When the old school rears its ugly head, art loses

Marulis. I don't get your gist. At least in this context, I don't. I don't think Sharon is belittling children. Her point is that the capacity to understand becomes real understanding with training, and that anybody who wants to say IQ is one testable thing isn't taking that idea into account.

Listen Sharon, creativity is the fountainhead of intelligence, even I know that. Any monkey can memorize and take instruction with a proper amount of social conditioning. The fact that any of us manage to retain even the slightest capacity for original thought is a testament(see tribute) towards the human condition. My social sensitivities become abrased when I hear pronouncements of intellectual superiority that come from folks who have had the good fortune to get a decent education. Try going to any deprived area of the world and you'll find the innate embers of creative intellectual ability still smoldering amongst the youngest within the population. It is only when they have unlearned what nature had already given them that the sad day comes when they first say "I can't draw".
I don't begrudge you your livelihood and I don't begrudge the parents who send their children to you. They, and you, for your own reasons only want what's best for their children. For my money though, the age of four is way too soon to lose that special moment in time.If you want to do what's best for that four year old, just put the tools of creativity where the child can reach them and then step back.
It'd be a trick, but yes, don't meddle. Wait until someone else in their lives has done the damage and then move in and attempt to reteach them the joys and beauty of art.
In the end, it would be your job to reconnect the tissues that have been so thoughtlessly torn away.
I do hope you get my gist.

John Holt is/was right.

Keep Smilin'
L

Marulis I don't really understand your point and how it relates to this post. An adult trying to draw like a child is inherently futile - one can't simply unlearn and unlive their life in purusit of something so mythologically pure.

I teach "untouched" kids how to draw and paint every day starting at age four. They are there because they *want* to learn how to be better at the art they're making. Their desire stems from their own standard, not mine or their parents (with very rare exception). The joy in their faces gives me unbelievable pride. They are happy because I've taken the time to show them how to do something meaningful to them. Is that "meddling"?

Raw talent varies, sure; but it's nothing without training and hard work. If you're suggesting talent is somehow effortless, pure, and perfect from the start I'd have to disagree. This notion excludes anyone who arrives at their talent later in life through self discovery, outside instruction, and hard work. Art supposedly untouched or divined is a slippery slope and an unreasonable value judgment to impose upon anything - especially art.

For myself, I would only ask that a few of these folks take up my challenge. Try as you might to draw as a child would. I think you might end up looking at our little ones with a newfound respect. Our children in turn, would look to you with surprised eyes only to discover your adult ineptness.
Another request, if I may. Try to find an untainted child to judge your efforts. Look for a child who has not yet succumbed to adult instruction and when that child is found, be kind enough not to meddle in this fleeting moment of lucidity.

We all have things to learn and different ways to learn them. And we all need the time, space and nurturing to learn. I see nothing but common ground between these things - art, academia, children, intelligence. These are worlds in desperate need of bridges, not arbitrary distance.

We live in a culture where one method of education is heavily favoured in the face of budget cuts and teacher shortages. The arts are being pushed out of schools in the wake of a perceived need for "more important" programs to endure standardised tests and a bad economy.

The point is what's more important is a matter of perspective, and the argument is our perspective is disproportionate. Who ends up suffering the loss? When is our education system going to acknowledge that one type of program is as valid, important, and vital as another?

This isn't even my blog and I'm offended. To point the finger and say "you people" or "this doesn't deserve a reply" is crazy to me - it just seems purposely inflammatory. You never have to agree but intelligent debate always allows for respectful disagreement.

You folks in academia venture forth too brazenly without authority or permission. You sound too much like sterile bureaucrats. Your words come from airless rooms filled with musty books and you complain with much ado about nothing. Our art is not your art to own and you have no right to offer stale proclamations. The beauty of human art begins with the smallest babe and ends so rudely with instruction from folks like y'all.
Wasn't it Picasso, born within the halo of prodigy, who nevertheless spent the rest of his life trying to recreate the authentic art of a child?
What is needed here is a humbling experience. I would challenge all of the responders here(with perhaps the exception of Sanda who may already understand) to attempt to draw like a child. Allow yourself to be critiqued for authenticity by one of these young masters of their craft, the younger the better.
By so doing, you may begin to understand an intellectually elevated concept that, to my knowledge, no university MFA program could ever hope to emulate.

Your hostility is entertaining, Franklin. I count on you not to be amused. What I wrote is an interpretation. Yrs differs. For people like you, a difference is a fault. If I'd invented you, I'd give you starched underwear.

Vicci, your point is irrelevant. Undoubtedly, inspired teaching and a good curriculum can accomplish great things. Suzuki's assertion is patently false, but his attitude is a useful one to take in the classroom because it presupposes that development is possible in all cases. Given a roomful of students with parents who have self-selected into a family commitment to violin lessons, the method produces great results.

The question remains whether there is one intelligence or several intelligences. Ferguson is pointing out that the evidence supports the former and contradicts the latter. For this, Regina is attributing unflattering ideas to him that he does not purport. It's a shameful performance, and doesn't speak well of Regina's own intelligence.

Suzuki, the great music educator of all times, said that any child, if presented with curruculm which is sequentially administered, and persistantly presented, can accomplish anything.

Ferguson concludes: "It's time that we begin to work with the reality that we have, not the one we wish we had. To do otherwise would be just plain stupid." The clue phone is ringing, Regina. It's for you.

Seriously?

Ferguson goes out of his way to deplore the unethical attitudes you associate with the "old guard" and by implication, to him in your commentary. (i.e., your contention that the old guard supports the idea that "IQ aristocrats deserve to rule the IQ-merchant class and the IQ-deficit proletariat.")

To quote from his piece:
"Naturally, we must be careful to avoid the fallacy that some people deserve to live in poverty, or that entire groups of people are inherently inferior in regard to intelligence. In the past, those arguments have been used to support oppression, racism, and slavery, and we must not repeat those mistakes."

And you're also imputing implications of "survivalist mentality" to his very considered, well reasoned piece, as well as the implication that he consequently devalues the arts simply because he asserts--based on reams of evidence--that "g" (traditional measurement of intelligence) is a better predictor of economic success than bodily-kinetic intelligence (barring professional athletes, that's largely verifiable empirically).

I mean, seriously, you didn't even deserve this much of a reply, but just in case you have a following, your readers should know that not only are you setting up straw men, but charging Ferguson with beliefs that he very clearly repudiates.

As a fellow journalist, quit giving us a bad fucking name already.

When I was an artist-in-residence, for the new
Studio In A School project, in the mid70s, (administered by NY Foundation for the Arts, in the pilot project and next two years), Howard Gardner had an article in the NY Times, I think.
I was working with a whole elementary school of children, and their teachers, (plus parent class) and volunteers, K- 6. Gardner's article had a completely incorrect set of stages of children's development by age in art. I wrote him a long letter and never got an answer.

It is my observation that everybody has some creativity, but many become fearful because of criticism. (e.g. "I can't draw" = art for many.) The first step is get kids to feel free. I had a list of rules on the blackboard of the studio: Everybody's work is good, Safety, Artists clean up*, Don't touch anybody's work besides your own. (I never did touch/change anybody's work.)

*maintenance/school janitor loved me;had been scared when the school was going to have a studio and artist.