Questions on the Trimis and Savva reading, "Artistic Learning in Relation to Young Children's Chorotopos: An In-Depth Approach to Early Childhood Visual Culture Education."
How is one's environment tied directly with knowledge?
The authors separate the idea of "thinking in" and "thinking about art." Why is it important to separate these two ideas?
When creating a lesson, why is it important to consider each of the stages (preliminary, enrichment, production, and reflection)? Is one of these stages more important than another?
There is mention of the children making decisions about how the class activities go. How much control should the students have over what the class does? And how much control should each individual student have over their art making?
During the reflection stage, children were encouraged to discuss their work with other students. Should the teacher be giving students directions in what kind of things to be saying about other student artwork? or should the sharing be strictly a student discussing their own artwork but not commenting on other students?
The in-depth approach described by the authors is noted as flexible. How can it by applied to other age groups?
Why is it important for students to see themselves as part of their environment? How does this aid to their development and artistic growth?
One's environment is directly associated with knowledge is because it stems our exploration, interest, and further investigation. These are just three examples, but there has to be many.
ReplyDeleteThe authors separate the idea of "thinking in" and "thinking about art." Why is it important to separate these two ideas?
I think it is important to separate these two ideas because they are two different statements. I think "thinking in" art is almost like making yourself a metaphysical being actually placing yourself in the art world- within a physically piece. Metaphorically, you are completely engaged in the work. I think "thinking about art" is thinking about visuals and ideas attaching to art making.
I think that it is important to consider each stage because they are the frameworks of learning. I actually asked the same question of which one is more important, so I am unable to answer that.
I think the students should have a good amount of control, so they can see themselves as decision makers and strong-willed individuals. This could be answered in terms of art making and class contexts. I just don't think you should limit you students, but at the same time you can't give them too much control- but they will be unaware most likely of what to do with it- there needs to be a harmonious balance.
I think it should be students commenting and interacting on both their own artwork and other students to create more meaning and context. I think the teacher should guide this discourse to an extent- again a nice balance.
I think this approach can be applied to other age groups by changing the complexity of the curriculum- the content should be altered.
I think it is important for students to see themselves as part of their environment because it makes them feel part of a bigger whole- a community- and that gives children confidence and worth for the most part. This aids for their development and artistic growth because it gives them context and context to analyze and reflect. These skills give them artistic knowledge and growth.
I like that you question how the article addresses the idea of "thinking in" and "thinking about art.". I think that they should be done separately and compared. This way you would consider both side of the question before you formulate an answer. As for the rest of your response you really went in to a lot of detail.
ReplyDeleteWe haven't done any lessons yet but what would you consider to be the goals and foundation of a lesson in chorotopos? the way you answer that will determine how you wish to structure the lesson.
Over all a good job. I would like to see more personal opinions though.