal harder. Many adults do not know how to connect to art because they were only taught to view it as a measurement of acceptance in the class.
I used to think I loved art because I am creative and I love to paint, but the more I study art making and the more I learn about education, I realize that perhaps I love art more because of all the depth and possibilities it holds for my life as a whole. It challenges me to think deeply about my thoughts and experiences and moves me into a space where I am able to communicate my own senses of life for others to see in a deeply beautiful way. I love art because it is hard and it is intellectual and I hope that as a teacher I am able to instill a bit of the passion I hold into my own students towards their own loves and dreams. When we are able to use our art classrooms as places for students to hone their skills in creativity and deeper abstract thought, then it is appropriate to call it enrichement-- I believe the exercises the mind goes through during this process (regardless of the judgment attributed to the product) is an enrichment out world cannot do without.
The question that keeps emerging is this: What is it that makes the art classroom so marginalized these days and how do we as teachers go about the difficult task of making art appropriately rigorous? Often, I have struggled with the question of how do deal with the issue of talent versus skill in the art classroom-- how do you deal with the concenption that the art class is really only for students who already love art naturally?
They tell us over and over that our focuse as content teachers must go beyond content, that the walls have to come frown between contents as we teacher students to be learners. In light of this advice and my own studies, I find a lot of answers to the questions above in the difference between approaching art as product and process.
As artists in our culture, it is difficult to get away from the notion of art as commodity. We are taught that our art making must always serve as a means of selling ourselves-- students are taught to hone their skill in order to create a product that will sell just like a clothing designer or car manufacturer.
In Chri Tovani's book, "Do I really have to Teach Reading," she includes this quote from Marcia D'Arcangelo in "The Challenge of Content-area Reading: A conversation with Donna Ogle":
"Many middle and high school teachers think of themselves as content experts. When I started teaching, I thought of myself as a historian. I wanted to teach history, and I really didn't think much about how students learn. I always focused on content. A lot of secondary teachers enter the field because of their passion for what they are teaching. It's an unusual teacher who comes into secondary education wanting to teach students how to learn. Yet, if we're going to be good teachers, that's really essential."
This quote interested me because it is a strong call to teachers to consider their motives. Am I an art teacher because I want all students to love art like I do, or do I want to open possibilities to students to disvoer things that they lovesas much as I love art? It is so easy to get into a rut of thinking that my content is best without thinking about the greater level of learning in students. What is best for them?
Art become much more meaningful when we allow it to move beyond the product. When we restrict our work in the art classroom to teaching students how to make a product that pleases others, we rob art and the student of all kinds of more important learning that goes on beneath and beyond the artwork. Art is so important because of all the exploration and discovery that takes place in the process. Art making involves all sorts of risk-taking and problem solving in a deeply holistic way that is not present in other subjects.
There are some art classes that I have observed or heard about that make me understand why people view the arts as enrichment or recess-- not necessary for people who are not naturally artistically inclined. When we treat art as only a means of producing a pleasing product, we are naturally going to eliminate many students in our classrooms or else make our own lives a great deal harder. Many adults do not know how to connect to art because they were only taught to view it as a measurement of acceptance in the class.
I used to think I loved art because I am creative and I love to paint, but the more I study art making and the more I learn about education, I realize that perhaps I love art more because of all the depth and possibilities it holds for my life as a whole. It challenges me to think deeply about my thoughts and experiences and moves me into a space where I am able to communicate my own senses of life for others to see in a deeply beautiful way. I love art because it is hard and it is intellectual and I hope that as a teacher I am able to instill a bit of the passion I hold into my own students towards their own loves and dreams. When we are able to use our art classrooms as places for students to hone their skills in creativity and deeper abstract thought, then it is appropriate to call it enrichement-- I believe the exercises the mind goes through during this process (regardless of the judgment attributed to the product) is an enrichment out world cannot do without.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
