Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
Art for children and not only
The following text
was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been
So it can be used
only for general introduction.
First of all, as usual,
it is necessary to define the terms. "Children" - the concept is
extremely broad, and I propose to divide at least the standard categories:
"pre-school" and "school" age.
As is known, if not
started and not properly built to work with the child in preschool age, then
everything much more difficult. And talk about "art for children", I
propose to begin with it, more precisely, with an amazing and unique time -
from two to five. Well, that "give" a child two to five?
With the literature, it
would seem easier. There is a huge reservoir of children, child of literature
from Russian folk tales to "Uncle Styopa". By the way, and with them
the situation is ambiguous, but now the only state that children's literature
there is strong demand. Even in the academic editions of the classics still stands
at the end of the separate category of "Poems for children". And what
to do with these types of art, such as painting, sculpture, music, graphics,
In my head somehow
immediately comes something like the design of children's rooms in fashion
magazines. Then you start to think "children's" works of composers -
so it's not "children"and "to teach children", i.e. some
way simplified. And what "adult" music to include in the same child?
Probably every right to say, not only heavy rock or metal, and classical music
more or less whole. With this we will not argue, and ask the following
question: what paintings to hang in the nursery, which albums to let the child
Let's not forget that
the child - from two to five", it is difficult to give any conclusive
review. His perception primarily auditory, visual and tactile, and he is our
explanation of the type "well, the picture is terrible, but it is a great
art (Picasso, for example), so look at her, son, obstragirovanno from specific
bombing specific Guernica, perceive as a masterpiece, and nothing more" -
and nothing will not. The child will look at the figures on the canvas. What he
sees in them? Not affect whether the picture on the child's psyche negative
Well, I foresee the
readers of "soul-saving" recommendations: if there is a risk of
negative emotions, why risk it? The child must be fully protected from art, he
must traced images with details when eyes - something with cilia (I'm not
kidding, this is the Director said to me a solid children's publishing house).
And who the most-the longest eyelashes? Of course, the Disney characters!
Here is a modern point
of view of the "mass market". But Disney (with my great respect for
this Corporation) - like a drug. Once the plant "on his child - and off it
went! Disney's all-embracing, has products for any age and level of
development, something even teaches. And then - a clear line on mass culture,
The art here, however,
at anything. And if seriously consider the problem of art for children, one of
the main objectives will be the highest possible orientation of the child not
to mass culture, but on the works of art, and these, in any form, even
black-and-white reproductions. But, again, all, or not all?
Back to Guernica Picasso
in the apartment where the child lives "from two to five. So isn't it
better to remove it from the wall, until the child is at least grows up?
Here, I foresee serious
objections, and from the most intelligent people with the most broad-minded.
Why, they say, do not teach a child "from childhood" to Picasso? And
by Rembrandt, I will say, too, can not? In General, the child is able to
perceive any art, if art (Picasso - art of arts). Let perceives as it may, it
is still his life sooner or later arise and with blood, and wars, and dirt.
Yeah turn on the TV, you'll see something you never dreamed Salvador Dali!
Yes, dear potential
opponents, formally, you are right. Moreover - and "appropriate" video
your child eventually get out of the closet, where you naive hidden away, and
in the yard (kindergarten) from his peers do not protect...
But we're talking about
art. After all, if the child is from two to five" saw on TV something
"wrong" and was able to understand, you will understand, and your
comment that it is not, it is wrong, etc. your Comment to art he will not
understand now, but much later, if you understand at all.
But the impact on the
child's artwork this does not diminish. That impact, as it most seriously.
How to evaluate the
gravity of the impact on child and an adult, even with the higher security)
works of art? This will be useful to cite a few examples.
Comrade Stalin, as is
known, often spending time in vain. And if, down his dictatorship, he has given
so much "attention" it's art, destroying some and raising others, he
did not simply so.
And if Nicholas I, who
had a lot of worries, autocratic managing a colossal Empire, spent the time to
read (censorship) all the works of Pushkin, he did not simply so.
And not just saying Osip
Mandelstam, that the art we are very respected, because only we have him
Well, kill, say, not
only here, but in
So, there is a modest
reproduction on the wall of your house a grain of what killed Stalin? And he,
as we have said, little is done in vain. As, however, and his Majesty Nicholas
I, and genosse Hitler, and Senor Pinochet...
So what is it about art?
This artist has not only
secrets. He owns a greater ability to process and translate the deep layers of
your subconscious to give his picture, if you want some energy charge. But what
is the question.
The energetic charge,
negative or positive, the majority of artists of the twentieth century, the
century of the terrible wars, nuclear weapons and Auschwitz - could put on
canvas? And composers to translate into music? And the writers - in books? I
will disown" from thousands and thousands of hacks - we are talking about
these artists, composers, writers... Their subconscious is a great power, a
terrible weapon. It's the fear of dictators, it does not suffocate and to
select, but cannot be killed - manuscripts, as you know, not burn...
You give your child to
play a loaded gun? No? And combat grenade? Also not? And art, say, a child can
be any, would be real...
So, dear parents: your
child, even (God forbid) all TV programs, will not get into your subconscious
such a thick layer of black, as from the contemplation of reproductions of many
of the greatest works of art of the twentieth century, even sketches to which
sold at Sotheby's for millions of dollars (for example, the same
Position will be
destructive. This is not, this is not... And what can?
The answer seems
obvious. Kind, warm, bright art.
Not to impose the
reader's personal tastes, I will not name concrete names. Let me just say the
In the art of
distinguishing between good and evil is not easier than in real life. But if
you approach this problem from the position of theology, neo-Freudian, or any
other philosophical systems, we will see that there is a subconscious, perhaps
even worldly criteria according to which in most cases any person still get the
right answer. For example, no casuistry not justify a maniac Chikatilo and not
be called a killer cardio Amosov, although under the knife last died certainly
not less people.
Something like that,
fortunately, is with the perception of works of art. I am sure that,
unconsciously comparing their understanding of kindness and warmth with a
specific piece of art, all parents will make the right choice of the picture,
which will hang in the baby's room "from two to five.
In school years - Yes,
there is already possible comments, there is direct perception sidelined. There
is already possible to explain the war, and genocide, and why this picture is,
but this is different.
But the child "from
two to five" - only the light! Only the art of warmth!
And may distinguish
"warm" art of "black" is often easier than the present from
the trash. And yet, let's try. A negative emotions child have time to get.
That's what life.
© Sergey Zagraevsky