I thought this chapter of Art and Visual Perception was especially interesting. It immediately got me wandering about the nature of art, as well as the way we, and our relationship with the world, change throughout our lives. I was particularly struck when I read that "'Triangularity' is a primary percept, not a secondary concept. The distinction between individual triangles comes later, not earlier. Doggishness is perceived earlier than the particular character of any one dog." I was very interested in the idea that a child draws something that can depict every instance of said thing, while an adult draws a highly specific object whose depiction is limited to itself. I found myself thinking that there was a certain virtue, and advantage in the basic, transmutable drawings of children. This sentiment reminded my of a set of coffee mugs my friends mother had made when I was a child. On one side of the mug was a drawing done by a child. On the other side were the words "Children's art is real art."
We think of a highly detailed drawing done by an adult to be far superior to the abstract scribbles of a child. This is because it fulfills a perceived goal of drawing: exact replication. I was now, however, reconsidering the validity of this goal. While a refined, detailed drawing certainly does do a great job replicating a specific visual field, its specificity limits its definition, and this limitation began to seem like a weakness. There is something ingenious about the representational simplicity of a child's drawing. Because a child depicts "dogishness" instead of a specific "dog," it has not only reproduced an image, but skipped over the facade of an instance and reveal its essence. In effect, the child has produced the fundamental essence of an object. The object is not only reproduced, rather its truth has been distilled.
Arnheim himself, writes that while children's art may seem abstract and symbolistic, whereas adult art work is realistic, adult art work is, in actuality, abstract and symbolistic in the exact same manner. The difference, is that its abstractions are far more complex and weave together in an attempt to hide each other. This seems counterproductive, since the goal of abstraction and symbols is to simplify and illuminate. Thus, "realistic" artwork is a contradictory illusion, that smuggles truth onto the canvass.
I wonder if, as we get older, if we fill our memory banks with so many specific dogs, that our idea of what a dog is becomes a series of dogs we knew that obscure the perception of "dogishness" that we once knew. Do our experiences sully a basic knowledge of truth that we are born with?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Ernest really touches on an interesting point here: kids capture the essence of "dog" while adults capture the concreteness of a dog -- its' legs, hair, color, etc. These thoughts are permeating since I just touched on them in the last class paper -- but I'm interested in ideas of seeing as a way of truth in our society. Essence of dog is a much more interesting concept in my mind that seeing a dog. So one has to wonder, given today's society rules, are we asked to loose our imaginations as we grow older and solely accept the truths of what we see in the every day? This a depressing depressing thought.
ReplyDeleteIn this week's dance meeting, we watched presentations of fifth graders from P.S. 83 and a middle school aged dance company from out near Vassar. Both pieces were about transformations (the kids were all at an age where they are moving on to middle school, high school, growing up, etc.). It was incredible to see the kids grasp in such an abstract shape-based way these hugh concepts and to see the physicalize this in their bodies. It made me question how I could get back to that initial creative spark -- where I knew the essence of dog and not feel like I need to represent it figuratively.
The idea of "children's art being real art" stems from the faulty notion that as adults we are too conditioned by social and cultural constraints to create true art--that is, art true to our inclinations in accordance to a natural law. This goes into the whole question of autonomy of art Arnheim seems so consistently fall into, but never addresses. But I suppose this is not the the issue at hand in a judgement of visual development.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that it is exactly the conventions of society and culture that makes art, art. Children's art in its simple incoherent lines and squiggles may be cute to look at, but it is strictly developmental-- a build to understanding. "Kids draw what they know." In much the same way the early Egyptian artwork are considered as artifacts--a document of a kind of visual lexicon rather than art. This is kid's art.
Of course, all this has to do with how we define art. For me, art is wrapped up in an appropriation of forms and styles that create complexity and questions within myself. In the 21st century the seat of art is relational-to society, to politics, to culture--and in many ways this what it has always been. Art's autonomy, in the common held modern sense is a false concept--what is autonomous is the varied ways of spectatorial engagement we have with the work in question.
What is more interesting in Arnheim's on Growth--is how to teach art. From pages 204-205:
"As the teacher watches the manifestation of this enviable native endowment, the sureness of intuitive decisino, the logical progression from the simple to the comple, he will ask himself whether the best thing to do is not to leave his pupils alone, entrusted to their own guidance."