Peers and Planning

As I was reading Courtney Bryant’s article A 21^st-Century Art Room: The Remix of Creativity and Technology, I kept thinking back to my own high school experiences with art. I compared my time in the art room to situations that Bryant describes, and a lot of what she said really started to click with me. Many of the things that she brought up are practices that have been standard in my classes at Penn State. But when I stepped back to evaluate, I realized that I didn’t do these things in high school.

One of the most important topics that Bryant brought up was peer interaction. I started to reflect on the interaction that I had with my own peers in high school. We talked to one another during class, asked opinions, gave some input. But it was usually about isolated parts of a project, like “I would use red” or something of that nature. Or, “I like it.” In my graphic design classes, students would help each other with technical issues or suggest techniques. But these were usually incidental and scattered interactions. They were vaguely encouraged but never emphasized. No teacher ever told us we should work with one another or suggested we discuss each other’s work. We never did a critique. I think that this was something that was severely lacking. After coming to Penn State, I have realized how vital critiques can be to the creative process. And not just at the conclusion of the project, but throughout the creation of it. I have not only seen improvements in my art, but also in my understanding of visual elements and principles. The process of critique has yielded cognitive improvements for me by making me apply abstract concepts.

Bryant also talks about the pre-production process. I think that a lot of students aren’t interested in planning. I know that as a high school student, I wanted to do preliminary sketches of bigger projects, but I had no interest in any further planning. I saw it as tedious and a waste of time; I was eager to jump into the project. After finishing my projects, I would often wish that I could go back and redo them. After seeing the end product, it often was missing something­–the technical skill was usually there, but for some reason, I would look at my work and realize it was boring. My themes were undeveloped. I realized later that I didn’t spend enough time developing concepts.

I am currently taking a sculpture class. I have not had much experience with sculpture in the past, and I was a little intimidated by it. But the combination o planning and peer involvement and critique has helped me immensely in becoming more comfortable. It has also improved my satisfaction with my work, helped me with the conceptual aspect of my work, and allowed me to develop a more effective creative process. Getting input on my work also helps me to be more motivated about what I am doing. I have also realized the effect that better planning can have on my work. For my last two sculptures, I was required to make a cardboard mock-up of the final piece. While at first I was annoyed about having to assemble it, I was extremely glad I did. After looking at the mock-up, I realized that what I thought looked good on paper was bland, not engaging–boring– in 3D. I ended up scrapping both of my original ideas and ended up with a much better result.

These are anecdotal examples and are based upon my own experience, but I think that it mirrors what Bryant wrote about her own classroom. She provided evidence of the success of her methods, and I can relate to this through my own experiences. I think that these are problems and themes that many people have encountered at some point. But Bryant did what many teachers do not. She realized that what she was doing was falling short, and she did something about it. This ability to evaluate oneself and want to improve is essential to being an effective educator.