I started the Spring 2022 session with my announcement to the class to add at least one element to your weekly painting that is different from the rest of the class. Moving towards my ambitious goal of bringing up “better” artist students, I asked the class to start easy by keeping the similar manner of tracing and coloring of the previous sessions before finishing with a personal touch. I got this idea from the unique ways the students signed their artwork. Some initialed their first and last name and some had distinctive signatures everyone could recognize. The tiny touch of their name changed the cookie-cutter look of their artworks and added personality. I noticed their attempt to be creative and their self-expression was captured within the small signatures. I wondered what other elements could reflect the students’ innerselves and be expressed in the artmaking process. As I found they had potential to create something different in their artwork, I wanted to provide more chances for them to take a creative risk. The idea of pushing the students out of their comfort zone indeed felt like a risk from both the perspectives of the students and myself. The students felt safe within the class routine where they could expect the whole process and outcome. Changing their routine required them to be different and expose their vulnerable thoughts for criticism. I think the students were afraid of making “mistakes” or being “wrong.” Trying out this new approach to include a personal touch in their work also made me uncomfortable as a teacher as I needed not to judge the student’s artwork. I had to be careful about word choice when I shared my thoughts on their artwork. Additionally, I had to allow the students to explore beyond my planned lesson which required me to be more flexible and improvise; the outcome was uncertain and unpredictable. 

I initiated the new approach as a refresher in our practice and anticipated students would expand their creativity beyond the class materials. The first project for the Spring 2022 session was learning how to paint sunflowers in watercolor. The initial week focused on technical step by step guides on color combinations and brush strokes. I reminded the students that the following weeks would be self-led painting sessions to create their own sunflowers by using the obtained techniques. I encouraged each student to be creative and move beyond my example work and guidance. Some students shared their frustrations about how difficult it was to add a unique touch and were afraid of ruining their work with the additional elements. Creating a new painting from a blank paper was a challenge for many students. I encouraged them to give it a try and assured them the discomfort is normal at first and will turn into an enjoyable effort later. 

Before initiating this approach, I observed a behavior of students repeatedly producing the same look of artwork. Even on their own painting time at home, the students reproduced classwork or created very similar pieces. When they shared their finished artwork from their homes during class, I applaud their effort of hard work while questioning what the students really wanted to achieve in their art making. Could it be a full control of their artwork? Within the rectangle of a blank piece of paper, each student had absolute power and all brush marks were evidence of the impact the student holds. If power could be found in total control within their painting, it contrasts the reality of the students navigating through unclear paths and feeling powerless in their despondent living in the US. I started to believe a thorough examination beyond their artwork was needed to better understand my students. My curiosity expanded wanting to learn more of the student’s thoughts and the reasons behind the choices the students made within their artwork. 

While the class started to explore new ways to make their art, I was imagining a new approach to teaching and preparing a lecture on creative risk taking. To give my students a better understanding of what I meant by “creativity,” I assembled examples of paintings that looked different from the traditional painting style of realism. I thought those paintings would visually guide the students to the direction I wanted them to follow. The Illustrated History of Art published by Chancellor Press in 2000 had many images I was looking for in the 20th Century chapter. As I prepared a lecture using images of paintings including Pablo Picasso’s, I suddenly remembered that previously, many of my students said that they do not enjoy the modern and contemporary art paintings because it was hard to relate to and they do not find them amusing. Thinking of presenting the painting images that the students already expressed their dislike of made me hesitate. Although I wanted to introduce the students to art outside their comfort zone which I believed were great examples of creativity, I started to doubt the idea. Their distaste of modern paintings made me question their creativity. At the same time, I started to doubt if my students really needed more of the creativity which I was trying to conceptualize with the collected images. Was I being forceful to push creativity and devaluing the students’ artwork by comparison to the paintings I found in a book? Was I telling my students they must be creative, as if they were lacking in their capabilities? That was not true. The students were already skillful and hardworking. I realized creativity cannot be a qualification to define my students and I needed to stop the idea of changing their artwork to be different. More importantly, my students did not get a chance to express themselves with the methods I taught in the previous classes. Exploring beyond the planned lessons was unthinkable for the students and me for many years. All the lesson plans were created and instructed by me, and students followed all the guidelines I presented as if that was the only way to transfer knowledge. It led me to question how knowledge is challenged or shared. My knowledge is not absolute. Its value and significance is subjective. Additionally, it is ironic to encourage differences and uniqueness while I expected the same result and learning experience from the students. I disregarded their individual personalities and backgrounds and expected them to be unified. My preparation was shortsighted, believing every member of the class had the same willingness to adopt the change, accept the challenge, and receive the expected outcomes from the lecture. My attitudes and practice resembled the “banking education” method Freire (2000) mentioned in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It is a pedagogical approach in which teachers “deposit” knowledge into the “banks” of students’ brains, and where “the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are the mere objects” (p.73). The continued pattern of the class and my perception towards the students revealed the problems were not the students but instead my pedagogy. I was gratified by this understanding before actually delivering the lecture. The lecture was forcing the students to take a risk on creativity.