Children's art

I am responding to Aditi's post on children's art. I think that there is a line drawn between children's art and adult's art. I can't think of a museum where a 5 year old's picture would be presented next to and 30 or 40 year old's piece. If you go to a book store you rarely see an adult in the kids section unless they have kids. I have never seen an adult that buys kids books just for themselves to read. I think it is because adults hold themselves on a higher level than kids. When kids do have talent, it is quite difficult to get it compared to that of older artists. I think this is in part because the older you are, the time you have had to learn, and i think to most people it is frustrating to discover that someone who did not take the classes you did or took the time to practice like you did is better than you.
As for where the line would be drawn to distinguish between the two, I have no idea. I do know that there is a line though, because of the way our society is. If you have ever seen the cartoon Madeline,there was one episode where she discovered that she was an amazing artist and someone saw her painting when it was done and thought it was magnificent. They did not know that she drew it though. Hundreds of people came to see her beautiful picture, and then towards the end discovered it was her picture, and did not like it anymore because she was a child. I feel like that definitely happens sometimes. I also know that the children's books i read as a child had a bigger impact on me in comparison to some of the books i read now. The phantom tollbooth was one of my favorite books, and it taught me that you shouldn't complain, and that there is always something to do when your bored.
Question: Should children's artwork have more recognition in the world? Or are things fine the way they are now?

To be Unique

Adrian Pipers view on art objects is that once they are perceived by us, they lose their unique identities because they "are absorbed into the plans and projects we view them as serving. I do not agree with this because I think that we can look at an object and just appreciate it. I think that the biggest problem is whether people want to take the time to appreciate said object. There are so many beautiful and interesting things in the world that we cannot admire all of them. For example, you normally will not see someone admiring the design of a fork, but many people stop to admire the flowers or trees around campus. In my opinion, the flowers are far more interesting to look at than the fork is. I think that many people just do not want to think in depth about certain objects around them. I need my chair to sit in and do homework but I do not find it particularly amazing. Even if it was in a picture or was just on display,I still do not think I would find depth to it.
If piper is right and objects lose their uniqueness through perception, does that apply to people as well? If not, then why would objects made by unique people lose their uniqueness when people don't?

Bad artists?

I am responding to Skyla's post question: Is there really such thing as a bad artist or is a bad artist not actually an artist at all?
I don't think there are bad artists because everyone in the world likes different things. I might have the opinion that a specific artist has bad work, but that does not make them a bad artist because I know that someone else probably loved their work. Mass Moca is a good example. I go there and look at somethings and think" uck, i strongly dissaprove of this" but if it was dissaproved of by everyone, it wouldn't be there, so clearly someone thought it was good. I think that experience obviously helps improve art aesthetically. That just means that with more practice, more people will like your art, But i do not think that there are bad artists.
Question: If someone says they are not an artist, but we think of them as one, what does that make them?

Teaching Art

In response to Lisa's Question "Do you think there is a specific way of teaching art?"
I do. I think that teachers should first go over the fundamentals. So they would teach students how to draw easy things first and then progressively get more difficult as time moves on. I also think that when teaching art, it is important to cover what other artists have done, and what was successful and what wasn't. I feel like art history is an important part of learning how to do art. There are so many different kinds of art that classes need to be broken down. I think they did a good job of that here at the college. For example; painting and drawing are separate classes. This way, you get to learn more about the subject. It is also good to separate the subjects because you are supposed to take different approaches to each. If you take a paintbrush to drawing class, then you are not going to be able to accomplish anything. People always think of art as being very unstructured and free, but there are a lot of rules to follow depending on what you are doing. It takes a long time, and like music, you can only get better with practice. I am one of the types of people that have trouble learning when there aren't rules to follow. It is nice to have that secure learning environment where you know exactly what the teacher wants from you and how you can improve on your next assignment. So an art class professor would assign homework like "go home and draw eight people in different area's using charcoal pencil. Don't use any shading for this assignment." I am taking art classes right now and I have those types of assignments all the time.
question: Should teachers use multiple teaching methods in class to attempt to reach everyone? or just stick to one distinct style?