National Art Education Association

Determining Aesthetic StandardsAuthor(s): Ann ShermanSource: Art Education, Vol. 34, No. 6 (Nov., 1981), p. 35Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192507 .

Accessed: 11/06/2014 01:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.180 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 01:27:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Cultural Democracy in Art Education: Elitism Rebutted Cultural Democracy in Art Education: Elitism Rebutted Robert Bersson

After reading a good deal about the proposed Reagan arts policy, I

was a bit shaken to discover a thor- oughly Reagan-type of art education philosophy espoused in the front pages of the July 1981 issue of Art Education. Was it possible that the nationwide rise of political and cul- tural conservativism was finding its way into the ranks of our own profes- sion? Over the years, I had come to know art educators as persons of generally liberal persuasion, but here was philosophy and rhetoric to match the best of the Reagan arts advisors. The article causing my surprise and concern was "Elitism Versus Popul- ism: A Question of Quality," and the writer was Ralph A. Smith, founder and chairman of the Council on Pol- icy Studies, a select NAEA group which seeks to promulgate and assess policy for the profession.

In the past I had seen Smith take

Robert Bersson

After reading a good deal about the proposed Reagan arts policy, I

was a bit shaken to discover a thor- oughly Reagan-type of art education philosophy espoused in the front pages of the July 1981 issue of Art Education. Was it possible that the nationwide rise of political and cul- tural conservativism was finding its way into the ranks of our own profes- sion? Over the years, I had come to know art educators as persons of generally liberal persuasion, but here was philosophy and rhetoric to match the best of the Reagan arts advisors. The article causing my surprise and concern was "Elitism Versus Popul- ism: A Question of Quality," and the writer was Ralph A. Smith, founder and chairman of the Council on Pol- icy Studies, a select NAEA group which seeks to promulgate and assess policy for the profession.

In the past I had seen Smith take

what I would call "liberal" or "pro- gressive" positions on certain issues; for example, his opposition to com- petency-based education as a dehu- manizing, technocratic form of train- ing, not education. What I had simply not realized at the time was the con- servative, elitist nature of Smith's basic philosophy of art education, especially his view as to what consti- tutes correct content for our disci- pline. As I understand his position, Smith favors the elimination of popu- lar, folk, ethnic, applied, and social and political art as cultural forms worthy of federal support and art teaching respectively. Based on the intellectual justifications provided by the Reagan arts advisors and Smith, the place of the popular or "people's arts" in National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and in the schools, museums, and community arts cen- ters of this country would be severely reduced or eliminated. "Fine" or "high" art would reign supreme. But such philosophy and practice repre-

what I would call "liberal" or "pro- gressive" positions on certain issues; for example, his opposition to com- petency-based education as a dehu- manizing, technocratic form of train- ing, not education. What I had simply not realized at the time was the con- servative, elitist nature of Smith's basic philosophy of art education, especially his view as to what consti- tutes correct content for our disci- pline. As I understand his position, Smith favors the elimination of popu- lar, folk, ethnic, applied, and social and political art as cultural forms worthy of federal support and art teaching respectively. Based on the intellectual justifications provided by the Reagan arts advisors and Smith, the place of the popular or "people's arts" in National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and in the schools, museums, and community arts cen- ters of this country would be severely reduced or eliminated. "Fine" or "high" art would reign supreme. But such philosophy and practice repre-

sents a conservative, elitist, and his- torically reactionary response to the "expansion arts" progress of the NEA under the Carter administra- tion, and the significant cultural advances made in art education over the past decade. The Women's Cau- cus, Committee on Minority Con- cerns, United States Society for Edu- cation Through Art, Social Theory Caucus, and Environmental Design and Rural Art Educators special interest groups-all products of the last decade-should take serious note. Their hard-earned socio-cul- tural gains of recent years are now under heavy philosophical and politi- cal attack from both within and with- out the profession.

Robert Bersson is assistant profes- sor, Art Department, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia and coordinator, NAEA Caucus on Social Theory in Art Education.

sents a conservative, elitist, and his- torically reactionary response to the "expansion arts" progress of the NEA under the Carter administra- tion, and the significant cultural advances made in art education over the past decade. The Women's Cau- cus, Committee on Minority Con- cerns, United States Society for Edu- cation Through Art, Social Theory Caucus, and Environmental Design and Rural Art Educators special interest groups-all products of the last decade-should take serious note. Their hard-earned socio-cul- tural gains of recent years are now under heavy philosophical and politi- cal attack from both within and with- out the profession.

Robert Bersson is assistant profes- sor, Art Department, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia and coordinator, NAEA Caucus on Social Theory in Art Education.

Determining Aesthetic Standards Determining Aesthetic Standards

Ann Sherman

A lthough Ralph Smith is to be commended for his attack on the

mediocrity of equality, his characteri- zation of the elitism versus populism debate does not seem entirely accu- rate. ("Elitism Versus Populism: A Question of Quality," Art Education, July 1981.) Although it may be true that some participants in this debate overlook distinctions, there are sig- nificant issues which underlie much of the discussion. In particular, the issue of what is to count as "legiti- mate standards" is worthy of con- cern. Who does determine legitimate aesthetic standards and their justifi- cations? The concern of some

Ann Sherman

A lthough Ralph Smith is to be commended for his attack on the

mediocrity of equality, his characteri- zation of the elitism versus populism debate does not seem entirely accu- rate. ("Elitism Versus Populism: A Question of Quality," Art Education, July 1981.) Although it may be true that some participants in this debate overlook distinctions, there are sig- nificant issues which underlie much of the discussion. In particular, the issue of what is to count as "legiti- mate standards" is worthy of con- cern. Who does determine legitimate aesthetic standards and their justifi- cations? The concern of some

"populists" has been that these stan- dards have been accepted as legiti- mate not on rational grounds but on elitist grounds. By this they mean that standards are often deemed legit- imate not because of a judgment by the educated that they are legitimate, but simply because a particular group proclaims them to be so. The concern has been that those proposing the standards have not attempted to pro- vide others with rationales for their decisions. A contort to this concern might be: "Why should we try to provide rationales for legitimate aes- thetic standards? The uneducated would not understand them, anyway." However, not only does this assume that the only ones appro- priately educated are those making the decisions, it also participates in

"populists" has been that these stan- dards have been accepted as legiti- mate not on rational grounds but on elitist grounds. By this they mean that standards are often deemed legit- imate not because of a judgment by the educated that they are legitimate, but simply because a particular group proclaims them to be so. The concern has been that those proposing the standards have not attempted to pro- vide others with rationales for their decisions. A contort to this concern might be: "Why should we try to provide rationales for legitimate aes- thetic standards? The uneducated would not understand them, anyway." However, not only does this assume that the only ones appro- priately educated are those making the decisions, it also participates in

the cultural snobbism which Smith warns us against.

If, instead, rationales for legitimate aesthetic standards were open for discussion, the concern over elitism might be lessened. At any rate, such an approach seems considerably more democratic than a process of assuming legitimate standards and working from there. Engaging in metacriticism of proposed aesthetic standards is certainly Smith's home territory. I hope that he does not per- ceive it as an endeavor open only to majors in aesthetic education.

Ann Sherman is assistant professor of art education at the University of Kansas at Lawrence, and is presi- dent of the NAEA Women's Caucus.

the cultural snobbism which Smith warns us against.

If, instead, rationales for legitimate aesthetic standards were open for discussion, the concern over elitism might be lessened. At any rate, such an approach seems considerably more democratic than a process of assuming legitimate standards and working from there. Engaging in metacriticism of proposed aesthetic standards is certainly Smith's home territory. I hope that he does not per- ceive it as an endeavor open only to majors in aesthetic education.

Ann Sherman is assistant professor of art education at the University of Kansas at Lawrence, and is presi- dent of the NAEA Women's Caucus.

Art Education November 1981 Art Education November 1981 35 35

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.180 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 01:27:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions