This book was published in 1936 by Wilhelm Viola and contains a forward by R. R. Tomlinson, author of the book Children as Artists. Viola was one of the voices that most spread Cizek's work in the English-speaking world. In this book, he began by explaining what could be understood by child art.
"If [...] we regard the child as a being with laws of his own, eternal laws perhaps closer to nature than those innumerable compromises, if not illusions, which dominate the world of the adult; and if we grant the child the right to express his own thoughts, his ideas, his personality without consideration for adults; and if we are truly convinced that the child as a part of nature is in many cases stronger and more creative than the majority of adults, then we may, we must, speak of Child Art".
The child was understood through a developmental approach, and to educate her, it was necessary to know her nature. As such, a protectionist discourse of this nature was deemed essential. The teacher should only be a present figure, but not an intervenient. Like other modern art educators, he also considered the teacher's intervention harmful regarding the nature of children's creativity.
"But we must respect that most clear, fine and delightful expression of the child's soul: the drawings of the child who has not been under the influence of adult ideas. The child who has not been spoiled by adults, expresses his true self in his work, and is most true when representing the image of his thoughts, this often unconscious hopes, desires and fears. A child's drawing is a marvellous and precious document. We have no right at all to measure it according to our standard, to look at it with our unclear eyes, to criticise it from our point of view or above all to 'correct' it".
The gardening practices of education are present in his thought. However, the apparent freedom of the teacher should be questioned as part of the modern technologies of government. Cizek argued that too many images and books would also harm the child's natural creativity. They would spoil imagination. To give evidence of this fact, he claimed
"children from the poorer sections of the city are generally more original and more creative than the children of wealthy parents. A richer environment is as a rule destructive to what is creative in the child. Too many books, pictures, visits to theatres, cinemas, etc. are bad for the child. The child is so strong and rich in his own imaginative world that he needs little else"
If the 'Other' inside was the poor child, the 'primitive 'Other' was also used for the argument:
"By the way, another opinion of Cizek's is, that there is a relationship, even an absolute parallel, between the art of the ancients and primitives and the art of the child. Only with the ancients and the primitives there is no break in creative power at the age of puberty. Cizek believes that the unbroken art of the primitives is due to the fact that they are not spoiled by schools"
In Viola's words, Cizek was the "liberator of the child from the slavery of the senseless and boring 'art instruction' which deadened spontaneity and even endangered real talent". The colonial imagination went even further:
"If he were living with his children on a desert island in the ocean and could let them go on creating, he is convinced that he could bring all his children to the purest development of their creative ability."
CM
Comments
book published in 1936,…
book published in 1936, forward by R. R. Tomlinson (author of Children as Artists)
"We can speak of 'Child Art' under two conditions. we must first of all agree that art has nothing to do with skill, exactitude, or even a faithful repetition and copy of nature (that is as its best talent, technical skill), but art is creative, unique.
The second, perhaps the more important condition: when we regard the child simply as a future adult, denying him his own personality and the right to exercise a logic of his own (which from the point of view of the child is truer than ours, and therefore from the very nature of things differentiationist from that of the adult), then it is impossible to speak of child art.
If on the other hand we regard the child as a being with laws of his own, eternal laws perhaps closer to nature than those innumerable compromises, if not illusions, which dominate the world of the adult; and if we grant the child the right to express his own thoughts, his ideas, his personality without consideration for adults; and if we are truly convinced that the child as a part of nature is in many cases stronger and more creative than the majority of adults, then we may, we must, speak of Child Art. (pp. 7, 8)
"But we must respect that most clear, fine and delightful expression of the child's soul: the drawings of the child who has not been under the influence of adult ideas. The child who has not been spoiled by adults, expresses his true self in his work, and is most true when representing the image of his thoughts, this often unconscious hopes, desires and fears. A child's drawing is a marvellous and precious document. We have no right at all to measure it according to our standard, to look at it with our unclear eyes, to criticise it from our point of view or above all to 'correct' it" (pp. 8, 9)
"It seemed that all children unconsciously followed eternal laws of form.
At this time the younger generation of Austrian artists in common with those in other countries, broke away from the traditions of the older generation, the so-called 'Akademiker', and founded the 'Secession' in 1896. They were searching for new art forms. Cizek was in close contact with the leaders of the Vienna Secession, particularly Otto Wagner, Olbrich, Moser, and Klimt. He showed these young painters and architects some of the work of his children. There was a great rejoicing! Some went so far as to say that these were the foundations of the new art education. Why go back to the Chinese, Japanese, ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and Negroes? Here was that which they sought. (pp. 10, 11)
"Cizek is first of all the liberator of the child from the slavery of the senseless and boring 'art instruction' which deadened spontaneity and even endangered real talent. Cizek has freed millions of children from 'art' drill. And more, he has liberated the tremendous creative energy of the child which had been neglected for untold generations" (p.14)
"The child is creative. Even the smallest has a desire to shape and to make things. The old-fashioned art teaching smothered all that was creative in the child, whether intentionally or unintentionally is beside the point. [...] There will doubtless be some readers who at this stage will ask: 'Is every child really creative?' The intensity and the direction of these original, creative powers in the child may be different; but they exist in every normal child. We adults are responsible if this creative power is not developed and made use of" (pp. 14, 15).
"Prof. Cizek finds that children from the poorer sections of the city are generally more original and more creative than the children of wealthy parents. A richer environment is as a rule destructive to what is creative in the child. Too many books, pictures, visits to theatres, cinemas, etc. are bad for the child. The child is so strong and rich in his own imaginative world that he needs little else." (pp. 20, 21)
"Why did Cizek become an opponent of the intellectual school? Because of the conviction that it gives nothing to the child but deprives him of something, so that the children generally leave such a school poorer than they entered it. That kind of school is part of the tragedy of our modern civilisation. - A child is so pliable. How easy is to make patterns and comfortable 'citizens' out of these little children's bodies and souls! [...] Our modern civilisation tends already too much towards producing as quickly as possible bored little adults, able only to consume, out of originally creative and gifted children." (p. 22)
"Why does the work of the primitives appear to us soo strong, despite the lack of persepctive? Why do the works of the ancient Egyptians appear to us so strong? Because they are created according to the same laws as children's drawings.
By the way, another opinion of Cizek's is, that there is a relationship, even an absolute parallel, between the art of the ancients and primitives and the art of the child. Only with the ancients and the primitives there is no break in creative power at the age of puberty. Cizek believes that the unbroken art of the primitives is due to the fact that they are not spoiled by schools" (p. 25)
"If he were living with his children on a desert island in the ocean and could let them go on creating, he is convinced that he could bring all his children to the purest development of their creative ability." (p. 26)
references to child art exhibitions organised by Cizek