Art education includes activating two sources for developmental change. One resource that can be called upon to promote developmental change is external to the child, encouraged by teaching and by exposure to artworks. The other resource acts as a pacemaker internal to the child’s own cognitive development, facilitated by some conception of the minds of artists and viewers. Studies show how children become interested in the intentions which give rise to artworks and to subsequent exhibition to the viewing public. A natural grasp of intention is readily activated in experimentation by psychologists and might profitably be mobilized by educators in helping children develop their ideas about possible relations between artworks, artists, and viewers.
AllenM. L.NurmsooE.FreemanN. H. (2016).
Young children show representational flexibility when interpreting drawings. Cognition,
147, 21–28. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.003
2.
AlvarezS. A.WinnerE.Hawley-DolanA.SnapperL. (2015).
What gaze fixation and pupil dilation can tell us about perceived differences between abstract art by artists versus by children and animals. Perception,
44, 1310–1331. doi:10.1177/0301006615596899
BloomP.MarksonL. (1998).
Intention and analogy in children’s naming of pictorial representations. Psychological Science,
9, 200–204. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00038
5.
BrieberD.LederH.NadalM. (2015a).
In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychologica,
154, 36–42. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.004
6.
BrieberD.LederH.NadalM. (2015b).
The experience of art in museums: An attempt to dissociate the role of physical context and genuineness. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
33(1), 95–105. doi:10.1177/0276237415570000
7.
BrowneC. A.WooleyJ. D. (2001).
Theory of mind in children’s naming of drawings. Journal of Cognition and Development,
2, 389–412. doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0204_3
8.
ChaoH.-S.KennedyJ. M. (2015).
Metaphoric car drawings by a 12-year-old congenitally blind girl. Perception,
44, 1349–1355. doi:10.1177/0301006615596916
9.
ClarkA. B. (1897). The child’s attitude towards perspective problems. In BarnesE. (Ed.), Studies in education (
vol.1).
Stanford, CA,
Stanford University Press.
10.
DiesendruckG.MarksonL.BloomP. (2003).
Children’s reliance on creator’s intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science,
14, 164–168. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01436
11.
EisnerE. W. (2002).
The state of the arts and the improvement of education. Art Education Journal,
1, 2–6.
12.
EisnerE. W.DayM. D. (2004). Handbook of research and policy in art education.
Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
13.
FrazierB. N.GelmanS. A. (2009).
Developmental changes in judgments of authentic objects. Cognitive Development,
24, 284–292. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.06.003
14.
FreemanN. H. (2004). Aesthetic judgement and reasoning. In EisnerE. W.D. DayM. (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 359–378).
Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
15.
FreemanN. H. (2011). Varieties of pictorial judgement: A functional account. In SchellekensE.GoldieP. (Eds.), The aesthetic mind: Philosophy and psychology (pp. 414–426).
Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
16.
FreemanN. H.AllenM. L. (2013).
Educating the design stance: Issues of coherence and transgression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
36, 141–142. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001616
17.
FreemanN. H.SangerD. (1995).
Commonsense aesthetics of rural children. Visual Arts Research,
21, 1–10. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20715851
18.
GilliG.RuggiS.GattiM.FreemanN. H. (2016).
How children’s mentalistic theory widens their conception of pictorial possibilities. Frontiers in Psychology,
7, 1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00177
19.
GoldsteinT., R.LernerM. D.WinnerE. (2017).
The arts as a venue for developmental science: Realizing a latent opportunity. Child Development,
88, 1505–1512. doi:10.1111/cdev.12884
20.
GriffinS. M.RowsellJ.WintersK.-L.VietgenP.McLauchlanD.McQueen-FuentesG. (2017).
A reason to respond: Finding agency through the arts. International Journal of Education & the Arts,
18(25). Retrieved from http://www.ijea.org/v18n25/
21.
GutheilG.BloomP.ValderramaN.FreedmanR. (2004).
The role of historical intuitions in children’s and adults naming of artifacts. Cognition,
91, 23–42. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00165-3
22.
Hawley-DolanA.WinnerE. (2011).
Seeing the mind behind the art. Psychological Science,
22, 435–441. doi:10.1177/0956797611400915
23.
JaquithD. B. (2011).
When is creativity? Intrinsic motivation and autonomy in children’s artmaking. Art Education,
64(1), 14–19. doi:10.1080/00043125.2011.11519106
24.
JolleyR. P.KnoxE. L.FosterS. G. (2000).
The relationship between children’s production and comprehension of realism in drawing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
18(4), 557–582. doi:10.1348/026151000165850
25.
KerkinB. (2009).
How would a theory of mind play a role in comprehending art?Early Childhood Development and Care,
179, 645–649. doi:10.1080/03004430701482167
26.
MyersL. J.LibenL. S. (2012).
Graphic symbols as “The mind on paper”: Links between children’s interpretative theory of mind and symbol understanding. Child Development,
83, 186–202. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01693.x
27.
NewmanG. E.BloomP. (2012).
Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
141(3), 558–569. doi:10.1037/a0026035
28.
NisselJ.Hawley-DolanA.WinnerE. (2016).
Can young children distinguish abstract expressionist art from superficially similar works by pre-schoolers and animals?Journal of Cognition and Development,
17, 18–29. doi:10.1080/15248372.2015.1014488
29.
PreisslerM. A.BloomP. (2008).
Two-year-olds use artist intention to understand drawings. Cognition,
106(1), 512–518. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.002
30.
RichertR. A.LillardA. S. (2002).
Children’s understanding of the knowledge prerequisites of drawing and pretending. Developmental Psychology,
38, 1004–1015. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.38.6.1004
31.
SalsaA. M.VivaldiR. A. (2015).
Pedagogical cues to artist’s intention in young children’s understanding of drawings. Journal of Cognition and Development,
17(5), 786–799. doi:10.1080/15248372.2015.1042578
32.
SeeleyW. P. (2013).
Art, meaning and perception: A question of methods for a cognitive neuroscience of art. British Journal of Aesthetics,
52, 442–460. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayt022
33.
SheridanK. M.HalversonE. R.LittsB.BrahmsL.Jacobs-PriebeL.OwensT. (2014).
Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review,
84(4), 505–531. doi:10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u
34.
SnapperL.OrancC.Hawley-DolanA.NisselJ.WinnerE. (2015).
Your kid could not have done that: Even untutored observers can discern intentionality and structure in abstract expressionist art. Cognition,
137, 154–165. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.009
35.
WinnerE. (1988). The point of words: Children’s understanding of metaphor and irony.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
