A lofty title for this post, I know. A series of books for kids has come to my attention. It teaches them how to draw: how to draw people, flowers, animals, mermaids, fairies, etc. Many parents are clamoring for them.
But my immediate thought is: If someone had sat down Picasso and told him, "This is how you paint a face," the world would be a little bit dimmer today.
I've always felt this way, so when Jia asks me, "Mama, how do I paint a house?" or "How do I draw a baby?" I try to get her to do her own interpretation of it instead. But it seems that she views it the same as asking, "How do I write the letter 'N'?"
I asked Joe what he thought of all of this. He said, "There's something to be said for being skilled at representational drawing." He recalled the Ed Emberley books of his youth (Emberley teaches how to draw by combining shapes and other techniques). He said that they altered his perception of the world and allowed him to view everyday things in a different way, in sum, the pieces make the whole. He felt that as long as there was exposure to different styles, then the kid could develop her own technique from this base of knowledge. (It's sort of how I view parenting books.)
I don't know that I'm convinced. But I guess I'm open to it. Our art books have been different thus far. One of our art books that I love is about Picasso and Matisse. We purchased it long before Jia was a gleam in anyone's eye. We got it at the MOMA exhibition which compared and contrasted Matisse and Picasso's work. They were contemporaries. I think "frenemies" might be an apt term for it. The book is called "When Pigasso met Mootisse" and it details their rivalry (or that of a Pig and Bull) and how they inspired each other. Jia adores this book, and we're so glad we purchased it.
At this point, when Jia does her art projects, I've been trying to stay away and just pop in now and then (so she doesn't ask me "how" to draw or paint something). Today I popped over and asked "What are you painting?" She replied, "olives and naan bread." I love it! It was especially awesome because it was her interpretation of it, not mine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Interesting points. Art is certainly what one makes it to be -- both from the perspective of the creator and the observer. But I do think a base knowledge is necessary.
Picasso was great because of his ability to go beyond what was considered mainstream, but without intense training from a young age (his father was an artist, as well), I don't think the rest of his art could have had the same impact.
I think this is the first time I've ever done a rebuttal in the comments!
I think you're right. Picasso was highly trained and was adept at multiple styles, and likely developed his own as a result (though I still imagine no one told him how to do it). I wonder then how our kids' art will develop if we show them just how to draw suns as circles with little spokes and leave it at that.
Interestingly, Picasso said, "Success is dangerous. One starts to copy oneself and copying oneself is more dangerous than copying others. This leads to sterility."
I like doing abstract art with my kiddos. We draw swirly lines & shapes and color in the spaces. It's fun to not really be drawing ANYTHING - just creating for the joy of creating. :)
r
Wow, thanks for really making think about things my kids may ask one day. I think I will take your perspective. Never thought about that, so thank you. Very enlightening, as always Jane.
-Shana
Post a Comment