|
SMALL CHILDREN MEETING THE AESTHETICS -
Lecture at the open seminar in Oslo 25th of June 2004
The heading I was given for this speech is Small children meeting with aesthetics. Such a heading raises several questions like: who are the “small children” ? What kind of beings are they? What do they meet whenfacing the aesthetics? What kind of meeting is it? And, if you look at the heading of the Glitterbird-project as presented by Ellen Os and Leif Hernes (2004): is small children meeting with the aesthetics the same as art for the very young?
The main heading of the conference tells us that the very young and small children in question are those under three years of age, i.e. infants in their first year of life, the one year old early toddler, and the two year old late toddler.
In my work I have preferred the English term “toddler”, which by its meaning refers to a special way of walking. Due to the corporeal qualities and characteristics that are connected to the meaning of the word, and by further relating it to Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception (1945, 1962), I use the term “toddler” as part of the terminology of (Norwegian) toddler pedagogy, with the intention of turning it into a Norwegian word also.
Given a concern for the Norwegian language, such practice of course is not politically correct. However, by appreciating the word as representing more precisely the children in question, and by enjoying the aesthetical experience of rolling it over my own tongue, the word t o d d l e r feels natural and tastes good as part of my Norwegian mother-tongue. Therefore, to me toddler also is the Norwegian word for one and two year old children.
Aesthetics
In preparing this speech trying to find a “body” for my given heading and the questions embedded within it, I was tempted to concentrate on a theoretical exploration of the term aesthetics. However, being a toddler pedagogue and researcher, I doubt that this term is the main reason for why I am here.
I guess my temptation may be understood by the fact that we often are intrigued by the opportunity to explore what is least known to us. Maybe this evokes some kind of aesthetical urge within us?
Discussing the aesthetic experience and the aesthetic object, Roman Ingarden (1961) says that if an aesthetic process starts from a pure sense perception (which is not always the case, he comments in brackets), the most interesting part of the process, and, at the same time, a very difficult one to grasp, is the transition from the sense perception of a real object, to new phases of the aesthetic experience. This transition is a change of attitude from a practical one to an aesthetic one, where we are interrupted with something that enriches our life and confers upon it in a new sense.
Ingarden says that while perceiving a real object we are struck by a peculiar quality, or with a multiplicity of qualities, or with a gestalt quality like a colour or harmony of colours, a melody, a rhythm or a shape, which not only calls our attention, but in addition it is not indifferent to us.
Such gestalt quality evokes in us a special emotion, which Ingarden calls a preliminary emotion, being the emotion that opens the proper process of an aesthetical experience. This quality strikes us and imposes itself on us, as a kind of fleeting emotion, difficult or even impossible to answer the question of what kind of quality it has been. But the body knows.
In its very beginning this fleeting emotion is a state of excitement with the quality in the object perceived. The quality makes us possess the object in a direct intuitive contact.
The experience of excitement transforms itself into a form of falling in love with the quality of the perceived object.
In other words, in addition to the emotional element, this aesthetic experience also includes an element of desire directed to the quality. At this point Ingarden says that to speak of “what pleases us” is to trivialize the problem. The preliminary aesthetic emotion is full of dynamism and eagerness for satiation, which occur when we already have been “touched”, excited and stirred up by a quality that imposes itself on us.
Based on Ingarden’s reflections upon the aesthetic experience, I realize that my fascination and drive in investigating what goes on between toddler bodies, has been eminently aesthetical. Although resulting in dissertations based on scientific methods as well as phenomenological philosophy, the fascination in different phases of my work at the same time has been aesthetical.
Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy of the body-subject, has been the guiding star and the inspiration for my work, and I guess that is one reason for why I’m here. Seen as aesthetics in the wide sense of the term, I regard this theory as genuinely aesthetic. Truly, Merleau-Ponty also is known for his reflections on how for example a piece of painting or a piece of music is a prolongation of the painter’s or the composer’s body. Unlike other objects in the world, the lived human body actively “inhabits” and “haunts” it. When playing the organ, the organist “installs” himself in it, says Merleau-Ponty.
In my view, this is parallel as well as complementary to Ingarden’s reflections on the dynamic connection between aesthetic experience and aesthetic object.
If I was to perpetuate the term of aesthetics, I could have turned to a discussion for example of the philosophical dictionary-definition of the concept as “the study of what is immediately pleasing to our visual or auditory perception or to our imagination: the study of the nature of beauty; also, the theory of taste and criticism in the creative and performing arts.” (Mautner, 1997:8.) I could have explored further the Greek roots of the word and its (not surprising) connection to the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle.
I also could have turned to the German philosopher Alexander Baumgarten, who is held to be the first one to use and theorize on the concept of aesthetica the way we know it today, originally written in Latin in 1750 (Baumgarten, 1750/1988). I could also have turned to the works of Schopenhauer written a hundred years later, to study art as moments of escape from the Weltschmerz, the pain of the human world (Edman, 1928).
I even could have turned to the works of Kierkegaard, who regarded the aesthetic to be one out of three main life-attitudes. A solely aesthetical way of living is in the long run in danger of becoming worthless and empty, and more based on make-believe than the real being, says Kierkegaard. Accordingly we also need an ethical attitude towards life, by which we search for what is morally good and right. This may lead to the third and passionate life-attitude of the religious, in which we try to relate to the eternal qualities of human life (Beyer, 1981).
Coupled with the dedicated desire of the aesthetic experience as discussed by Ingarden, I would not exclude a possible link between the desire in this sense and the passion of the religious attitude.
A quick glance like this into the philosophy of the aesthetics, shows its connection to ontology which is concerned with being, and to epistemology, which is concerned with how we come to know. The close relation between phenomenology and aesthetics is indicated by the (to me) obvious relation to Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception and to Ingarden’s phenomenological research.
Also representing this stand, Levinas (2002) theorizes on experiences made in human encounters, in which we experience the first and basic meaning, he says. Levinas is especially interested in the interval, the between-the-two, or in German: das Zwischen. What happens between us is display of being, in which sensuousness and perception play a constitutional role. To be sensibly perceptive is to be close, to be in contact with. This kind of closeness also is ethical, as both I and Thou are responsible for, or literally in response to, each other. The Other’s face or Ansicht, demands something of me, and vice versa.
What about children under the age of three, do they have aesthetic experiences in meeting with aesthetic objects and performances?
The answer of course and by “definition” is yes. Being not yet verbal, but no less (corporeally) expressive, infants and toddlers are aesthetics. They are sensual and sentient beings down to the tip of their shoes, as the Norwegian Klangfugl-artist Robert Øfsti put words to it at the conference at Schæffergården in 2001.
People under three live through aesthetical experiences that make them drool.
While observing one-year-olds watching Speranza’s Journey, a theatre project directed by Ragnhild Steinholt (2003), I saw open-mouthed and dedicated spectators during each of the first 30 minutes of performance.
Children’s desire for aesthetical objects and performances is there.
Infants and toddlers also are lovers of art.
And you, the new Glitterbird artists, are facing unique chances to evoke them.
“Small children”
According to Os and Hernes (2004), the main idea behind Klangfugl all the way has been that infants and toddlers are (small) human beings with the capacities to meet with art, and therefore should, like all human beings, get the opportunity to experience artistic and aesthetic objects and expressions.
The term aesthetics as part of the heading of this speech pragmatically may be put in your hands to be the future artistic productions of the European Glitterbird-project. It’s time to turn to the remaining questions raised above like who are these children? What are their interests and ways of being?
The toddling body is similar to more grown-up bodies. Senses, cognitions and feelings are integrated into a corporeal totality of the human body. At the same time this body is integrated with the world in which the body lives. Being perceptive with the whole body, we are aware of and try to interpret our doings and happenings in the world, while it happens. The perceptive mind is an incarnated mind, says Merleau-Ponty. The roots of the mind are within the human body, at the same time as the body is rooted in the human life-world.
The body is predestined to model itself on this world and to install itself in it. According to Merleau-Ponty the human body-subject “haunts” the world. The human body is the visible form of our intentions, he says.
Between such lived bodies a spontaneous and meaningful communication goes on. Through corporeal motion in the life-world, human body-subjects immediately experience and grab meaning. Human actions mingle with each other, as do the intentions of our actions. The human body understands and knows before and more than what can be verbalized.
On the other hand, verbalizations of the mother-tongue also are inevitably corporeal. By focusing the crucial importance of what can be perceived through the senses of the human body, Merleau-Ponty has shown how the human being is basically aesthetic. Once having put on the glasses of this philosophy, the way the toddling body fits into this view (to me) is strikingly evident.
Does this mean that art for people under three can be the same as art for people over three? Or are there important differences? And if so, why should this art be different? Os and Hernes (2004) show that these questions have been much discussed during the periods of the Klangfugl-project, and they sure will be further discussed in relation to the Glitterbird.
Steinkjer (2003) has studied toddlers meeting with installations and sculptures made for them by Klangfugl-artists and exhibited in art galleries. She observed the children’s actions as they related to the sculptures. She also interviewed the actual artists about what characterizes art made for infants and toddlers. The three artists had different points of departure:
Given a concern with a material corresponding to the “extremely” sensuous and sentient child, the sculptures of the psst-exhibitionwere made of wood, carrying the mute message of “please touch”, inviting the children to act on it. The installation also contained music and sounds appealing to the children’s senses. Here we see the first difference from what is a common written message in galleries: “please don’t touch.”
The sound-sculptures of the second exhibition was made of hard-plastic material often used in boat construction, and inspired by the actual artist’s memories of enjoyable play objects of her own childhood, like the rocking horse or a plastic clown bobbing up and down, always ending in the first position. While moved and acted upon the sculptures of this exhibition also made different sounds.
The mobile objects of the 1, 2, 3- exhibition were triggered by the artist’s concern with what kind of play small children like to involve themselves in. Being aware of the total honesty in children’s responses, what if the children just passed by, showing no interest in the installation? Paying careful attention to the children’s possible responses, the entrance into the exhibition was made an important part of it. The artist wanted to make a whole room for experiences to stimulate the children’s fantasy and creativity. Several times he experienced that children entering the exhibition with their parents did not want to leave, and cried when they had to go.
The main finding in Steinkjer’s observations across all three installations, was that the children neither were only spectators (betrakter in Norwegian) or actors (aktør in Norwegian). Being at first a slip of the tongue, the word betraktør in Steinkjer’s discussion ended up in the Norwegian word traktør or treater.
The children treated the installations. They let qualities of the sculptures impose on them by looking at them and by acting upon them. They lived their aesthetical desire for them by treating them. In addition, Steinkjer sums up that the children constructed meaning in relating to the sculptures, and by doing so they contributed to a sort of destabilization of the art pieces. This kind of art treatment also should be offered the grown-up body, says Steinkjer.
Art experience for toddlers may be synonymous to the toddling ways and interests of play. The toddling body is the main supporter of such play. Running, jumping, crawling, falling and corporeal motion in general is appealing to the toddler, especially in peer play. Toddlers also perform their motion play around large elements. Artistic installations calling upon the children’s senses and corporeal movements, undoubtedly would enrich the quality of being human in the beginning of life.
Making some draft on the playful qualities of the toddling style (Løkken, 2000), an aesthetic object or performance could pay attention to the playful mood, the here-and-there-movement, the quality of recurrence and of “making music”, and to the community of the I, Thou and We. Talking humour (Løkken, 2004), toddlers seem to prefer a slap-stick variant, containing the themes of surprise, recurrence and exaggeration, and variations or combinations of these. Well known play routines like “gonna-get-you” and “peak-a-boo” also attune well to this humour genre.
Last, but not least, the pause, as well as silence, seems to be appreciated as part of an aesthetic experience in the toddler body. The Italian pioneer of child care and preschool pedagogy, Maria Montessori, is known, among other things, for putting forward the “enchantment of silence” in children’s play and learning.
Many of the qualities discussed above are recognized in the theatre project called The journey of Speranza (Steinholt, 2003). This piece of theatre was performed for toddlers in a chapel of the Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim (Norway). The theatre production was preceded by several visits into the room by 4 one-year-old and 5 two-year-old day care toddlers, to observe how the children responded to the church-room, which was gloomy, enlightened only by the dim light of the coloured windows and by candles put several places on the floor, in the window frames and on the altar. The otherwise empty floor in front of the altar was divided with one wide step in the middle of the floor.
During 16 hours of observation the children were found to “haunt” and install themselves in the chapel with the whole body and with all senses. They practically measured out the room by walking or running from one end to another or in rounds. The one step in the middle of the floor was a great attraction to the children, who climbed and crabbed on it, jumped from it, walked up and down on it, sat on it and lay on it.
The children viewed the ceiling, either walking about or lying on the floor. Intensely watching and even trampling on the enlightened candles (!) was among their favourite doings. They touched and felt the stone-floor with their hands and cheeks, by lying on their backs or rolling on it. They also experimented with the candles, by carrying them, by putting their fingers into the stearine or by pouring out the stearine…
Several times they stood still, watching the altar. Some of them sat down to rest their backs on it. They also sat down in circles on both sides of the step, as well as placed the candles in lines, circles and towers. They trampled and chanted like African dancers, they shouted “hello!” while walking the room. They imitated each other and initiated forms of role or fantasy play. Finally, they often climbed the narrow window frames that fitted well the size of their bodies, to sit down for a moment of peace and meditation.
In short, the children walking the step and their watching, blowing and enlightening the candles, turned out to be their most favourite doings.
The described actions and rituals of the children were extensively included in the succeeding theatre production, performed by adult actors. Whether having taken part in the former visits or not, the toddler visitors of the performance were spellbound spectators, and, as such,probably experiencing a basic recognition of typical and well known actions of their age and their sizes.
When we really enjoy or engage in something, our body fluids have a tendency to flow. The children drooled in watching this performance. Small as well as big human visitors were touched and moved by it. A great part of my own experience was the pleasure of watching the children’s intense attention, concentration and desire in possessing what was performed in front of them.
At the heart of such aesthetic experiences I think that the magic is that what we meet is ourselves.
So, one answer to what toddlers meet when facing aesthetical objects and performance, may be that they are facing themselves; as are also the artists in their creation of art. In facing ourselves, we also basically face the Other. As pointed out by Beth Juncker at the conference in 2001, art is existential.
In conclusion, I claim to have found philosophies of aesthetics and phenomenology confirmed in Os and Hernes’ reports of the Klangfugl-project, as well as in parallel research projects like Steinkjer’s and Steinholt’s, having documented how toddlers may be both art spectators and treaters of art.
Toddlers do live aesthetical experiences.
They are all yours! May the Glitterbird live.
Thank you.
References
Baumgarten, Alexander. 1750/1988. Theoretische Âsthetik. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Beyer, Harald. 1981. Søren Kierkegaard. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Edman, Irwin (ed.). 1928. The philosophy of Schopenhauer. New York: The Modern Library.
Ingarden, Roman. 1961. Aesthetic experience and aesthetic object. Philosophy and phenomenological research, XXI, 8, 289-313.
Juncker, Beth. 2001. Tanker om det æstetiskes betydning i hverdagen. Norsk Kulturråds konferanse “Det unyttiges nødvendighet. Kunst for barn under tre år.” Schæffergården 17.-19.august.
Levinas, Emmanuel. 2002. Fænomenologi og etik. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Løkken, Gunvor. 2000. The playful quality of the toddling “style”. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13, 5, 531-542.
Løkken, Gunvor. 2004. Toddlerkultur. Om ett og toåringers sosiale omgang i barnehagen. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Mautner, Thomas (ed.). 1997. Dictionary of philosophy. London: Penguin Books
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1945. Phénoménologie de la perception.Paris: Gallimard.
Merleau- Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception (Colin Smith, trans.).London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 2000. Øyet og ånden. Oslo: Pax Forlag.
Os, Ellen & Leif Hernes. 2004. “Under tre? – mener dere under tre?” Kunstformidling til barn under tre år – erfaringer fra prosjektet ”Klangfugl”. Stockholm: Centrum för barn och kultur, 36.
Steinholt, Ragnhild. 2003. Møte med et kirkerom og Speranza’s reise. (Rapport.) Trondheim: DMMH.
Steinkjer, Eva. 2003. Toddlerkunst eller kunst som toddler. En undersøkelse om ett- og toåringers møte med skulpturer og objekter i rom. (Hovedfagsoppgave). Trondheim: DMMH/NTNU.
Øfsti, Robert. 2001. Om å være ved sine fulle fem – om små barn, kropp, kunst og sansning. Norsk Kulturråds konferanse “Det unyttiges nødvendighet. Kunst for barn under tre år.” Schæffergården 17.-19.august.
|
