Visual learning in the community school

Art is all about looking: drawing and detailShirley Brice Heath and Shelby Wolf

Learning forCreative Futures

Shirley Brice Heath and Shelby Wolf

Visual learning in the community schoolArt is all about looking: drawing and detail

The series Visual learning in the community school tells some of the many stories of partnerships that have increased school children’s access to creative learningopportunities in 2003 and 2004. Oral language, visual literacies and strategicthinking were the focus of the research on which this series of booklets is based. The on-going study results from the collaboration of Creative Partnerships andscholars Shirley Brice Heath and Shelby Wolf, supported through StanfordUniversity and Brown University.

Visual learning in the community school narrates one year (2003-2004) in which several types of creative bridging andpartnering took place within Hythe Community School in Hythe,Kent. Behind these links were the inspiration and support ofCreative Partnerships. Central roles in this tale are played byvisual artist Roy Smith and architectural designer Ben Kelly. As resident artist, Roy Smith spent one day a week at HytheCommunity School during the academic year. Ben Kelly andmembers of his design team worked together with the children to design the reception area of the new school building. But thisnarrative is also decidedly shaped by the play, faith, humour,curiosity, and tenacity of many more characters. The childrentake on new roles beyond that of pupil as they enact, remember,and promote their triumphs and set-backs. They do so in thecompany of teachers, parents, administrators, and communitysupporters, who delight in asking questions rather than givinganswers. The storytellers are Shelby Wolf and Shirley Brice Heathwho added their questions in order to capture, count, and recountthe language and thinking behind creative work and play. Here thetwo researchers tell of the shifts in language and ways of thinkingthat lie behind the sustained power of creative learning that holdsout new roles for all partners. Each of the five booklets withinVisual learning in the community school takes readers behind therelationships, risks, and probabilities of the many adventurespossible in Learning for Creative Futures.

PUBLISHED BY CREATIVE PARTNERSHIPS14 Great Peter StreetLondon SW1P 3NQPhone: +44 (0) 20 7973 5133Email: info@creative-partnerships.comTextphone: +44 (0) 20 7973 6564www.creative-partnerships.comFor additional copies of this publication, please email info@creative-partnerships.comCharity registration no. 1036 733

© Shirley Brice Heath and Shelby WolfThis book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensingagreements, no reproduction of any part may take placewithout the written permission of Shirley Brice Heath andShelby Wolf and Creative Partnerships.

First published 2004Printed in the United Kingdom

Shirley Brice Heath and Shelby WolfVisual learning in the community schoolIncludes five booklets in slipcase: – Art is all about looking: drawing and detail– Hoping for accidents: media and technique– With an eye on design: the power of presentation– It looks to me as if: talking about picture books– Sharing a common vision: community learning for

community futures

Includes bibliographical references. 240 pages.

ISBN 0-7287-1036 6 (pbk)

4 5

William Carlos Williams—poet,physician, and artist—often tookart materials to young patients onhis house calls. His friend andapprentice, Robert Coles explained:

[Williams] was endlessly intrigued by what children could accomplish with crayons or paints, and he believed that all ofus, parents and teachers, might learn from what boys and girlshave to “say” as they struggle to create images, to presentscenes, on paper. “Look at them,looking,” he once urged me aswe watched some childrendraw—and then he added, “theireyes meeting the world.” Hewished that schools, especially,would take the child as artistmore seriously: “Ayoungsterdrawing is a youngster thinking...When will we know that?” (1992, p. I).

Williams’ question still hangs in the air in most educationalsettings—a hollow echo in the hallsof bureaucracies where decisionsabout the structure of youngchildren’s school days are made.

All too often, children are deniedartistic opportunities, through astronger focus on “traditionallyacademic” subjects and withinevitable budget cuts. Indeed, as the report All Our Futures:Creativity, Culture, & Educationwarned: “current priorities andpressures in education inhibit thecreative abilities of young peopleand of those who teach them.There is a particular concern aboutthe place and status of the arts andhumanities” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 8).

Many would argue that a curricularfocus on creativity—particularlythe visual arts—is only an aside tothe essentials of literacy andnumeracy, and worse, only child’splay. Yet, we believe that children’sinvolvement in the arts is cognitivework—a clear activation of themind as children learn to look atart, engage with materials, andcraft as well as reflect on their owncreations. David Perkins (1994)argues that children engaged in art develop “thinking dispositions” and that “art provides a contextespecially well suited for… helpinglearners mobilize their mental

“Ayoungster drawing is a youngster thinking... When will we know that?”

76

powers” (p. 4). Drawing is thinking,and it’s time we knew that.

One place that clearly understandsthe role of the arts in children’scognition is Hythe CommunitySchool in Kent. Pressed up againsta stony stretch of beach along theEnglish Channel, the town ofHythe was one of the originalCinque Ports designated to defendthe English coastline as well assupply ships and men for theCrown. But over the years theonce bustling harbour silted up,making it impossible for large shipuse, and the small boat sitting uphigh and dry in the front yard of theschool is a reminder of those long-lost shipping days. Still, in the earlymorning light, when the youngestchildren of Hythe sail into school,nothing seems in the least bit lost.

Indeed, working in collaborationwith Creative Partnerships, Hythehas committed to a year-longproject, inviting local artist RoySmith to work with their Reception,Year One, and Year Two childrento help them learn even moreabout art. Although art is an

everyday event at Hythe, Roycomes once a week and workswith small groups of children insessions that run throughout theday. His art lessons focus on theneed for developing an eye fordetail, often through the use ofprops. He helps children learn todraw with accuracy as well asimagination to capture theemotional heart of their art. Thisbooklet describes Roy’s emphasison drawing and detail, and itdemonstrates the power of art inchildren’s thinking as they attendmore closely to and create theworld around them (Anning &Ring, 2004).

7

9

With an eye for detail

Before we begin the story of Royand the young children of HytheCommunity School, it is useful toacknowledge what those whostudy the brain and the humanpowers of learning tell us aboutseeing, especially aboutdeveloping what is sometimescalled “deep sight.” Eric Booth(1999) is a teacher, artist, andthinker who writes about “theeveryday work of art.” He hasparticularly explored the effects of guiding the looking and seeingof young children as they work inthe arts. He wants the young tolearn to focus on visual details inorder to push their creative andcritical thinking.

Several long-term advantagescome from steady attention tohelping young children see, relate,compare, and remember details.All of these are, to be sure, at theheart of all the arts, whether verbal,visual, musical, or in dance, andthey also provide the foundationsfor learning in the sciences and

navigating problems in the world.The first of these advantagescomes through the movement ofmental processes back and forthfrom the visual to the verbal. Themore young children develop theability to focus on the details theysee, the greater their capacity formetaphorical language. Metaphoris a manifestation of the humancapacity to perceive things and communicate about things as other than they first—orsuperficially—appear (Winner, 1988).

Every verbal metaphor dependson linking key traits or features ofone situation or item to another.Often it is only a slight movementor swirl or the particular alignmentof bubbles that gives us the powerto name one thing as another. Theleaf of a tree becomes a triangle toa child who sees sharp points andnames the leaf a triangle.Veryyoung children tend to make theirearliest metaphors on the basis of shape comparisons, but later

The more young children develop the ability tofocus on the details they see, the greater theircapacity for metaphorical language.

they see more deeply into internalcomponents or non-surfacefeatures, such as generalstructural similarities.Witha familymember, a two-year-old reads abook whose cover portrays amother holding her baby close; thebook’s content is about “I loveyou.” Months later, the child sees abook cover showing a large bearholding a baby bear in her lap, andthe child announces “This book islove.” Thus, the child holds deepwithin memory both details and thegeneral structuring of the mother-child theme in ways far toocomplex for us as adults to predictor identify specifically.

Learning to see details also brings the capacity to see the bigpicture—to relate the bits andpieces to what will become a largerwhole. As children create visualarts, construct musicalcompositions, or develop a dancetogether, they focus on the tinydetails of movement andcoordination. In doing so, theyknow that these parts add up to a whole—something larger thanthe sum of the parts. This

fundamental principle applies inthe sciences, everyday problem-solving, and spatial navigationwithin the world. Managers andmusicians, plumbers and painters,engineers and videographersbecome successful largelythrough their ability to see beyondsmall details into the larger picture.Children who learn very early tonote details within their contextand to think about these in thestructuring of something muchgreater are beginning to practisevital habits of mind.

Heraclitus, an early Greekphilosopher, created a maxim that

1110

mind. Interruption by an outsiderannounces to them that they arenot in control and that play is notserious to everyone else. Thus,the investment in thinking aboutdetail in self-constructed playmatters to young children, andHeraclitus reminds us that playshould matter to all of usthroughout our lives.

Finally, seeing detail calls for visualfocus—sustaining the eyes on aspace for more than a fewmilliseconds. The area of the braindedicated to visual focus lies at thevery centre of the various sectionsgiven over tovision. Focus

captures an additional advantageof seeing details. With apologiesfor the male focus within themaxim, we note its value: “Man ismost nearly himself when heachieves the seriousness of achild at play.” Watch childrendeeply immersed in play, whetheralone or with others, and we seetheir very seriousness focuses thedetails of what they are creating.Whether in the high degree ofspecificity in their rules (“No, notthat tree, but this one over here”)or in their choice of costume, prop,or use of space, children careabout the bits and pieces thatamount to the whole they see intheir play (Wolf & Heath, 1992).Pattern and beauty, cohesion andconnection, and details that seemto be inserted simply for their ownsake make up children’s play.Every parent knows the resistancechildren mount when their play isinterrupted. Scientists havespeculated that when childrenplay, they build within their minds ascenario of what is to be, and theysee themselves in control of theaccumulation of details and rulesthat make up the play they have in

Children who learn very early to note details are beginning to practise vital habits of mind.

1312

matters, because it allows viewersto look deeply within an object orsituation and see detail from line toshape and colour to motion (Zeki,1999). Hence, as young childrenwork in creating art—regardless ofform or medium—they gainpractice in holding attention on asphere of action or range of space.In doing so, they take in thefundamental elements or buildingblocks of the world around them.They gain inner vision. This abilityto focus and see deeply and infermeaning develops in even veryyoung children for both theinanimate and animate aspects ofthe world about them. Babies candetect facial details that portrayanger, joy, pleasure, anddisappointment. Similarly, theyknow the difference between one

space for sleeping and another. Asthey grow older, this sensitivity todetails of surroundings must beguided into sustained looking,identifying meaningful details, anddetecting differences andsimilarities. Otherwise, theiroriginal gift of discerning visionwould drive them mad. They needguided looking, so as to sort outthe details that convey meaningfrom those that do not. It is notnecessary—indeed it may bedamaging—to notice the fine hairsabout one’s mother’s lips and pointthese out. Far more significant tohuman relationships is detection ofa questioning brow or tearful eye,a grimace or an amused grin.

Now let us move in close to watchand listen to Roy Smith—artist inresidence at Hythe— working withyoung children at a Year One arttable. We see and thereby canknow much more than may appearin the chaos of eager five-year-olds gathering to work with Roy,settling in their seats, waving theirhands, clamouring for attention,and toying with the jumble ofmaterials—pencils, paper, and

As young children work in creating art – regardless of form or medium–theygain practice in holding attention.

13

15

books—that make up the contentof just one session.

Roy explained that this day’ssession would be devoted toportraits. He and the children firstdiscussed three famous portraitsby Van Gogh, Manet, andLeonardo da Vinci. Then Royhanded each of the children asmall mirror and encouraged themto look closely at themselves whilethey drew. His emphasis onlooking is a constant feature of histeaching, for he finds that pupilsare all too often eager to “fill inmissing details with their mind’seye; their idea of complete” ratherthan looking more closely at thereality of their reflection or theobject in front of them.

Even with the mirrors in hand,several children took a quickglance at their faces and thenproceeded to draw, eyes down onpencil and paper. But one boy,Matthew, studied his reflection withcare, holding the mirror closer andcloser to his eyes, staring intentlyinto the glass. He would look andthen draw, look and draw, look and

draw, and his resulting first-effortportrait showed much moreprecision than his peers. Hiseyes were particularly precise,highlighting the web of lines in theiris and his own set of long lashes.Roy praised his eye for detail, andhis compliments sent many of theother children back to their mirrorsto have another look and add moreto their own portraits.

After this initial self-portrait—donewith little instruction other than tolook and look again—Roy drew aportrait of a face bit by bit,demonstrating to the children thatthe head was really a long oval,not a circle, and that the mouthhad more shape than the smilinglines they typically drew. As hedrew each part of the face, heasked the children to follow hismovements, and they discussedeach feature in turn. He paidspecial attention to the eyes andwas able to highlight Matthew’sdiscovery of the lines of the iris toadd even more detail.

Roy: Now, the next thing to do is draw the eyes. Now, are my

14

Caption here

17

that, draw some lines. That’s it.Perfect!

Roy’s talk is filled with reminders tolook—in the mirror, at each other,and at his face as well. His talk ismarked by visual vocabulary,which calls the children to seecomparable shapes.These visualreminders contain vocabulary thatis particularly image-producing foryoung children: “squashed ovals,”“Spiderman’s eyes,” “a bicyclewheel,” the “hairy caterpillar,” andthe “skinny banana.”

Yet, Roy’s emphasis on detail andvisual vocabulary extends farbeyond drawing the eye. In

another lesson on drawing, Royencouraged a group of Year Twochildren to look carefully at thefruits and vegetables he hadspilled out in the middle of their arttable. Again, the children gave aquick glance and set to theirdrawing of shapes outlined bymemory rather than reality. Butthrough Roy’s constant calls tolook and look again, they began to attend more closely to the fruit.One boy, for example, quicklydrew an oblong shape for abanana and then announced hewas finished. Roy suggested thathis “banana could be a little bitfatter,” and the child drew a secondversion, adding shading along the

16

eyes on the top of my head?Children: [Giggling.] No! They’re

down there.Roy: They’re down here. If I

measure it on my face, they’re about halfway. So halfway downmy face is where I draw my eyesAnd we’ll draw them as longsquashed circles called ovals.Now you draw two ovals halfwaydown the head. Perfect, Louis!Now, they are not circles.They’re long oval shapes likeSpiderman’s eyes in a way,aren’t they?

Connor: Yeah!Roy: Right. Next thing to do is to

draw a circle inside the eye’soval, and that’s going to be theiris. That’s the part of your eyethat has colour. What colour areyour eyes?

Charlene: Blue.Roy: Blue, aren’t they? What

colour are my eyes?Children: Green. Greeney grey.

Brown.Roy: Browney. Greeney. Funny

coloured eyes! You’ve got hazeleyes, haven’t you?

Connor: Mine are blue. Look!Roy:And yours are blue. Lots of

blue eyes out there. Now, insidethe eye, if you look at the personnext to you, there’s a black bit.There’s a black circle. Can yousee the black circle in my eye?Can you see the black circle inyours? [The children look deeplyinto each other’s eyes.] Let’sdraw that black circle in there.That’s called the pupil. We canmake that nice and dark.Fantastic! Now we sawearlier that if you look at the eye,you’ll see that the brown and theblue have little lines in them.Matthew showed us. So we candraw those little lines in there. It’sa bit like a wheel, isn’t it? Abitlike a bicycle wheel.

Louis: Yeah, like my bicycle at home.Roy: Exactly. Next thing to do is to

draw some really small eyelashes. You can’t do thesetoo big. Now let’s have someeyebrows on here. I’ll give you achoice. You can either do theskinny banana or you can do thehairy caterpillar.[He demonstrates the latter.]

Rea: That looks like an old man! Roy: Or you could do the skinny

banana. And over the top of

Roy’s talk is filled with reminders to look – in themirror, at each other and at his face as well.

smattering of detail in the seedsand in the shading of thesurrounding peel. Roy laterexplained: “Looking at the way that kids draw and use shadingand tone, we’ve got two completelydifferent ones here. Emma’s isreally, really expressive and it’sactually quite incredible for a 7-year-old to be able to useshade like this.” He turned toAaron’s orange and continued,

This is much more typical of theage group really. Where they want to draw something very, very quickly. But there areelements where he really lookedclosely. So the observation’sstarting, and then things just getbetter and better as far asdrawing is concerned. When

kids normally say that they can’tdraw, it’s usually because theyhaven’t learned the patience tobe able to look. Once they can

do that, then there’s no problemwith it really. It’s like when kids doportraits. And they don’t want todo a portrait because they think itdoesn’t look like the person thatthey’re trying to draw. So theynever, ever do it again. And theimportant thing is not whether itlooks like the person, butwhether you’ve looked and seenthat the eyelashes are downthere, and the shape of the nose,and the features. Observation isthe important thing, and the restof it comes later.

18

side as well as dots for themarkings of the fruit. Another boybegan to work quickly and Royreminded him, “Jacob, you’re notlooking. Copy the dots [on thebanana] where they are.” Jacobpicked up his banana and startedto look more carefully beforeapplying the dots, instead of justrandomly poking at his paper. When still another child cried, “I’mdone,” Roy replied, “Yeah. Now,what about that shading we talkedabout? Look to see where it’sdarkest and it’s lightest.He held the pineapple up to thelight and asked, “How are yougoing to handle these diamonds in here?” The child began to drawdiamonds within his pineappleshape, but quickly ran out ofsteam. “I can’t fit more diamonds in,” he complained. Roy countered,“I think you can! I can see some

more spaces. Have you beenlooking at the pineapple? Haveyou stopped looking at it? Keep onlooking at that pineapple.”Kallam tried to finish up his bananaas if art were a contest of speed.“Okay, I’ve done it!” he shouted.Still, Roy suggested that he lookagain, “What I can see are allthese lines and ridges like bones.”With the visual vocabulary— “linesand ridges”— and the added thrillof the word “bones,” Kallamrefocused his gaze on his banana,and the end result brought muchpraise from Roy: “Look at yourshading. That’s fantastic! Art is allabout looking. About looking veryclosely. If you can see it, then youcan draw it.”

Two other children, Emma andAaron, took very differentapproaches to their drawings.Emma’s pepper was quitedetailed—crosshatched all over tocapture “the wobbly pepper”shape and with an addeddimensionality to it that made itlook ready to wobble off the paper.On the other hand, Aaron’s orangewas a quicker sketch, with just a

19

20

Upping the power ofobservation through props

Roy helped intensify the children’spower of observation through theuse of props.The mirrors helpedsome to see more than theyusually might.The sheer variety offruit on the table provided choiceas well as challenge, as heprompted the children to choosepieces that might prove moredifficult to draw. When the childrenwere first presented with the fruitand vegetables, for example, theystarted to select the simplestpieces. Roy, however, chose thepepper and said, “I think it’s afantastic shape, and I’m surprisedthat nobody chose the pepper. ButI can understand it, because itlooks very hard to draw. But themore difficult it is to draw, the betteryour drawing will be.” He showedthem the grapefruit, which he had decided not to include as a prop because if they drew it, “it would just look like a football.”

Books on art were constant props,as Roy encouraged the children to study and discuss the work of

famous artists before they begantheir own efforts. For example, theYear Two children examinedseveral paintings of ClaudeMonet’s waterlilies before theydrew their own egg-shaped lilypads. And Roy showed them arange of artists including Chagall,Klee, Kandinsky, Mondrian, VanGogh, Manet, Matisse, Picasso,and da Vinci, each representingspecific artistic techniques that hewanted the children to try.

With his strong emphasis ondrawing before engaging in othermedia, Roy also used props muchmore familiar to the children thanthe work of classic artists. Forexample, working with the four-year-olds in the Receptionclasses, Roy asked them first todraw a figure of a person; for thistask, he gave no specificinstructions. Next he providedsmall models—Spiderman, ActionMan, and Barbie—to help thechildren look more carefully atproportion, though he admitted

“... the more difficult it is to draw, the better yourdrawing will be.”

21

23

that including Barbie in a lesson on proportion “can be a bit odd!” The differences in the children’sbefore and after drawings werequite remarkable.

Leanne’s initial figure has all theappendages extending directlyfrom the head. The fingers areskeletal, the hair sparse, and thefeatures the simplest circles andlines. Her second figure—doneonly a few minutes later with theaid of an Action Man prop—shows Leanne is learning to look. The eyes have shape andinclude the iris and lashes. Thehair shows a jaunty fringe, andears with detailed inner lines have appeared. The mouth is full.Indeed, the entire figure is filledout, and the fingers in particularhave taken on a more realisticshape. And you can see Leanne’sdissatisfaction with the size of thefigure’s arms as she redrew them,thickening them with every line.Most important is Leanne’saddition of a neck, which gives her figure a better sense ofhuman balance. For a child whowrites her name so neatly in

reverse, taking the time to look isa critical step.

The Reception children’sdeveloping understanding ofproportion is born out in Nikita’sbefore and after figures. LikeLeanne, all her stick figureappendages extend directly from the face, but Nikita’s facedominates the page like apumpkin face on Halloweennight. In her second figure,however, the face takes a morebalanced position. Althoughsome of the features aredetached from the face—like the uplifting hairline and the free-floating ears—both the eyes and the nose containgreater detail. Nikita, too, addeda neck, and while there is notrunk, the arms and legs havemoved from simple lines to widerappendages. The fingers on theleft hand are particularly detailed,with knuckles no less!

Roy often provided these “beforeand after” opportunities fordrawing, allowing the children todraw first from their “mind’s eye”

22

The power of observation depends not only onlooking closely at what you can see, but alsorealizing what you can’t.

1

2726

Not drawing what you can’t see

In a discussion of a Van Gogh self-portrait, several Year One childrenagreed that this was the artist whohad cut off his ear. Roy explainedthat this particular portrait wasdone prior to Van Gogh’s self-mutilation, although there wereother portraits that showed theartist with a large bandage aroundhis head. Because Van Gogh waspictured tilting his head slightly tothe left, only one ear was visible inthe picture, and this positioningmay have led the children tobelieve that the ear was missing:

Roy: Oh, it’s on the other side of his head. You can’t see it. [Roy demonstrated the tilt of the artist’s head by turningslightly away from two boys inthe group.] Can you see my ear now?

Ian: Yes!Roy: Can you? Look at me.

Can you see both my ears?Ian: Yes!Matthew: No. I can’t!Ian: Yes, I can!

Though Matthew realized what he could and couldn’t see, Ian’s insistence shows his continueddependence on what he could see with his mind’s eye.

Later when Roy used mirrors as props to help the Year Onechildren draw their self-portraits,several of the five-year-oldsstarted to draw their bodies aswell. Roy asked them to look againin the small squares of glass he’dgiven them to see if they couldreally see their bodies. Severalchildren tipped their mirrors downto view their shoulders, chests,and arms. Ian even put his mirrorunder the table to view his legs and feet. Roy laughed, but hereminded them that they had tohold their mirrors up to their faces,and when they did, it wasimpossible to see the rest of their figures.

Knowing what you can and can’tsee is critical in drawing. WhenRoy did still life drawings with theYear Two children, he grouped

29

and then offering them helpfulprops to improve on theirperceptive powers. As art educator, Jean Morman Unsworth(2001) explains:

Drawingis first seeing,perception. Very young childrenare unlikely to take notice of thesubject while drawing and theyhave difficulty with proportions.Creating a climate of quiet

concentration, giving the children confidence that they can draw, and leading them to “let their eyes do the drawing”results in sensitive, perceptivedrawings. (p. 6)

But the power of observationdepends not only on lookingclosely at what you can see, butalso realizing what you can’t see.

28

closer, and the brick stands at theback. Hubbard (1989) tells us thatone “way to create a sense ofdepth on the page is to have oneform obstruct our view of part ofanother form” (p. 74).

Roy agreed, but he found the useof overlap rare among his youngpupils. Alex was one of only threechildren in the class who used this technique.

They actually saw it in threedimensions and overlapped andused perspective and depth. It’s lovely what they were doing, and it’s a real surprise. And that

is where I would want them all to get. To see depth and to seethings in three dimensions,rather than in terms of twodimensions and a flatrepresentation of three-dimensional figures on the page.So I’ll try to get them to thinkabout how shading can bringthings forward and how yourviewpoint changes dependingon where you look. And that ifyou can’t see something, thenyou don’t have to draw it!

31

several objects on the table—abrick, a jug, a ring, and a ball. Mostof the six and seven-year-oldsdrew each object individually.Some lined them up like ducks in arow. Others distributed the objectsand added shading, but they stillattended to them one at a time.Pointing to Louise’s still life Roysaid, “Their drawings may havesome texture and detail. And theobjects are close to each other, butthey’re divorced from each other.”From where Louise was sitting notall parts of the objects were visible.The brick was behind both the ball

and the ring. But in her mind’s eye,she pulled them out of their clusterand attended to the details of eachobject on its own.

On the other hand, Alex took intoaccount his view of the grouping.Both ring and ball stand in front,their shapes obscuring parts of thebrick. In addition, the ring and theball are a bit further down on thesurface Alex provided. His jug is even further down on the page,providing a sense of dimensionality. Looking at Alex’sstill life, you know that the jug is

30

33

Seeing through to the emotional heart

Roy began every art session with adiscussion of professional art. He would show the children two orperhaps three different famousworks and encourage them tovoice their interpretations. Whatdid they think the piece was about,and more important, how did itmake them feel?

Because Roy wanted the childrento think about art, Rodin’s TheThinker seemed a particularlyappropriate choice. In anexplanation of his famous bronze,Rodin said, “What makes myThinker think is that he thinks notonly with his brain, with his knitted brow, his distended nostrils andcompressed lips, but with everymuscle of his arms, back and legs,with his clenched fist and grippingtoes.” When Roy showed theReception children the sculpture,the four-year-olds held thefollowing conversation:

Matthew: It’s a statue. He’s sad‘cause he’s all alone.

Chloe: I think he’s thinking.Evie: I don’t know what he’s

thinking of.Jade: He’s thinking of someone to

play with.Libby: He’s sad because no one is

playing with him.

The children, though quite young,were easily able to see the thoughtin the statue’s positioning—to seethrough to the emotional heart ofthe art. They even began to createa narrative around his situation.It was not enough that he was“alone”; instead, there had to be areason for his loneliness, such as amissing playmate.

Reception children in other groupshad stories for The Thinker as well,and they ranged from rathermundane explanations (“He’sputting his hand on his chin ’causehe’s waiting for a taxi.”) to moremeaningful explorations of TheThinker ’s pain: “He was a daddy,and he lost his little girl.” Very few children responded to how

The Thinker made them feel, but Charlotte shared: “I like it. He looks like a nice man.”However, a shift in media—especially the use of colour—and a picture of a boy close to their ownage, brought the four-year-oldscloser to connecting with the art.

Roy showed them The YoungBeggar by Bartolomé EstebanMurillo—a 17th century Spanishpainter known for his tenderportrayals of beggars and orphans.The Reception children began withdescriptions of what they saw, though they soon began to make astory of the boy’s situation:

Callum: He’s on the floor.Charlotte: I can see worms.Brandon: He’s doing his buttons

up and his clothes are ripped.Chloe: He looks like my brother.

He’s grumpy.Natasha: He’s sad. He’s not got

any money ‘cause he’s got no pockets.

Charlotte: He’s got no shoes.He’s thinking about things he wants.

Isaac: Looks like the boy has

slipped. He’s sad ‘cause hetripped over the shrimps. He’s lost his daddy.

Chloe: He’s ripped his T-shirt, and he doesn’t want to be told off.

Callum:He’s a boy like me. I thinkhe’s been hit.

The boy was clearly poor and onhis own, but the four-year-oldsprovided a variety of explanations.Perhaps he’d lost his father.Perhaps he was thinking of all thethings he didn’t possess. Perhapshe was worried about getting intotrouble over his ripped shirt.Perhaps he’d been abused. Olsen (1992) argues “children can be taught to appreciate thegreat works of art by talking aboutthem… When young children arepermitted to become personallyinvolved by talking about thenarrative content of a work of art,their attention span is amazinglylong” (p. 33). And this was certainly true of the Receptionchildren as they studied Murillo’sThe Young Beggar.

When Roy showed this picture tothe Year Two children, the six and

34

“Children can be taught to appreciate the greatworks of art by talking about them.”

the downcast head and eyes led totheir interpretation of his despair.Though to one he looked like agrumpy brother, most others sawan orphan, a beggar, a torturedsoul, lost in the darkness with noparent to guide him.

As the children talked more andmore about art, they learned thatartists could feel lost as well,particularly when they feltdissatisfied with their work. WhenRoy showed the children VanGogh’s self portrait, he asked themif they knew the painter:

Roy: Do you know who it’s by?Deacon: Vincent Van Gogh.

Roy: That’s superb, Deacon!Ellie: He painted himself because

he was sad.Roy: Why do you think he was

sad, Ellie?Ellie: He doesn’t feel very well.Roy:Ah! And what colour do you

go when you don’t feel very well? Chorus: Blue or green!Roy: Greeney-blue. Yeah! Well, is

there any other reason why hecould be sad? What do you think?

Deacon: He was sad because he thought that he couldn’t do reallygood painting. When he didgood painting, he was happy.But when he thought he couldn’tdo good paintings, he feltunhappy.

Roy: Wow! That’s incredible. You’re right, exactly. He wasn’t—the word is confident, isn’t it?You know the word confident?When you can walk down thestreet and feel really good. Well,Van Gogh wasn’t very confidentabout his work. And it’s true. Heliked his work, but he wasn’t sureabout other people’s opinions.

Deacon: He was sad because he thought he couldn’t do a reallygood painting of himself, but in

37

seven-year-olds used moreextensive vocabulary to describethe boy’s situation, but theirconclusions were similar:

Josh: He’s feeling sleepy and has no food. He’s lost.

Sophie: He’s dying ‘cause he has no food.

Connor: He’s got no shoes. He’s left on his own with no mum and dad.

Ellie: Poor little boy. No mummy ordaddy in the dark.

Josh: He’s poor. He’s a beggar.Sonny: I think the boy’s getting

tortured. He’s an orphan, all alone.

The Year Two children were moreable to voice their feelings aboutThe Young Beggar. Ellie said thatlooking at the picture “makes mefeel sad.” Sian explained he was“upset” for the “lost boy.” Josh saidhe was “worried for him,” andSonny expressed “pity” for thetortured orphan.

The children’s willingness toguess, to take risks ininterpretation, and to feel for the

child in Murillo’s portrait shows theclear advantages of discussionabout art. As Fiske (1999) explainsin Champions of Change: TheImpact of the Arts on Learning:“Unlike other learning experiencesthat seek right or wrong answers,engagement in the arts allows formultiple outcomes…. Effectivelearning in the arts is both complexand multi-dimensional” (p. xi).Thus, the children were free toagree and disagree, to build onone another’s ideas, or to put forthconjectures based on their own lifeexperiences.

They looked at the muted tones,and though the boy sat in a circleof light, they focused instead onthe shadow that surrounded him.They noticed the condition of hisclothing—the ripped sleeve, theshoeless feet—and knew that theboy was poor and perhaps evenabused. They studied the scantfood on the ground, and whilesome thought it might have beenthe cause of his stumble, othersfelt it was an indication of how littlenourishment he’d had. Theystudied his face, in particular, and

36

Drawing as a solid form

In his early career as an artist, VanGogh “focused on drawing,persuaded that it was thefoundation of everything” (p. 36).Hythe Community School’s artist inresidence, Roy Smith, agrees.Every session, no matter what thefinal media would be, began withdrawing. And as he worked withthe children over a period ofmonths, he brought in increasinglycomplex props for them to draw.Because he wanted them to drawwhat they saw with “their actualeye rather than their mind’s eye,”he thought unusual shapes thatthey had never seen or had seenonly rarely would help them to lookmore carefully.

Halfway through his year at Hythe,Roy brought in a sheep’s skull forthe Year Two children. He let themtouch it, moving their hands overthe smooth bone, the rough teeth,and the fine lines that zigzaggedalong the seams of the skull. Hetold the children: “It’s interestinghow you can feel something andthen try and draw what you feel.

Like make something that youdraw look as though it’s rough orspiky or smooth. It’s hard to getyour head around it. It’s hard tothink about it, but you can do it.”

He then gathered the childrenaround him and drew the skull,pointing out that because theywere standing so close they couldsee his view: “You need to be ableto see my viewpoint. Otherwiseyou won’t understand it.” Hereminded them again of the needto attend: “So I’m looking andlooking and looking all the time.You look once, you draw once, youlook once, you draw once. Thatway you can start to put in thedetail inside. And don’t worry aboutmaking a mistake. There are nomistakes. But the more you look,the better you’ll draw.”

When the children set to theirdrawing, the differences in theirattention between this session andbeginning ones were notable. Thechildren looked and drew,sometimes leaning in closer to

39

the end he tried to do it and hedid it! When he first tried it, itdidn’t work, but when he tried itonce more, then he did it.

Roy: How do you know this?Chorus: Our teacher read the

story.Ellie:And we painted sunflowers

as well!

The conversation of the childrenwith Roy captures the artist’s poorhealth as well as his emotionaldepression about his work. WhileVan Gogh was prolific and ofteninordinately proud of hispaintings—claiming he would befamous after his death—he alsosuffered debilitating days. Afflicted throughout his life withpoor health, he worried over thefact that none of his paintings sold,save one, and that he receivedlittle critical praise.

Still, when compliments came froma young French critic, Van Goghwas devastated:

Aurier wrote a glowing article about him in an avant-gardemagazine, Mercure de France,

calling him “a terrible maddenedgenius, often sublime, sometimesgrotesque.” This was the firstpublished article written aboutVincent, who, instead ofrejoicing, wrote to [his brother]Theo, “Please ask M. Aurier notto write any more articles on mypainting… it pains me more thanhe knows.” But it wasn’t beingcalled “maddened” that upset him. Vincent thought Aurier hadbeen too flattering and that others,such as Gauguin, deservedmore praise (Greenberg &Jordan, 2001, p. 92).

Thus, the children’s commentaryon Van Gogh’s unhappiness withhis work captures the emotionalheart of the artist as well as his art.

38

study a particular detail, and mostof the seven-year-olds drew instudied concentration for over 30minutes. Even when Roy began tolay out the more eye-catchingmedia—such as fabric paints—togo with the next part of the lesson,they kept drawing. In earliersessions, the children leapt onmore colourful materials, eager forthe paints, the clay, or the tissuepaper for collage. But now theywere so intent on their drawings,they ignored them. Once after Roypicked up the skull to comment onits features, he placed it back verycarefully. But it wasn’t goodenough for the children. Harry andSophie put their heads together,discussing its position to makesure it was exact and nudging theskull back to where they’d lastseen it.

While they worked, many childrenwere silent, though some talked asthey drew about the images theysaw within their drawings:

Roy: What bit are you drawing?Harry: That weird bit.Roy: Your idea of weird might be

very normal to me. So which bitdo you mean?

Harry: That bit that looks like a dogwith its collar.

Roy: Oh! Your picture has turned into a new thing. [RegardingHarry’s drawing] I can see it.

Sophie:Or it could be a horse, andthat’s the mane.

Roy: Yes, there’s the big horse’s head, and there’s the ear and the mane.

Liam: [Pointing to Sophie’s drawing.] That looks like a castle!Don’t you think so?

Sophie:[Tilting her drawing on its side.] No, it looks like a chickento me. See! That’s the head andthat’s the tail and that’s the wing.

Roy: Oh, it does. It looks like a big fat chicken, doesn’t it?

The shapes the children sawimportantly emerged from theiraccurate images of the skull. The intricate whirls, forms, edges,and empty spaces actually lentthemselves to the imaginative eye.

Sophie was particularly willing tovoice the images she saw, and herskull was remarkable in its detail.

41

43

She was a picture of concentrationas she drew, her head moving upand down between a thoughtfulgaze on the skull and then on herart. And Roy was impressed. In aninterview following this sessionwith the children, he explained:

Sophie’s is just outstanding, andI would never ever have imaginedit. All this is observed, and it’s notrandom in any kind of way.Everything is extremelydeliberate. She was just soaccurate and looking really,really intently. And especially

when she came to the nasalcavity. She can see what anegative space is and what apositive space is, and she’s ableto draw those things.

Roy stressed that children need tosee negative spaces like the nasalcavity or the eye socket as shapesas well, because they were “just asimportant visually as the solid formitself. I really want the children toget to a place where they can lookat empty spaces and see a solidform.”

42

References

Anning, A., & Ring, K. (2004)Making sense of children’s drawingsLondon: Open University Press.

Booth, E. (1999). The everyday work of art. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

Coles, R. (1992). Their eyes meeting the world:The drawings and paintings of children.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Fiske, E. (1999). Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning.Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership & the President’s Committeeon the Arts and the Humanities.

Greenberg, J., & Jordan, S. (2001). Vincent Van Gogh: Portrait of an artist.New York: Delacorte.

Hubbard, R. (1989). Authors of pictures, draughtsmen of words.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture & education.Sudbury, Suffolk: Department of Education and Employment.

Olsen, J. L. (1992). Envisioning writing: Toward an integration of drawing and writing.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Perkins, David N. (1994). The intelligent eye: Learning to think by looking at art.Los Angeles, CA: The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Rodin, A. (2003). The Thinker. Retrieved January 4, 2004, from http://www.sculpturegallery.com/sculpture/the_thinker.html.

Unsworth, J. M. (2001). Drawing is basic. Art Education: TheJournal of the National Art EducationAssociation, 54 (6), 6-11.

Winner, E. (1988). The point of words: Children’sunderstanding of metaphor and irony.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wolf, S. A., & Heath, S. B. (1992). The braid of literature: Children’s worlds of reading.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zeki, S. (1999).Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

45

Summary

In many ways, Roy’s commentserves as a metaphor for validatingthe arts in school, for drawing is asolid form, not an empty space.For far too long, art in schools hasbeen regarded as the extra andoften weird bit added when rarespaces in the traditional curriculumoccurred. But as Roy so accuratelystated, “Your idea of weird mightbe very normal to me.” When will itbe that art in schools is normal for all?

Hythe Community School hastaken a chance on art, though thatchance has been encouraged andsupported by CreativePartnerships as well as expandedthrough the artistic andcommunicative talent of RoySmith. And the results are clear.Hythe children, though very young,are learning to attend to andarticulate art—to notice, to discuss,to debate, to ponder, and to portraythe emotional heart of art—throughtheir drawings. Their attention todetail runs contrary to establishedand expected notions of the

attention span of very youngchildren. Their shifts in before andafter drawings through the use ofmore complicated props and doneonly minutes apart attest tochildren’s willingness to look andlook again if given theencouragement and again, thechance.

Children deserve art. Under thebest of circumstances, it buildstheir cognitive stamina, deepenstheir verbal explanations, andoffers multiple opportunities forindividual as well as thoughtfulexpression. “Look at themlooking,” William Carlos Williamsstated, “Their eyes meeting theworld.” With the innovation,intention, and invention of art intheir lives, there’s only onequestion remaining: “Is the worldready for them?”

44

– the opportunity to speak out, listen toand respect others, sharing the knowledge, skills and understandingwe need to live together in harmonywithin the community

– and the chance to look carefully, reflecton what we have learned and see thatthe world is a very special place.

Creative Partnerships Kent is run by asmall, highly experienced team that haslocal, national, and international expertisein facilitating cultural and educationalprogrammes. Team members believe inproviding the highest quality and mostchallenging arts and cultural experiencesfor young people. To this end, they soughtpartnerships with The Sorrell Foundation(and thereby Ben Kelly Associates), RoySmith, Shelby Wolf, and Shirley BriceHeath. The quality of work that has takenplace is the result of an inspired schooland exemplary practitioners who haveseriously undertaken the challenge ofpartnering creatively with teachers,children, parents, and community. These booklets represent sharing of acommon vision that extends from artist toadministrator, teacher to researcher, adult to child. The experiences enjoyedby the children at Hythe are what Creative Partnerships wants for allchildren and believes is the entitlement of every child.

4746

Photographs by Gary Brownewww.garybrowne.com

Visual artist: Roy Smith smithroy@ntlworld.com

Architectural designer: Ben Kelly Designinfo@bkduk.co.uk

Pictures courtesy of:Page 32: Auguste Rodin, The Thinker The Bridgeman Art Library

Page 35: Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, The Young BeggarThe Bridgeman Art Library

Page 37: Vincent Van Gogh, Self Portrait St Remy, Sept 1889The Bridgeman Art Library .

Design: Ranch

Creative Partnerships is a nationalgovernment-funded organisation,managed by Arts Council England,committed to the positive development ofyoung people through cultural practiceand creative learning. The aim is to helpdevelop the imaginations and skills ofyoung people through meaningful andsustained cultural experiences in theformal and informal education sectors.Creative Partnerships currently works in25 areas of England with a range of cultural practitioners, creativeindustries, businesses, and localgovernment bodies.

Learning for Creative Futures is a seriesof publications for general, arts practice,and academic readerships, that portrayshow learning environments engagechildren and adolescents in sustainedcreative work and play. Assuming rolesand relationships that bring closeassociation with professionals who workin creative industries, young learnersexperience the vital mix of imagination,long-term planning, knowledgeaccumulation, skill development, andinformed critique. The internationalresearch team of Learning for CreativeFutures includes scholars from thedisciplines of anthropology, education,linguistics, psychology, political science,and sociology. This international enquirynetwork is led by Shirley Brice Heath andShelby Wolf.

All stories have behind them many otherstories. The tales told in this series are noexception. Behind Visual learning in thecommunity school are the people and thecontexts that give the qualities ofcharacter, time, setting, and energy totheir narratives of creative learning.

Hythe Community School serves theseaside community of Hythe in Kent. The school provides education at theFoundation Stage (Reception Year andnursery children) and Year 1 and Year 2ages 4-7 (following the Key Stage 1curriculum). The school shares its sitewith Hythe Early Years Centre, whichoffers full-day and sessional care tochildren between the ages of 2 and 4 andfollows the Foundation Stage Curriculum.Recognising the worth of each child andteacher, the school seeks to transformeducational standards and raiseachievement, through working with othereducational establishments, parents, andthe local community. Hythe CommunitySchool is a happy, safe and stimulatingenvironment where all members of thecommunity, adults as well as children, arevalued as individuals and encouraged towork together. This community schoolaims to nurture within each person:

– a lifelong love of learning

– the desire to achieve the very best, torise to a challenge and enjoy success

48

The research: From the spring of 2003 through the school year 2004, two scholars, Shirley BriceHeath and Shelby Wolf, looked closely at how language, attention, inspiration, and collaboration withinHythe Community School changed through artistic partnership. Their work brought teachers, artists,and students into the research process as questioners, data interpreters, and readers andrespondents assessing the results as set forth in this series of booklets. The research upon whichVisual learning in the community school is based includes transcripts and fieldnotes recorded andanalyzed during the year and reported here through thematic patterns. Academic publications of theLearning for creative futures series will report detailed comparative analyses of language andcognitive development in the context of specific features of creative learning environments.

Shirley Brice Heath, linguistic anthropologist, has studied how different kinds of learning environments support children’s later language development. She takes as her focus within-schoolcreative programmes as well as sustained interactions young people have in their work and play within families, peer relations, and community organisations. She is the author of the classic Ways with words: language, life, and work in communities and classrooms (Cambridge UniversityPress, 1986/1996). Heath has taught at universities throughout the world—most notably StanfordUniversity and Brown University, and currently as Visiting Professor at Kings College, University ofLondon. Of emphasis in her research are the long-term effects of learning in environments heavilydependent on the arts. Within this work, she has given special attention to science and environmentalprojects, and those that encompass social justice concerns. Her resource guide and prize-winningdocumentary ArtShow (2000) feature young leaders in four community arts organisations in the United States. www.shirleybriceheath.com

Shelby Wolf, an award-winning teacher and educational scholar, is a professor at the University ofColorado at Boulder. Her research centres on children’s language and learning through engagementin literature and collaborative as well as creative modes of expression— discussion, writing, the visualarts, and drama. Her most recent book, Interpreting literature with children (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004),portrays her close work with teachers as co-researchers in the study of children’s literary learning. Shehas worked within numerous school-change programmes to validate the perspectives of teachers whoundertake enquiry into how learning works in their classrooms. She is a senior author of HoughtonMifflin English (2004), a textbook series devoted to helping children improve as writers. With ShirleyBrice Heath, she wrote The braid of literature: children’s worlds of reading (Harvard University Press,1992). http://www.Colorado.edu/education/faculty/shelbywolf.

50

Art is all about looking: drawing and detail explores how children’s language andcognitive abilities develop when they learn to look carefully and draw in detail.Technical vocabulary, types of question and sentence structures develop withincreased engagement with materials, art history and comparative work. As theywork with visual artist Roy Smith, the children of Hythe Community School begin toacknowledge what they can and cannot see, and to understand that creative art liesas much in the detail as in overall design.