Tips for Parents: How to tell your child's work is created by your child....and not the instructor

Disclaimer: My sincere apologies in advance to instructors, who are focused more on results for the parents, rather than the creative process with the kids. I tend to subscribe to the camp of creativity, rather than perfection. Sometimes our end results aren't understood by the powers at be at the end of each class. However, it is important for me personally to know that the child had worked on the project himself, and there's natural development in his/her skills, rather than a forced vision of the world by the instructor.

So onto to the task at hand. I've been asked multiple times to assess how much involvement a child might have had with a particular finished product. Though surely some little artists are more talented than others at a certain age, here're age related benchmarks for physical development. These developments  had been witnessed in classes, but are initially based on the research by the famous Child Psychologist, Viktor Lowenfeld:









Age 3-4: Most children are still scribbling and some might begin to develop basic shapes, mostly circles. They have no concept of space or planes within a picture, or a developed human figure representation.

Ages 4-5: Shapes of objects are geometric, they float in space and sizes/proportions are subjective and distorted. Human form is being developed, starting from head/feet symbol, followed by inclusion of arms, lots of details will still be missing.



Ages 6-8: A form concept is developed but doesn't change much, base line establishment but no understanding of overlapping (tree in front of house), human figure consists of geometric shapes, no proportions.



Ages 9-11: Events are characterized rather than drawn realistically, no understanding of shadow, there's a beginning of relationships between objects, lots of details in the figure, but greater stiffness

Ages 12-14: Wrinkles and folds might be important, can zoom in or out, still only important elements drawn in detail, attempt at perspective, greater awareness of joints and body actions, sexual characteristics overemphasized

Ages: 15-17: Will begin to show light and shade, imaginative use of figure for satire, expressiveness and awareness of atmosphere.

Material exploration vs. progress

So my goal when planning the curriculum for the school was to make sure there're varieties of materials at hand and that at every lesson there's a rotating exploration of various art forms: painting, drawing, collage and sculpting... half the classes indoors and have outdoors.

This way kids never get bored, feel more open to experiment and discover hidden talents.

However, there's this constant demand for progress, and the trouble is that by the time a monthly rotation is over and we start on the same medium again next month - it often feels like they don't remember how to approach it and we're starting from scratch. To anxious parents who are trying to ascertain progress at the end of each class it also doesn't feel like things are moving fast enough. It feels like more of a jerky reaction approach rather than a program developed for long term natural growth.

But then I'm totally against a step by step demo class, and every time I show my own variation, they immediately copy what I did as opposed to turning on their imaginations or powers of observation. I really don't want every child to walk out with my version of a cat. I want them to observe the world and develop their own schemas that will remain with them for a lifetime, or change based on their changing perceptions of the world...not mine. And I don't want to be the teacher who says: 'You came here to paint, so why are you so focused on the sharpener?' I think sharpening pencils is part of the process of material exploration and developing comfort with the medium.

Also, if I prolong a project which half a class wasn't thrilled about, then it turns into the torture many kids associate with school projects and art is no longer fun and therapeutic like it should be.

So it's a constant dilemma and I know I can't be all things to all people, but how do I achieve this balance between teaching technique and providing fun variety of media?

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.

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...