National Art Education Association

Franz Cizek: Art Education's Man for All SeasonsAuthor(s): James P. AndersonSource: Art Education, Vol. 22, No. 7 (Oct., 1969), pp. 26-30Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191379 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 00:34

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 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:34:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4 - I

The concept of creative teaching in art, like many things, is subject to change. Those who are acknowledged at one point in history to be leaders of "creativity" may appear highly restrictive at another time. An examination of the writing and methods of Franz Cizek, considered to be one of the pioneers of art education and the "father" of process centered teaching, reveals the extent of such changes.

BY JAMES P. ANDERSON. In 1963, a monograph entitled The Educationists and the Evisceration of the Visual Arts by David Manzella 1 shocked the "creative pants" off art education. An indictment was made charging that art education today is like a disemboweled carcass. The symbolism indicated that art education has little or no relationship to the world of art. In reply, Victor D'Amico 2

warned the art teaching world of a retrogression in methodology to practices "proven" harmful by his generation of art educators. He made an emotional plea to "keep the faith" and not to cast aside creative teaching before it has a chance to get off the ground. In the same year Robert Burkhart, et. al.,a were the "darlings" of the national convention in Kansas City espousing a scientific breakthrough in identifying spontaneous and deliberate ways of learning by analyzing children's art. Howard Conant read a paper in an effort to gain the convention's approval for higher standards in art teacher training and certification.4 In retrospect, one could say it was a very good year for art education.

It seems 1963 was pivotal relative to recent trends in art education-trends that are apparently putting art back into art education, coupled with a declining use of process centered methods. Our professional journal, Art Education, is now similar in format to the better "slick" art magazines. The child art, so beautifully reproduced, is

Facing page, pen and ink drawings by 13- year-old female students of Franz Cizek's, modified here by reproduction in two colors of the editors' choice. Another drawing from this series appears on page 29 in black and white, as originally executed.

27

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:34:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

L c

c c

C)

' i-

Co 0,

o L •." ?u , "

LI /"- fWW -> .

V - O~)~ty) /U

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:34:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Below, painting done in distemper as a homework assignment by an 11-year-old girl student. Facing page, top, a pen and ink drawing by a boy of 13; below, another distemper painting done as homework by girl, age 13. Two additional samples of homework assignments executed by students of Cizek are reproduced on the following spread: on page 30, a tempera painting by a girl of 14; on page 31, a woodcut by a girl of 15 (with background color added editorially). All of the illustrations accompanying this article are from the volume "Child Art and Franz Cizek," written by Wilhelm Viola and published by the Junior Red Cross of Vienna, Austria, in 1936.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:34:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

highly reflective of contemporary adult art. Seldom does one read the "How We String Bloated Oaties in the Sixth Grade" articles, for generally the literature is scholarly. Every issue offers something of our historical or contemporary heritage in art, as if to cast off as totally untrue those dramatic Manzella assertions of 1963.

It was quite by accident, while browsing through some old art publications, that I saw for the first time Wilhelm Viola's Child Art and Franz Cizek 5 published in 1936

by the Austrian Junior Red Cross. Some years ago, as a student, I knew Cizek was considered to be the "father" of process centered art education. Brief accounts by Viktor Lowenfeld and Frederick Logan attributed many creative teaching methods to Cizek. Just after the turn of the century, his Juvenile Art Class in Vienna served

progressive education as a model and brought Cizek international recognition. In many ways Viola's little book proved to be far more shocking than Manzella's

monograph. I could hardly believe the works that were

photographically reproduced or some of the descriptions of Cizek's philosophy and methods. The student art

appeared to be created in a restrictive class situation. After this brief period of disbelief, I found hilarious relief

wondering how the leading art educators might react to, Viola's book. No doubt all of the educators mentioned know of this particular publication, but what about their followers?

What would be the reactions of scholars engaged in

scientifically analyzing spontaneous and deliberate types, should they observe that Cizek taught only students with "deliberate high ratings?" How disconcerting would it be to read the following excerpts?

Teachers should also beware of the sophisticated, for even what is childlike, as well as the work of adults, can be imitated.6

Now the question arises: who are these Cizek children?

They are regular Viennese school children from five to fourteen years old, girls and boys, who come once a week for two hours to the Juvenile Art Class. They are not so called "talented" children, but they are creative children. Once in a while it happens that an uncreative child finds his way to Prof. Cizek. He is not

compelled to leave but usually, after a short time, he stays away of his own accord, because he does not feel at home in the class.'

Now and then a set of class work is hung on the wall and children themselves are allowed to criticize, even

adversely. (A parallel idea: corporal punishment by grown-ups is a terrible thing; but who would object if healthy children of the same age should thrash each other?) 8

I also heartily subscribe to the belief that all children should be taught, before they leave school, to represent what they see with the physical eye, for although accurate representation cannot be called art, it is an international language, the value of which cannot be denied.9

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:34:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The product-centered camp must be delighted to know Franz Cizek trained at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna and at his birthplace in Leitmeritz. Further, he continued creating as an artist even when most of his interest was in his private art school. However, in later life (after 60 years of age) apparently Cizek did give way completely to art education.

To avoid misunderstanding: Cizek regards himself not as a psychologist, a sociologist, or an educationist but as a creator. He is undoubtedly also an educator as is every artist, and an artist as every real educator at least should be.lo

Cizek regards himself, as we have said, only as a creator. Since 1925 he has not painted a single picture; presumably because he believes that the artistic culture of the people is essentially more important than exhibiting a dozen or more pictures. He holds also that the present age is entirely unfavorable to art."1

One might be prompted to compare the Juvenile Art Class with the present day museum classes for children. No doubt the relationship is strong, and those educators advocating removal of studio training for children from the public schools are supported by a similar action by Cizek. However, Cizek started his private art school

for diametrical reasons. The Juvenile Art Class was started to remove children from the disturbing influence of adults and the adult art world. Product centered teachers, on the other hand, want art education to be closely associated with art, lest it become a disemboweled carcass.

D'Amico's warning of a retrogression in methodology seems to be substantiated. Indeed, current practices in teaching children to draw accurately what they see would be a retrogression. It seems almost paradoxical to retrogress all the way back to the "father" of creative art teaching. Will creative teachers of today consider the art formed by Cizek's students to be the results of creative teaching?

A second book by Viola,12 Child Art, gives greater detail of Cizek's teachings, but does not change in philosophical content. Since Viola was Cizek's close friend, it seems likely any disagreement with the first manuscript would have resulted in omission or change (the second being published after Cizek's death). Admittedly, the quotations are out of context, and any scholar will recognize that all are secondary sources of evidence-enough evidence, however, to form a thesis: Cizek's concept of creative teaching has changed considerably over the years. Anyone should expect change, but these changes apparently make Franz Cizek to be art education's man for all seasons.

James P. Anderson is chairman of the Art Department, Muskingum College, New Concord, Ohio.

References 1 David Manzella, The Educationists and the Eviseration of the

Visual Arts. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Co., 1962. 2 Victor D'Amico, "Does Creative Education Have a Future?"

An unpublished essay delivered at the Conference of the Inter- national Society for Education through Art (INSEA), Mont- real, 1963.

3 Robert C. Burkhart, Spontaneous and Deliberate Ways of Learning. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Co., 1962.

4 Howard Conant, "Work Forums, the Education and Certifica- tion of Teachers of Art." A paper read at the Conference of the National Art Education Association, Kansas City, Mo., 1963.

5 Wilhelm Viola, Child Art and Franz Cizek. Vienna, Austria: Austrian Junior Red Cross, 1936.

6 ibid., p. 7. 7 ibid., p. 20. 8 ibid., p. 22. 9 ibid., p. 7.

10 ibid., p. 28. 11 ibid. 12 Wilhelm Viola, Child Art. Peoria, Ill.: Charles A. Bennett Co.,

Inc. (second edition), 1945.

30

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:34:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions