Drawing and Teaching: How the Visual Arts are Outdating Themselves in Schools
One of the most overused adages that artists encounter when discussing the visual arts tends to revolve around a person’s inability to make art because they “can barely draw a stick figure.” I’m not sure why stick figures have become the litmus test of artistic skill, but especially in a contemporary moment, rendering a bare-bones human form in a drawn capacity feels extraordinarily outdated. In the caves of Lascaux, these forms are a triumph. But 15,000 years later, this feels more like an indictment of our conception of art than a sign of talent.
Over the centuries, the practice of drawing has often served as the de-facto introduction to artistic studies. Even today, most art class sequences begin as drawing classes. Many art schools, colleges, and community programs require some form of drawing before students are permitted to explore different artistic media. And, perhaps most frustratingly, students with expertise in any medium are often required to submit sketches and “observational drawings” when applying to art schools and universities in addition to their more comfortable medium of expression (whatever it may be).
As an example, we at Vision Field spent a lot of time this past admissions cycle working with an absolutely brilliant film and animation student who, in order to apply to art schools like RISD and Pratt, was asked to submit observational drawings in order to even apply to these schools.
This is a student with near-perfect SAT scores and excellent grades who spent thousands of hours hand-cutting magazine articles for stop-motion videos and painting hundreds of panels for a painted animation project. This student wrote a novel when they were in the 8th grade. Yet, for some reason, they needed to show these schools that they could draw something sitting in front of them in order to really be considered an artist of potential. And, sadly, because of this incredibly rigid paradigm of evaluation, this student actually avoided these schools (which would have been lucky to have her) in favor of a more holistic university program. When asked directly why a film student would need to submit drawings, the Director of Admissions at one of these institutions offered up that their first-year program requires a lot of drawing - so students who apply “need to demonstrate that they are prepared for that.”
Wait - why are we basing access to phenomenal artistic institutions on a film student’s ability to draw? And why is the potential readiness for a first-year of an artist’s time at school indicative of what they will be doing in their second, third, or fourth year? We may as well ask biology applicants to take a math test on an abacus as well.
Artists of the 21st century are using advanced computer algorithms, blockchain technology, gene editing, immersive media, 3D printers, iron and steel, thread, holograms, painting, drawing, photography, social media, virtual reality, etc. Artists plan and execute large-scale projects - working in teams and utilizing deep project management skills and creativity. Artists are disrupting political and social discourse; they are altering landscapes, they are creating Utopias, and pushing the boundaries of thinking and movement. All of this and we are still using a pencil as the entryway.
Before we receive angered responses to this, we must mention that, of course, drawing is incredibly important to some artists. It synchronizes the hand and the eye, focuses thinking on value and tone, is easily accessible and efficient; and it is able to be evaluated quickly through its standardization. Drawing can form a sincere foundation for seeing, making, and understanding art. In this way, it is understandable, to some degree, why schools and individuals want to see drawings in order to gauge “skill” - basically because it is simple.
But underlying this is a more insidious issue with how the arts are conceived and evaluated in culture writ large, and how art classes, schools, and universities are serving to support this established order. It is undeniable that, while drawing can certainly be learned, some people are naturally good at it, and some people are not - or, more appropriately, some people are inclined to learn it and some are not. And this roadblock stops as many creatively inclined students as it welcomes. These ripples extend beyond the classroom into the larger culture where walls of elitism serve as gated entries to those who did not persevere through their government-mandated arts electives.
Arts learning can be and should be altered to be as inclusive as possible - meaning students with different skills, backgrounds, and learning styles should be accepted and nurtured to find their creative and artistic voice. And this process must be replicated in elementary schools, secondary schools, cultural institutions, college admissions, and even in college classrooms - to preserve and expand possibilities and opportunities. Drawing, and, by extension, painting, do not represent inclusivity - they are simply an avenue that, historically, many artists have followed. But that does not mean we should all continue to travel in that direction.
Instead, we would like to see a more open conception of how the visual arts can be taught. Questions we could and should ask ourselves:
How do people learn best and what does that look like for the arts?
How do we apply technical skills as a means to support a flexible expression of ideas rather than as a marker of success?
What do the arts teach well and how can we employ this teaching and learning in other subject areas?
How can we help students understand tools such as color, form, line, texture, and shape in a way that does not force them into a box - and provides the basis for creative problem-solving and motivated exploration?
How can we alter the use of material to offer new possibilities of thinking rather than close them off?
How can medium-inclusive art be taught to welcome even those who do not consider themselves artists?
In order to expand creative access, we must determine how a more dynamic teaching and learning framework can seek to engage thinkers in the creative fields rather than technicians - and determine how technicians can become thinkers. We must expand arts access and seek quality arts education that orients students towards understanding and questioning rather than just enacting. But this requires a reframing of the arts as something different than the conception that exists in most educational and public spheres.
As high-stakes academic programs continue to blossom; anxiety over potential and future orientations, identities, and professions continue to grow; as our American youth continue to construct new ways of doubting themselves and hiding under various guises, studying the arts and expanding creativity have never been more important. Understanding self-value, respecting thoughts and creations, rallying against monoculture and one-size-fits-all-isms, and promoting critical thinking and empathy - all of these things are necessary and important for everyone, not just those that can draw a perfect flower with a pencil and paper.
