How to View Art – A Life Reward Primer

A Weave with Unhemmed Edges

(An experienced art teacher working with students of all ages)

Grade school students, of all ages, can respond critically, clearly and with feelings to works of art. To understand and appreciate art is to establish a relationship with it. It speaks to you; you speak to it. You and others speak to and about it. Art is pictorial creative/reasoned human thought.

Young children often seem to look at and interpret art simply, with freshness and clarity. Given a minimum of information about the artist and the work, they begin by trying to make sense of what they see. Their emotional reactions are seldom detached from the logical conclusions that they make. Unfortunately, with many of us, as we learn a “reasoned” approach to viewing art (and our world), we may lose much of our intuitive sense.

Traditional methods of teaching art appreciation and art history bombard students with layers of fact and opinion, so much so that they may wonder, "Is he (the teacher) talking about the same artwork that I see before me?" Conversely, the best storytellers wait for an "aha" of understanding before they enlarge and deepen the intrigue within the tale. Teachers may need to be better "storytellers," at least, to listen more closely to students' responses and to ask more probing questions.

Critiquing (criticizing) an artwork, as well as other learning, is a process of re-creating (in one's mind) the orientation, steps and conclusions that the artist/thinker followed to create the art/ideas. Perhaps you, for example, follow the sequence of my words here; then assign individual meanings for each word. You interpret the relationships between these words, and finally formulate the meanings of my statements.

To oversimplify, you understand my ideas to the extent that the organization of words and sentences and the intended meanings and associations connect with the re-creations in your own thinking. The possible communications may be limitless. There is often understanding but sometimes confusion; yet you, the receiver, can ask for clarification or more information. My thoughts, true or false, reasoned or unreasoned, become yours to accept, enlarge upon, disagree with, discard, or adapt when we actively enter the relationship of thought.

But how often do we teachers encourage students to seek or search further and deeper to find understanding? Do our teaching methods really accommodate this? And how do we know that the abundance of facts that we disseminate becomes a part of our students' thinking? Or why are some students able to connect and interrelate concepts, details and facts with ease while others struggle or toil miserably?

Some answers may be found by asking our students to write essays and to expound upon ideas in group discussions. We may be surprised that many of them cannot, at first, do this very well. Would this tell us that they lack potential, or that they need much more involvement in in-depth reasoning and problem-solving.

Using Socratic dialogue and other critical thinking strategies students may "converse" more enthusiastically with artworks and ideas. They may read and review essays by critics, historians, other students and teachers. Why shouldn't students read the teacher's comments and opinions about issues and freely criticize them to gain insights? And why aren't students taught to criticize all that they read and hear? Surely, there are other issues -- of fairmindedness, withholding judgment, and egocentricity; but these can be learned and controlled by students as well.

The benefits and insights from a thorough process of inquiry are many: some practical and empirical; others theoretical. The following are a few of the ideas that seem relevant to me as an art teacher; some of these ideas may be generalized to other disciplines.

1. Much of the critiquing process (and to expand. the learning process) is not perfectly nor conveniently sequential. The first step, for example, in the criticism of art is to describe what you see (the elements. Le. colors. shapes. objects. etc.) Curiously, and not just circumstantially, the second step, finding the relationships between the elements makes the first step easier so that more description takes place further into the critique. Reciprocally, the more you do step one the more you understand step two. Furthermore, as you begin step three, attaching meaning to relationships ("Why does the Mona Lisa have that peculiar smile", for example) you must again look for more relationships and do more descriptions. Quite obviously, this process is sequential only in some respects.

2. Feedback from strictly objective questioning (testing for that matter) is only partially effective at measuring understanding, ability, and skill. It may tell you part of what is known or unknown; but not necessarily how much nor in what way nor what parts of, nor as compared to what.

How many of us would like our being hired for a job to be based strictly upon our application or resume with no interview'? Art works and other forms of human thought deserve more inquiry than just listing attributes or facts; and students need more ways and opportunities to make connections in their thinking.

3. Creative thought is essentially a dialogue with oneself; one's conscience, past experiences. successes, frustrations, confusions, ideals, expectations, ideas/thoughts and feelings -- borrowed and shared. The creative artwork must, then, connect with the creative capacities within the student (his feelings and experiences). Yet, art works and other human ideas are often subtle and multi-faceted. They give back what you give them in time and concentrated use.

4. Art works are not to be resolved, to be once and for all evaluated, fixed for eternity (though the more you study them the closer to the truth you get). Even science is more empirical; yet it asks more questions than it answers. Should students believe that knowledge is ours to give and is final after the giving?

5. Students (people) care about what they have invested. Only when their feelings and thoughts become interlaced with the artwork or idea will they build a substantial and ongoing relationship with it.

6. It is not possible to just appreciate an artwork/idea without trying to understand it by questioning, doubting, ignoring, judging, comparing, and contrasting but continuing a relationship with it. To say that I truly appreciate it without understanding it may be self-deception.

7. To say that I cannot understand art/ideas is to say that I am unwilling to be in a relationship with it. It may take me longer than others to deepen the dialogue with it but I'm capable of unique insights and perspectives.

In short, the simple and traditional steps of criticism -- to describe what you see - to compare what you've seen - to interpret the comparisons - to attach meaning to your interpretations and to draw conclusions and inferences -- stand. But clearer connections between these cannot happen by just collecting data. The process: the inquiry - the teacher asking probing questions - the students asking probing questions - the students reading/considering various ideas - the students challenging each other’s ideas - the teacher challenging their ideas - the students realizing what they know - the teacher realizing what he/she knows, these and other abilities and strategies make the connections for the learner.

Finally, the criticism of art ideas like all human thought is a labyrinth - a weave with unhemmed edges. It is not a single thread, not even a few threads; and there's not just one place to start and end. Sometimes students find themselves in the middle with you, the teacher, and the endless resources, challenges and rewards of human thought.

An article from the WATTS newsletter, published in 1990 by the Greensboro Plan headed by Dr. Jan Williamson in collaboration with Dr. Richard Paul of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. At the writing Richard Tuck was an art teacher at Smith High School, and one of four teachers featured in the video on critical thinking prepared by the Smith nucleus.  This article was a portion of “A Revised Method for Young Student Art Production” presented at the International Conference on Critical Thinking & Educational Reform, Sonoma State University California – 1989.