u/bonnibel92

Context: I have been an artist all my life and have an art degree. Professionally, I have been a gen ed homeroom teacher for nine years. This fall I'm going to start my first year as an art teacher (elementary). I'm very excited because it feels like this is what I was always meant to do. At the same time, I'm very nervous. This is an opportunity that I don't take lightly because art was my whole world as a child. I want to do a good job for these kids.

It’s got me thinking about how in the world I’m going to teach art in a way that feels authentic to my philosophy as an artist while still giving kids the tools to be successful in the "art world," even though I don’t often agree with it. I’m starting to think of the concept of art as having two definitions, referred to here as “little a” and “big A.” I’m sticking to examples of visual arts as that is my field, but I would apply it to music, writing, dance, etc.

• “Little a” says that any form of creative expression is art. The definition of creativity here being very literal as it relates to “creation.” Making something out of nothing. Or, more accurately, reconfiguring existing matter and energy into new forms and manifestations. “Little a” says there is no difference in the artistic merit of a middle schooler’s manga-eyed OC’s and the Sistine Chapel. The only “merit” or validation that applies to “little a” is the fact that creation happened. It is factual and irrefutable. The question of whether its perception is “attractive” or “entertaining” to an audience is inherently irrelevant. “Little a” lies in the making, not in the thing made. By this logic, a sculpture itself is not art but rather a byproduct of it. “Little a” art is the experience of creation. I would argue that this is the only interpretation of art is actually objective. Did creation happen? The answer is either yes or no.
• “Big A” is what becomes of artistic expression when presented as a product meant to be perceived by an audience. It is then subjected to evaluation by its audience. The subjectivity in evaluating this art comes from the fact that every audience member has a unique perception of it. This subjectivity is further expanded by the various theories through which art can be evaluated. A piece may be deemed successful from a formalist perspective, but not so through an expressionist perspective. I would say that this subjectivity and its resulting conflict are intended purposes of creating art within a social context, rather than shortcomings thereof. “Big A” is not just about creation, though creation needs to happen, but also about perspective and interpretation. Audience responses to the artwork are therefore part of the art, not separate from it.

I think this distinction is hard to understand for people who either don’t often engage in creative pursuits or those for whom creation is strictly a means to an end. And let me be clear about one thing. I don’t think “little a” is a superior definition than “Big A” or vice-versa. And I don’t have any elitist notions about art as a means rather than an end being less “artistic.” I think the error lies not in any one artist’s approach to or motivation for creative expression, nor in any one audience member’s interpretations of specific pieces. The error lies in attempting to form a single definitive conceptualization of something that is, in its essence, formed by the vast diversity of human experience and expression. Art can be objective yet ephemeral, or it can be concrete yet subjective.

I think that most artists value both “little a” and “Big A” as part of their process.

“Little a” is present because few of us would be engaged in creating art if we didn’t value the experience of it. Notice I said “value” not “enjoy.” Because we all know it’s often very unenjoyable and frustrating. Yet we press on. Because the making feels primal and essential to our beings, just as air, food, and water are to our material bodies. Creation sustains us.

“Big A” is also present because we rely on the external validation of our work as our livelihood or as an integral part of how we relate to the world outside. We desire, sometimes obsessively and other times only to a small degree, for our creative expression to produce specific visual manifestations. This is where “artistic skill” is important. The more I develop my understanding and application of techniques, tools, and materials, the wider my collection of creative “building blocks” becomes.

Picasso said, “Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist.” I think this perfectly encapsulates the dichotomy of “little a” and “Big A.” Become skilled at “Big A” so that you can freely and confidently navigate your experience of “little a.”

Now, here is where my conflict lies. Teaching elementary school art feels like a delicate balancing act of nurturing a value for “little a” while explicitly teaching “Big A” skills. Children at this age are at a critical point in developing their sense of identity and self-efficacy. Ages 5 to 11 take us from absolute dependence on and need for authority, to trying to understand our place as independent entities navigating a social collective. This is where I see kids start to define themselves by one of two sources of external validation: their authority figures or their peers. The educational system in the United States doesn’t leave much room for exploring our own internal validation of self-worth.

So. How do I simultaneously attribute value to the creative expression of the kid who just tore up her paper in frustration, or the one who didn’t follow directions on an assignment because he only wants to paint in his favorite color, and yet emphasize the importance of skill-based practice in the development and harnessing of that expression? Or, conversely, how do I encourage the hard work of a student who is dedicated to gaining technical expertise, while helping them to let go of perfection and to value failure as an intrinsic part of the experience? These two responsibilities weigh heavily on me and seem difficult to fulfill side-by-side.

What do you think?

Do you agree with or have thoughts on my very limited explanation of how I understand art?

How do you balance the importance of free creative expression with the necessity of creating art that can be deemed successful in a social or economic context?