VTS Blog Post 2

Going in to the afternoon session of Saturday's activities, I admit, I was nervous about doing VTS for the first time.  I was so impressed by how confidently and eloquently everyone led their discussion, even though most of us were newbies.  Many of us described the discussion becoming easier and more natural as the activity went on and I certainly felt the same way.  Hopefully, this is an indication of a continued upward trajectory for my confidence with this method.

Working with such a bright and astute group (wink, wink) who were relatively familiar with the method certainly made this process work much more smoothly than I would expect it to go with beginning viewers.
The thing that impressed me most, however, was the apparent value of simply discussing artwork in a group.  Most museum goers shuffle through the galleries and corridors speaking only in hushed whispers and seem apprehensive to disclose their reactions even to members of their own party, let alone strangers.  The structure of this method, in particular, is clearly well thought out and lends itself to optimal results, but just the process of looking carefully and sharing our observations aloud takes the experience in an upward spiral of deeper noticing.

What I really love about the VTS method so far is how naturally it can bring art to life for someone who might normally feel alienated by it.  Because VTS allows the viewer to analyze the work as part of a group, building upon and spinning off of what others have noticed, the viewer is not left alone with the piece, stabbing in the dark about what it might mean and second guessing themselves over whether or not they're "getting it right" as though there were a definitive right or wrong answer to be extracted.

To further this point, I also wanted to draw attention to the article we read by Phillip Yenawine, Theory into Practice: the visual thinking strategies (1999).  He describes the inadequacy of teaching art from a distance, focusing on the dusty tombs of art history, as if that could possibly engage a passion for art in the heart of the raw, untrained viewer, especially children.  He states, "the presentation of historical fact - a mainstay of museum teaching - so often proved ineffectual in engaging people before early adolescence.  At that early age, viewers make sense of what they encounter concretely as they maneuver through the world.  Abstract concepts, such as the concept of time, are of little interest or meaning...Schooling makes the same mistake in asking children to learn history from a factual basis - names, dates, and events.  Young people can indeed make a kind of sense of the objects left to us by history, but it is from examining them concretely for whatever visual information they can connect to concrete experience form their own lives. (p. 4)  This REALLY resonated with me.  I believe in fostering a "naturalized affection" for the arts in children by exposing them to art in the present (even if the art is from the past).  Children need to make, touch, smell, and hear art, as well as be enabled to look at work in a way that lets them tell the story.  When they feel comfortable with and excited about art a natural curiosity about the history, the facts, and the theories emerges; they will be hungry for it.

I got so much more out of the pieces we VTSed in the museum together than I EVER would have alone.  I'm looking forward to jumping in and trying it out with the kiddies and seeing what curve balls that experience throws at me.  I'm sure I'll have to take a great deal more care in setting up and explaining the activity; laying the ground rules and getting everyone focused.  I plan to work on scripting that out roughly before my first session with the boy writers.  Suggestions are welcome!

Thanks for such a great Saturday everyone!