Template projects for children

So of course my imagination doesn't run wild all the time and I have to resort to checking various project ideas on the web. Also because I'm strong in some things and haven't used other media in some time - I go ahead and try various suggested lessons on my students.

Perhaps I deal with a much younger audience and simply miss the point, but I'm getting more and more frustrated with the prevalence of follow me instructions. If the main goal of an art teacher is to develop creative thinking - then why do all Monet ponds in one class have to end up looking almost identical?


Yes, if we're raising robots, then they should simply follow step 1, 2, 15, 20. But with excited kids full of raw emotions shouldn't their imagination play a certain part in the process, shouldn't there be an element of media exploration, experimentation, flight of imagination? So what if it isn't a pond with water lillies a la Monet that will look perfect for when the parents come in to look at it? What if it's a farm, or a zoo, or a cave with dragons? At least you see real personal interest there and not a follow along manual.

And yes, I know that with age children's minds cannot roam as freely and they become as rooted as adults in the real world. But perhaps just in art class they can get in touch with their inner selves and be kids just a little longer?

What's the difference between a 4 year old's work and a Jackson Pollock?

Many experienced collectors don't get abstract art. What can I ask of an average parent then, even of myself? Yes, when I look at a Jackson Pollock sometimes I think my kid can do that: and you know what? He can. But the question is how does he arrive at the end result?

For an excited preschooler it's a happy accident - and it's up to adults to appreciate the sudden color relationships, layers of thoughts piling up on one another, a story that keeps growing and changing as it develops in the mind of a child.

For an adult abstract painter it's a much more complex trip and therein lies the difference. Every patch of form and color is planned, its application is a result of years of grueling experimentation, inward analysis that can drive one mad. Suddenly the rhythm works, composition flows, your eye wanders around the balanced painting. And many a time it's overworked, trying to say too much, not leaving any room to breathe.

I think the more I strive for meaningful abstraction, the more I appreciate a child's freedom. Their inner voice is so clear, and its driving their hand to simply act - pure energy, new sensations with new material exploration. Let's learn to love their work before they grow up and their innocence in abstracts disappears. Reality will surely kick in by age 7.

Dynamics of a group

Adults change based on whom they encounter, despite our trying to stay 'true' to ourselves. We're different with our parents and with friends, with our spouses and with our children. I'm now starting to see how early this change in behaviors occurs. Any new variable in the group determines its success, starting from when the kids begin to interact, at the age of 3.

I was reviewing notes from a fellow teacher when I was preparing for classes and was wondering why she talked about each new student entering her class. It's a huge adjustment - that's why! One bad apple spoils the bunch they say...Sadly, quite a true statement and a tough one to control. No child behaves similarly in any given group, and it takes most quite a bit of time to adjust to any change.

Siblings act together as a unit, exhibiting roles they have adapted at home, for comfort sake, younger mimicking the older, older ones overprotecting the young. When separated, they're very different individuals. Those constantly acting out in front of parents, to win some independence and control of their lives, have no need to do so in an unknown setting where everyone is on a level ground. Loud kids quiet down and turn their gazes inwards, introvert kids feel they can speak up in a smaller group setting.

So how does one ever begin to stay true to him/herself if we're constantly adjusting? Do we ever know who we are if cards change so many times per day? And what is better for the kids - stability or constant change to develop strong personalities?

The battle of expression and end result

So as I go on lamenting on my attempts to relax and let go while painting, I hold a class with a serious theme of portraits a la Matisse. Kids have fun painting to music, they get crazy to 'Loca Loca' and start dancing to Spanish rhythms while throwing paint onto their paper, arms swooshing, whole body moving and everything. I, in the meantime, totally freak out that my portraits are going nowhere and soon enough their abstracts will also turn into mud. I'm so dead set on my idea of how this class's project is supposed to look, that I can't appreciate these children's pure enthusiasm and excitement about simply painting. And yet, isn't this why we're here in the first place? To let them express their emotions in productive ways, to allow them to unleash their creative juices and simply enjoy the process?

We as adults are so programmed on end results that letting those shift is exceptionally tricky - so difficult in fact that many of us end up doing the work for the kids, just to make sure it comes out "right", in accordance with our  standards.

My son brings home ceramic plates, jugs and animals that they supposedly make in day care. Except he doesn't even recognize them as his, and we both know he's not at that level of sculpting - his art teacher does everything for him. And what is the purpose of such an art class?

What about you - can you appreciate the process or do you get upset when the end result is nothing to write home about in works by your kids?

Or in general, can we as adults simply relax and enjoy the act of doing something without it having to result in something grand?
___

photos copyright Anna Kreslavskaya

Personal styles at the age of 4

We as artists are always encouraged to develop a style of our own, so that a gallerist who looks at one piece of our oeuvre is able to recognize the artist hand behind it straight away. It's quite difficult to arrive at, especially after years of mimicking the masters and looking at art from all ages, styles and locales.

But I'm seeing that with children it's a natural phenomena. A particular sensibility to color choices and application is there from the get go and it only reinforces over time. One can argue that it's a schema that they have developed and is getting perfected with each new drawing. But I truly think it's more than that. We each have an inner palette, all our own.

No matter how many variations I mix and how much I force myself to pay closer and closer attention to the surroundings, the resulting overall color scheme is always quite similar. Without noticing, my hand creates similar relationships time and time again.

It'd be wonderful to capitalize on this natural style that kids have, to understand it and to teach them to not let it go. But alas, as they learn more and more about the world, the fluidity vanishes.

What I won't do...or bylaws for my teaching proposition

When I was 5, I started to get into drawing. I found napkins of all kinds and drew little dolls on them in various costumes. My grandfather would make up where those costumes would be from, as in - this is the customary dress of the Georgians, or - that one is from the Republic of Congo, etc. I was ecstatic and wanted nothing less than to one day become a fashion designer.

Then, at the age of 15, seeing how my dream was so persistent, my mom found me an art teacher. He, probably self-interestedly or unknowingly, declared that in order to be a fashion designer, I need to learn how to paint everything - from still lives to portraits to landscapes, and so I did. And when the day came for portfolio reviews, I was welcomed with all kinds of scholarships and bells and whistles to different art schools, but none of the fashion design schools,. Apparently for that I needed to learn how to sew and actually present dresses, etc. What about the factories where that actually gets done? But whatever...

And so I had no choice but to become an artist. My official art schooling began. It was incessant figure and gesture drawings and anatomical studies interspersed with occasional self portraits, close copying of the Renaissance masters (no wonder I hate the Renaissance), and chiaroscuro based on photographs. Only once in my 4 years in undergrad were we given an assignment to paint the stunning Ithaca landscape, and only one course introduced me to various painting media. And of course not a word about the contemporary art market, or art careers, or what the hell you're supposed to do with your life once you get out. And I hated art school with all my heart - it just seemed so irrelevant, and dated, and exclusive. It simply pretended that all great art was somewhere in the books and slides and not all around us...

And then I did my Master studies and it was even more dissapointing. It was a degree in Arts Administration, but it pretended that only part of the art world existed, the one where everyone is poor and in dire need of fundraising and it made sure that the real art market wasn't touched upon. As if there're no auction houses, or art insurance or art fairs and successful galleries and artists. Meanwhile, I was managing a thriving art gallery.

So I volunteered in a community arts complex just to get back to the roots, teaching kids art - and yet again - arts and crafts galore: making Valentine's Day cards, and teachers sculpting pretty little things for the kids so that parents think their kids talents are advancing.

Well, enough complaining. Here's my proposition. How about we combine it all? Not just a museum school where students walk with sketch books and pretend to be the next Van Gogh, and not just boring academic still life, or fat nude models, or long stories about how this genius reached his peak of creativity? But a program where every class gives you a sense that everything is connected? That the world around us is forever changing and it's stunning in all its seasons and moods? That Picasso stole from the Africans, and that we can paint like the Egyptians if we wanted to, or like the Japanese with their screens and no three point perspectives, or the Indians with their stunning gold illuminated manuscripts? What if we could create new designs through learning about ornaments on mosques? What if students would see local galleries and art fairs in addition to walks through dark museums? What if they designed costumes for the next Nutcracker like Chagall and Dali did for current plays? What if they practice grafiti art? Somehow, especially now, when we become more and more removed from the natural world, sitting behind our computer desks and residing in virtual realities...our kids need to get back to the roots...

Adding to Adam Lanza's trail of discussions

It seems like the whole world is discussing the motives of Adam Lanza and other problem children who are at risk for hurting our society. It's time that I add my five cents towards the ongoing discussion from an educational perspective. A mother who comes from a creative world, and a wife to someone who is purely analytical, I find it very difficult sometimes to defend my point of view in allowing and promoting children's creative urges.

It seems with the focus on math and sciences and incessant testing on those subjects in our school systems that our society is so preoccupied with training robots that poor children don't get a chance to feel and react to the world around them. I know of parents who prefer to not read fairy tales to their children, (to not cloud their minds with surreal imagery). But what about fostering their imagination or learning valuable lessons about morals, human psychology, etc? Most extracurricular activities are aimed at bettering the chances of ultimate college applications, aka sport sections galore and extra math labs from the age of 4. There's lessening interest in the arts: music, writing, sculpting, painting, theater...and many schools are completely taking creative arts out of their curricula. If those exist, it's only to develop fine motor skills, expose to various options and materials, but not to treat the left side of the brain seriously, not to discuss art production as a way of learning about the inner and outside world.

Yet, as famous child development psychologist, Viktor Lowenfeld notes: "It is interesting to note that youngsters who have run into problems with the law and been put into institutions under the label of "delinquents" have apparently not been able to express themselves creatively".

Judging from my own experience, I paint best when I'm angry at the world. All these negative emotions are being put to creative use. The act of artmaking is allowing me to calm down, process my feelings and regain a trail of logical thought. No wonder art therapy has become such a hit over the last few decades. It opens doors to our subconscious and kids who aren't yet able to express themselves with words, are given a chance to let it all out, explain themselves by other means so that others could listen in. If only Adam Lanza's mother knew what her son was suffering from, if he had a way to calm down, he could have been a genius, a hidden gem in our midst. Jackson Pollock is considered the most influential Amerian artist of the 20th century...