Photography can be nowadays found almost everywhere. Every day we are being swamped with visual messages and the technological progress has made it possible for anyone to take photos, regardless of the knowledge and experiences. Almost every pupil owns a phone with built-in camera.
Even if mass photography is available to us today, this doesn't mean that every photo is a quality photo. You need to be familiar not only with a camera itself, but also with the basics of composition, color problems, relations of the light ... and all this is embraced in the arts education curicculum.
Given this fact, I find it reasonable to treat photography in the context of primary school curicculum (where the issue of photography is almost non-existent).
With the help of photograpy, pupils could acquire diverse knowledge in the field of art education. This technique does have certain advantages … and also disadvantages.
Therefore, I decided to compare classical painting techniques with photography at the level of implementation of painting tasks in the empirical part of my Diploma. I was interested in the final products (photographs and paintings) as well as the design process itself - how motivated the pupils really are, how long can they stay focused, think about the problem, how they deal with new approaches etc. Would it be advisable to replace the classical painting techniques with photography?
My findings and conclusion are based on the analysis of the most distinct works of children.
|
