In addition to the physical benefits of working with clay and, in some cases, as a result of these physical benefits, there are many cognitive benefits to be had from working with the medium. The cognitive benefits which can be gained while working with clay range from encouraging deeper levels of concentration to developing greater problem-solving strategies (March, 2019; Golomb & McCormick, 1995). Other cognitive benefits resulting from clay experiences include strengthening and expanding one’s methods of thinking, developing one’s own set of symbols to represent concepts, increasing one’s memory, and advancing one’s language skills (March, 2019; Lowenfeld,1952; McGrath, 2001; Huang, 2016).
While working with clay may seem like a simple activity from an external viewpoint, ceramics is actually a very intricate and complex activity, described by my former ceramics instructor and artist, Hluch (2001), as a process requiring “sophisticated behavior” (p. 39). According to Lowenfeld (1952), students’ clay creations can even be analyzed by teachers, in much the same manner that students’ drawings have been traditionally analyzed, to understand students’ stages of cognitive development. For example, Lowenfeld (1952) believed that pounding clay can be equated to a child drawing a random mess of lines in the scribble stage.
However, in light of continued research into the cognitive and artistic development of children, it is necessary to note that Lowenfeld’s age-stage model of artistic development has been questioned in art education for its accuracy, thoroughness, and reliability in determining children’s level of cognitive maturity (Wilson & Wilson, 1981). Lowenfeld failed to acknowledge the many internal and external factors which can impact the individual’s artistic performance, including but not limited to social conventions, advancements in technology, and gender differences (Efland, 2002; Wilson & Wilson, 1981).[1]
Through the lens of working with clay, Golomb echoes and expands on the reasons Wilson & Wilson (1981) provide as to why age-stage models of artistic and cognitive development, like that of Lowenfeld, are inaccurate or incomplete. Golomb (1992) argues that the scope of the media which has been mistakenly believed to follow linear stages of cognitive development from simple to complex, can be widened to include three-dimensional media, specifically the medium of clay. To begin, students’ artistic skills of working with clay have been wrongly assumed to reflect the students’ level of cognitive development (Golomb, 1992). Making this assumption ignores the fact that cognitive maturity does not guarantee competency with a medium (Golomb, 1992). Assuming that the level of realism in one’s clay creation expresses one’s level of cognitive ability also overlooks such factors as the technical difficulties of working with the medium, the amount of effort invested, the level of instruction students receive, and cultural values or norms (Golomb, 1992). Additionally, Golomb and McCormick’s (1995) research findings that most kindergarten students possess a basic understanding of three-dimensional objects, and can create sculptures with up to six sides, contradict the assumed linear progression of three-dimensional artistic skill development. Age-stage models of artistic and cognitive development are further refuted in Golomb and McCormick’s (1995) discovery that the figural complexity of clay figures made by adults often equals that of middle school students, aged nine to thirteen, at which point their artistic advancement of clay skills tends to plateau without further instruction.
Rather than functioning as a reflection of one’s level of cognitive ability as was understood in Lowenfeld’s age-stage theory, Efland (2002) explains that making art and improving one’s artistic skills develop out of a “cognitive endeavor” to express one’s self graphically within the various social and cultural contexts, to form and understand symbols, to create personal meaning, and to acquire knowledge through making connections between art and life so that they can better understand the world (p. 49).[2] There are many ways in which clay experiences can encourage students to make and to find meaning by engaging in various cognitive processes (Douglas & Schwartz, 1967; Vieth, 1999; Fountain, 2014).
One major cognitive benefit of working with clay is that it can encourage deeper levels of mental concentration and focus from students due to the tangible and tactile qualities of the medium (Davis, 1988). The hands-on learning and immediacy of clay can also promote active cognitive participation during the act of making and instill a level of cognitive awareness necessary to become more fully present in the moment (Higby, 1988; Golomb, 1988). Interestingly, sculptures, including those made of clay, require active cognitive participation, unlike traditional two-dimensional art media, which may only necessitate passive cognitive participation for completion (Ash, 2000).
Another cognitive benefit of clay is strengthening and expanding students’ methods of thinking. As March (2019) explains, students often engage in the activity known as “visual thinking” when using clay (p. 144). In visual thinking, students actively analyze and evaluate their clay sculpture, while adding to and modifying the piece to improve its end result (March, 2019). Interestingly, the creation of a clay sculpture visually demonstrates the complex cognitive interactions between and reactions to such associations and factors as the artist’s memories, emotions, prior and current knowledge, and past and current experiences (March, 2019). As a result, when applying visual thinking during the creation of a clay sculpture, the artwork “transforms” as the artist engages in a sort of “exploration” of self and the world (March, 2019, pp. 146-147). Interestingly, Bar-On (2007) refers to this interaction between clay and student as a “dialogue” in which abstract concepts and cognitive processes can become more concrete and tangible by means of physically creating or interacting with the three-dimensional, tangible medium of clay (p. 225).
Furthermore, working with the hands-on medium of clay while engaging in visual thinking can strengthen students’ cognitive ability to problem-solve, specifically regarding their visual and kinesthetic problem-solving skills, by involving students in such tasks as trial-and-error, repairing cracks or breaks, and altering the form to improve their sculpture (Bar-On, 2007; E. Delacruz, personal communication, November 12, 2020). As Eckmann (1988) explains, creating with clay involves “…the search for answers to questions that have multiple solutions” (p. 44). In fact, when working with clay, the options or solutions are potentially infinite as the student can create in both two and three-dimensions and develop an artwork that is either decorative, functional, or both (Eckmann, 1988). However, as noted by Daley (1988), the critical factor to unlocking and discovering one’s potential with clay is to remain mindful of the medium’s physical limitations, such as its inability to hold a rigid form when in the softer end of the plastic stage, while considering and exploring their options for self-expression. Thus, through gaining experience in working with clay, students can acquire such higher-level and critical thinking skills as evaluating, reasoning, making decisions, and, ultimately, solving open-ended and real-world problems (Daley, 1988; Moross, 1988). Moreover, by engaging in the processes of visual thinking and problem-solving with clay, students can learn to engage, persist, envision, reflect, stretch, and explore, all of which are important studio habits of mind (E. Delacruz, personal communication, November 12, 2020; Hetland et al., 2013).[3]
While March (2019) and Bar-On (2007) explained how individuals can apply visual thinking when problem-solving with clay, Lowenfeld (1952) further identified the specific types of thinking that students can be seen applying during the creation of a clay sculpture or form. According to Lowenfeld (1952), working with clay requires both analytical and synthetical thinking. Students can be seen applying the analytical method of thinking when they start with the whole object in mind and pull parts out from or cut unnecessary parts away from the entire piece of clay, relying on what they are physically observing or mentally envisioning (Lowenfeld, 1952). On the other hand, the synthetical method of thinking is demonstrated when students begin with individual parts and attach these parts together (Lowenfeld, 1952). Compared to the analytical method, the synthetical method of thinking tends to involve less visual thinking and a greater reliance on both previous experiences and an “activation of passive knowledge” (Lowenfeld, 1952, p. 166).
Not only can clay strengthen different types of thinking but working with clay can also provide students with the opportunity to develop their own system of physical forms to represent concepts symbolically or metaphorically (McGrath, 2001). As clay’s physical properties can help make abstract concepts more concrete and support the student in processing information gained through sensory experiences, working with clay can actually aid students in acquiring and communicating meaning about the world (Fountain, 2014). Therefore, through non-verbal means, the visual quality of ceramic pieces makes it a great vehicle for communicating meaning, whether literal or conceptual, to a more universal audience (Vieth, 1999).
Furthermore, working with clay can promote students’ cognitive skills of memory, language acquisition, and comprehension of even the most difficult or abstract concepts (Huang, 2016; Kokis, 1988). For instance, in a study of kindergarten students working to acquire language skills, Huang (2016) discovered that working with environmental stimuli, specifically clay, activated the cognitive region of the brain, the same region of the brain responsible for the thinking-reasoning process (Huang, 2016). Within this study, students were provided the opportunity to engage in creative clay projects in which they immediately applied newly acquired language knowledge (Huang, 2016). In one particular experience, students sculpted a mouth with teeth after learning about the word teeth (Huang, 2016). This unique, hands-on experience not only promoted students’ memory of the learned information, but it also deepened their comprehension of the subject and encouraged them to expand on their learning by then prompting a discussion of oral hygiene and tongues (Huang, 2016).
The tactile, three-dimensional quality of clay can also promote students’ understanding of the abstract concept of space (Hannan, 2014). According to Hannan (2014), when creating clay sculptures, students can develop and advance their spatial awareness, whether applying the clay hand-building techniques of slab construction, pinching, or coiling, as students are tasked with the challenge of manipulating the positive space occupied by their sculpture as well of considering the negative space surrounding it. Compared to two-dimensional media, working with the three-dimensional medium of clay in a three-dimensional world can provide a more intimate and immediate connection between the medium, the world, and the student (Hannan, 2014). From this connection, students can better comprehend and identify with the concept of space, the space not only occupied by the clay piece, but also the space occupied by themselves as well as by the rest of the world around them (Hannan, 2014). Moreover, given the endless possibilities with clay, working with this medium can strengthen students’ cognitive processes responsible for measuring, processing visual information, visualizing, and imagination (Hannan, 2014).
Footnotes:
[1] Despite the limitations of the age-stage model, many of Lowenfeld’s theories, research, and writings remain well-regarded and influential in the field of art education. For example, Lowenfeld’s book, Creative and Mental Growth, which was first published in 1947, is “widely recognized as the most influential art education text of the twentieth century” (Penn State College of Arts and Architecture, n.d., para. 6). Each year, the National Art Education Association (NAEA) even sponsors a Lowenfeld Award and corresponding Lowenfeld Lecture (National Art Education Association, 2016). Recipients of the Lowenfeld Award “have focused their professional work on children’s art making, following Lowenfeld’s contributions to understanding how children’s artistry contributes to holistic development―creatively, aesthetically, intellectually, socially, emotionally, and physically” (Penn State College of Arts and Architecture, n.d., para. 2).
[2] Efland (2002) argues for an integrated cognitive theory for art education in which the art teacher provides student-centered learning opportunities in which the student is encouraged to apply cultural and social contexts and tools to construct meaning and organize understanding, through the creation and analysis of art. Within this theory, the art teacher should coach students in metacognitive strategies, allow for student choice and voice, embrace the full spectrum of representational methods from abstract to realistic, scaffold instruction, and guide students in making real-world connections (Efland, 2002). Rather than an isolated, narrow focus on a single cognitive theory, Efland (2002) believes that this integrated theory of cognition will help “harmonize” the various models and polices within the various cognitive theories (p. 79).
[3] Please see the academic benefits section of this literature review for a more detailed discussion of the studio habits of mind.
References
Ash, A. (2000). Sculpture in secondary schools: A neglected discipline. In N. Addison, & L. Burgess (Eds.), Learning to teach art & design in the secondary school: A companion to school experience (pp. 210-219). Routledge.
Bar-On, T. (2007). A meeting with clay: Individual narratives, self-reflection, and action. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(4), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.4.225
Daley, W. (1988). Form makes thought: Perceptions of a form-maker. In G. Williams (Ed.), A case for clay in secondary art education (p. 27). Studio Potter. https://studiopotter.org/sites/default/files/Case-for-Clay_SP_1988v16n02.pdf
Davis, S. (1988). Listening to the clay. In G. Williams (Ed.), A case for clay in secondary art
education (pp. 42-43). Studio Potter. https://studiopotter.org/sites/default/files/Case-for-Clay_SP_1988v16n02.pdf
Douglas, N., & Schwartz, J. (1967). Increasing awareness of art ideas of young children through guided experiences with ceramics. Studies in
Art Education, 8(2), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320032
Eckmann, L. (1988). How to build a comprehensive clay program for grades 4-12. In G. Williams (Ed.), A case for clay in secondary art education (pp. 44-46). Studio Potter. https://studiopotter.org/sites/default/files/Case-for-Clay_SP_1988v16n02.pdf
Efland, A. (2002). Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. Teachers
College Press. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=nlebk&AN=98772&site=eds-live&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_C
Fountain, H. L. R. (2014). Differentiated instruction in art. Art Education in Practice. Davis Publications.
Golomb, C. (1988). Early representational concepts of the human figure in a three-dimensional medium. In G. Williams (Ed.), A case for clay in secondary art education (pp. 35-38). Studio Potter. https://studiopotter.org/sites/default/files/Case-for-Clay_SP_1988v16n02.pdf
Golomb, C. (1992, September). Art and the young child: Another look at the developmental question (Report No. ED352163). Educational Resources Information Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED352163.pdf
Golomb, C., & McCormick, M. (1995). Sculpture: The development of three-dimensional representation in clay. Visual Arts Research, 21(1), 35- 50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715842
Hannon, R. (2014). Spatial awareness through ceramics education. Ceramics Technical, (38), 108–112.
Hluch, K. A. (2001). The art of contemporary American pottery. Krause Publications.
Higby, W. (1988). Viewing the launching pad: The arts, clay, and education. In G. Williams (Ed.), A case for clay in secondary art education (pp. 66-68). Studio Potter. https://studiopotter.org/sites/default/files/Case-for-Clay_SP_1988v16n02.pdf
Huang, Y. (2016). Manifestation of creative clay in kindergarten language courses. Annual International Conference on Education & E-Learning, 81–84. https://doi.org/10.5176/2251-1814_EeL16.25
Kokis, G. (1988). Illusion and the clay conversation. In G. Williams. (Ed.), A case for clay in secondary art education. (pp. 38-40). Studio Potter. https://studiopotter.org/sites/default/files/Case-for-Clay_SP_1988v16n02.pdf
Lowenfeld, V. (1952). Creative and mental growth. Macmillan. https://archive.org/stream/creativementalgr00/creativementalgr00_djvu.txt
March, P. L. (2019). Playing with clay and the uncertainty of agency. A Material Engagement Theory perspective. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9552-9
McGrath, V. (2001). Ceramics at the Academy of Arts: School of Visual and Performing Arts University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania. Ceramics Technical, (13), 101-102.
Moross, M. J. (1988). Modeling ideas. In G. Williams (Ed.), A case for clay in secondary art education (pp. 46-47). Studio Potter. https://studiopotter.org/sites/default/files/Case-for-Clay_SP_1988v16n02.pdf
National Art Education Association. (2016, January 16). Lowenfeld lectures.
https://www.arteducators.org/research/articles/104-lowenfeld-lectures
Penn State College of Arts and Architecture. (n.d.). Lowenfeld Award has special meaning for art education professor. https://artsandarchitecture.psu.edu/news/lowenfeld-award-has-special-meaning-art-education-professor
Vieth, K. (1999). From ordinary to extraordinary: Art & design problem solving. Davis Publications.
Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1981). The use and uselessness of developmental stages. Art Education, 34(5), 4-5. https://doi.org/10.2307/3192469