To think you are either good at art or your not?

[Vagaceratops]

You cant really teach yourself to be good at art?

DS has been put on report in Art class because he is achieving a level well below his expected level (He got a 3B and he is targetted a 5B which is never going to happen).

I have had email contact with his form tutor who is also head of art. She has assured me its nothing to do with his behaviour, but just the level he is assessed at.

I am sure he gets his art skills from me. I cant draw for toffee and neither can he sadly.

AIBU?

I think there are two sides to it: first, you need to understand the techniques - how to use your pencil/pen/brush, how to shade or apply colour effectively, understanding perspective and disappearing points, and so on. A lot of the techniques can be taught.

Then there is the actual skill of training your brain to reproduce what you see (in front of you or in your mind's eye).

A lot of people don't draw what they actually see in front of them, just what they "want" to see - for instance, they will draw their own preconceived idea of what a face looks like, rather than the actual face of the person they are trying to draw.

The book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain covers a lot of this stuff - it is very good for learning to re-train your mind so that you can reproduce what you see. My drawing skills improved immeasurably after reading the book (though agree with poster above about all the "woo", which can be safely ignored).

Oh I agree with any musical instrument you have to want to do it. But the same goes with drawing, if you don't enjoy it you won't want to practice it and if you are made to you will resent it. Also not everyone can be a concert pianist and not everyone can be a brilliant artist. I think the analogy stands.

I agree that it's good to have a broad general education regarding music, art etc. But setting specific standards that a child should reach in these areas doesn't make much sense to me as they really do rely on a certain type of creative talent. Some children have it, some don't.

If your son's teacher puts "does not achieve required grade" on his report card, but doesn't come up with ideas so he can practise or even acquire some ability in a different aspect of art, it lets her off the hook doesn't it? If it's definitely not him mucking about, it seems a failure on the teacher's part. Is everyone else in his year just naturally gifted? Unlikely. What makes him stand out? You don't want this to drag down his average. In the nicest possible way I'd get on her case about this.

I think some people are naturally talented, but some drawing skills can be taught. I used to be really dire at drawing, but now I've had to do some for my job I have found that I am not too bad. I'll never be a natural (music more my thing), but I can be competent at copying drawings.

I have e-mailed the teacher asking why his expected grade is so high.

The report he got isnt a written one, its a list of subjects, expected grades and current grades. These are colour coded to indicate whether they are achieving the target, below target (which he is in PE) or well below target.

PE is another example. You are either good at sports or you are not. They should be taught in a way that's enjoyable but does not make the non sporty kids feel like failures or people who are letting the team down.

I can't draw but I can design clothes and Photoshop/Illustrator makes me less shit at it.

It's a skill you're born with.

YANBUTiggaxx

VAGA, I sympathise with your point of view. My partner can draw cartoons. I could not do that to save my life. I suppose if you are born with a little skill in an area it can be improved.

Yes you're good at it or you're not.

I get that heart sinking feeling when I see pictures people have done through 'learning to paint' classes. There's just no talent quite often which is so sad. I mean by all means if they enjoy it there's no harm in it, but I do think it's something you cannot learn unless you have the makings of being good at it to start with.

Bit like singing or music. Some people can, some can't and there's nothing bad about having a go, or about not being good at it.

But the school cannot expect him to be a good artist. They can expect him to try and concentrate and not take the piss in lessons etc, but other than that, nope.

Chrismissy, I used to be ace at drawing but never could paint. Then I got a lot better at it - just through getting older I think and getting a bit more relaxed...I spent a long time worrying that I'd get it wrong, and having almost no imagination didn't help!

But now I paint portraits in oils, none that I would give to people as they never get finished, but still - people say they are very good.

So it can come with time. Don't give up yet!

See what the teacher says, but I would imagine if he is getting low grades it's because he's not applying what he's been taught independently (eg, he's been taught about shading, but drew a picture with no shading) not because he's bad at it.

So frustrating! OP, like your son, I was always consistently "below target" in PE and art in school, and suffered with low self-esteem as a result.

Until I was around 16 and signed up for a random pottery class because my friend was doing it. The teacher (my all-time favourite) was encouraging and I turned out to be really good at it and developed the confidence to try other art forms-- now art is a major part of my life and I've had several commissions in just the past month.

Similar with P.E. I took a self-defence class while I was at uni and over time I became adept at martial arts and yoga.

So like Mrs Mushroom, what it took for me was the "right teacher" to make me feel like I could do it--once I had the confidence, there was no stopping me.

But you obviously had ability in the first place fuzzy but had just been badly taught. I do a lot of creative writing and I've met people who have been to writing classes taught by excellent people but if the innate talent and imagination isn't there it really isn't going to make a huge difference.

No, no, no!

There's no "you're good at it or your not".

That's just lazy thinking.

People have a greater aptitude for certain things, but application and concentration will help you improve at anything that a human being can do.

Some people struggle with writing and spelling and others find it easy.

Should we then be satisfied with "you can either do it or you cant"?

Or should we encourage them to work hard and get as good as they can?

And make sure they are being taught by someone who knows how to improve the ordinary student as well bring on the naturally talented?

It is very, very good for pupils who easily excel in core subjects to be challenged in subjects they need to work harder at.

My DS could not draw for toffee. As he is academically a very high achiever in every other subject he found this hard. He bought books and DVDs on how to draw. I must say I am very impressed with the work he has done. It means more somehow because it didn't come easy. It has annoyed DH as he is gifted in art and no where near as bright academically.

Writing and spelling and maths are necessary to get you through day to day life and make you employable as an adult.

Art is not. Therefore, if someone is not good at it and has no interest in it, they should not be expected to reach targets. Yes, a basic grounding in artistic and cultural subjects is fine, but making kids feel bad because of lack of talent is not fine.

So is being able to apply yourself to stuff you aren't naturally that good at.

"making kids feel bad because of lack of talent is not fine."

That applies equally to all pupils.

If you feel bad every time you have to do something you struggle with, you need to work on your attitude.

And I very much disagree that the kinds of thought processes learnt in art class are unimportant in a modern workplace.

I was told I was no good at art at school. So I put minimal effort in on the basis there was no point in trying.

As an adult I've realised that whilst I might not be the next Picasso I am not entirely unartistic. I can produce something that pleases me, even if no one else. It saddens me that for years "art" was this bit closed off area of something that I supposedly couldn't do.

Poppycock.

He may not end up monet, but his art was thrown out of the academy for not being good at the time. Turner too. And have u seen Tracey emins bed?!? Dirty girl...

U need to see curriculum details. U need to understand where he's not meeting targets. This isn't about art so much as English. Understand the requirements and u can help him reach them. Honestly u can.

Sounds to me he's either not understanding the question and or not submitting enough prep work to explain final pieces. It's like an essay, introduction, middles and endings have to demonstrably link or it doesn't show follow through. Hope helps.

It was a great day in this house when ds2 was finally allowed to give up art.

He is absolutely useless at drawing (and his hand-writing is appalling too). He was ok at the crafty stuff, but constantly in trouble with the art teacher for his drawings not being "good enough".

Art/music/pe are all things that children can be naturally good at and find easy. The ones who aren't good at them should be encouraged, not punished for not having a natural ability.

So why divide children up in some of these subjects. Why not have an art or music class for high ability children who want to actually do exams in the subject, but spend the time with the other children teaching them a love of the arts - let them listen to music, look at art, mess around with different fun instruments and clay, show them that it is fun.

There is no prep work to be done - he has only done 10 weeks so far, and all its involved is drawing and shading. I have seen his sketch book.

He isnt meeting the targets because his drawings are not very good. The assessment he had, which involved drawing a teacup and an apple wasnt great, and this is what his target is based on.

I'm am an 'arty' person who is now working in higher education in a creative subject. From my perspective teaching 18+ year olds, the standard of art education at secondary level sounds dire. I think you should ask the teacher how she is encouraging him to make progress and how they are 'teaching' art in his school with a view to helping him improve. I have had some of my students who just copied pictures out of magazines for GCSE. That teaches nothing.

IME (maybe others have been luckier) teachers of art, music and sport don't actually bother to try to teach the whole class to an acceptable standard, they just concentrate on the talented kids and those who have outside lessons. Teachers of "proper" or academic subjects would never get away with ignoring 90% of the class. I don't think my art teacher addressed more than 2 sentences to me in 5 years.

I think natural talent is an important factor but as in any subject, a basic competence should be teachable. And I can't remember which famous sportsman, when accused of being lucky in a interview, replied "the funny thing is the more I practise the luckier I get!" There's that Malcolm Gladwell book that reckons that 10,000 hours is generally what it takes to be amazing at most skills - he claims natural talents in sports etc generally put in that amount of practice.

Ask what his target level is based on. If it's to do with FFTs or similar (computer generated targets) then it will be based on how he did in KS2 SATs or CATs, which of course measure how good you are at English and Maths (or reasoning). An academic child will then be given high targets across the board, regardless of any talents or needs in particular areas. So a clever child who is dyspraxic might be given a high target level in PE, even though this is obviously bollocks. I've talked to colleagues in art, drama, PE etc who have constantly bemoaned how the targets the kids are given are based on how good they are in maths, which is silly.

If, however, his target is based on a baseline assessment in art (which I doubt, from the sounds of it) then it would be worth asking what that baseline assessment was, and why it was so high given your DS's actual level.

If the target is computer generated, tell them it's bollocks and you don't want to hear any more about it!

I'm a maths teacher and I've taught some bright kids who really can't handle geometry. They haven't got the fine motor skills to draw a circle with a pair of compasses, or they really struggle to draw things in 3D on isometric paper, even copying a diagram that's right in front of them. I can teach them things to help them, but I can't make them good at it!