A Child’s Drawing Analysis
Laura Ristau
University of Missouri
“It is important for art teachers to understand how children develop artistically. This kind of knowledge is essential for choosing age appropriate teaching strategies and content for the units and lessons that an art teacher develops” (Unrath & Luehrman, 2009, p. 41). When I first chose this piece of children’s art and started analyzing which stage to place it in, I was not sure where to put it. I looked at this drawing and I saw what looks to me like a dinosaur standing amongst some shapes on the ground next to a figure that looks sort of like a ladder. After looking further at the characteristics of each stage and analyzing with my partner, I decided it primarily fits into the later end of the Preschematic stage. I did notice that it does not fit every description of this stage, and some descriptions match the Schematic stage. “Stage theory concepts should not be rigidly interpreted, but rather flexibly referenced as a general guide” (Unrath & Luehrman, 2009, p.43). Finding this quote helped me realize it is okay if my drawing is not a cookie cutter reflection of one stage, so I continued to analyze the drawing with this new perspective.
I looked at the article by Brittain and Lowenfeld (1970) to learn more about the characteristics of these stages such as scribble, preschematic, schematic, and others. One aspect of the Preschematic stage is that “shapes are geometric and lose meaning when removed from the whole” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476). My child’s drawing uses ovals for the head and torso, rectangles for the neck and limbs, and triangles for the claws. Another characteristic is that “size of objects (are) not in proportion to one another” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476). I saw this in my drawing because the head is about the same size as the torso and the arm is about as thick as the torso. “Objects are distorted to fit space available” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476) is another sign that a drawing fits into this stage. I noticed the arms were stretched out farther than normal, almost filling the whole width of the page. Another clue is when people in the drawing are looking at the viewer. It does seem like the “dinosaur” in this drawing is looking at the viewer, but a very interesting perspective is happening because only one eye is drawn. This makes it seem like we are looking at the dinosaur’s profile and he is looking to the side at the viewers. This detail makes me think this drawing has characteristics of the Schematic stage which is more advanced. “Inclusion of arms (often from head), body, fingers, and toes” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476) in a drawing is another sign of the Preschematic stage. In my drawing a body, claws (instead of fingers and toes), and arms are all present. The arms are not coming out of the head like in the description, but I would still say they are too low to be considered correctly placed. The arms and hands seemed to be huge and distorted, which is an example of parts being omitted or distorted. Last, the article says that “clothes, hair, and other details are to be expected by the end of this stage” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476), and even though that is not really applicable to a dinosaur, I think the teeth and profile view of the head is showing this detail.
Some characteristics of the Preschematic stage are not present in this drawing, but I think that could just show that this artist was in the later part of this development stage. One example of this is that objects seem to float around on the page. The objects around the dinosaur are at his feet and a ladder (or something) is vertical next to him, so this does not apply. Another example is that “head/feet symbols grow out of scribble,” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476). and I feel like the claws on this dinosaur are distinct and purposeful shapes not made of scribble. There are some aspects of the Schematic stage mentioned in this same article that apply to this drawing, but they seem to potentially overlap with lower stages as well. Some of these characteristics include “bold, direct, and flat representation,”“two dimensional organization,” “no overlapping,” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 477) and body is made of geometric shapes. For the most part the rest of the descriptions in this Schematic category did not apply.
The importance of these developmental stages was expanded upon in a 1982 article by Wilson and Wilson. Research was done on children from around the world and it turns out they draw similar forms at similar developmental stages without ever seeing other drawings like theirs before. “The form does indeed appear to come from within the child rather than from some external influence,” (Wilson & Wilson, 1982, p. 40). These patterns were further explored in this article and described using principles, many of which the drawing I analyzed demonstrates. Wilson and Wilson (1982) explain the simplicity principle which means that a child (or adult) will draw an object in its simplest form and leave out many details. There are tons of details this child could have added in this dinosaur drawing but left out, so I think this principle applies. Another principle addressed by Wilson and Wilson (1982) that this young artist used was the fill-the-format principle which means they stretch out an object to fill the space, which can be seen here with the dinosaur’s arms. The last principle from this Wilson and Wilson (1982) article I saw in action was the conservation and multiple application principle. This means the artist will use a shape or form and repeat it throughout the picture. I see this happening in the triangles being used as teeth and claws, the small bumpy shapes on the ground and in the dinosaur’s hand, and in the ovals with two stripes on the ground. Wilson and Wilson (1982) also talked about how even though these principles are common, they are not always used by all children. The principles may have been overridden by another principle, or the child learned by observation and practice to overcome them. It can be our job as educators to help them grow, overcome these principles, and develop their art with confidence.
Having this knowledge will definitely affect the decisions I make about art in my classroom. I do not want to get too caught up in the developmental stages of art because that could hold my students back if I let them know that I am concerned with where they are developmentally. This could negatively affect their confidence. I think it is really important not to judge our students or narrow our expectations of them based on this research. I thought one preservice art teacher explained this well by saying, “Expect that a child will teach you new things and show signs in their developmental level that will amaze and astonish you. Just because a child is of a particular age does not mean that they will automatically operate at a given level of development,” (Luehrman and Unrath, 2006, p. 46). At the same time, seeing how the development of children as artists comes so naturally proves to me that with support, everyone can develop their art skills whether they think of it as one of their strengths or not. I would encourage this specific student to keep drawing what interests them. If as they got older they did not start moving through the stages, I would ask them why they drew certain parts the way they did, and see if they had a reason for it or if they liked it that way. If they wanted the dinosaurs to look less realistic I would encourage that, but if they wanted to make a more realistic dinosaur I would have them look at pictures and more art made about dinosaurs.
It is very important for us as educators to encourage and support our students in all the arts because these are the skills that will lead us to success as our country moves forward. Pink explains this shift in our society from using mostly our left brains, to the importance of utilizing our “whole brain”. He says to succeed, “We must perform work that overseas knowledge workers can’t do cheaper, that computers can’t do faster, and that satisfies the aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual demands of a prosperous time” (Pink, 2005, p. 61). It is our responsibility as teachers to teach our students what is in the curriculum, but to nourish and support this left-brained part of all of us as we do so.
References
Brittain, W. L. & Lowenfeld, V. (1970). Creative and mental growth. New York, NY: Macmillan Co., 22-25, 474-479.
Pink, D. H. (2005, 2006). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 61.
Unrath, K. & Luehrman, M. (2009). Bringing children to art- bringing art to children. Art Education, 41-47.
Wilson, M. & Wilson, B. (1982). Learning to draw: Nurturing the natural. Engle Cliffs, NY, 39-47.
Laura Ristau
University of Missouri
“It is important for art teachers to understand how children develop artistically. This kind of knowledge is essential for choosing age appropriate teaching strategies and content for the units and lessons that an art teacher develops” (Unrath & Luehrman, 2009, p. 41). When I first chose this piece of children’s art and started analyzing which stage to place it in, I was not sure where to put it. I looked at this drawing and I saw what looks to me like a dinosaur standing amongst some shapes on the ground next to a figure that looks sort of like a ladder. After looking further at the characteristics of each stage and analyzing with my partner, I decided it primarily fits into the later end of the Preschematic stage. I did notice that it does not fit every description of this stage, and some descriptions match the Schematic stage. “Stage theory concepts should not be rigidly interpreted, but rather flexibly referenced as a general guide” (Unrath & Luehrman, 2009, p.43). Finding this quote helped me realize it is okay if my drawing is not a cookie cutter reflection of one stage, so I continued to analyze the drawing with this new perspective.
I looked at the article by Brittain and Lowenfeld (1970) to learn more about the characteristics of these stages such as scribble, preschematic, schematic, and others. One aspect of the Preschematic stage is that “shapes are geometric and lose meaning when removed from the whole” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476). My child’s drawing uses ovals for the head and torso, rectangles for the neck and limbs, and triangles for the claws. Another characteristic is that “size of objects (are) not in proportion to one another” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476). I saw this in my drawing because the head is about the same size as the torso and the arm is about as thick as the torso. “Objects are distorted to fit space available” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476) is another sign that a drawing fits into this stage. I noticed the arms were stretched out farther than normal, almost filling the whole width of the page. Another clue is when people in the drawing are looking at the viewer. It does seem like the “dinosaur” in this drawing is looking at the viewer, but a very interesting perspective is happening because only one eye is drawn. This makes it seem like we are looking at the dinosaur’s profile and he is looking to the side at the viewers. This detail makes me think this drawing has characteristics of the Schematic stage which is more advanced. “Inclusion of arms (often from head), body, fingers, and toes” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476) in a drawing is another sign of the Preschematic stage. In my drawing a body, claws (instead of fingers and toes), and arms are all present. The arms are not coming out of the head like in the description, but I would still say they are too low to be considered correctly placed. The arms and hands seemed to be huge and distorted, which is an example of parts being omitted or distorted. Last, the article says that “clothes, hair, and other details are to be expected by the end of this stage” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476), and even though that is not really applicable to a dinosaur, I think the teeth and profile view of the head is showing this detail.
Some characteristics of the Preschematic stage are not present in this drawing, but I think that could just show that this artist was in the later part of this development stage. One example of this is that objects seem to float around on the page. The objects around the dinosaur are at his feet and a ladder (or something) is vertical next to him, so this does not apply. Another example is that “head/feet symbols grow out of scribble,” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 476). and I feel like the claws on this dinosaur are distinct and purposeful shapes not made of scribble. There are some aspects of the Schematic stage mentioned in this same article that apply to this drawing, but they seem to potentially overlap with lower stages as well. Some of these characteristics include “bold, direct, and flat representation,”“two dimensional organization,” “no overlapping,” (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970, p. 477) and body is made of geometric shapes. For the most part the rest of the descriptions in this Schematic category did not apply.
The importance of these developmental stages was expanded upon in a 1982 article by Wilson and Wilson. Research was done on children from around the world and it turns out they draw similar forms at similar developmental stages without ever seeing other drawings like theirs before. “The form does indeed appear to come from within the child rather than from some external influence,” (Wilson & Wilson, 1982, p. 40). These patterns were further explored in this article and described using principles, many of which the drawing I analyzed demonstrates. Wilson and Wilson (1982) explain the simplicity principle which means that a child (or adult) will draw an object in its simplest form and leave out many details. There are tons of details this child could have added in this dinosaur drawing but left out, so I think this principle applies. Another principle addressed by Wilson and Wilson (1982) that this young artist used was the fill-the-format principle which means they stretch out an object to fill the space, which can be seen here with the dinosaur’s arms. The last principle from this Wilson and Wilson (1982) article I saw in action was the conservation and multiple application principle. This means the artist will use a shape or form and repeat it throughout the picture. I see this happening in the triangles being used as teeth and claws, the small bumpy shapes on the ground and in the dinosaur’s hand, and in the ovals with two stripes on the ground. Wilson and Wilson (1982) also talked about how even though these principles are common, they are not always used by all children. The principles may have been overridden by another principle, or the child learned by observation and practice to overcome them. It can be our job as educators to help them grow, overcome these principles, and develop their art with confidence.
Having this knowledge will definitely affect the decisions I make about art in my classroom. I do not want to get too caught up in the developmental stages of art because that could hold my students back if I let them know that I am concerned with where they are developmentally. This could negatively affect their confidence. I think it is really important not to judge our students or narrow our expectations of them based on this research. I thought one preservice art teacher explained this well by saying, “Expect that a child will teach you new things and show signs in their developmental level that will amaze and astonish you. Just because a child is of a particular age does not mean that they will automatically operate at a given level of development,” (Luehrman and Unrath, 2006, p. 46). At the same time, seeing how the development of children as artists comes so naturally proves to me that with support, everyone can develop their art skills whether they think of it as one of their strengths or not. I would encourage this specific student to keep drawing what interests them. If as they got older they did not start moving through the stages, I would ask them why they drew certain parts the way they did, and see if they had a reason for it or if they liked it that way. If they wanted the dinosaurs to look less realistic I would encourage that, but if they wanted to make a more realistic dinosaur I would have them look at pictures and more art made about dinosaurs.
It is very important for us as educators to encourage and support our students in all the arts because these are the skills that will lead us to success as our country moves forward. Pink explains this shift in our society from using mostly our left brains, to the importance of utilizing our “whole brain”. He says to succeed, “We must perform work that overseas knowledge workers can’t do cheaper, that computers can’t do faster, and that satisfies the aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual demands of a prosperous time” (Pink, 2005, p. 61). It is our responsibility as teachers to teach our students what is in the curriculum, but to nourish and support this left-brained part of all of us as we do so.
References
Brittain, W. L. & Lowenfeld, V. (1970). Creative and mental growth. New York, NY: Macmillan Co., 22-25, 474-479.
Pink, D. H. (2005, 2006). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 61.
Unrath, K. & Luehrman, M. (2009). Bringing children to art- bringing art to children. Art Education, 41-47.
Wilson, M. & Wilson, B. (1982). Learning to draw: Nurturing the natural. Engle Cliffs, NY, 39-47.