Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Homemade Esthetics

Overeducated Yuppie parents gush about their kids’ mediocre artwork. But a new book about children’s art suggests that may not be a bad thing.

Print Email
The author’s daughter’s painting. (Maxine Steuer)

Not long ago, a friend cooed about how her preschooler drew his E’s: with endless little legs poking out, like the quills of the porcupine. “It’s as if he knows there are a bunch of lines there, but he doesn’t know how many, so he just keeps going!” she laughed, overcome by his cleverness. I rolled my eyes internally (take my word for it, it’s quite a trick) and smiled the smile of the smug: “Oh, honey,” I thought, “all kids do that.”

I had forgotten: I used to be the parent who cooed over the way my kid made an E.

Of course, it’s quite possible that the way children make a scribble or a spiky E is both mundane and miraculous. Our spawn go from little globs of protoplasm to actual people trying to communicate and express themselves through art. It doesn’t mean all their creations are special. Or rather, it sort of does. It does if it’s your kid and you’re watching his world expand exponentially every day.

The art critic Clement Greenberg (from whom I cribbed the title of this essay) once wrote, “Verdicts are the warp and woof of esthetic experience.” It’s natural to judge. Taste happens. But it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Artists have to strive for what’s new, not rest on past laurels or do what’s easy. Then again, Greenberg was known for contradicting himself. On the one hand, he acknowledged that different people could come to different verdicts, but on the other he insisted that there was one correct answer: “You like it, that’s all, whether it’s a landscape or abstract,” he wrote. “You like it. It hits you. You don’t have to read it. The work of art—sculpture or painting—forces your eye.” But he also said, “We have differences but we’re not made different. If you don’t agree with me, you’re wrong.” Hmm.

Nowadays, we recognize that people come to art from a variety of experiences, perspectives, and identities and that it is human nature to believe that one’s own child’s art is brilliant and other kids’ art blows. But what I find interesting in parental art appreciation is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still be able to function. On some level, most of us know our own kid’s art really isn’t paradigm-shattering, but we also know that it symbolizes a wad of cells becoming a sentient artist. Even as you come to realize that every kid first draws a person by making a circle for a head and two vertical lines for legs, you still find that globule breathtaking when it’s hung up with a deli magnet on your own refrigerator. You love the artist and you love her output, and you know it’s mundane and you know it’s brilliant.

All that said, it is delightful to mock parents who discuss their children’s work in the hushed voices that convey being in the presence of genius. That is why I enjoyed “Is That a Picasso on Your Fridge?” by Dan Consiglio, auteur of the blog What My Kid’s Art Says. Unlike, say, I Am Better Than Your Kids—which makes fun of children’s art by pointing out their lack of fine motor skills—Consiglio’s book makes fun of art criticism more than bad kid pictures. We rave about our children’s artwork, even when we know it’s mediocre. But maybe that’s a good thing?

Critiquing a drawing by Alice, age 8, depicting Barbie shopping at a mall, Consiglio opines that it is a damning critique of consumerism; he compares the artist’s flat, one-dimensional style to Mayan wall painting. (“But there is no sacrifice to be had here,” he observes. “Barbie has bought everything, as evidenced by the multitude of bags surrounding her.”) Consiglio then moves on to the efforts of 5-year-old Sally, who made lines of dots on lined paper with the dot-paint markers found in every nursery-school classroom from here to eternity. Consiglio gushes: “If paradigm-shattering composer Philip Glass could paint, this is the masterpiece he would create. Sally’s gorgeous symmetry conceals blooming buds of chaos in much the same way that Glass’s repetitive notes conspire to create wholly other rhythms. Both artists display an otherworldly grasp of this simple human condition: repetition does not remove opportunity; it creates opportunity.” (True. But you missed the opportunity for a Damien Hirst joke.) And of the installation art created by Ty, age 3, of Rockford, Il.,—a yoga mat covered with toy cars—Consiglio writes: “Ty has managed to coalesce the chaos of the playroom with the serenity of nap time. Trucks, cars, planes—those symbols of male toddler aggression—line a yoga mat with rock garden precision. The result is oddly satisfying, a vision of delicate balance. Seconds after this photo was taken, Ty smashed the entire setup with a toy hockey stick before spilling his juice and soiling himself.”

It’s amusing, but it also makes us ask: Is our kid’s art great or derivative? Is art truly everywhere we look, or is criticism truly absurd? (The answer to all is yes.)

It seems to me that the parenting problem herein comes when we lose, um, perspective. What are the effects of overpraising a child’s artistic gifts, whether to ourselves (hello, ego) or to the child (hello, unrealistic overblown highly fragile self-esteem)? While I don’t agree with everything the educational theorist Alfie Kohn writes, I do like his approach to talking to kids about their work. Instead of praising it to the skies, he suggests, ask about the kid’s process or choices. (This is for when they’re past the miraculous globule-drawing stage, obviously.) Why’d they pick the colors they did? What’s happening in this part of the picture? Kohn would argue that we shouldn’t offer praise at all, but other educators tell us to praise effort, if it’s clear that the kid worked hard. (If it’s just another freaking rainbow fairy, feel free to smile politely as if you’re at a boring cocktail party.)

My kid Josie had the entertaining experience recently of being on a reality TV show about the making of art. (Adult artists were paired with children in the Studio in a School art program; the adults had to make a piece inspired by the child’s artwork.) Josie’s appearance pretty much consisted of her clutching her head and muttering, “We’re doomed.” (That’s my sunny little goth-to-be!) Later, when she saw the episode on TV, she was devastated to hear the artist she’d been paired with, whom she adored, tell the camera she wasn’t inspired by Josie’s work. But Josie got over it. Her takeaway: Reality TV is not real, and real artists should just make the art they want to make because most people won’t get it anyway. Works for me.

For parents, the challenge is nurturing our kids’ explorations in art without needing them to be kitchen-appliance Picassos. Josie loves to draw, paint, and sculpt. Who can say whether she’s “good” or not, and does it really matter? (Sorry, Clement Greenberg.) Art education is worthwhile for all kids, regardless of whether they’re actually gifted (a word you know I hate). An in-depth review of research on the value of art education, conducted by the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities last year, confirmed what arts educators already know: Studying art helps kids feel engaged in school, is associated with improvements in reading and math, improves problem-solving skills, and encourages flexible thinking.

But it does more than that, I believe: One thing many testing-obsessed parents and governments forget is that it’s worthwhile for its own sake, not just because it makes kids do better on tests. (I’d add that the kids who already ace tests become more open-minded and reflective by taking art and by seeing that a classmate who may not kick butt on tests may have other gifts.) The arts are essential because they help kids see the world and themselves in a richer, more reflective way—whether or not they’re the next Helen Frankenthalers and Marc Chagalls.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

“Greenberg was known for contradicting himself. ”

WTF? Says who?

“On the one hand, he acknowledged that different people could come to different verdicts, but on the other he insisted that there was one correct answer…”

WTF! That’s not even a contradiction!

“But he also said, “We have differences but we’re not made different. If you don’t agree with me, you’re wrong.”

WTF! You’ve taken this line out of context, from a specific conversation Greenberg was having with an individual!

YOU ARE AN UNETHICAL WRITER. Or, you’re just bad at it.

MC, WTF? Who can take your criticism seriously when you begin with WTF?

ON the topic: While I enjoyed my own kids’ forays into many-legged E’s and stick people with no necks, it wasn’t until each of my bigger kids were in fifth grade that I shelled out money to have a piece of their artwork framed.
The assignment was to do a self portrait in the style of Modigliani (who once painted a portrait of my friend’s grandpa, but that’s off topic) and I really thought my daughter nailed herself. It was her own vision of herself that made me want to hang it on the family room wall and not in the basement staircase hall with the other elementary artwork.
Two years later I was blown away by my son’s version. I walked back and forth in the elementary school hallway gallery trying to decide if it was too much parental pride that made me see it that way. I tried to find the genius in the other kids’ work, but could only find two that I knew (without looking at the name tag) whose work it was. And my son is not particularly interested in art; he’s a big jock.
The pressure is on for my second grader. The hard part is waiting three more years and hoping the art teacher doesn’t change the curriculum.

henry gottlieb says:

They are your children, who else can appreciate them as much as
you……. I ernstly hope that ALL children will be spoiled.
father of four

“Mundane and miraculous,” yes, that’s it exactly. Hooray for art for art’s sake!

“Regardless of what lies behind our instincts for art, those instincts bestow it with a transcendence of time, place, and culture. Hume noted that “the general principles of taste are uniform in human nature… the same Homer who pleased at Athens and Rome two thousand years ago, is still admired at Paris and London.” Though people can argue about whether the glass is half full or half empty, a universal human aesthetic can be discerned beneath the variation across cultures.”

These are the words of Steven Pinker. Or, to put it more succinctly, “We have differences but we’re not made different.”

In other words, Greenberg was correct.

I am reminded of a time when I asked my then-four year old to “tell me about your drawing.” His response? “Mommy, it isn’t anything. It’s just scribble-scrabble.”

Graham Peacock: Aren’t we made differently. I mean, some things hit some people; some things hit others?

Clement Greenberg: As Kant said, when it comes to aesthetic experience we’re all one. He implied that, I should say. He didn’t have enough guts to come out and say it.

Mitchel Smith: But what if some people don’t have a sympathy for it, you know. It isn’t for everyone, is it?

Graham Peacock: Like you don’t have a sympathy for the Fauves…

Clement Greenberg: I didn’t say that! When they’re good they’re good. Did I say that? See how artists misunderstand you.

Graham Peacock: You find it difficult to talk about them…

Clement Greenberg: Difficult because I have to figure out what went on. But I think they’re damn good when they’re good.

Graham Peacock: But you’re more outspoken about the Cubists and you’re more focused on them than you are on the Fauves

Clement Greenberg: I find it easier to explain Cubism. That’s all.

Graham Peacock: Uh huh, whereas I find my empathies more with the Fauves

Clement Greenberg: I’m not talking about empathy! It’s easy to see how you get misunderstood. I didn’t say I prefer the Cubists. The Fauves are a problem, but not because I like them less, dammit! They’re a problem to explain — the genealogy, or whatever — that’s all.

Graham Peacock: That’s why I’m saying we can be made different in that I find it easy to deal with the Fauves and

Clement Greenberg: We have differences but we’re not made different. If you don’t agree with me, you’re wrong. (laughter)

Graham Peacock: Well I can accept that. (laughs)


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Homemade Esthetics

Overeducated Yuppie parents gush about their kids’ mediocre artwork. But a new book about children’s art suggests that may not be a bad thing.

More on Tablet:

Rediscovering the First Woman Rabbi

By Laura Geller — Ordained in 1935, Regina Jonas died at Auschwitz. Now, she’s being honored.