Kids art is more fun.

I think art by children is the most brilliant of all art. When considering children’s art, one must wonder where along the line of maturation the purity of creation, imitation and simple fun turned into (in some cases) the convoluted, messy expression that passes as art by adults. One of the things that frustrates me the most about visual art is that as significant and profound a piece INTENDS to be, the message is not always easily discoverable. And then what are we left with besides a piece that at most stimulates a pleasurable visual sensation? One never encounters that problem when observing a child drawing a picture. Though their creations are not always artistically legible, when asked they will tell you exactly what each element is supposed to be. Their intention is clear, whether it be simple motor activity or depiction of common scenes or shapes.

I know I touch back here often, but I was again reminded of the Waldorf system of art education for young children. As kids, our artistic tendencies were both closely monitored and carefully nurtured. We were taught to explore with many media, both conventional (block crayons, watercolor, pastel) and not (mud, leaves, tables and chairs). The reason for this was the belief that the most important area to cultivate in very young children was not the mind per se, but the hands. By teaching children to observe their environment and express their findings in multiple outlets, one is encouraging them to be more aware of and active in their surroundings. The output of the child, rather than the input of the teacher was prioritized in an educational setting.

In addition to the emphasis on visual art, unusual guidelines were used to gently steer children in what I suppose will call a Waldorfian direction. These guidelines were not directly imposed, yet in retrospect were enforced in a subtly strict way. For example, if a child would veer into the dangerous realm of straight lines, the teacher would not admonish him, but would come to his desk and say, “we don’t you try it THIS way?” Things like that. As mentioned, straight lines were rarely acceptable in our drawings, the reason being that straight lines do not occur in nature. For the same reason we were discouraged from drawing things like machines and buildings. Another rule was that we were not supposed to draw outlines, which for a child is extremely difficult. The natural tendency for a child is to draw an outline, and if necessary go back and fill it in appropriately. For Waldorf children, everything was supposed to come about organically. For example, if one wanted to draw a person, perhaps one would begin with the head. From there, the person would have to grow from the head down, that is, neck, shoulders, arms, torso, legs, one growing out of another. Actually, we rarely DID draw people. Most drawings were done of abstract shapes and patterns, a class called form drawing (yes, it was a whole class). Form drawing would consist of drawing a series of geometric patterns free hand, highlighted by color shadings that grew from dark to light.

Of course, though Waldorf kept me on a fairly strict artistic diet, I like all children drew on my own time, where I was free to draw as many outlines as I pleased. It is difficult for me to see what affect, if any, the art curriculum had on me other than being proficient in several media. But I am in no way a very good artist, I certainly cannot draw or paint with any real skill. So did the Waldorfian method really do anything at all, or was it trumped by my nature as a child to follow the biological evolutionary path into artistic adulthood?