Cindy Foley, Executive Assistant Director and Director of Learning and Experience at Columbus Museum of Art, talks on Teaching Art, or Teaching to Think like an Artist? at TEDxColumbus. Below is the full transcript and summary.
Listen to the MP3 Audio here:
TRANSCRIPT:
Okay. We’re going to get started with some kindergarten image-word match. I would like each of you to determine what is the word that matches the image in number 7. Okay? So starting to come up with some ideas. Good. Get them in your head because I want to share with you what my daughter Adeline chose.
Adeline chose art and as her parent I thought that was awesome. But this is an incorrect answer according to the testing guide. The correct answer is mud and I’m sure that’s what you all chose. Right, right.
How can something so nebulous be so concrete? Actually I think this quiz is a fitting analogy for the problem in art education today. Art education has been impacted by the standards and testing culture like all other disciples and in a lot of ways we’ve been focusing on teaching things that are concrete. Things like elements of art, art history and foundational skills.
In essence, we’re teaching things that we can test and assess. But I believe art education needs to focus on developing learners that think like artists. Learners that are creative, curious, seek questions, develop ideas and play, which means we need to be much more intentional about how we communicate art’s critical value and how we teach for creativity.
So, creativity. Let’s do a little case making around this. Most of this you know. So creativity is being touted by business leaders like the folks at IBM, by like educational reformists, by folks in — economists like even Dan Pink as the number one thing we need for students’ success, economic growth and general happiness. We also know the creativity scores in this country are on the decline. The Torrance Creativity Test, which has been administered for decades, has now shown since the 1990’s a decline especially in ages 6 to 12 in the United States.
We also know due to Sir Kenneth Robinson’s now famous TED talk the schools are fundamentally and foundationally challenged to cultivate creativity. But I’m going to share with you some research that the Wallace Foundation did with Harvard’s Project Zero in which they found the number one thing quality art education can do is develop the capacity to think creatively and the capacity to make connections.
So then why is there such a disconnect between creativity and art education? I think there is actually a couple of reasons why. But we’re going to focus on communication and messaging. Now those of us in the field we have been working to really move art education out of a defensive place. We’ve been trying to make a case for our own existence and we’re trying to move it more towards an offensive message especially around creativity. But we’re not there yet.
And so we’re going to place that for another talk at another time. Instead I want to focus on a message that I think is much more problematic and pervasive — and I hate to put you on the spot — they actually feel you are to blame. I mean not you per se but you as a group of people who actually really support art education.
So let me give you some context. As a parent, I often hear adults saying things to children as well as to other adults and to the educators, things like this: “Oh my goodness! Look how well you’ve drawn that horse. It’s so realistic. You’re so creative!” You’ve heard messages like that before?
Here is another one I think I hear almost daily: “Oh Cindy! I really support art education. It is very important. I mean I’m not creative. I don’t have a creative bone in my body. I can’t even draw a stick figure.” Right? These messages are incredibly problematic and the more – you may not think they are a big deal — but the more society pushes them out and society continues to foster these cliché notions of what is creativity the harder it is for those in the field like me to begin moving towards teaching for creativity.
Okay. Teaching for creativity. What do I mean by that? I believe teaching for creativity is embodying the habits the artists employ. Habits, in particular there are three that I think are essential to creativity. They are: 1) comfort with ambiguity; 2) idea generation; and 3) transdisciplinary research. We’re going to talk about those in a moment. But first we’re going to do a little audience participation.
I would like each of you to use something on your person, paper, pencil, your program, phone, glasses – it doesn’t matter. And I’d like you – you’re just going to get a couple of minutes, to actually create something that represents the idea of metaphor. Go ahead.
[Noises in the audience]
All right. Be honest. How many of you had a surge of panic when I just asked you to do that. I want you to savor that sensation. You actually are off the hook. But I want you to savor that sensation for a moment. What you just experienced is I think the number one obstacle to creative work. That discomfort, that discomfort is ambiguity. It’s ‘not knowing’. I actually learned this from a group of teachers. We’d been working with them and they told us: “You know what, we find it it’s really difficult to engage our students in creative work in particular open-ended projects. It just makes it really hard.”
Ironically enough, later that afternoon we had that same group of teachers and we gave them a challenge similar to the one I just gave you.
Interestingly enough, almost immediately, a couple of them announced they needed to leave for the day. Another group needed a break at that moment and still others stayed in the classroom but refused to participate in the activity.
What we realized is students struggle with ambiguity because we all do. Now artists, on the other hand, realize that ambiguity is part of the process. They take it, they identify it, and they tackle it head on. So if artists are doing this, can’t you imagine if art education was a place where we knew students could go to prepare for lives of not knowing?
I work at the Columbus Museum of Art and for years now we provided the kind of art education that our community requested. So for example, when we had an exhibition of the work of Claude Monet, we taught about his history, we allowed folks to experiment with his materials and his process. And then we finally would create lesson plans and allow others to do the same.
In essence what we were doing was generating content and allowing folks to make mini-Monets. But then it dawned on us we were not actually engaging them in what made Monet Monet. And that was the way he thought. Monet’s ideas were revolutionary. He questioned the natural world, the way we see. He questioned the politics of the time. And that’s what made his work so exceptional. It was at this moment we realized we needed to be teaching for idea generation.
So I’m going to have you jump with me now from one artist to another. The Lego movie gave us such a gift when they presented the movie this summer. More or less, what they said was creativity is not the Lego kid in the direction booklet but creativity is the bucket of Legos and the potential for ideas within. Legos are just another material like drawing materials to help us make ideas manifest.
What I loved about this movie was the idea of the master builder or the person who has the courage to have ideas. But it dawned on me in much of education the master builders are the educators. They’re the ones who have ideas, great lesson plans. Right? But students are secondary to that process. Students are often more of the artist’s assistant or sometimes even just the factory worker getting the project done.
Visualize a classroom full of master builders. Right? A classroom full of master builders at play. Yes, play. Play is essential. Play is a sure fire way to kick-start ideation Artists play. They play in a number of ways. They either play with materials until ideas begin to manifest or they play with ideas until they realize what media or materials they need to bring that into reality.
Imagine an art education where educators were comfortable with the ambiguous classroom where students’ ideas and interests lead the learning. So I need to be honest with you. Nothing in my career, my education, or my teaching has influenced my thinking as much as being married to an artist. I am married to Sean Foley and what I can tell you about artists is that they’re voracious researchers. They will research anything, bizarre things, right? And what I’ve learned is that they’ll do anything that furthers their thinking.
Let me give you an example. About 10 years ago, Sean had this idea that if painting were dead what if he were doctor Frankenstein. He immediately rereads Mary Shelley. He rewatches all the classic horror films. He then devours books at the library on natural history, history of medicine, anomalies of nature. He then starts purchasing taxidermic animals.
But then he informs me that we need to go to London. He must go to London in order to study the museums of the pre-Enlightenment and in particular the early operating theaters. So in essence, his research manifests and Sean ends up making monsters of his own like this one. So what Sean was engaged in is transdisplinary research, or research that serves curiosity.
Imagine if the future of education was not about discrete disciplines but rather was about disciplines like maths, art and science being in service to ideas. What kind of spaces might we create in order to foster that type of thinking? Could we create centers for creativity where we cultivate and champion and measure this type of thinking?
So I don’t want you for a minute to start championing art education. But I do want you to be thoughtful about the challenge. When we say we want creativity in our schools we often say ‘Don’t kill the arts’. But today I want that battle cry to address art’s critical value “Don’t kill the ideas”. I want my own children to think like artists no matter what career path they may choose. I believe art education is essential for 21st century learning. And with your help we can flip the counterproductive messaging and allow our educators to develop centers for creativity where ideas are king and curiosity reigns.
Thank you.
SUMMARY OF THIS TALK:
In Cindy Foley’s thought-provoking talk titled “Teaching Art, or Teaching to Think like an Artist?” she highlights several key takeaway points that challenge the current state of art education and advocate for a shift towards fostering creativity and critical thinking in students:
Art Education’s Testing Culture: Foley begins by drawing an analogy between a kindergarten image-word match quiz and the state of art education. She points out that art education has been impacted by the standards and testing culture, leading to a focus on teaching concrete elements of art, history, and foundational skills that can be easily assessed.
Fostering Creative Thinkers: Foley argues that art education should prioritize the development of learners who think like artists—individuals who are creative, curious, inquisitive, and capable of asking questions and developing ideas. This shift requires intentional efforts to communicate the critical value of art and to teach for creativity.
The Decline in Creativity Scores: Foley cites research showing a decline in creativity scores, especially among children aged 6 to 12 in the United States. This decline is seen as a pressing issue, given the growing importance of creativity in various aspects of life.
The Role of Art Education in Fostering Creativity: The Wallace Foundation’s research, conducted in collaboration with Harvard’s Project Zero, reveals that quality art education can play a vital role in developing the capacity for creative thinking and the ability to make connections.
The Problem of Communication and Messaging: Foley highlights the problematic messages that society often sends regarding creativity and art education. She criticizes statements such as “I’m not creative” or praising a child’s art as “realistic” and “creative” simultaneously. These messages hinder progress in teaching for creativity.
Three Essential Habits of Artists: Foley identifies three key habits that artists embody, which should be central to teaching for creativity: comfort with ambiguity, idea generation, and transdisciplinary research.
Ambiguity as an Obstacle: Foley emphasizes that discomfort with ambiguity, or the fear of not knowing, is a major obstacle to creative work, and this discomfort is not limited to students but is shared by educators as well.
Teaching for Idea Generation: Foley’s example of Claude Monet’s revolutionary thinking highlights the need to teach for idea generation rather than just replicating the work of famous artists. She encourages educators to create classrooms where students’ ideas and interests guide the learning process.
The Role of Play: Foley emphasizes the importance of play in the creative process, noting that artists play with materials and ideas until their visions become tangible. She envisions an education system where educators are comfortable with ambiguity and where students’ ideas take precedence.
Transdisciplinary Research: Foley shares her experiences being married to an artist and highlights artists’ tendencies for voracious research. This transdisciplinary research serves curiosity and prompts the idea of education disciplines being in service to ideas.
A Vision for Future Education: Foley challenges the notion of discrete disciplines and proposes a future where subjects like math, art, and science are in service to ideas. She envisions the creation of centers for creativity that foster curiosity and champion idea-driven learning.
In conclusion, Cindy Foley’s talk advocates for a fundamental shift in art education from teaching concrete skills to nurturing creative thinkers. She calls for a reevaluation of societal messaging surrounding creativity and a focus on cultivating the habits of artists, ultimately envisioning an education system that values and fosters curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and idea generation.
