Spatial Relations in Children's Drawings: A Cross-Generational Comparison

Abstract

development is essentially a matter of maturation or learning. Art educators such as Kellogg (1970)8 and SchaeferSimmern (1948)'0 believe that the child is genetically programmed to proceed in art through a series of stages. Since it is best not to tamper with nature, teachers ought to leave the child alone and protect him from adults who would impose alien artistic conceptions on the inherent logic of child art. Others, such as Eisner (1972)6, reject this approach and view age-related changes in children's drawings as a consequence of learning. Although children can discover techniques of artistic representation on their own if necessary, Eisner contends that progress can be enhanced by competent instruction. It is extremely difficult, if it is possible at all, to separate maturation and learning in child development. Each factor exists in a state of complex interaction with the other. It is clear that a given level of maturation is prerequisite to certain learning and that learning in turn affects the level of maturation. From a theoretical point of view the nature-nurture controversy remains unresolved. However practical decisions must be made. Should art educators behave as though artistic development is a matter of maturation and allow it to unfold naturally or should we assume that artistic development is a matter of learning and intervene in order that it be maximized?