Art galleries are waste of time for kids

[Persej]

One of Britain's more thought-provoking artists has said taking children to art galleries is "a total waste of time". Jake Chapman made his controversial comments in an interview with the Independent newspaper. He also made other comments that might anger parents, child development experts, and children. He accused parents of being "arrogant" for thinking children could understand modern art. He said to show a child a painting by the American artist Jackson Pollock was an "insult" to the artist. Pollock pioneered the style of art known as abstract expressionism. Chapman explained that it's like telling the artist his work is "as moronic as a child". He added: "Children are not human yet."

Chapman's comments have created a stir in the art world. Award-winning artist Anthony Gormley said: "I don't think art is to be understood. It's to be experienced… It is to be felt. Feeling comes before understanding." A spokesman from London's National Gallery said: "Children benefit a great deal from visiting art galleries and museums. It widens their horizons." BBC Arts Editor Will Gompertz suggested Chapman's comments were designed to manipulate the media to get more attention. He said: "The formula is simple: When you have an exhibition to promote, say something mildly inflammatory to the press, and watch the column inches… and ticket sales soar."

_http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/1408/140807-art-galleries.html#ixzz3KlCBVTf7

I don't know about that painting on the wall, but this photo with kids is a pure art for me.

 

[Beau]

Personally, I don't find it amusing. It's depressing to see children with their faces buried in their cellphones instead of looking at the beautiful images all around them. Now this picture could be set up, but I don't think it's that far off from reality. It's another sign of the times, where kids are blocking out their reality. And kids aren't alone there, as there's plenty of pictures of adults doing the same thing. It's a sad state of affairs IMO.

 

[Nancy2feathers]

I would say to all if I had my way, "Drop the cell phones at the door. They can be retrieved when you leave the building!".
I remember going to art galleries on school trips many years ago. I thought back then it was just fascinating. No cell phones back then!

 

[Persej]

I also grew up without cell phones. But I still didn't find art galleries fascinating. And I think that most of my friends didn't either.

We were mostly using them as an excuse for social activities. And then our teachers had to tell us to calm down, keep quiet and pay attention! :D
But there were no cell phones to distract us, just us having fun.

On the other hand, I always wanted to come to America to see museum of dinosaurs. I loved dinos. :)

But if you want to take kids to art galleries, then yes, take their cell phones, and let them go inside one by one, or in smaller groups. They are too big distraction for each other.

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

The picture is a bit misleading, as Jake Chapman is referring to modern art (and Pollock in particular) being inaccessible and the picture shows Rembrandt's The Night Watch, which cannot be considered as 'modern art'.

I agree with Chapman about modern art galleries not being a place for children but not for the reasons he states. Honestly, how are you going to explain to your child that when he drips paint all over the floor, it's bad but when Mr. Pollock does it, it's art?

Jake Chapman made his controversial comments in an interview with the Independent newspaper. He also made other comments that might anger parents, child development experts, and children. He accused parents of being "arrogant" for thinking children could understand modern art.

Well, the Chapman brothers are not exactly subtle (their works are actually very offensive - Google it only if you have the stomach for it) and they do like to provoke. So that's probably what this comment is about. 'Children are not human yet'. And when they will be 'humans', they will finally be able to 'get' Pollock?

I don't know about that painting on the wall, but this photo with kids is a pure art for me.

Personally, I don't find it amusing. It's depressing to see children with their faces buried in their cellphones instead of looking at the beautiful images all around them.

FWIW, I agree with Heimdallr. These kids have Rembrandt's The Night Watch (look at that incredible light in the painting!) behind them and they're more interested in their phones. I'm probably old school on that one, but cell phones should be kept in one's bag when visiting a museum.

That being said, we don't know for sure what the kids are looking at on their phones and one could imagine that it's some interactive homework because the museum developed a special app? Yeah, I know, it's a bit far-fetched. ;)

 

[Persej]

The picture is a bit misleading, as Jake Chapman is referring to modern art (and Pollock in particular) being inaccessible and the picture shows Rembrandt's The Night Watch, which cannot be considered as 'modern art'.

Actually, I found that picture on another place and decided to not post in two different topics because they both address the same issue.

I agree with Chapman about modern art galleries not being a place for children but not for the reasons he states. Honestly, how are you going to explain to your child that when he drips paint all over the floor, it's bad but when Mr. Pollock does it, it's art?

You are right. You can't. :D

Well, the Chapman brothers are not exactly subtle (their works are actually very offensive - Google it only if you have the stomach for it) and they do like to provoke. So that's probably what this comment is about. 'Children are not human yet'. And when they will be 'humans', they will finally be able to 'get' Pollock?

Yeah. That is famous remark of many popular 'modern artists'. If you don't like them it means that you are not on their 'level'.

That being said, we don't know for sure what the kids are looking at on their phones and one could imagine that it's some interactive homework because the museum developed a special app? Yeah, I know, it's a bit far-fetched. ;)

Well, there is a little chance that some kids are posting the painting on their facebook wall, along with their comments about how much they liked that incredible light. ;D

Speaking about that, when I was a kid, my mother gave me a little notebook where I was supposed to write down what I saw on my school trips.
But I never wrote a single line in that notebook. And I never understood what to write or why. Nor any of my friends wrote anything. We never had a phones to distract us, we just never cared too much about those things.
I'm just little comparing my generation with these new kids and I don't find too much difference in behaviour.

And what I personally find depressing is that grownup people don't know much about where to take kids on school trips. I think that most of them are just following some old established procedures, and don't think too much about kids' general interests. Which is sad, because art probably can be used as a very powerfull development tool for kids, but our society don't really knows how to use it.

And I see Rembrandt more like a safe path - in cannot hurt them, any maybe it can help them to learn something, so let's take them there.

 

[loreta]

An Art Gallery can be fun if you adapt the gallery for kids: no cell phone at all. Give them brushes, pencils, canvas, sheets, color pencils, paint of many colors, drawing pads, etc. Then let them express their folly in a gallery where there is silence, light! And then show to them Modern Art and tell them they are as better as these artists that are exposed in a Museum of Modern Art...

 

[Redrock12]

I might be off topic, if so forgive me, but when I was about 25y/o, my wife took me to a showing of 15th century Dutch masters at the art gallery in Saskatoon. At the period of my life my primary interests were beer, rock and roll, tv, and movies.
To make a long story short, I was literally awestruck by the beauty of the paintings and the talent of the artists: the subtle coloring and shading, the lifelike emotional expressions portrayed, (for want of a better expression) blew me away. It gave me a whole new awareness and esthetic appreciation of art.
So although at this stage in their life those kids are not interested in true art, they may just need the right time and circumstances, for some of them anyway.

 

[luc]

Yeah, kids and adults being addicted to their cellphones is definetely a sign of the times. I also agree with Mrs. Tigersoap, the problem lies also with the destruction of real art by trendy "modern art", which is largely a perversion. Can't say I blame kids for not being interested in it. I guess you just need some more years of programming in order to like modern art ;)

Pierre wrote a great article on Sott about this: Eradicating beauty: The destruction of art

 

[ska]

I think it is really hard to genaralise on this point. I went with my kids school as a parent helper to the National Gallery in London and the children were leteraly captivated by some of the paintings, Stubbs' Whistlejacket, Rosseau's Tiger, Serauts Bathers.

There were 5 children in my group they really thoroughly enjoyed looking at the paintings, asking questions etc.. and I heard many parents say that they asked to go back with their families during holiday periods - the other groups reported similar stories, the children were animated and inspired to copy what they saw and produced some lovely drawings

Perhaps the art has to be age appropriate, the material suitable, and thought has to be put in by the adults to take them to see things that would potentialy hel nurture their interest

I can't see any teachers in that photo paying the kids any attention. Little wonder that they are all staring at their phones ......

 

[Persej]

I was doing some more thinking about my generation, and about things we did...

One of the things that was very popular were these little notepads. And the point was to go around the town to find some interesting notepad, buy it, and bring it to school. Then, you would show your notepad to your friends, and they would show you theirs. And if both parties found something that they liked exchange would be made. :)

And we had a little albums where we stored our collections. And you can see on the first photo what were the typical topics on those notepads. :)

We were also collecting napkins, and kinder eggs toys like those on the second photo.

So we had "paintings", and we had "sculptures". But it was all, as you can see, tailored for kids. And we just loved them! :)

But would you consider that as an art? I don't know, but that was art for us. ;)