My love for the arts, a strong belief in meliorism, and a background of having been a teacher, steered me to the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, some 6 years ago, which I believed serves as one of the nation’s foremost nerve centers that nurtures intellectual thinking through art observation and critique. Intellectual thinking refers to specific kind of thinking behaviors that are rooted in rationality and are conducive to and facilitate life-long learning and meaning making in a proactive way. Precisely, these thinking behaviors are what we fall short of nurturing in schools: the ability to observe, wonder, seek evidence, consider perspectives, and so forth.
After undertaking a 2-year training course conducted by museum educators, I began giving tours to grades K-12 students from Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC, availing the open environment in museum settings that allow lively conversations around works of art, often segueing into deep, intellectual discussions when students reflect over their inference and consider perspectives open-mindedly. And then came the pandemic, bringing life to a halt as if; but creative, innovative minds at the museum put a spin around it as we opened our virtual doors for students across the country! Excitedly hopeful from this virtual tour experience, I secretly dream of the day we would begin to reach out to kids across the world and engage them in intellectual thinking through visual art!
Having given virtual tours during the pandemic from 2021 until 2023, I felt confident a year later, as I sat on my computer chair in my study, adjusted the camera, and shared my screen to see the beaming faces of twenty 6th graders from a school in Florida, who had reached out to the National Gallery to organize a tour for them. Jumping into the tour head-on, following a brief introduction, I screen-shared the image of the first painting I had selected for this group- a portrait titled ‘Ginevra’ by the world-renowned genius Leonardo da Vinci- (the only work of art by Leonardo in the United States) who painted Mona Lisa some 40 years later. While the students engaged in a close looking exercise, one of them commented that Ginevra’s dress looked like ‘it was made with rags and that she looked poor.’ Now Ginevra was actually the daughter of a wealthy banker. A poet, known for her intellect & virtuous character, Ginevra wanted as a scroll beneath the portrait, her personal motto- ‘Beauty adorns virtue’.
Clearly, I was caught flatfooted- because the kid’s response didn’t align with what I had gleaned from my research on Ginevra. Nevertheless, intending not to intimidate her, I glossed over the comment while I weaved in some observations to highlight the intricate details, subtle yet ornate, in her dress and accessories. But was it just that- intending to not intimidate the student? A little reflection and digging into the pedagogy of museum education, along with some honest introspection, revealed to me that it wasn’t the best choice I had made that day.
Sadly, what educators model to kids is that they’re supposed to know everything and always be right about everything. No room to wonder, stumble, or reverse one’s stand in the face of scanty evidence for an argument. Our brains tend to get into a groove of assumptions and automatic reactions. Conversely, museum education encourages slowing down and considering perspectives open-mindedly, being flexible to change stand, having tolerance to ambiguity and to delay closure, etc., rather than always being ready with the “right answer.” Alas, the idea of always reaching the “single right conclusion” is so intwined in our brains that I chose to “gloss over” the “wrong inference” made by the 6th grader. Ideally, what I needed to do was dig into the kids’ comment and visibly wonder about what she said and why and be ready to revisit my stand based on the reflection triggered by her challenging inference. While we teach kids to “wonder,” we ourselves must also be ready to wonder, visibly, along with kids, regardless whether we reach a plausible explanation, or hang in ambiguity that pushes us to continue to wonder. And it’s ok if we don’t reach any plausible conclusion at first blush.
May be the intrigued kid drew her inference from the lack of obvious finery- ornate dress, intricate jewelry, etc. After all, that’s how many portraits are depicted, unlike Leonardo’s Ginevra. While Ginevra wasn’t poor, her lack of obvious finery is indeed somewhat surprising. Jewels, luxurious brocades, and elaborate dresses were part of dowry exchanges and displayed family’s wealth at that time. So that was after all a great observation! A plausible explanation could have been, ‘she perhaps wanted to be remembered more for her skills and intellect than her dress…’ Aha! That would’ve validated the kid’s response and also inform my own learning about Ginevra.
If a work of art makes you wonder, piques your curiosity, or even leaves you confused, that’s an opportunity not to lose! It’s like cognitive dissonance that pushed Newton to delve into why the apple fell (and not fly away), or that made Einstein wonder why the needle kept pointing North- the confusion serving as a foundation to new knowledge. When we keep pushing through the clouds of confusion with reason, new understandings can dawn. It’s one thing to encourage inquiry, preferably collective investigations in which students get involved in brainstorming a possible explanation. But in the event of not reaching a plausible conclusion, to model that it’s ok to not find an answer in black and white at the drop of a hat is what museum education provides space for. That ambiguity is prevalent in the complex issues of the world today and not finding an answer instantly shouldn’t discomfit anyone. In fact, is there a single right answer for most of the complex problems the world faces today?
Cognitive psychologists have identified Tolerance to Ambiguity as an intellectual thinking behavior that allows individuals to ‘delay closure’ and continue to wrestle with complexity instead of arriving at simplistic understandings that are often flawed. To put it simply, it’s ok to linger, to openly wonder and not arrive at instant answers. We jump to conclusions too quickly, reach simplistic and often flawed understandings around complex issues, giving rise to world views/false narratives that don’t hold water, manipulate truth and mislead us and those around us into making wrong choices.
Facebook Comments