For Art's Sake!!

It seems like everywhere I turn these days, in my art education literature, and online groups, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is about STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math), Design Integration, Maker Spaces, Media Arts, and so on.  And I'm here to flat-out tell you, I am so sick and tired of hearing about it. 

It makes me wonder why we art educators chose the career we are in.  Did we become art educators to train kids for careers in design? (Not that there's anything wrong with that).  Or did we become art educators to help children explore their creativity, to express themselves through the wonder of that creation?  And, if we consider ourselves artists (which I think most of us do, in one way or another), what, if any, is the relationship of our personal art and STEAM? 

I know for me, making art is a part of who I am, whether it is manipulating with 3-dimensional materials, or painting with a loaded brush, doodling elaborate designs with Flair pens, or even photographing nature.  The art I most care about making is simply "for art's sake".  Sure, I might design and create an article of clothing, or decorate a pair of shoes or purse.  Yes, I might create a whimsical trophy for  an event, and yes, I might enjoy doing these things, but ultimately, the art I care most about creating is that which I create simply because THAT'S WHAT I DO.  I am an artist, and I express myself visually, like a musician uses music for their expression.  My art is simply meant to be seen, to hopefully evoke something in a viewer.  It is not about STEAM. 

And as an educator, I most care about imparting my young students with that love of creating;  I want them to feel joy every time they dip a brush into creamy wet paint, enthusiasm when they put their hands into a bucket of papier-mache goo, surprise when they pull a vibrant print out of a tub of shaving cream, magic when they pull paint over a drawing done with white crayon and the image becomes visible.  I don't want them to feel that every time they make something in art, it automatically has to teach them a science or math or history lesson (Not that there's anything wrong with that).  I don't want them to feel that every piece of art they create has to serve some sort of design purpose beyond simply BEING ART.  Honestly?  I don't think I was originally hired with the intent that I was preparing kids for a design career.  I think the arts are included in a well-rounded education because they address the needs of the soul.  The arts make us human. 

 Let's face it, most of the artists we teach kids about in class did not create art for any reason other than something in their soul said that it was what they 'had' to do.  We know that Van Gogh painted because of a deep need inside, despite the hardships he endured because of this need.  Think of the lives of other artists we learn about.  How many of them were making art to serve any other purpose beyond that of creating beauty or provoking thought?  I mean, why else would my family and I build these ridiculous sand sculptures year after year, laboring in the hot sun, knowing that by the next day, the tide will wash it away?

Even now, why do so many people flock to art museums?   Often, to view a certain exhibition in a museum, you need to buy tickets in advance, that are timed, to handle the crowds.  We don't stand on line to see a Matisse cutout or a Chihuly glass sculpture or a because of how it will enhance a new technological discovery.  We choose to view the artwork for how it makes us FEEL.  People go to concerts to hear music, or to watch dancers simply to see them move, because, again, of how it makes them FEEL.  The most  important purpose of the arts, in my opinion, is not what it  does technologically, but how it makes us feel.  Why else, many years ago, did my family and I, and thousands of other people, stroll through Central Park in single-digit temperatures and an icy wind, to see Christo's "Gates" - billowing curtains of golden-orange fabric?   It evoked joy, on some level I can't even explain.  That's what the arts do.  (I wish I could find my photos of it; it was a "pre-digitial" event.  But since I can't, here's a photo from a Chihuly exhibit in Boston a few years ago, where people stood on line for HOURS to get in, simply to view art!) 

So, excuse me, when you talk about Design education and Maker Spaces and all the other buzz words of the moment, if you see me zoning out.  My students and I will be happily exploring the tactile world of making art with hands-on materials, just because, simply, we are artists, and that's what brings us joy.  And now, I will close this post with a photo of a moose on a roof. 

Introducing The Artful Advocate!

Hello loyal blog readers!  I want to take a moment to introduce you to a brand-new blog, The Artful Advocate. 

I'm currently serving on an advocacy committee for my state art education association, and, as the only experienced blogger on the committee, I offered to develop a blog offering tips and ideas about advocacy, to help art educators!  The blog entered the blogosphere just yesterday.  I hope you'll be able to find lots of useful ideas and resources on this blog.  That doesn't mean you'll be seeing less of There's a Dragon in my Art Room; this blog will remain my favorite place to share lesson ideas, art projects, opinions on topics of art education, and my personal artistic pursuits with you, my readers.  The new blog is serving an entirely different, but equally important purpose. 

I hope you'll stop in and visit often, follow, and add the new blog to your reader!  Thanks!! 

Olympics of the Visual Arts 2016

Ever since I retired, I've annually volunteered as a judge at the fabulous Olympics of the Visual Arts.  OVA is a program/competition for students sponsored by NYSATA, the NY state art teacher's association.  *Note: The artwork in the first 4 photos in this post are from the sculpture category, and are each a sculptural interpretation of a piece of contemporary popular music. 

Styled after the Odyssey of the Mind model, OVA participating teams come from schools throughout the state, in elementary, middle, and high school levels, competing in both long term projects and a spontaneous competition.   The long term projects are based on tasks in selected categories. Students use research and brainstorming in their planning and are required to submit a portfolio documenting their work along with the final presentation.  The categories include sculpture, architecture, fashion design, drawing, painting, illustration, graphic design, and photography. You can see my previous annual OVA posts here (2015), here (2014), and here (2013).  To read more about the program, follow this link and this link to info on the NYSATA webpage;  to read this year's intriguing long term problems, hop on over to this link.

 The next batch of photos are from the photo category.  The theme had to do with reflections, and interpretations of the word were broad.  For example, the group creating the piece directly below was reflecting about toxic waste!  There were reflections on identity, and there were much more literal reflections as well. 

I was again a judge in the photography category.  We had more photography entries than in previous years, so we were judging and adding up scores until the last moment, including judging/scoring the spontaneous projects as well.  Unfortunately, this meant gobbling down lunch while we added up scores, and I had very little time this year to snap pics of the array of incredible work.  So forgive me if my photos aren't up to par!   Then I had to leave before the awards were given out, due to another commitment.  But at least I have a few fun photos to share with you!!

I was looking forward to seeing the Illustration category, since they were based on one of my all-time favorite poems from a favorite piece of literature: The Jabberwocky, from Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass.  When I was in high school, my older brother gave me a copy of the Annotated Alice, and this book is still one of the most beloved books in my my personal collection.  Here's a few images from the student work based on this poem.

Here's a slightly better close-up of the piece above -

The painting category involved imagining a creative environment, an environment that would encourage creativity.

The fashion category is always everyone's big favorite, with the most entries.  The work is amazing!  Unfortunately, I didn't get to witness the catwalk modeling, which is the spontaneous portion of the fashion category.  But I did get to see some terrific pieces, still on their mannequins.  The theme was "Trashy", and the pieces are all made from paper products often found in the trash.  And no, the black dress is NOT made from duct tape.  Not allowed!!

 There were, along with the amazing outfits, several glamorous hats (like the one on the mannequin above, left) and this pair of adorable shoes below!!

I don't know if any other state has an event like OVA.  If not, you really should look at the model we've set up here in NY, and give it a try!  It's a phenomenal event, and it can be a pretty viable bit of advocacy for art education!

How Art Can Develop Your Brain

Can a walk through your favorite art museum increase your own creativity and ability to innovate?  Author and art historian Jonathan Fineberg thinks so! 

I turned on the radio in the car today to listen to my favorite public radio station (NCPR; North Country Public Radio broadcast from Canton NY).  The show Here and Now was on, and the story was so timely and meaningful that after I got home, I sat in my car in the hot driveway so that I could finish hearing the rest of the interview and scribble down some notes.

I want you to be able to hear this interview too, so without further ado, here's the link to the story: "How Art Can Develop Your Brain".  The interview was with art historian Jonathan Fineberg, talking about his his new book, Modern Art at the Border of Mind and Brain.  During the interview, he referenced works by Dubuffet, Calder, Motherwell, Miro, and Christo.  

Please note: the photos in this post are NOT from the book.  Rather, they are photos I have taken at visits to various art museums, and have all been previously featured in this blog.)

Fineberg's thesis is that viewing modern art makes our brains more creative.  He says when we look at modern art, we are increasing our ability to think creatively and to innovate. This is certainly an excellent bit of ammunition to have when fighting to protect our art programs!

Here's a quote from amazon.com describing the book:
"Based on Fineberg’s Presidential Lectures at the University of Nebraska, his book examines the relationship between artistic production, neuroscience, and the way we make meaning in form. Drawing on the art of Robert Motherwell, Joan Miró, Alexander Calder, Christo, Jean Dubuffet, and others, Fineberg helps us understand the visual unconscious, the limits of language, and the political impact of art. Throughout, he works from the conviction that looking is a form of thinking that has a profound impact on the structure of the mind."

I generally prefer reading fiction, but this is one non-fiction book I definitely not only WANT to read, but is also a book that I definitely NEED to read.  But it's a new book, just out in hardcover, with an amazon price of $31.60.  Oh dear...

Does graffiti art belong in the art curriculum?

I've thought about writing this post for a long time, but have put it off for fear of offending someone or having some readers take my opinions personally.  But, readers, this isn't personal, and I don't expect you all to agree.  It's simply my opinion, and nothing more, and this post is written to spark discussion and give you something to think about.

OK, disclaimer done.  Here I go:  

Why did I decide to write a post about graffiti tonight?  Well, earlier today I took my camera for a walk on the bike path that runs between the Hudson River and the Feeder Canal.  It was sunny and I had a lovely walk, between a parking area by a dam, down to a bridge near a public beach, and back again.  When I got to the bridge, I thought I'd look under it for a photo of the water and reflections, but instead I saw offensive graffiti.  I took a photo, but I will not post it here, because, well, it consisted of several swastikas and a pro-Hitler statement, and I'm just not comfortable posting it on a blog that is a reflection of me.  (So the other photos I took today will have to suffice for this post.)  This piece of graffiti disturbed me and suddenly I felt uncomfortable and vulnerable walking alone.  I walked quickly and didn't take another photo for the rest of my way back to my car.  I'm hoping if I call the city tomorrow that someone will be able to remove this graffiti.

So I have often seen blog posts or posts in the Facebook Art Teachers group about graffiti projects being done in the art classroom. Some of them are from elementary art programs, others are secondary.  Often they have been lessons in 'graffiti-style lettering', or designing your own 'tag'.  But when I think of actual graffiti 'tags' I have seen, they have often been on the walls of urban buildings, on the side of train cars, or on the walls of the subway tunnels.  These are frequently representative of gang symbols.  They are not something I want my students to replicate or emulate.

I am not unaware of graffiti/street artists artists that have become well-known and respected, such as the most obvious ones: Keith Haring, (who may have begun as a graffiti artist, but actually also produced street art by commission and sold work in galleries) or Banksy; nor am I unaware of the many graffiti artists making beautiful works of art on the sides of otherwise uninteresting urban buildings, or provocative political or social statements through their street art.  But still, the bulk of graffiti I have seen is 'tagging', or offensive vandalism such as that I saw today.

 So my question is this: Do graffiti art projects belong in the art curriculum?  Is it appropriate to be teaching kids the art of graffiti-style lettering or 'tagging'? 

I looked up the definition of graffiti, came up with many versions, but basically the idea was the same: Graffiti is any writing or drawing on a surface in a public place, placed there without authorization of the owner or the object on which it is written.  Such graffiti are usually unwelcome, and are considered a form of vandalism.

 I can certainly understand a high school art teacher showing the movie Enter Through the Gift Shop, and discussing Banksy, political art and social activism, just as I can understand showing How to Draw a Bunny and discussing the rather peculiar mail art of Ray Johnson.  But I absolutely cannot understand the purpose for, or curricular appropriateness of teaching elementary, middle, or high school kids how to do graffiti-style lettering.

In this day and age, when art programs are being slashed and positions are being cut, as art educators we have the responsibility to advocate for our programs.  We use art shows as a way to bring the art of our students to our communities, and gather public support.  We send home artwork with our students so that parents can see what their children are doing.  We seek to convince our school communities that art education is a valuable and essential link in the education of our nation's children.  How many community members, parents, and administrators would see the teaching of graffiti as positive PR for your art program? 

 If you teach graffiti art in your classroom, what is its significance in your curriculum, your justification for its inclusion?  I'd love your responses!

I'll leave you with a link to a short article, Graffiti is Always Vandalism I found while researching information for this post.   Thank you for reading, and for your opinions!