Dear George
I feel nicely challenged by your statement and I take it as an opportunity
to introduce myself to this list, which I am reading with pleasure for about
two years.
I am a Dutch Creative Art Therapist, doing a PhD research on: "The
Rutten-Saris-index; a diagnostic tool for the assessment of interaction
structures in drawings". To day I will just give a small introduction. I am
in the administrative finishing part of my PhD and I am very tired. Being
Dutch, it is not easy for me to write spontaneous in English.
I agree and disagree with Mona Brooke
I AGREE
I agree because I consider drawing to be a major fine-art technique,
generally defined as the depiction of shapes on a surface by means of lines,
using a drawing tool. Drawing is the basis of all pictorial representation
and is distinguished from painting by the dominance of line over mass
(DeVore, 2000) .
Children between 18 months and five years show their amazement and pleasure
about the effects of the tool touching the surface, the tool leaving traces,
and their ability to touch the trace they just made. They are fully engaged
in and totally occupied with the interaction between paper, drawing tool,
and their own movement. These drawing experiences touch them emotionally,
aesthetically and elicit their interests. Their excitement concerns also the
fact that they are able to influence the environment that surrounds them.
Although the ability to draw looks innate (Arnheim, 1974; Golomb, 1992), and
the phases children go through show a universal, robust development, I still
find training essential to enable representational and artistic drawing. A
newborn, toddler, stepper and pre-school child, should be provided with
age-appropriate drawing materials, tools and experiences. This improves
their skills and possibilities towards developing an appropriate drawing
language to enjoy and to express themselves as well as their artistic
skills.
I wonder why so much attention is given by parents and business to the
language, music and cognitive development of the infant, while so little is
done about his active exploration between the eye, the hand and the
emergence of shapes in their own right, about his knowledge of image
elements. I suppose the first three subjects are considered to be good for
the representational development and therefore children get only a pencil
and a paper around 18 months to 'start to draw' the traditional
representative pictures of their culture (suppression) or they are just left
alone to 'express themselves' (neglect). Between these extremes teaching is
needed badly.
Teaching is of big value and of big fun when sharing and challenging the
amazement of an infant while drawing. Naming the infants' and your traces as
line, dot, colours, place on the paper, relations, speed, fatness, size,
pressure, direction etc., is playful teaching image elements while exploring
paper and drawing tools and materials. To accompany their drawing movements
with sounds, with your movements on their paper or on your own, to answer
theirs with a contrary aspect, to make playful fights on the paper or with
the crayons in the air is teaching them inner and outside images. There
exist a wonderful exploration field between a right schematic representative
drawing, an authentic expression of feelings, enjoying motor movements,
letting emerge a story, representing an idea and creating aesthetics. All
these aspects (and many more) can be - and should be in my opinion -
supported by adults. Some by explicit teaching, some by showing examples,
some by doing together, some by commenting, some by naming, some by
challenging. In every interaction with the 'drawing/playing' infant, his
interests and spontaneity deserve as much respect, attention and support as
our personal wishes about his drawing skills.
I DISAGREE
The art definition of drawing is fine with respect to the arts, but does not
suffice the purpose of my research. I, therefore, propose the following
definition: drawing is every act of leaving traces by moving with any
material on any surface.
I disagree that teaching is necessary because I consider a trace left by any
person, with any tool on any material, to be a drawing; a graphic drawing, a
presentational drawing. I research children's' graphic development of zero
till five year olds, which emerge like natural for all people. Normal
children all over the world, and probably of all times, develop graphic
drawing without specific teaching because their motor movement develops
according the same phases in the same sequences including the same graphic
elements.
The development of motor movement is the basis of my theory on graphic
development. In a matrix I summarise how motor movement leads to the
emergence of implicit neurological structures that enable a person to
interact with himself, others, things, and situations (see Cools, 1985,
1996, 1997; Dornes, 1994; Lichtenberg, 1990; Pycha, 2000; Stern, 1985).
Graphic elements (GE) make these structures visible.
The focus of my theory is on the traces left by the (drawing) movements of a
person of any age. These traces have two qualities, a familiar one, and a
less familiar one. Well-known is that these traces known as scribbles are
precursors of representative drawing. Mostly unknown is the fact that these
traces, as graphic elements (GE), remain visible in representative drawings
as well as in adult art work. What appears to be neglected is their
idiosyncratic motor and aesthetic qualities. These qualities exist in their
own right. Teaching 'to draw' does not by itself change the kinds of GE or
the moods that accompany them.
Almost all the products of the drawing process, that is the traces or GE,
remain visible as frozen movements on the paper. Since each child has his
way of responding to the traces he leaves behind, each drawing reveals also
the individual history of the child's graphic and interaction structure
development.
In sum, infant graphic development is about the general natural development
of motor movements including drawing movements. It ignores explicitly the
aesthetic and pictorial aspects as well as the semiotic functions of the
drawing. It (only) focuses on how the hand/tool with the material has left
traces of his motor movements on a surface. It shows HOW the child interacts
with himself, others, things and situations. It emerges without teaching as
a result of the general development of the child.
I found, between 0-5 year, a phase/layer for every year in a fixed sequence
(ABCDE) with typical graphic elements (GE) belonging to each phase (87 GE in
total). For everyone at any age, it is as IMPOSSIBLE to make a drawing
without these GE, as it is to write a word without letters.
Phase/layer A of graphic development (0-1 year olds)
The GE 0-17 constitute the graphic area 'fading-out' with the graphic
sub-area 'point'. The drawing motor movements are 'passing-by'. The fading
out character of all the lines is a general characteristic of Layer A. The
characteristic interaction is the artist who is attuning to his hand, to the
drawing tool, to the paper, and to up-down directions. While moving he can
put himself down here, he can begin, continue, and stop. He is busy with -
being busy with obtaining organisation.
The GE from phase/layer A can be recognised by their fading touch,
interrupted lines, mostly shorter than 3 cm, open shapes, and by variable
pressure. The overall quality of the GE is little and light. The computer
image shows fraying and fading-out image points, which form knots and holes.
The ability of the infant changes dramatically between graphic element 0 and
graphic element 17. The initial behaviour is characterised by accidental
encounters of his hand holding a drawing tool with a surface. After some
time, his hand is more or less directed more towards the paper. Then one
day, it rests about one second on the same spot, goes straight up, and
leaves a perfect dot on the paper.
1 hour and 10 minutes old is the youngest artist in my research (see
attachment). Presenting the newborn with a drawing tool, it becomes clear
that the capacity for leaving drawing traces, emerging from his motor
movements, is present from the time he is born. The traces of his drawing
activities only become visible when we present him with a tool that is
suitably adapted to a surface and his physical capacities. Once these are in
place, traces caused by his movements become visible. Leaving traces is
guided in a direct, sensory way. The GE come from very close to his body.
When I put an eatable wax crayon block (2,5-1 cm)in or under the hand of a
newborn, his motor movements as well as his mood leave observable, reliable
recognizable specific kinds of traces (GE). They have always a floating tiny
character because his hands fly around, touching the paper on his belly (or
against his parents breast) accidentally. For example an angry newborn will
have the same tiny floating traces but the moment he touches the paper the
motor pressure, speed and direction will leave a darker piece, may be a
little larger line or a sharper hook.
The baby (2 till 6 months) has a different grip of the drawing tool than a
newborn and he has more attention for the tool, the paper, and the marks. He
uses the entire length of his arm. Some babies are attracted by the radiant,
coloured spots and lines they have produced. They try to eat them. Other
babies are more interested in touching, scratching, or folding of the paper.
The crawler (7-14 months) has as much with the drawing tools, the paper,
and the table as he is leaving traces. Some crawlers have no interest in
drawing at all, and others like to draw all the time.
From newborn to crawler, the most common graphic changes during the first
year are the increase of the size of the GE, the increase of pressure, and
the variations in direction and pressure.
On the Art Therapy site some of my writing is available. Although it is not
up to date, its essence is still actual.
Marijke Rutten-Saris
SRCT reg. Creative Art Therapist
LSVB reg. Supervisor
EBL Arts Therapy Centre
Weezenhof 3406
6536 GS
Nijmegen
Netherlands
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://home.hetnet.nl/~beeldende_therapie/
Click on: Werkvorm/ Methode/ Scheppende Lichaamstaal/ Emerging Body Language
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: The UK drawing research network mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens George Whale
Verzonden: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:24 AM
Aan: [log in to unmask]
Onderwerp: Sound common sense
Dear All
I came across the following in Mona Brookes' book, 'Drawing with Children'
(1996, Tarcher/Puttnam):
'We don't expect children to play the piano, study dance, or learn a sport
without showing them the basic components of these subjects. Why do we
expect them to understand the complexities of drawing on their own? Imagine
expecting children to write creative stories without teaching them the
alphabet and the structure of language. Learning the language of drawing
and painting is likewise essential for anyone wanting to pursue those arts
creatively.'
The idea that children (and art students, for that matter) should be given
explicit teaching in observational drawing seems to me like sound common
sense. But I'd be interested to know whether anybody on the list disagrees.
George Whale.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/ad/htmlpages/staff/gwhale.html
George Whale
Research Associate
Loughborough University School of Art & Design (LUSAD)
Loughborough
Leicestershire
LE11 3TU
UK
Tel: +44 (0)1509 228967
Mobile: 07944 751088
Fax: +44 (0)1509 228902
|
