When does a student become an artist?

(This post is an aside I'd like to share with you; something that's been brewing in my head after reading a few things.)

How important is it for students--particularly elementary, middle and high school students--to consider themselves artists?

In my class, this perception/misperception usually manifests itself as protestations of unfairness for criticizing their personal expression. Their complaint centers less on receiving a grade for their work and more on receiving anything other than an "A" for it. And, you see, that's the crux of the matter.

Some of my students are under the delusion that I'm somehow obligated to give them an "A" regardless of what they hand in. When I ask what other class they have that operates like that, they don't have an answer. After all, even a creative writing assignment has to have some structure and follow grammatical guidelines in order to be understood.

Having attended conferences for art educators, I have found those holding to both sides of this debate to be rather vocal. Some teachers think it meaningless for them to "grade" a student's creative output. For them, grades are hurtful, even harmful, to the development of the child and her artistic growth. On the other side of the aisle, they believe that art education is like any other field of study where effective grading serves the student as skills are taught and craftsmanship is nurtured.

So, what are your thoughts on this topic?

If you're a parent, what are your attitudes towards your son/daughter's artistic production? Have you had run-ins with your child's art teacher? What was the issue?

If you're an art educator, what is your philosophy about grading your elementary, middle or high school students' creative output? What does your rubric look like?

I appreciate your feedback!

Art teachers and artist teachers

I've been asked about the "art teacher versus artist teacher" dichotomy on interviews within the past few months. My answer always remains conditional as it relates to me; for others it may be more monolithic. The distinction strikes me as subtle but profound. Obviously, the education of children is paramount. What I discuss below has that as the foundation; however, the outcome may be vastly different.

Let's discuss categories. When I refer to "art teachers," I'm speaking about a specific brand of art teacher, someone focusing on breadth versus depth. Namely, those who believe they should know a little about everything and be master (or, near-master) of no particular discipline. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't prefer one discipline to another. Their focus is on broad exposure, or breadth, so they don't believe it's necessary to take regular classes to refine or update their skills. And, so, they don't. The reasons for their attitude will run the gambit from lack of funds (either personal or district reimbursement) to indifference.

When I speak of "artist teachers," I'm referring those art teachers who teach but believe it is incumbent upon them to push forward in their own artistic development. Or, they already have gallery representation or simply sell their work regularly but privately. In the end, though, their attitude is on personal growth and development. Their own artistic development is part conduit, part bridge to helping their students move forward in the beginnings of their own artistic journey.

Some districts for all grade levels believe that exposure is paramount. Period. Personally, I don't believe art should be the subject where kids are encouraged to dabble. I think it's a poor message to send; at least, a poor one for high school. What other subject is that the norm? As the school years progress, exposure should shift to a more mature expression and approach. I'm sure some would disagree with me. So, personally, if a district is looking for an art teacher whose focus is on breadth versus depth then I may not be the person for them.

If a district is looking for someone who believes it's important to continually practice and grow in his own art, then I'm their man. To me, this is foundational. Mind you, the practice of this will look different for me than someone else because of where I am in my life.

For instance, I have a four year old and a two year old. My art was--for all intents and purposes--put on hold because being a father for me was (and is) paramount. That, of course, isn't where I want to be. I want to be taking classes and working on my art at home. It's just hasn't been possible until now. Thus, my class at Fleisher.

Since I'm coming from the private sector and not specifically from an education background, I was doing non-classroom work. During that time, I do my best to remain creatively engaged but this wasn't in the artistic output I would have chosen for myself. Namely, I was last working in the Internet industry as a creative director and project manager. As such, I worked with clients and provided them with my creative output and guidance. There were other outlets for me creatively as well, but none were on par with the work I so deeply desired to be doing: representational painting.

But, like I said, I've been able to start taking classes; the first was Still Life Painting with David Berger at Fleisher Art Memorial.

I'd like to hear from those who agree or disagree with me on the two categories I've laid out above. What are your thoughts?