| Author | |
dolorsofmary
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 17 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 210
|
| Posted: May 19 2010 at 6:33pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
My son will be 5 in August. I have been doing charlotte mason method and reading and reading and reading to him since he has been 3 months old. All subject areas. I LOVE it. but I have finally articulated something that has been 'stuck in my claw'
Is art as we know it being deconstructed? So many little kid library art books just show the modern art and they seem to do it because it is easy to get the kid to participate like with Jackson Pollock http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/30/us/30pollock_ lg.jpg like by drizzling paint on paper and then we say 'wow what great art!' sorry looks like a drop clothe to me - no offense, some of his work looks like a nice garnite countertop though.
Then it made me think when I saw http://www.chcweb.com/catalog/ACatholicHowToDraw/product_inf o.html Please click on 'view samples' and it inspired me - ah something that is simple for kids but lifts us up out of ourselves! still it is much harder to do than drizzling paint and you are basically make a coloring page. Not exploring what you can do.
hmmm.... just makes me think.
We went to a craft fair recently and it made me appreciate Jackson Pollock a little more. Still I am not satisfied.
In talking to an art teacher who works with homeschoolers she stated that its all relative, that is what you like. That was a big red flag to me - 'its all relative.'
What is true art? Or am I thinking about it too hard?
And what about Simon Cowl of American Idol fame? Many hate him but he seems to have saved some from a hard path of going up hill without a paddle trying to sing for a career without singing talent. My art friend even said that talent doesn't matter, its more about technique and studying michangelo is more about being amazed at how long it took Michangelo to complete the work. I am confused.
I have a small talent in art, I can draw well, not fantastic, just well. And I think Jackson Pollock must have been in the right place in the right time to get the fame he did. I think his fame is an insult to true artists. That is my opinion.
Would you say that hip hop and rap are deconstructions of music? I want to understand this further to educate my son well. Thank you! I know there is a danger in being too black and white in thinking too. I hope I have not offended anyone. There is modern art that I like. I am surprised to find out that Monet and Renoir are considered modern artists. I really really like their work.
Your take on this? Thank you!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
guitarnan
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10883
|
| Posted: May 19 2010 at 7:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I love art, although Pollock is not my favorite artist. One way we found to gain an appreciation of artists in the context of history is to use Mike Venezia's great artist bios (for kids - don't know if they might be better for your son in a year or two, but you could get one at the library and try it). Instead of studying by "style," we studied by "artist" and grew to appreciate the cultural and intellectual influences on each person's work.
My favorite art spans many time periods, but I especially love the religious art of Giotto and those who came after him in Italy's Renaissance and baroque periods. I think you could tie in studying famous paintings with, say, New Testament and saint stories, and save the technique part for when your son is older and has more-developed fine motor skills.
There is a book about teaching art to kids based on works by great artists that we've used at home and in co-op. The book is available here and elsewhere online.
Having said all this, there's something special about giving a young child paper and paint, or clay, or toothpicks and gumdrops (marshmallows sag!), and letting him create something all by himself. It's not that great artists and artistic materials and techniques aren't important, it's more that you want to nurture the creative side as well as the "technical" side. (You will find this to be true with writing, too, later on.)
__________________
Nancy in MD. Mom of ds (24) & dd (18); 31-year Navy wife, move coordinator and keeper of home fires. Writer and dance mom.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
dolorsofmary
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 17 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 210
|
| Posted: May 20 2010 at 6:12am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thank you! We have been all over the mike venezia stuff through our library and also james Mayhew's Katie and the sunflowers, katie and the .... there are about 9, do a search on James Mayhew on amazon and you'll see. My busy little boy who does not like to sit for art books sat for venezia and mayhew! And there are others like camille and the sunflowers. Mootisse and Pigasso, and others I got off a booklist and by exploring my library. Great stuff and I agree with you and thank you but I guess also my son is not an art guy. He always wants me to do it .I have concluded that he is like his father, an engineer. He loves science first and then music. Still I want to expose him to great art and doing art, even though he doesn't want to do it. and he is so young, who knows maybe he will love doing art when he is older??? thank you again!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
hylabrook1
Forum Moderator
Joined: July 09 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5980
|
| Posted: May 20 2010 at 9:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I was about the recommend the same book Nancy linked to. Also, you can undoubtedly get beautiful books from the library with color plates showing works by the *standard* artists. Some of the plates are quite large and you can really appreciate and admire the works. Just use the books for the pictures at this stage - you can use books from the adult section of the library without concerning yourself with the text at all (unless you would enjoy reading it). The Discovering Great Artistsbook is a good source for the painters whose works you might look for. And then, of course, you can try the techniques from Discovering.... Don't feel like you need to cover all of these painters in one year. Maybe one per quarter would be plenty. Carefully looking at one painting a week, "I wonder how he did that?", practice from Discovering..., maybe look at the country the artist came from. Maybe one of these topics a week. Look at more than one work, but at a pace of one per week.
If your son doesn't enjoy art study at this stage of his life, I don't see any problem with letting him do some crafts (or not), or just freely messing about with materials (not totally freely - you give him certain materials only, he has to work at the table, etc.) Five year olds are exploring the world; maybe he will be "an art guy" when he's older (or not...). As you seem to be seeing with your son, different people have different talents and strengths - and that's a good thing!
Have fun with art!
Peace,
Nancy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LucyP
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 05 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 791
|
| Posted: May 20 2010 at 10:44am | IP Logged
|
|
|
My children like looking at great art, ancient and more modern, religious and secular, and they like using real watercolours on real watercolour paper or pastels on pastel paper - and they also like being inspired by nature, some of the very abstract modern art and scuplture, and messing about dribbling paint, scribbling and pasting on bits of tat to sugar paper. I think it is all valid.
I do think a lot of judgements on art are matters of taste. And personally I think we are all "artists", capable of making art with our hands, voices, bodies, words etc. Some will produce things that only they and their loved ones will appreciate, and others are "better" in some way and will be appreciated by a wider audience.
With my children, we often talk about how the artist has made his picture look more real or less real and how that makes us feel, or about how artists studied and the materials and techniques they used. My 6 year old can appreciate that someone who laboured for months over a work painted for religious reasons, making their own paints from scratch and using skills is "better" than someone who copied a label or spattered paint onto a canvas or had some delivery guy carry a urinal bowl into an art gallery. It is all very natural really to wonder around an art gallery and tallk about what we see and pick our favourites or least favourites.
Our best way to "teach" art has been a mix of slightly more formal guided lessons using materials to gain some more skill with using them first, and then using an existing painting or a painting poem/story etc to inspire our own work, and trying to make sure we see real art as often as we can - it is way more inspiring to be looking at real paintings. When we go to a gallery, I find restricting us to one room, or setting a treasure hunt topic (find paintings with dogs in them etc) helps limit the walk-by and ignore the art problem - we are all more focussed with less to focus on. I always join in with art lessons and the weekly sessions when we draw/paint a flower fairy and a saint of the week - that is a help too, to show rather than tell, and to let the children see me trying to improve.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maggie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 01 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 712
|
| Posted: May 20 2010 at 12:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think, for something to be art, it needs to be beautiful; and for something to be beautiful, it needs to raise our minds towards Heaven and the glory of God's creation.
For us, that does not mean that all art and music needs to be religious. Not at all. But I don't tolerate things that aren't beautiful. Kwim?
Monet, Renoir, Rembrandt--beautiful work. I think of the Renoir of the ballerinas streching before class. It's not religious, but it is beautiful.
Or beautiful landscapes...showing the glory of God's creation.
I do believe music is the same way. I played the violin for 11 years, and I was very talented--so I guess I have a classical bend--Brahms, Mozart, Bach--all geniuses!
But there is nothing stopping me from singing my heart out with good praise and worship-- ie: Matt Maher. A far cry from classical...but it is still beautiful.
When things take a mundane or crude turn...when it is more about the process or some ideology...that's when art and music can take that bend towards baseness...
And that is not beautiful. Edgy art and music (and a lot of modern art), for me, is the epitome of caucaphony...something is not resonating right with the soul. It is jarring, empty, loud. It is not art. It is merely an abstract way of expressing oneself.
For me, art should be synonymous with beauty. It should speak to the soul and raise our minds towards Heaven and the awe of God's creation.
__________________
Wife to dh (12 years) Mama to dd (10) ds (8), dd (1), ds (nb) and to Philip Mary (5/26/09), Lucy Joy (12/6/09), and Margaret Mary (3/6/10) who entered Heaven before we had a chance to hold them.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: May 20 2010 at 2:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have a different view of art.
I see art as a means of communicating an idea, sort of like a book.
Like the written word, art can be beautiful, as certainly much great art tends to be. But not all ideas are beautiful, and so not all art will be, just as not all stories are happy fairy tales. Like a library full of a wide variety of books (novels, children's books, fiction, travel, philospohy, etc), art speaks to different audiences about different things. Sometimes it speaks of pain, betrayal, anger and hate. Sometimes it speaks out of protest or frustration. None of these things are beautiful, but they are valid parts of the human experience. They need to be expressed just as much ideas about truth, beauty, and hope.
Just as there cannot be one book that speaks to every person about every idea (hence, the library full), one piece of art cannot speak to every person about everything. Art is specific. It speaks to an audience.It communicates a thought.
As to what "great" art is--
Just as not everyone who writes is a great author, not everyone who paints or draws is a great artist. Those who are considered great (in either field) have communicated something new and innovative, or have communicated an old idea in a new way--more beautifully, more succinctly, more boldly, etc. Like great books, great art speaks to many people across many years and many cultures. Or sometimes it just perfectly sums up the ideas of a single culture in a single generation.Think of the book Animal Farm. Not a pretty story, but a voice of a generation. One that we can understand (and our parents) but is difficult for our children to relate to. Jackson Pollock is that type of voice. He speaks of a certain time and place and does so in a quite compelling way. Perhaps we cannot relate in this time and place, but it is obvious that he had something resonant to say at the time he said it, hence his enormous popularity. And honestly, he still speaks to many today. But, like Animal Farm, not everyone wants to hear it, and that's ok too. Good thing we have a whole library to peruse. Surely there is something there to speak to us all.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: May 20 2010 at 6:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well, I don't think that something need be "pretty" in order to be beautiful. In fact, some excessively "pretty" things are quite UNbeautiful, and some horrific things make for stunningly beautiful art created by craftsman.
I'm not necessarily objecting to your view of art, but your analogy isn't working for me  I don't see how pain, betrayal, anger, and hate necessarily contraindicate beauty in art. Aside from obvious examples like the Passion of Christ, I'm thinking of examples like this one by Caravaggio.
This is an interesting article by Roger Scruton The High Cost of Ignoring Beauty If you scroll down there is a video of the series he did for the BBC. Its not for kids, and I must admit I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but he seems to give fair voice to those who have a different view of art as well.
I definitely agree, Theresa, though, with your analogy that not everyone who paints or draws is *great* but that doesn't discount their voice completely, as with "good" but not great books. D. E. Stevenson was not Sigrid Undset, but that is okay, lol. I can only process so much Undset  Of course, some books are a complete waste of time as is some art, but there is room for "transient" works which have something interesting or entertaining to say in the present moment, and that can still be a gift even if it isn't a masterpiece.
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: May 20 2010 at 6:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
guitarnan wrote:
Having said all this, there's something special about giving a young child paper and paint, or clay, or toothpicks and gumdrops (marshmallows sag!), and letting him create something all by himself. It's not that great artists and artistic materials and techniques aren't important, it's more that you want to nurture the creative side as well as the "technical" side. (You will find this to be true with writing, too, later on.) |
|
|
In the video series I referenced, I found the clip that I found which I thought of when reading this. Scruton speaks briefly about why the art of children is beautiful.
Starts at 1:59
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: May 20 2010 at 7:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
CrunchyMom wrote:
Well, I don't think that something need be "pretty" in order to be beautiful. In fact, some excessively "pretty" things are quite UNbeautiful, and some horrific things make for stunningly beautiful art created by craftsman.
I'm not necessarily objecting to your view of art, but your analogy isn't working for me I don't see how pain, betrayal, anger, and hate necessarily contraindicate beauty in art.
|
|
|
Neither do I. Art depicting these things can indeed be beautiful. But my point was that it needn't "necessarily" be beautiful to be "art." Art can also be jarring, disturbing, and even downright painful sometimes. That does not preclude it from being art.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maggie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 01 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 712
|
| Posted: May 21 2010 at 3:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
lapazfarm wrote:
CrunchyMom wrote:
Well, I don't think that something need be "pretty" in order to be beautiful. In fact, some excessively "pretty" things are quite UNbeautiful, and some horrific things make for stunningly beautiful art created by craftsman.
I'm not necessarily objecting to your view of art, but your analogy isn't working for me I don't see how pain, betrayal, anger, and hate necessarily contraindicate beauty in art.
|
|
|
Neither do I. Art depicting these things can indeed be beautiful. But my point was that it needn't "necessarily" be beautiful to be "art." Art can also be jarring, disturbing, and even downright painful sometimes. That does not preclude it from being art.
|
|
|
I agree that something does not need to be "pretty" in order to be beautiful. Suffering comes to mind. The suffering of Our Lady at the Crucifixion...there is an extreme beauty in it. Extreme pain, too. But extreme beauty.
OR
My husband spent a few months working with the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta. I remember him telling me that he had to scrub floors that were coated in human feces. Not pretty. But if I had a picture of him doing it...with love...I think there would be extreme beauty in seeing someone set aside their self to serve. Again--not pretty--but extremely beautiful.
I do like the example of Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". It is jarring. It is horribly painful to watch. But it is beautiful.
It is beautiful because it is TRUTH:
The truth of a mother's suffering; the truth in the poverty of Calcutta--and yet--a group of nuns and their volunteers who try to alleviate that suffering; the truth of Christ's single act of obedience and love amidst severe cruelty.
So no...it does not need to be pretty, but it needs to be beautiful. It needs to convey THE truth. Truth is beauty.
Kwim?
__________________
Wife to dh (12 years) Mama to dd (10) ds (8), dd (1), ds (nb) and to Philip Mary (5/26/09), Lucy Joy (12/6/09), and Margaret Mary (3/6/10) who entered Heaven before we had a chance to hold them.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: May 21 2010 at 3:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I finished watching the series I linked to, and it was really, really good!
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lacy
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 01 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2010 at 2:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I was an art major in college, and once we spent an entire class debating this very topic. What it came down to is if the artist says that it's "art", then it is. Period. Pretty or ugly, difficult or hard, doesn't matter. I have literally been to a gallery opening where the center display was a pile of powered laundry detergent. But the artist said it was art, so that's that.
A small percentage of the population actually turns out to be "artists", so I think the most important thing to focus on when teaching children art is art appreciation. Because all of society needs to appreciate art even if they never produce art themselves. Also, never forget art history. It's important to have an example from a "master" for children to look at for each art lesson. This will help with art appreciation of art in all forms.
__________________
Lacy
Catholic Icing
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2010 at 2:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lacy wrote:
| A small percentage of the population actually turns out to be "artists", so I think the most important thing to focus on when teaching children art is art appreciation. Because all of society needs to appreciate art even if they never produce art themselves. Also, never forget art history. It's important to have an example from a "master" for children to look at for each art lesson. This will help with art appreciation of art in all forms. |
|
|
I guess I just question whether its necessary for my children or society as a whole to "appreciate" laundry detergent as art. Few people will be *great* artists, but anyone can dump out some laundry detergent. I do, however, think it is necessary to appreciate beauty, and perhaps in modern terminology, that is two distinct things.
As a music major who teaches piano, I have little idea that my students will be professional musicians. Heck, as a "professional" (in that I get paid to teach or sing on occasion), I don't even consider myself a "real" musician. It doesn't discount the joy I get from performing, and knowing what I do know helps me appreciate the genius of others.
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : The Arts in the Everyday
Topic: art being deconstructed? how teach?
