This is very fascinating, I didn't know how involved people were on the
subject of drawing.
All I can say is the first person to pick up a stick and scribble something
on the earth
would have never expected this. And that's my reaction too. What is the end
result of
all this research? Isn't drawing just simple fun?
> ----------
> From: Angela Anning[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 6:30 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Sound common sense
>
> I suport Katrinka's view entirely. The tyranny of representational drawing
> depresses many young children's abilitities to draw what they know as well
> as what they 'see'. This pressure, compounded by the tendency for early
> years practitioners to give feedback on the emergent literacy, rather than
> drawing, potential of their early meaning making in line, results in many
> children electing to be 'not able to draw' from an early age. They rarely
> escape from this constraint unless they meet an unusual primary school
> teacher who can teach them to draw by building on their strengths and
> helping them to overcome their (real or imagined) weaknesses.
>
> At 12:54 08/05/02 +0000, you wrote:
> >>From: George Whale <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Reply-To: The UK drawing research network mailing list
> >><[log in to unmask]>
> >>To: [log in to unmask]
> >>Subject: Sound common sense
> >>Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:23:45 +0100
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >Dear George,
> >
> >I certainly do agree that to be able to draw a person needs to be taught
> how
> >to draw. Learning to draw really doesn't differ in principal to learning
> >anything else, and as with other types of learning the sooner its starts
> the
> >better.
> >Children are taught to read and write in disernable stages which build
> their
> >knowledge to the point (theoreticaly) where they are fully literate and
> >then people are in charge of their own literacy skills and may develop
> them
> >or not . I think drawing could have also have a distinct place in primary
> >education. Although it is not a core skill in the way that literacy is,
> >drawing is central enough within education to merit the teaching of it.
> >However, I think I would suggest that the objectives and systems of
> >observational drawing may not translate verbatium to a primary school
> >curriculum as younger children are very comfortable with symbols but
> don't
> >seem to want to make literal images as much as older people.
> >Teaching people how to draw does seem like common sense to me too, I'm
> not
> >convinced that this would mean starting with observational drawing.
> >
> >Katrinka
> >>
> >>
> >>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
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
|