" progression of artistic development"

I just did a quick check to see what research has been found to be the stages of art for children. I have my own observations and ideas and I wanted to compare. I'm going to share my list of stages latter.

We can all agree it starts off with scribbling. Then they (who ever they are, apparently they are writing for school boards) have this stage called Preschematic, Schematic, Dawning Realism, and Psuedorealistic stage.
It's after the schematic stage I really start to disagree. Overall though I have issues with the whole thing.
Firstly the age ranges that they give for the stages are too average. I have seen at least one 5 year old boy that would be considered to be in the Psuedorealistic stage. It had nothing to do with any art lessons. It's just the way he was and actually stills is. But I wouldn't call him an art prodigy.
I guess this is a problem that I have with labeling and defining "normal" development in the first place.  Making it one big heaping average when really it variety so much, in children in all areas, but especially with art.
Secondly they call it the" progression of artistic development". I take issue with this also. The stages are built toward a  progress that  gets closer and closer to realism.
But is straightforward representational drawing  really "Artistic"? Oh I can think of a few famous Artist that would take issue with that notion. I take major issue and I consider myself to be representational. .
I don't even want to get into the kind of western cultural bias, that the Stages are build around.  As being realistic is the pinnacle of artistic development that all children naturally strive for. If anything it's a culturally imposed concept that children try to live up to because it is the goal, or at least for some. What about traditional Islamic art as example. How did those artist develop without being able to be directly representational? Or would the authors of the "progression of artistic development" say they were delayed at Dawning Realism stage.
But even lets say without that cultural pressure, even if we assume that it is natural for all children to strive towards realism in their drawing, there is still a distinction between drawing and Art.
Again the word Art gets abused and misused again, but this time by people who should know better.
Lastly if being realistic is really the end game we can utterly skip the Dawning Realism, and Psuedorealistic stages and go right to Realistic with some good technique based drawing lessons. Not saying they should be skipped over. But we are talking about a theory that doesn't take into consideration the full value of the process or the various influence/interference of parents and educators. 

why teaching art is problematic II

As many how to art books are written the easiest way to "teach" "art" is to break up the process into steps. This is  about creating the end product and ensuring that the student will be happy with it.
It's step A to B. . . . C and so on.
It's logical and linear.

It's not how I work in my own art process.  Back in school when I was required to show rough work of a process i would go back and fake it. Because the process happen rapidly in my head not on paper. In a lot of the the how to art type books it is clear this is often what the author is doing too. Going back and faking steps. There are even "steps" that no professional would wast their time with.
 Like really they drew a square first instead of just going ahead and drawing the darn apple.
There is a concept about layout and size that the square is showing, but really many people have naturally already processed this information intuitively? 
But the person looking at this book will mindlessly copy this step without assimilating the concept. Following it will ensure that they will be able to copy the example but NOT applie it to future independent endeavors.

I'm not really sure if intuitive is really even the right word for it. But when you have linar steps vs the seemly randomess of the other end, I don't know of any other word. But to assume that being intuitive is without logic would be a mistake.

I'm not sure who but when I was 8 someone taught me that if you used colour more darkly around the edges it would look better. I didn't know the word contrast. I just knew they were right. From this I started blending out the colour to the center as lighter cause it looked cool. This became a part of my personal esthetic. So I used contrast ever afterword. It looked good to me and it felt right. My work was self directed, nobody was standing behind me to see that my results were good.
 As applied to pencil crayons I figured out I could lay in other colours on top for blending. In shading I intuitively knew that I needed to create a flow of dark to light. Latter seeing that it didn't always have to be from the center but from the light source.

This is an example of applied learning. Linear steps do not encourage independent applied learning, or independent problems solving.  Which at it's heart is the basis of innovation and creativity. Not even being fully conscious of the problem of contrast I found a solution. The only problem I issue I was aware of was how to make art look cool. Unlike math in the area of art there is more then one answer to any problem. My answer was not the only way. But how easy it is to "teach" it like it is.

One of the most common issues I see with students of all ages is using contrast.
The problem is alien to me. So I had to go back into my memory and figure out why. The answer is not my solution but the thinking process that lead to many more solutions. When working on a painting now, I don't applied contrast at step five, but when ever the hell it feels right.
 I think it is possible for step by step to become lessons to become assimilated knowledge and future applied learning but only by those who tend toward that kind of learning and thinking in the first place and even they will likely tend to experiment less.
I really don't think that being naturally good at visual art is a gift. It's more about a kind of problem soloving that some are more naturally inclined towards and or encouraged in.

About my Blog

I am not a writer. I'm terrible but I hope you get the point anyway.
I want to start to lay out some of my thoughts about teaching art. I teach visual art privately to kids as young as 4 to adults.
Having learning disabilities all my life has lead to my interest in the process of learning and alternative learning approaches. I have a  interest in the cognitive side of things and child development. Though I am not an expert in any.  My background is in fine art, drawing and painting.
I have been influence by the classic book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain and my own personal experiences with cognitive therapy.
It seems to me that many people have a drawing learning disability. So many people tell me how they can only draw stick figures.
I had a hard time learning to read and write. But I can do it now. Comparatively learning to draw and paint was easy for me. Anyone can learn to draw like anyone can learn to read. For some easier, some harder. There are just different challenges.
But what about creativity, can that be taught?

Why teaching Art is problematic

Really the first thing I have to do to teach art, is define what is Art. At least for myself.
It's so a first year art college question.  But I have to go back there or else I don't know what it is that I am teaching or instructing. Art is different things to different people.
It would be easier if where I worked they just called it drawing lessons, or painting lessons, or cartooning lessons, sketching lessons or even colouring class. But nope it's ART lessons and I do all the above and more.

Art academics often have an answer that is at odds with the average persons definition. You can see it every time a person stands in front of a painting at an art gallery and asks "How is this art?" Every time I hear that I want to start banging my head against a wall. I tell my students all the time, you don`t have to like it, you can criticize it, dissect it, tear it apart, but don`t say it isn`t art.

Personally the way I see it is you don't get people who haven't studied medicine getting to declare what is and isn't valid medicine in the same way. Only other doctors get to do that.
But on the other hand art is part of culture. Different groups, different culture, different needs and uses for art. Art academia is just another group.
Where the academics have the edge is the question, and the time considering it, not necessarily their answer to it.
 I think otherwise most people take the question of what is and what is not art for granted with their own personal and cultural bias. We are surrounded in a world that is so visual and full of man made images. It can`t all be ``art`` can it?
Art is personal as culture is personal. It's why some people seem to get so mad when their own view is challenged.

Academics it seems to me, are happy to exclude whole groups of people from the "official" dialog. While everyone else doesn't care what they think anyway. Though some do admit, ``I don`t know anything about art.`` and that seems impossible to me. Art is I believe universal.
Personally I see understanding of art as being one of the last great class indicators and divider left and if that is not a good argument for the importance of some kind art education then I don't know what is.

I believe a complete study of art covers or at least touches on every subject that I can think of. History, chemistry, physics, biology, math, philosophy, sociology, psychology and technology. I could go on and on. Never mind the problem solving, expression, creativity and critical thinking.

So when I'm teaching I have to ask what on earth am I even teaching? What on earth am I teaching today? Somedays I swear I`m teaching introduction to comparative anatomy rather then art.

Students and parents are coming in with their own ideas of what it's all about. The angle a teacher takes in the end can be either be personal, or more cynical, using social economic class and culture expectations as a base line and marketing to that. 

Speaking for myself I have had myself balancing between the two as well as a third issue. As I teach art outside the public school system I have to try ensure my students success with the expectations of the school curriculum, by giving them an added edge. Also I try to  fill in as many gaps left by that system that I perceive.

So between a students expectations, parents, peers, other teachers, admission committees, my boss and myself somebody likely not to be happy.  

To answer the question what is art? Well I admit I would love to go around saying that the water colour  paintings of flowers that you see so often in nursing homes and hospitals is not art. All the yellowing landscapes of the new world, or some landowners farm in the sticks is not art. I hate that stuff. I stand in front of it going this is not art, to myself while other people stand in front of it saying wow that's such beautiful art.
I have had to face it that it's what so many of what my students like, flowers in water colour. I'll tell them my point of view, but I have to also opened my mind.
Excluding my personal definition, as someone who teaches it, Art is: an expression of an idea or the human experience(s) and or condition  intended to engage an audience.