1

Breannah Gammon
ART 130 - Aesthetics and Art Criticism
Dr. Amber Ward
10/4/16

Lowenfeld’s Theories Observed and

Analyzed: A Short Study of Two Children

There has been an endless number of theories produced and developed about a child’s

development and learning, and support for many of these could be seen in various different

studies depending on the child or children observed. As an interactive observer I have studied

and analyzed two children of different ages while they draw. For purposes of this paper I will

refer to the first child as Megan, a girl of age 8, and the second child as Matt, a boy of age 6.

Through observation of these children and their artwork it became apparent that theories of the

influential art education theorist, Viktor Lowenfeld, were reflected; each child displayed aspects

of the stage matching their age group and of stages near them in their drawings.

Lowenfeld’s Theory of Stages Broken Down

In Lowenfeld’s theory there are developmental stages which are broken down by age. It

is important to recognize that these stages can be fluid and “melt into one another and children

progress at different paces, depending upon numerous factors.” (Lambert and Lowenfeld, 1987)

Ages four to seven years old, we’ll begin here because of the children’s observed ages, are

called The Preschematic Stage. It is in this stage that children attempt their first representational

drawings. These drawings are, according to Lowenfeld, characterized as “shapes for things are

geometric and lose their meaning when removed from the whole… placement and size of objects

are determined subjectively… objects drawn are not related to one another… art becomes

communication with the sef… known objects seem to be catalogued or listed pictorially… [and

the child] can copy a square at four, a triangle at five.” (1987) It is in this stage as well that

“objects seem to float around the page” (Lambert and Lowenfeld, 1987) and figure
 2

representations have a “gradual inclusion of arms...body, fingers, toes [and] distortion and

omission of parts is to be expected.” (1987) After this, according to Lowenfeld, children seven

to nine years of age enter the Schematic Stage where they achieve form and concept. In this stage

there is a “development of a form concept which is repeated again and again… drawings reflect a

child’s active knowledge of the environment.” (Lambert and Lowenfeld, 1987) In the spatial

representation of this stage, Lowenfeld describes an “establishment of a baseline on which

objects are placed and often a sky line, with the space between representing the air”; there would

be “two dimensional organization of objects” with “no or little overlapping” within a symbolized

environment. (1987)

Lowenfeld’s Theories Applied in Observations of Child One.

Spacial Representation within the Drawings. While observing Megan, aspects of

Lowenfeld’s theory began to align themselves with the child’s actions and drawings. In her

spacial representation Megan’s drawings fell much more in line with The Preschematic stage of

four to seven year olds even though she is a child of eight, further supporting the idea that these

stages may be somewhat fluid. As seen in images 1 through 5, the figures Megan drew seem to

be floating around the page, she has yet to start establishing a baseline or ground for her

drawings like in the Schematic Stage.

Figure Representation within the Drawings. Megan’s drawings include aspects of both

the Preschematic stage and the Schematic stage for her figure representation. As in the earlier

Preschematic stage, her figure representation has a “gradual inclusion of arms, body fingers,

toes… [and] distortion and omission of parts is to be expected.” (Lambert and Lowenfeld, 1987

In image 3 we can see especially that the legs,feet and toes of the creature drawn are fairly

distorted and seem to be somewhat detached from the body even though there is a clear effort to
 3

create a recession of space in the legs as they are overlapped suggesting two are in front of the

others. There are also aspects of the Schematic Stage in Megan’s figure representations as well.

As Lowenfeld described in his concept, Megan’s figures are “made up of geometric shapes” and

the “arms and legs show volume are are usually correctly placed” (Lambert and Lowenfeld,

1987) These things can be seen in images 1, 2, and 3.

Lowenfeld’s Theories Applied in Observations of Child Two.

Drawing Characteristics within Stages. In Matt’s drawings there are aspects of both the

Preschematic Stage in which his age falls under, as well as the upcoming Schematic Stage for

seven to nine year olds. As in the Preschematic stage, “placement and size of objects are

determined subjectively” (Lambert and Lowenfeld, 1987) , observed in image 6 we can see that

the pot of gold and flower are relatively the same in size and proportionally huge in relation to

the sun, rainbow and clouds drawn around them. In image 7 we can see more Preschematic

characteristics in that the “objects are drawn are not related to one another” (Lambert and

Lowenfeld, 1987) when Matt drew several different scenes and objects around the page. In the

same image we can see that “known objects seem to be catalogued or listed pictorially” (Lambert

and Lowenfeld, 1987) when Matt divided up the page into 8 sections within a rectangle.

When observing both drawings done by Matt (see images 6 and 7) we can see some

characteristics of the Schematic stage developing as well. In both images the child drew a

rainbow with a pot of gold as well as a blue flower that has curly vines emerging from it. From

this evidence we can see that, as described by Lowenfeld, “development of a form concept is

repeated again and again” as well as that the “drawing shows concept, not percept. Bold direct,

flat representations.” (1987) The fact that Matt drew an environment like that of the cloudy scene

in image 6 and scenes like the tree with a swing and a house with a cable satellite in image 7 also
 4

reflect Lowenfeld’s Schematic stage in that the drawings “reflect a child’s active knowledge of

the environment.” (Lambert and Lowenfeld, 1987)

Spacial Representation within the Drawings. The spatial representation of Matt’s

drawings seem to best fit the characteristics of the Schematic stage even though he is younger

than the given seven to nine year age range. As seen in image 6, there is an “establishment of a

baseline on which objects are placed and.. a skyline, with the space between representing the

air.” (Lambert and Lowenfeld, 1987) We can see a baseline established by the clouds at the

foreground in which the pot of gold and base of the rainbow seem to rest. There is a skyline

defined by the clouds and sun, and a suggested air space included by the use of blue filling in the

spaces between all the objects. There is also a “two-dimensional organization of objects”

(Lambert and Lowenfeld, 1987) shown by the child’s flat and outline based representation of the

pot of gold sitting on the cloud at the center of image 6. Also defined by Lowenfeld in the

Schematic stage and shown in Matt’s drawings is the lack of overlapping between objects on the

paper; all objects are either not touching at all or hardly ever border each other.

Successes and Challenges Associated with Utilizing Lowenfeld’s Theory

Lowenfeld’s theories were very easy to utilize and the characteristics of the different

stages were simple to identify. These characteristics were also broad enough that they would be

seen in the children’s drawings no matter the subject they chose. However, they way that each

stage was broken down by age was somewhat problematic. While Lowenfeld does state that

these stages aren’t rigid like others, that children can indeed be in between stages, I found that

the younger child, Matt age 6, fit the older age range’s Schematic stage far better than the older

Megan did as a child that was actually in that age range.

 5

Other educators have also criticized Lowenfeld’s theories suggesting that there was a

strong bias toward traditional Western culture and ideas, ignoring cultural influences outside of

that.

“Lowenfeld's failure to consider cultural influences on art development provided a major

criticism of his art development stages. Culture exerted a strong influence on perceptual

training and on habits concerning orientation to space, as well as how art behavior was

rewarded. In the early stages of child art expression, there were some similarities in the

depiction of time and space (Hamblen, 1985). Lowenfeld's text did not consider the

influence of culture or subculture.” (Alter-Muri, 2002)

Lowenfeld is criticized for not taking into consideration the variations of cultures and how they

may affect what the child does. The neglect of cultural differences may help to explain why one

child may have fit the characteristics laid out in Lowenfeld’s stages far more than the other since

the children came from different cultural backgrounds.

“According to Hamblen (1985), stage theory was attractive because it had a defined order

and a Western bias toward culturally defined, positive improvement values, and progress

toward a goal. Further, stage theory prescribed a predetermined endpoint... in other

cultures, visual realism was not the only end state in children's graphic development. On

the other hand, in Western cultures where studies of graphic development had occurred

(Hamblen, 1985), visual realism seemed the preferred, predominant stylistic endpoint.

Hamblen indicated that Western medieval art had size distortions and perspective

problems because society was in a pre-concrete thinking stage. However, Hamblen

(1985) and Kellogg (1969) acknowledge the cross-cultural commonalities that appeared
 6

in young children's graphic expression. Researchers often had difficulty distinguishing

the art of children under the age of five from one culture to another.” (Alter-Muri, 2002)

It is possible that because each of the children observed had different cultural influences, this

may have affected they way they depict their world and their ideas. However, these differences

did not make a large enough impact to where they were not at all able to align with Lowenfeld’s

stages in a majority of ways. This may be because Lowenfeld’s stages are defined so broadly,

when looked at closely aspects of his stages can be observed.

Implications of Lowenfeld’s Theories for Learners and Educators

Because Lowenfeld’s stages are so well defined in characteristics and age range,

educators need to keep in mind that each child is a unique individual and won’t fit neatly into

one specific stage; an implication that would come with any theory dealing with stages. It’s for

this reason it would be wise for educators to utilize other theories in their practice that emphasize

each child as an individual like that of Maria Montessori and John Dewey. For the learner

Lowenfeld’s theories mean that they need to be allowed to take advantage of the aspects of art

that allow them to “portray feelings, intellectual abilities, physical development, perceptual

sensitivities, creative involvement, social development, and aesthetic awareness” (Lambert and

Lowenfeld, 1987) without being judged or hindered as they age.