.jpg)
Art therapist Elizabeth Beck was explaining to me how one of the tools that she uses to help her patients is a theory of creative and mental growth created by Lowenfeld & Brittain (1987).(she wrote) What this theory postulates is that all children go through specific cognitive developmental levels that can deduced by the stage they are in artistically. There are 6 developmental levels:
- The scribble stage (age 2-4)
- The preschematic stage (age 4-7)
- The schematic stage (age 7-9)
- The gang stage (age 9-12)
- The pseudo-naturalistic stage (age 12-14)
- The period of decision (14- )
An art therapist named Myra Levick joined Lowenfeld & Brittain’s theory with Piaget (a cognitive/developmental psychologist) and psychodynamic theory. Basically, she argues that in one’s art work there is evidence of not only an artistic developmental level, but that the developmental level also corresponds to a particular cognitive level and defense mechanisms.
This got me to thinking, hey, there’s no mystical ritual that separates you as a child from you as an adult, some of our most beloved fellow human beings use that inner child to make our lives so much richer. I’m still a child inside and I express myself through my artwork and I sure as heck feel that there have been many levels I’ve passed through since I was 14 so why does this theory stop at age 14?
Well, if you extrapolate this theory then the person who paints those water droplets and bubbles on your friendly neighborhood soft drink machine is at a higher cognitive developental level than me, Vincent VanGogh and just about everyone else in the world that ever lived. (they are paintings not photographs btw), it’s commercial art, someones job, not what we like to think of when we romantize ‘the artist’ is it?
The theory tends to break down at the extrapolated high end similar to the way physics does when you go down to the quantum level.
There is a painter on Flickr whos work I saw yesterday that looked almost photographic in it’s realism but lacked any creative risk taking. Art requires risk taking to acheive ‘legendary social status‘ which is why the Impressionists are beloved and Hitler didn’t make it as an artist, and no matter how many prints Thomas Kinkaid sells he will never achieve the level of success that we as a society attribute to Vincent VanGogh who only sold three paintings, two of which because his brother had an art gallery.
Is there an upper scale to this theory? Can you be so ‘cognitive/developmentaly advanced’ that your artwork is technically perfect? after all, if scribbles are the lowest then photographic realism MUST show an advanced stage right? Which makes me think of the ‘rain man’ types, people who can’t tie their shoes but can draw ‘perfectly’, where do they fit in?
Why is the photorealistic art genre not the most admired, after all we as a society admire the strongest people, the fastest, the brainiest, but when it comes to art we admire the people somewhere in the "middle", like Van Gogh and look at Jackson Pollock’s ultra-famous drippy-drip paintings, aren’t they somewhere around level 2 ?
I think there are other levels after #6 and they might include
- The fear stage. This is where the artist is aware of his or her shortcomings in terms of realism and while the artist is surrounded by evidence that realism is just a set of rules that most anyone can learn, they tend to create art that masks their weaknesses. How many paintings have you seen by amatures that show part of figure, part of a face? Children aren’t afraid to draw hands and feet and environments but the developing (#6 +) artist can be. It’s hard to draw hands and feet! Often this is a crucial stage for an artist, realism isn’t as important as overcoming the fear that their art has ‘flaws’ and thus isn’t ‘good’. Realism is only a tool for an artist to create art, once you are comfortable that you can render motifs that mimic the way light and shadow look to the human eye then it is time to use your imagination. Allow yourself to fail and you will grow.
- The sell out stage. I am very proud of how the internet has spawned a generation of artistic entrepenuers, look at DeviantArt.com as a perfect example. Kids all over are selling prints of their art, often just drawings for instant fame and fortune or simply pocket money from a hobby that enriches society by giving the kids something to do that encourages hard work, organization and communication, all from the safety of their homes, brilliant! Selling your art isn’t ‘selling out’, selling out is when you start to mechanically reproduce variants of previously successful work. Often an artist gets stuck at this level for years and years. The great artists of history might have done work that has a familiar style, but there are always moments where they dare to go beyond what they have done before, often at the risk of failure.
- The art fag stage. (it’s not a slur so relax) This is the level that many artists reach, hell I’m probably an example come to think of it. When an artist starts to see himself as separate from the society as a whole, not necessarily better than the hoi polloi, but a distinct variant of the norm. If you have a day job but write ‘artist’ as your occupation on your tax form you might be an art fag. If you can spend half a day writing a blog post about art when you could be making art you might be an art fag! haha!
Anyway, my point is that art can be a way to show the cognitive developmental skills of people in general, not just kids and mentally challenged people. Art therapy should be preventative medicine, like vitamins and exercise.
.jpg)





























This is a sketch by artist and Art Therapist Liz Beck, it describes in metaphor a disease she is healing from and, because she is important to me and I want her to be well I have some suggestions that might be fun and possibly therapeutic.
