Apparently, someone in the UK thinks that boys will only be interested in art if it involves computers — that there’s something about drawing and painting that repels boys. (How the past 2000 years of art history has been dominated by male artists, then, is a bit of a mystery.) Anyway, David Hockney offers a spirited response, arguing that “boring teachers”, not drawing and painting, are the problem.
In this article in the Guardian, Hockney argues that there’s a basic, human need to draw, and that while digital tools can be useful, there’s no substitute for drawing and paintings. And he says the school system is “swindling” the children — I love that characterization!
I’d argue, too, that using real materials is important — my boy needs small motor skills (drawing is good for that) and while he doesn’t like drawing from his imagination, he loves to reproduce all the details of a real thing, like an airplane. He also loves to do stuff on the computer, and taking digital photos. But I think his interest in things is lots more about what the project is about than what the tools are (he’d be more interested in drawing a 757 than a person, no matter what tools he was using). Any thoughts?
I agree that using real materials are essential for growth and development. I used to work at a newspaper, and basically all the jobs that used to have their own tools, think “paste-up” or “typesetter,” are now all done on a computer.
Comment by John Nordell — May 18, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Oh, I have so many thoughts (grrrr!). I agree with you, and Hockney, that the real issue here is being wildly ignored: creative children of either gender are repelled by limitations and confines, which are often placed in school art classes that are too often led by people who are not professional arts educators, aimed to serve a large group of children all doing the same thing at the same time. (Perhaps elementary-aged girls are just better equipped to mask their own boredom?)
Of course drawing and painting are innate, no one giving the matter more than a moment of thought could argue that we are evolving away from that with the advent of computers and digital tools. (They are far too new on the scene to have influenced evolution in any case!)
I have observed in my own son an obsession with both form and materials- I will never forget watching him as a 3 year-old standing on a chair over a large-scale multi-media (yes, that includes cream cheese) painting that he worked on for hours, only looking up to demand “Stick!” or “Spoon!” of me the way a surgeon might request a scalpel. He is excruciatingly particular about his pens, paints, brushes, spray can tips, etc. And he also loves being able to manipulate digital images, and taking digital pictures… but almost exclusively of other (traditionally generated) artwork. He is perhaps more disciplined in art than other kids his age, but I see the same interest in developing and using basic skills in his peers of both genders… and fortunately they are in an educational setting with access to arts curricula that engage their instincts and impulses. It is dismaying to think about for how few children that is true, even in this age where all data indisputedly points to the effectiveness of arts educational models in developing other critical learning areas.
Comment by Kathy Lindenmayer — May 18, 2009 @ 2:16 pm