We remember them and they change us–how we think or experience the world, inspiring us or giving us a new lens to look through. They speak to us about the world, ourselves, or something we’re going through. In order to facilitate engaging, meaningful art discussions, we have to focus on the part we already know inspires deep, critical thinking and unique student insights–personal connection.Īrt = Form + Theme + Context + Personal ConnectionĪrtworks that stick with us stay in our hearts and minds because we connect with them on a personal level. The students are missing the forest for the trees. The traditional art criticism model is too focused on the details. There’s a reason why the four steps of art criticism leads to lackluster lessons and bland conversations.
Finally, you ask for their opinions of the artwork–rarely getting a response beyond “I like it” or “I hate it” from most students. Together, you describe the physical characteristics of the artwork, analyze the artwork using the elements of art and principles of design as a guide, then the students share their interpretations of the artist’s intent. But this art criticism model has always felt incomplete to me, especially when teaching an art criticism lesson.ĭoes this scenario sound familiar? You guide your students through the four steps of art criticism as you’ve been taught them. Many of us are familiar with the traditional Feldman model of art criticism steps: Description, Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation. Download a SPARK art criticism steps poster and worksheet for your classroom! Inside: Discover SPARK, the complete art criticism and discussion framework that ignites deeper student art connections and more engaging classroom art discussions.
0 kommentar(er)
