National Art Education Association

Humanism, Art Educational Philosophy in TransitionAuthor(s): James P. AndersonSource: Art Education, Vol. 25, No. 7 (Oct., 1972), pp. 18-19Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191775 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 16:10

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 62.122.73.213 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:10:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

James P. Anderson

Elementary art education has gained its acceptance into public school curricula through the efforts of art educationists who have fostered the philosophy that art training for children has values primarily outside of art per se. This process-centered philosophy, coupled with the fact most elementary programs are staffed by nonartist and/ or art scholar teachers, has had a detrimental effect upon art education in this country. Educationists have promoted the idea anyone can teach children art if provided with teacher guides, materials, and a willingness to offer art experiences. Further, clandestine efforts were perpetrated to insure that product-centered philosophies never would get a "foothold" into the public elementary schools. Ad- ministrations were told that the best art experiences for children arise from scrap, junk, and supplies other than traditional media; special art rooms were not desired; and that art specialists would be detrimental to the emotional well-being of children. Naturally, cost conscious school ad- ministrators were eager to accept process-centered philosophies for several reasons: 1) no special materials and equipment were needed or desired; 2) no addition of staff other than an itinerant teacher (who liked to be called an art supervisor) was needed; and 3) since the classroom ac- tivities were ephemeral, little specific criticism could be made about the art program.

Artists and art scholars have been somewhat reluctant to promote the humanistic values that art training has for children. Knowing man's artistic heritage and understanding the human values of art could always be developed at a later stage of formal learning. In short, artist-teachers were not interested in perpetuating the training of children in art. They completely abdicated responsibility; therefore, art educationists went unopposed in establishing process- centered programs. Recent changes have come about through the efforts of a few professional martyrs in art education; by changes in public values toward humanism and the arts; and by dissatisfaction, disenchantment, and outright defection by process-centered art educators. It is rather surrealistic for a process-centered art educator to say we must teach as English teachers have taught.1 To now acknowledge that the great heritage of art has largely been ignored and to blame such misdirection on the "imperfect marriage of the art academy and the university" is nothing short of defection and clever face saving. We all know that process-centered philosophy (Pennsylvania State University style) is more deserving of the "credit" for the condition of art education today than the fine arts departments of colleges and universities. Further, research projects of a scientific psychological nature have received most of the funding from the U.S. Department of Education. We now seem to be directed to accept the premise that art education means educating students in art; not psychotherapy for emotional disorders in children; not a tool to be used to identify behavior patterns;2 not a panacea for the ills of education; and most certainly art as a discipline cannot be taught successfully by those untrained, unskilled, and insensitive to art.3 We now know it was a serious mistake to assume art in itself has little value for educating children. To parasitically attach art education to each "new" concern of education or other subjects to justify its existence in elementary school curricula was reprehensible and ultimately brought contempt for the profession.

18

L

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.213 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:10:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

As we move toward humanistic programs, staffed by art scholars and artist-teachers, we must develop ways to train these teachers. Further, we must search for worthwhile educational objectives peculiar to art; we must use all infor- mation we know about age level learning and muscular- motor ability; and we must not disregard methodology capable of attaining general educational objectives. The dignity of the individual must be served, and our methods and motivational devices facilitate his learning. We must be concerned that learning is not too slow, and on the other hand not too efficient. There must be scope and sequence in the elementary program, or else the art activities will be as ephemeral as they now are. We must be experimental in our teaching; always changing, always evaluating, always developing as professional educators. We must question everything we do, read, or study and not abdicate respon- sibility for planning the art experiences to elite authorities. Neither should we blindly reject what is being researched or written in art education. To do so would ultimately place the humanistic art program and art educators in the same position our process-centered colleagues now find them- selves. Finally, we must remember that it was they who established art in the public elementary schools, and we should be dedicated to evolutionary change rather than change by revolution.

The hassle today between process- or product-centered philosophies of art education should not be as alarming as it evidently is. The usual banter is that the process educators owe their allegiance more to the fields of psychology and education than to the disciplines of art. Whereas the coun- terattack is made that product-oriented art teachers would destroy all the gains in art education made during the last century and return to teaching children "art for art's sake." The truth is that neither philosophy represents art education as it should be taught in the American public schools.

A major purpose of public school art education is to develop appreciation of the visual arts, regardless of how we are made to believe otherwise by the process or product camps. Psychological or vocational incentives should not be attained through the visual arts, because each objective debases to some extent the humanistic value of art training. Few would agree that the value of art training is to be found in either of these goals. Not many educators today would consider that public school art training contributes directly to either emotional or financial stability. On the other hand, most art teachers will agree that to understand the visual arts fully is a very worthwhile goal for art education-perhaps not the only goal, but it should be a major incentive. The issue involved here is what ap- preciation means. To some, art appreciation means something closely resembling an understanding of art history. To others, appreciation means to know how art is produced, and still to others it means to be able to enjoy art emotionally. Like the blind men examining an elephant, all are partially correct. If all are partially correct, then what does full appreciation really encompass? There seem to be three levels of appreciation. For identification purposes alone, the writer chooses to call these levels sensuous, historical, and productive.

Sensuous. The sensuous level of appreciation can be en- joyed by all sighted people regardless of training or experi- ence. To be sure the visual senses can be "sharpened" through art training, but for the most part we all see the same physical phenomena. Likewise in music, we all hear

considered the basic art experience that contributes most directly to developing visual sensitivity; therefore, it is im- perative drawing be taught perceptively and conceptually at all age levels. Further, it is the most basic studio experience children should have in the art program.

Historical. The historical level of appreciation is associated mostly with understanding art through the ages. This level of appreciation may be taught many ways. For example, some may teach appreciation of art history by chronology; others use a system of establishing dichotomies between styles, form, or periods; and others may teach art history when it is appropriate to the studio activity being taught. The writer knows of a system whereby art is classified as being idiomatic, story-telling, or design oriented. The teaching methods are somewhat incidental, but what is important is that in all cases the act of classification involves retaining specific knowledge about man's heritage in art. The knowledge required to classify art constitutes the historical level of appreciation.

Productive. The performance level of appreciation involves the ability to create art. The degree of perfection in perfor- mance dictates the critical issue involved with this level of appreciation. How accomplished must a child become in an art medium to understand how art is produced or to have an empathy with the artist? Here again, the extreme philosophies can be discounted. Few will argue that com- plete mastering is necessary for the public school art student. On the other hand, a superficial manipulation of art materials or scrap will not develop this level of appreciation. It must be assumed that if we expect to develop an ap- preciation of how the artist works, students must be taught art media. Further, some grade and age level evaluation of their studio experiences must be made relative to their developing this third level of understanding.

In these three levels of understanding, most of the philosophies now used in art education can be found. If we don't teach to develop this appreciation in children, then we can hardly expect to find support for our position that art should be offered in the public schools. We must not let an image of the extremes be presented to the public or school administrators as representing art education. The very life of art education is dependent upon an understan- ding that process- or product-centered philosophies represent only the extremes in art education and neither meets fully the needs of children who study art. Our present concern for humanism bridges the gap between these polemical philosophies.

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

..______ REFERENCES

1Harlan Hoffa, "Art as Humanism", Art Education, Volume 24, Number 3, March 1971.

2Donald Jack Davis, "The Implication of Behavioral Ob- jectives for Art Education in the Public Schools", Art Education, Volume 24, Number 2, February 1971.

3Mary J. Rouse and Guy Hubbard, "Structured Curriculum in Art for the Classroom Teacher: Giving Order to Disorder", Studies in Art Education 11:14-26, Winter 1970.

about the same sounds depending upon aural sensitivity. Phenomenologists say we see what we are psychologically conditioned to see, but art instruction in the public schools can hardly be structured around such specialized fields of psychology. At this level of appreciation the task of art training is to develop visual sensitivity. Drawing is generally

19

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.213 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:10:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions