Gardner+(WK5)

Here's your wiki for Gardner.

... This article was very interesting to me. I am fascinated by the study of a child's relationship to art, and surprised for some reason that it is the subject of any developmental research at all. Granted, it was written in 1975, but I think a lot of the questions they asked and findings are relevant today, primarily because they reflect cognitive developments in children and not just their relationship to art.

I think the questions they asked were appropriate. Instead of asking "who made this picture?" because it infers 'a person' they asked "where do you think it came from?" (p. 63). I LOVE the animistic views of the youngest children: stories have always existed, songs are made by God, and that paintings "just begin" because where does the energy of creation actually come from? We don't know. Some of it does seem to be divinely inspired, so who is to say these children aren't actually more in touch with that energy than we are?

As an art student, my ideas of what art "really is" have been challenged a lot at Evergreen. I used to think only some people could create art, but now I know anyone can do it. I personally don't like the idea of showing art in a museum so, while it is true that mostly "great" artists show their work in museums, it brings us back around to the question of what is 'good' art? Valuing the creative process is an end in itself without any authoritative voice. -J.

The start of this article pushed a button for me. p. 62 "the value of their curriculum or exhibit is questionable at best." After reading the whole article I understand where they are coming from but disagree with that statement. It is only questionable if there is an "expectation" of how the exposure affects the chlld. If they are interested in results looking a certain way; that is questionable. Exposure to arts, regardless of outcome, is important. Yes, I agree when I was younger I got bored at the art museum but it had an impact regardless. I was lucky enough to frequent the Chicago Art Institute which holds works of the masters. When I moved to the West Coast I realized how fortunate I was. That being said, in the moment it may seem the child is not getting a lot out of the experience, but later it may surface.

Another area of interest, p. 64 Discussing sources: I realize this is scientific based but what these young folks are saying is partially accurate. The explanation of stories have always existed is true. Most stories even if they seem original in content are shiftings of prior knowledge, prior wording, prior experience so in essence the stories have always existed. I could comment on the other sourcing but it would take it too far from the analytical format.

What I found disturbing was in the beginning of the article, the interviewer informed the subjects that there were no right or wrong answers, but then the authors noted during the research there were to be right and wrong answers given from the subjects tested only to find the "underlying rationale" (Pg. 64). When it seemed, even in the conclusion, that if it is possible to fix children's misconceptions of art, then they should be corrected (Pg. 76). The authors make the "misconceptions" seem like dire emergency that needs major reconstruction. Especially in their last sentence, "If steps are not taken during childhood to expose these false notions...the adolescent or adult may become so alienated from the arts that..the whole domain seems as a distant start, as fearful as a dread disease...(Pg. 76). I feel that these misconceptions are a part of childhood, it's almost a part of their imagination. Rather than trying to fix their whole art domain beliefs at a young age, how about we expose them to more art in classrooms, at home or in the "real world" that way they will have the opportunity to experience and understand the art process. It seems important to understand what misconceptions are part of imagination and which are leading a child away from reality. And how far down that road should the child be allowed to go (imaginary friends, misconceptions of art, etc)

I agree with the above thought. I think there is nothing wrong with these "misconceptions" and that children should be encouraged to be imaginative and free of mind, not forced to contain every thing, experience, etc in certain descriptions, categories and conceptions. Having art time in school all the way through would help them naturally develop conceptions of artworks, as well as help them find expression through creativity.

I thought it interesting that the four & five year olds preferred abstract art. This is my preference as well. Interesting it then switches to realistic for 6 and 7 year olds and stays that way for the oldest group with a few exceptions. That speaks to me a bit about the general population. Why?

I loved in C. Formal Properties the comment, "when the guy who wants to buy tells him to stop." That is funny, but sometimes true, it's called a deadline. There were a lot of funny responses. Another one was "the boss, the landlord, or the president decides whether a painting can be exhibited."

-I'm glad they were able to further detail the age groups. The four year ranges were pretty big, considering how much children change in four years. And I found the first paragraph of the "Implications and Conclusions" to be nicely summative (yes, I made up that word), while at the same time they provide some qualifiers. I agree that it's interesting that there's all this interest in finding out what children think about art while at the same time there's a clear definition in the authors' minds about what art is as if the children's understanding of art is wrong instead of just more simple than an adult's understanding. It makes me think about my own definition of art and I wonder what I thought about art at those ages. I really don't remember. But it's such a vital part of many people's lives, precisely because **it is creative and it's value lies in its intent** (well put). Intention makes a huge difference, and that is clearly something children have a varying understanding of. Intention belongs to more than the art world as well. Hmmmm......-

I found myself identifying with the article, not for what it states outright about children's perceptions of art, but for how **our thought processes change as we grow and are exposed to the world** (yes!!) Moving from legalistic responses to preoccupations with fairness as a child ages shows an understanding that goes beyond perceptions of art and perhaps corresponding with a child's learning to share and cognitive development.

The discussion on whether animals can paint also related to how our thought processes change. But most interesting was the reasons behind their answers. It showed that, regardless of the answer, children understand that there is generally a cause for why. (Which may be the cause of that question reigning for a few years during development.) ???

In the conclusion on p. 74 Gardner writes, "It is important to specify to what extent children's thinking about the arts reflects the way in which they think about the world in general." Gardner says that it does "seem to mirror" other cognitive-developmental models but concedes that there isn't always a direct analogy in art beliefs to other parts of development.