Monday, November 17, 2008

Purposes of Children's Art

I was very interested in Arnheim’s discussion of some of many of the theories about children’s art, mainly the artificial distinction between the use of conceptual and perceptual processing in children’s drawing. Conceptual understanding would cause children to represent “the overall qualities of objects.” Perceptual understanding would rely on a child representing what they see. In reality, children usually leave out many details and this does not mean that they do not perceive them. Arnheim reminds us that visual perception does not encompass “the totality of individual appearance,” but in the “grasping of global structural features.” Our visual perception, and thus our art, reflects our gestalt perception. In addition, art emphasize different aspect of our visual processing system and is concerned with the purposes of the art for the artist.
In studying children’s art for conference work I have come upon all kinds of psychological measure attempting to qualify children's art in terms of cognitive or emotional development. Such standards absolutely do not take into account the range of conceptual, perceptual, and representational concepts that the child is attending to simultaneously. For example, tests that measure cognitive development are often concerned with the quantity of body parts depicted in children’s human figure drawing. A five-year-old student of mine decided to include ears in a family portrait last week. However, he told me he was not giving ears to his mother or sister because “you can’t see them so good.” I think this was a great examples of how a child may be using a range of perceptual and conceptual measures in the artistic process that could are easily misconstrued by the inattentive tester or teacher.
Arnheim writes “[t]he discipline of intelligent vision cannot be confined to the art studio; it can succeed only if the visual sense is not blunted and confused in other areas of the curriculum. To try to establish an island of visual literacy in an ocean of blindness is ultimately self-defeating. Visual thinking is indivisible (206).” I think that this is particularly relevant as we begin to explore the intersections of art and science in the Kemp readings. I think that visual arts can also be confined by making assumptions about the purposes of art and the intentions of the artist. The cognitive psychologist sees only cognitive development in the child’s art. The psychoanalyst sees only unconscious expression in the child’s art. The teacher sees only pre-literacy skills. This fracturing of intention does not take into account the full meaning of the art, and of art in general.

6 comments:

Madeline said...

"In studying children’s art for conference work I have come upon all kinds of psychological measure attempting to qualify children's art in terms of cognitive or emotional development. Such standards absolutely do not take into account the range of conceptual, perceptual, and representational concepts that the child is attending to simultaneously."

You touch upon an aspect of Arnheim's work that has continued to impress me throughout his book - that is, his ability to overturn our misconceptions and assumptions about visual perception and open our minds to the less obvious - but in truth, simpler and more sensible - explanation. He reveals the laziness inherent in explanations of children's work as the result of limited perceptual or mechanical capacity. In regards to children's art and many other areas of visual perception, psychologists and laypeople alike have relied on assumptions that they believe to be the simplest explanation. However, the reality is both simpler and more interesting.

For example, Arnheim dismisses Freud's conclusion that the child's preoccupation with circular forms is connected to the experience of the mother's breasts as an infant. While I always enjoy bashing Freud, I especially appreciated Arnheim's explanation for why Freud was wrong: circles are just the simplest form a child (or anyone) can make. Throughout "Art and Visual Perception," Arnheim seems to favor an understanding of our perception that is based on inherent brain functions rather than knowledge acquired from experience. This supports his earliest assertions that individual humans are more alike than different. After all, everyone has different experiences, but the products of our visual perception - such as children's art - are remarkably stable across cultures.

Marcella said...

Its funny but last night I told my husband that I did not agree with diagnosing children's art. I really feel that both Lily and Madeline have touched on an important aspect of children and their art. Unfortunately, I know that some progressive educators continue to believe that a child develops in a vaccume and their art is a window into their psyche. I also appreciated when Arnheim made the "Flatland" analogy. This was a great example of the care teachers and others should take in their desire to deduce that a child means something by drawing a family portrait, using the entire sheet of paper, then suddenly realize that they left out their daddy and draw a very tiny daddy next to a huge mommy. Could the child have a problem with their father, or could they simply have gotten caught up in the moment of creation, accidently left him out and after discovering the mistake fixed it by depicting daddy in the tiny bit of space the child could find on their drawing?

Jessica Ziskind said...

When asked in first grade about what sense I could not imagine parting with, I responded by saying sight. This question came after our lesson on Helen Keller—a girl who was born with the inability to hear, speak or see and through trial and tribulation, learned to live her life in this way. At that age, I was very keen on drawing and I used my doodles and art projects as a way to translate what I was seeing in my imagination onto a tangible piece of paper. I remember a particular assignment I was given where I had to create a storybook using image and text. I decided to do mine about me and my dinosaur friend and our adventures together. Just as Arnheim discussed, the way in which I depicted size and motion was off. The dinosaur was the same size as me on every page of the book and when I attempted to show the motion and speed of walking, I would draw five scurrying legs instead of the normal two.

My drawings show subtle traces of abnormal perception, however and I am wondering if this could be due to me being born over two months premature. I found an article online entitled “Problems of Visual Perception in Premature Children.” It examined the drawings of premature children and how they differed from those of a child who was not. Crowding of forms and letters was an issue, as was poor discrimination between shapes and their background, problems in spatial orientation and difficulty in drawing faces. In addition, hand-eye coordination and ability to concentrate were looked into. Visual problems like these could have been caused by lack of blood or oxygen to the brain at birth. Although my personal situation was not extreme and therefore did not show up strongly in my drawings, I am planning on researching this topic further, as it has relevance to my own life.
(http://www.icevi.org/publications/icevi_wc2006/05%20%20assessment%20procedures_theory%20and%20pratice/Papers/eur_092_tove%20borch.pdf)

Lindsey said...

While reading Arnheim's chapter on Growth I was reminded of a post I made earlier concerning the evolutionary advancement of styles throughout the ages. I wondered whether or not there was a general progression of style or if things like perspective and chiaroscuro just clicked into the artist's perception. Throughout this chapter Arnheim thoroughly explained the various theories regarding the nature of children's artwork and I was struck of how analogous it seemed to stylistic evolution through time.

In particular the sections regarding spontaneous perception and intellectualistic theory caught my attention. Arnheim points out that "if spontaneous perception corresponded to the projective image" then you would expect chidlren's drawings to tend more towards realism and then as they matured and obtained the ability of abstraction more geometric drawings would be produced. However, its in fact the opposite that occurs. Similarly, the stylistic evolution of art from cave paintings - which in their relative geometric simplicity could be compared to children's drawings - to the verism that "was the late and laboriously accomplished product of such sophisticated cultures as Hellenism and the Renaissance" (pg 156). In some ways it could be said that art has evolved and matured similarly to that of a child's artistic progression.

Zac Singer said...

Another interesting quote/reminder from Arnheim in relation to a child's choice of color: it is "not an imitation but an invention, the discovery of an equivalent that represents the relevant features of the model with the resources of a particular medium."
I like this quote in the idea of invention. It really describes how the child and really the artist in general have an inventive force that allows them not to imitate but to create and invent. By bringing together the knowledge of the subject with the visual attributes, the intentions AND perception of the artist, and the limitations of the medium you get the final result.

tarren said...

I APOLOGIZE FOR MY LATE ADDITION:
After studying Kandinsky's infatuation with the circle, it was interesting to get a more primitive interpretation of it. Our near- sided vision can make objects in the distances seem circular, handwriting has evolved to favor curvature, and as our basic motor skills develop as children, one of the first shapes to be reproduced is circular. Kandinsky had a spiritual connection t0 the circle and believed it to be the purest form. The uninhibited, oblivious and inherent use of circles by children, I believe, furthers this notion that the circle has a closer connection to the human mind than any other shape.
I was intrigued by Arnheims discussion about the implications of children's art and their psychological state. I agree with Lindsey in seeing similarities of the evolution of art overall and the development of child art. A Greek study published this year explored 3- 6 year old children's responses to emotion depicted though drawings. By age three children were able to distinguish intended emotion in artworks. This study for me shows how closely art and emotion are linked. Further study of the combination of these two fields could help troubled or distraught children in therapy or the classroom. Our study of color has shown the impact certain colors have on our mental state and perception. Could this 'invention' that children create when seemingly choosing random colors, could have underlying, possibly emotion fueled, meanings?

The study I referenced can be found in: Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, 189-200 (2008)