Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Teacher Drawings And Real Art

DD had a good week. Friends came over, she went to a movie, she went to the pool, we went to a birthday party, we bought her school supplies and then this happened:

I found it as I was decluttering my books, bought in 1985 as a newly qualified teacher. My students often tell me what a good artist I am but I know it's just 'teacher drawing'. It's not hard to learn simple line drawings to illustrate your lessons on the whiteboard. There's no shading or detail involved or even much perspective. Anyone can learn to do teacher drawings.

I gave the book to DD as she loves drawing. She has spent hours drawing detailed landscapes and roomscapes full of animals, plants, furniture, and people. Here are just a few of her creations:

 I think there is a definite point when teacher drawing becomes art. Don't you?


  1. Fascinating. I'm doing a lot of thinking about what constitutes 'art' at the moment, and the distinction you've made above is intriguing.

    1. Now you've got me thinking about why my simple line illustrations are not art. What about the school of Naive Art? That also doesn't have shading or much perspective. maybe the distinction is talent versus copying?

    2. From wiki "Naïve art is any form of visual art that is created by a person who lacks the formal education and training that a professional artist undergoes (in anatomy, art history, technique, perspective, ways of seeing)." So that would be me then? Interesting, this write up at the tate includes a picture from Alfred Wallis, and we saw some of his pictures in Cambridge last week. I asked at that point what makes something art as they look very childish/amateur if that makes any sense, and I don't think I'm any closer in understanding!

    3. What I found interesting is 'primitive' art, which according to google is artists with formal training imitating naive art. Well if that's art then so is naive art.