Thursday, May 14, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Hooray for Mo Willems!
A day or two ago, Mo Willems was on NPR talking about drawing. In a nutshell, he questioned why people stop drawing when they become adults, and he encouraged adults to draw, doodle and serve as examples for children.
I have always felt this as well. People often say they "cannot draw" but what they are really saying is "I cannot draw to a certain standard." It is like people saying they "cannot sing." No one assumes that this person really cannot sing, if they have a voice otherwise. What they mean is they cannot sing well. Maybe these people do not enjoy drawing or singing because of the struggle to achieve an unrealistic product.
If you take this one step further, Americans loath amateurs. "If you can't be a prodigy, or make money at something what is the point, " seems to be the general opinion. The word amateur is even used as an insult here. This is a shame. Creativity is so essential to life--at least to me, and I have yet to make a living at it. If we just dedicated the time spent watching TV to creativity, it would be so powerful. I think people would be so much more satisfied with life.
One of the interesting things Mr. Willems pointed out was that in other eras everyone used to draw, he gave as an example the drawings of explorers. I have another example, Leonardo DaVinci. I believe (I am not a scholar, of course) that DaVinci became an accomplished artist because he drew to learn. His art was a way of understanding science and painting was just an offshoot of this discipline. One really learns so much by sitting still, looking and trying to record what you see. You realize that what you see is not always what you think you see, or that what you see is really so much more complex and beautiful than at first thought.
I am just giving up my post as Chair of Art Volunteer in the Classroom at my son's school. It has been a labor of love because I sometimes believe I am the only one who thinks it is so essential. We conduct discussions with the students--Socratic method. I ask the children to look at one (maybe others for comparison sake) piece of art and make observations for thirty minutes. Our job is really to keep the questions coming and listen to responses. I believe it is important because we are deluged with images all the time and don't realize that visuals are incredibly manipulative unless you question it. Oh well, I could go on and on.
I guess, like Mr. Willems, it is all so important to me, I cannot imagine art not being a part of everyone's expression. Like, when someone says, "I cannot draw," I silently believe that he/she is really an artist that has been smothered by society and commercialism. Though this is a belief almost like faith in that it comes so naturally to me, I do wonder sometimes if I am wrong. Am I blind when it comes to art? How ironic.
I have always felt this as well. People often say they "cannot draw" but what they are really saying is "I cannot draw to a certain standard." It is like people saying they "cannot sing." No one assumes that this person really cannot sing, if they have a voice otherwise. What they mean is they cannot sing well. Maybe these people do not enjoy drawing or singing because of the struggle to achieve an unrealistic product.
If you take this one step further, Americans loath amateurs. "If you can't be a prodigy, or make money at something what is the point, " seems to be the general opinion. The word amateur is even used as an insult here. This is a shame. Creativity is so essential to life--at least to me, and I have yet to make a living at it. If we just dedicated the time spent watching TV to creativity, it would be so powerful. I think people would be so much more satisfied with life.
One of the interesting things Mr. Willems pointed out was that in other eras everyone used to draw, he gave as an example the drawings of explorers. I have another example, Leonardo DaVinci. I believe (I am not a scholar, of course) that DaVinci became an accomplished artist because he drew to learn. His art was a way of understanding science and painting was just an offshoot of this discipline. One really learns so much by sitting still, looking and trying to record what you see. You realize that what you see is not always what you think you see, or that what you see is really so much more complex and beautiful than at first thought.
I am just giving up my post as Chair of Art Volunteer in the Classroom at my son's school. It has been a labor of love because I sometimes believe I am the only one who thinks it is so essential. We conduct discussions with the students--Socratic method. I ask the children to look at one (maybe others for comparison sake) piece of art and make observations for thirty minutes. Our job is really to keep the questions coming and listen to responses. I believe it is important because we are deluged with images all the time and don't realize that visuals are incredibly manipulative unless you question it. Oh well, I could go on and on.
I guess, like Mr. Willems, it is all so important to me, I cannot imagine art not being a part of everyone's expression. Like, when someone says, "I cannot draw," I silently believe that he/she is really an artist that has been smothered by society and commercialism. Though this is a belief almost like faith in that it comes so naturally to me, I do wonder sometimes if I am wrong. Am I blind when it comes to art? How ironic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
