Drawing's Demise: U-Shaped Development in Graphic Symbolization

Abstract

Comparisons between the expressive and aesthetically pleasing drawings of preschool children and the work of professional artists have been made by artists, philosophers, art educators, and researchers investigating early symbolic development (Arnheim,1969; Gardner,1973; Read,1945; Schaefer-Simmern,1948; Winner,1982). The recognition of tangible similarities has provided an illuminating perspective on the development of an early facility in graphic symbolization (Davis, 1991; 1993; Davis & Gardner, 1993; Gardner, 1973). A concurrent phenomenon has been observed: the young child's early prowess in graphic symbolization seems to decline with the onset of school, submerging or disappearing by middle childhood (ages 8-11). Apparently because of the increase in an inhibiting mandate for photographic likeness, children in middle childhood are thought to be grounded in a stage in which the free expressions of preliteral days are replaced by failed attempts at replicating physical reality or formulaic reproduction of stereotypes thereof (Gardner, 1980, 1982; Ives, Silverman, Kelly, & Gardner, 1981; Rosenblatt & Winner, 1988; Winner & Gardner, 1981). At this stage, most individuals give up entirely on their early artistic explorations. Except for artists whose artistry is often declared by adolescence (Winner, 1982), it has been suspected that there is little if any development in skills of graphic symbolization beyond the literal stage. U-shaped Development This course of development from display of early facility, to disenfranchisement in middle childhood, to mature realization only by an artistic minority, has been described as u-shaped (Davis, 1991; 1993; Davis & Gardner, 1993; Gardner & Winner, 1982). In this configuration, the highly expressive drawings of the youngest children and the adult artists are envisioned at the two high peaks of the u, with the conventionalized drawings of children in middle childhood bottoming out on the floor of the u. Indeed, it has been suggested that the cessation of development in drawing in middle childhood extends the floor of the u off to the right, transforming the configuration into an L, perhaps L for literal (Davis & Gardner, 1992). The Current Study Comparisons between child and adult art are usually made haphazardly. Champions of children's art will compare any five-year-old's drawing with, for example, any drawing by Miro or by Klee. In this study, ideational thematic constraints for the comparison were established by presenting the same drawing tasks to children at different ages, to a nonartist population, and to adult artists. Subjects were asked to draw happy, draw angry, and draw sad; the resultant drawings were compared across a number of aesthetic dimensions. Using the developed end state of the artist's work as a tool with which to measure the developing expressive efforts of children, this study focuses on the specific attributes that unite and separate the drawings of children and the drawings of artists. The research is guided by an hypothesis of u-shaped development; the course of development of the early facility is charted with consideration of what if anything is lost, and if lost, when. In order to facilitate this inquiry, it was necessary to define and operationalize a scale of criteria for assessing aesthetic dimensions across which the drawings of different populations could be informatively compared. The literature was reviewed with this objective in mind (Davis, 1989). The resultant scheme is based in large measure on early research done at Harvard's Project Zero (e.g., Carothers & Gardner, 1979; Gardner, 1973, 1979, 1980; 1982; Gardner & Winner, 1982; Winner & Gardner, 1981; Winner, Blank, Massey, & Gardner, 1983; Wolf, 1987) and on my own preliminary research (Davis,1986; 1989), all of which is informed by the work of Rudolf Arnheim (1966, 1969, 1974) and Nelson Goodman (1976, 1978). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 73 citations exist upstream.