I don't understand the question.
2007-04-25 04:18:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Tristan Robert Due March 20 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
A bit of over reaching there, wouldn't you say, to get rid of poverty. The usual goal is more moderate - to expose kids to artistic experiences they are unlikely to encounter in poverty stricken homes and poorly equipped schools. Part of the problem is defining whether you are working with all these ages for the first time or setting up a program that will build on previous classes when younger. If the former, then you are going to have to choose materials that will work with younger (fingers, sponges and rags) and with older (brushes, stenciling) which probably means poster paints.
One method that accumulates it to work toward panel displays of many smaller pieces and murals as a unit.
2007-04-25 11:26:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mike1942f 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The question is two completely unrelated things. If you want to teach painting then do it, but don't try to embellish it into a solution for poverty. That would be goofy.
2007-04-25 11:20:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tom W 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you're suggesting a youth painting program for children in poor families. The arts is a good way to reach children. Helping them to learn new skills, creative outlets certainly can help them to see themselves in a new light. Encouraging young people to work toward a goal (education, economic stability, peace) is worthwhile work. Of course, a single art program is not going to end povery...but if enough people help it will make a difference.
2007-04-25 11:27:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by fdm215 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your question doesn't make a lot of sense..
You want to make paintings about getting rid of poverty?
Have them paint this:
Paiting #1. Kids should not have kids!
Painting #2. Don't have kids you can't afford!
There, poverty goes away..
2007-04-25 11:22:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by karr1213 4
·
0⤊
2⤋