ds is not good at art - now becoming noticeable - help!!

[zebramummy]

i need a strategy to improve ds' mark-making asap per his nursery report.

i never meant to compare him to his class mates at nursery but their pictures appear to resemble trees, people etc. ds is 4.4 but his art skills have actually gone backwards if anything. he only brought one picture home this term and nothing of his has ever been put up for display at nursery (yes, i do this at home before you ask)

i was apparently so good at his age that my nursery school teacher (a trained artist herself) predicted that i would also become an artist one day (i did not do this though remained quite good). i don't expect him to be that good; just able enough to colour the right bits of the picture in suitable colours and try to keep within outlines. his interest in writing has gone the same way too.

is there anything i can do to remedy the situation? so far, i have made available to him every medium under the sun to try out his 'ideas' - finger paints, glitter glue, crayons, chalks, all manner of paper and card.

he loves playdough though uses it more for imaginative play rather than for model-making. likes gloop, clay, helping with cooking but has had no cross-impact.

Let's hope so - I'd be thrilled to be proved wrong.

you're obviously not a bad mum riven!(have seen you on other threads)I did mean that i would look askance at nurseries picking and choosing whose work to display

"it does matter to me because art and history of art have always been really important to me and enriched my life and it would be good if he could share that or at least understand it."

From his point of view it would be good if you could share whatever interests HIM. Follow his interests, don't direct them.

fair do's if it isn't her work.....i was never interested in the xmas card etc that came from creche when she was a year or so oldbecause it wasn't hers and i'm not partic interested in other kids work

I'm not sure that you can improve things drastically, just enable nice materials to be available and let your ds enjoy drawing.

I would recommend gel pens, decent crayons and berol felt tips.

However, people's innate ability can't really be changed. My Dad cannot draw any better than my five year old! He hasn't improved over his many years.

"However, people's innate ability can't really be changed. My Dad cannot draw any better than my five year old! He hasn't improved over his many years."

I'm afraid this is completely wrong, Builde!

Of course you can learn to draw. If you want to.

Drawing can be taught, much like playing the piano can be taught; you won't get very far without lessons and you won't be motivated unless you enjoy playing. Same with drawing.

I agree Tether, if we were taught drawing to the same degree we're taught, say, maths or English, there'd be a lot more accomplished artists around - but I'm not sure teaching of art should involve the same sort of rule-following and learning by rote involved in those subjects (which I'm sure is not what you're saying).

I think, by a certain age, it's useful to start to be introduced to more formal concepts like perspective and colour theory (which you can choose to embrace or reject), but then you're working with a whole other being than a 4 yo.

I really wouldn't worry about it. My DS avoided the art table like the plague and his only masterpieces were black splodges on a page and he has never shown any interest in anything arty. In fact I think that the only things that he has drawn of this own free will are numerous tardis's. He is now year 2 and his drawing is seriously RUBBISH. My DH and I had a good giggle on parents evening at his "interesting" people drawings, although we obviously haven't said anything to him about them. Seriously, it really doesn't matter, he's either that way inclined or not.

You can improve drawing I read a book recently that showed the astonishing difference lessons can make. I believed previously it was innate but it is possible to be taught to draw that others would consider generally very good.

They showed the before and after sketches and they went from stick men to fully formed people in incredible detail.

Oh, don't get me started, OurLady...

Learning by rote (circle for face, triangle for nose etc) is singularly the most counter-productive method to becoming accomplished at drawing (see my previous ranty post)

Drawing is just one facet of art, and the art education system in this country- particularly at primary level- seems to take little notice of this. It's the observation and thinking skills which should be taught IMO.

Was it Betty Edward's 'Drawing in the Right Side of the Brain' by any chance, Cortina?

If not, then I wholeheartedly recommend it.

i'm not so sure about that tethersend, i think learning canonical representations is a normal stage of drawing development, parallel with language development (i.e. symbolic use of marks/sounds). i'm not sure that it's one that can be bypassed even if we wanted to. it's just that most people's artistic education stops at that point, and never moves beyond it.

I disagree, heartofgold.

The 'education beyond that point' consists largely of unlearning what you have been taught. When drawing from observation, the struggle is between drawing what you see and drawing what you think a nose (for example) should look like, ie a triangle as per all previous teaching.

Using language as an analogy is difficult, as language is purely symbolic, consisting of signifiers, not the signified. You become accomplished in a language when you can accurately produce sounds to signify something in accordance with the common language; whilst a toddler's babble may signify that he wants an apple, it is not universally understood or 'correct' until he says those exact words; which in themselves are only signifiers, just universally understood ones. There are right and wrong outcomes.

To teach canonical representations is akin to teaching the toddler to ask for an apple in German, and then later teaching him to ask for it in English.

A far better teaching technique would be to teach observation from a very young age, dealing with the signified without attaching a completely arbitrary signifier to it.

Oh dearie me.

I agree with Pagwatch and Riven. He is 4. Abd what is with this guff about being his main educator/PR person? And outside his comfort zone. OP I think you need to read back your words.

Quite sad to think of a little boy having to draw inside the lines, and perhaps his mad scribbles being discarded by short-sighted (in more than one way) nursery workers who reject the scribbles and put more 'accomplished' 4 year old artwork on display. If this is the mark of an 'outstanding' rated nursery count me out, thanks.

Please please don't worry about this. You have a passion you want your child to share - they might, they might not - but right now he is only very little.

My son loved drawing (scribbling) but the end product always looked totally pants to us. We used to laugh/worry.

For him it was always about the process - he enjoyed doing it and actually wasn't interested in the end product. If he drew a ship and it went to battle - he would draw explosions and the end picture would be a big scribble. However, I loved his enthusiasm but I did wish I could get that rush of pride to see his pictures being 'the best.' That said, he always thought his were brilliant.

Aged around 7 he got really really good at drawings. Now 8 he will sit at the table for hours drawing. He also doesn't really compare himself to others, he still thinks whatever he does is the best for him, its all about how much he enjoyed 'doing' it.

Don't push him - try and enjoy the scribbles.

I have only read the OP (flabbergasted). I would not care one jot about what a 'nursery' report had to say about my childs 'academic performance'.

Nursery at the age of 4 should be about playing and having fun.

I bet that this is one of those stupid nurseries that has an actual graduation ceremony, complete with cap and gown for the kids??

Barking.

i appreciate what you're saying about unlearning tether, but i'm not so sure that it's simply a question of teaching children these representations, i wonder whether it's innate in how they learn to draw. like those first little people who are all heads and legs and belly buttons - they're pretty universal aren't they? would be interested to hear about/see work by a child who has entirely avoided the canonical stage.

am also thinking about the idea that unlike with language there is an objective "correct" drawing. (forgive me if that's not what you were saying). i get that an exact translation of what is in front of us is skillful is it actually artistic? e.g. when learning life drawing you're trying to convey a sense of the structure underneath the skin, the underlying anatomy, the abstract shapes that make up the whole. all of this is about what we know, not just what we see. and playing with representations and assumptions, what we think we know and what we expect, can be a huge part of what makes something artistically engaging.

so whilst i fully appreciate that learning observation is a key skill in artistic development (particularly drawing) i wouldn't agree that it is somehow intrinsically better than learning culturally specific visual symbols.

(i'm absolutely no expert as you can prolly tell, just interested, and am interested in discussion/arguments to the contrary)

The nursery has missed some key points.

Scribbling is a key developmental stage. Both from a cognitive perspective, and also a physical motor skills one, the child needs to have the experience of moving the pencil across the paper, in a scribbling motion.

Similarly, with paints, the sensation of moving the brush across the paper is important, even if the finished result is a lot of painted scribbles.

Never ask 'what is it?'. It might well be nothing tangible - and asking what it is can make the child feel a failure, because they then feel they 'should have been drawing/painting something', when in fact they were just enjoying themselves.

Equally, don't try and superimpose an interpretation onto your child's pictures. Instead, statements like 'I like the red colour here' or 'Tell me about your picture' are more affirming.

Don't try and stop your child scribbling - it's part of his development.

I went to some lectures on autism and talented artists. IIRC savant (artistic) autists and artistic geniuses draw anatomically correct representations from pre-school ages. Everyone else does blobs then people with no arms etc.
It was a year ago so details are hazy.

I love MN. Where else can you get loads of info about developing artistic ability and child development because of one question...

Part of my old job was working with artists and none of them were massively interested in the formal concept of 'art' at this age! They were all interested in toys and sweets and ideas, the normally gubbins of childhood.

Also, when you talk about 'innate' I personally don't actually think it applies to ability per se.

I think children get different sensory satisfaction from different things, which is innate. The things that give them satisfaction they often spend more time doing - so give the illusion they are better at them, when in fact they've just spent more time doing them. Therefore what comes first, the sensory satisfaction - or the skill? It's hard to keep practicing something you don't derive much pleasure from.

And to confuse things further, what they enjoy changes. So at 4 - your little one has probably only spent very little time exploring what it is he loves. There's a great adventure ahead of him - his little motor skills will also still be developing. My son couldn't hold a pencil properly till he was 7.

"like those first little people who are all heads and legs and belly buttons - they're pretty universal aren't they? would be interested to hear about/see work by a child who has entirely avoided the canonical stage."

I would love to do some research in this area! I suspect that a lot of those drawings focus on what is important to the child, ie large faces on legs; but that they are also often coached by parents/teachers/carers with comments such as 'Ohh, there are his eyes' 'How many fingers does he have?' etc. innocuous enough questioning designed to aide development but, like you, I would be fascinated to see if these drawings appeared in a vacuum.

"am also thinking about the idea that unlike with language there is an objective "correct" drawing. (forgive me if that's not what you were saying)"

I was saying the opposite: With language there is a right and a wrong answer; with art, there is not.

"i get that an exact translation of what is in front of us is skillful is it actually artistic?"

Not necessarily.

"when learning life drawing you're trying to convey a sense of the structure underneath the skin, the underlying anatomy, the abstract shapes that make up the whole. all of this is about what we know, not just what we see."

It should be only about what we see. We only know what is underneath the skin because we have seen it; we don't try to draw a cartoon heart shape in the chest of any life model. Da Vinci would cut open cadavers in order to draw the innards and better understand the human body- his knowledge was based on observation. Even the abstract shapes you speak of are observed- it doesn't matter if you can label those shapes or not, they are still visually the same.

I think those culturally specific visual symbols you speak of should be challenged, as they actively hamper any further artistic development.

Like you, I am also very interested in discussion and arguments to the contrary

saintlydamemrsturnip- I used to work with autistic children, and this issue fascinated me. Many people with Autism completely bypass the 'representative' stage when drawing, and slave to faithfully reproduce what is in front of them. It is our society which labels the result as art; quite often, that was not their intention. However, their drawing skills often develop more quickly without the hurdle of representative symbols to contend with.

I don't think there is a 'right or wrong' answer with language at all. I thought only maths had exacts?

There is the alphabet and words - in the same way there are colours, pencils and paper etc. but how we put them together is as unique as a fingerprint. A mixture of how we were taught, our family and words we like etc etc.

I love encouraging my children to use language creatively. Talking is like painting, the receivers mind is the canvas (oh god nearly vomited onto my keyboard).