Growing in Appreciation || Defining Art Appreciation

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • National Art Education Association

    Defining Art AppreciationAuthor(s): Betty Oliver SeaboltSource: Art Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, Growing in Appreciation (Jul., 2001), pp. 44-49Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193903 .Accessed: 14/06/2014 09:41

    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 [email protected].

    .

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

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:41:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naeahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3193903?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • S tudents are introduced to the study of art in a course called Art Appreciation, but there is little agreement on what "art appreciation" is or what the goals of a such a course should be. Is it a chronological study of masterpieces or the ability to know the difference between

    good and bad art? Is it a skill or a state of mind? Is it cognitive knowledge or affective involvement or both? Is the goal to produce student connoisseurs of great works of art or to teach cultured conversational skills? There is much confusion of art appreciation with art history, art aesthetics, and art criticism, but each of these areas is distinctly different, and each has different goals. This article attempts to clarify the differences and explore the changing definition of art appreciation.

    The National Committee for Standards in the Arts (1994) defines aesthetics as "a branch of philosophy that focuses on the nature of beauty, the nature and value of art, and the inquiry processes and human responses associated with those topics" (p. 82). Lankford (1992) describes aesthetics as "concepts and methods in the philosophy of art, including inquiry aimed at describing and comprehending aesthetic experience as it is related to artistic processes and products" (p.5). More simply, aesthetics is a general

    I ART EDUCATION / JULY 2001

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:41:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • body of knowledge and inquiry about the nature of art. Art history, as defined by the National Committee for Standards in the Arts (1994), is "a record of the visual arts, incorporating information, interpretations, and judgments about art objects, artists, and conceptual influences on developments in the visual arts" (p. 28). According to Ralph Smith (1993), art history is the study of the continuity and changes of art from caves to present. Like studio art, art criticism is a skill that can be learned and must be practiced, states Tom Anderson (1991). An observer enters into a direct personal encounter with a work of art to seek its meaning, resulting in an interpretation and possibly an evaluation and judgment of the work (Anderson). Feldman's (1994) definition is "spoken or written 'talk' about art" (p. 1). In short, aesthetics is defined as a body of knowledge and inquiry about the nature of art.

    Art history is a body of knowledge and study of specific works of arts and their relationship to other works and to the chronological period and cultural milieu in which they were created. Art criticism is the activity of talking about art. On the other hand, appreciation of art is both an act and a state of understanding and enjoying art, according to Harold Osborne (1970), who borrows the definition from Thomas Munro. Art appreciation, both affective and cognitive, engages emotions and feelings about art while knowing and understanding develop. Appreciation, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (1989), is "perception; recognition; intelligent notice... perception of delicate impressions or distinctions" (p. 581). Johnson (1989) cites several other definitions: Clive Bell's (1913) definition as "sensitive and emotionally-tinged percipience," John Dewey's (1934) definition as "aesthetic perception," and Thomas Munro's (1941) as "understanding and enjoying" (Johnson, p. 24). This simple and direct description of Munro seems most appropriate for defining the activity of appreciation.

    Historically, art appreciation has not always been defined as understanding and enjoying art and consequently has not been taught with those goals in mind. Michael (1991) describes the history of art in public school education as alternating between a student-centered nature approach, emphasizing the student's participation in creative experiences, and a subject-centered nurture approach, emphasizing the teacher's role in imparting certain information. These nature and nurture categories offer a useful means of comparing and contrasting early methods of teaching art appreciation with current methodology while exploring the changing roles of teacher and student.

    In America, the earliest methods of teaching art in general, and art appreciation in particular, were primarily nurturing or

    subject-centered, concentrating on the teacher's ability to impart a certain amount of information to the student. Although public schools appeared first in Massachusetts in 1647, the history of art in public school education began much later. In the 1830s students at the Temple School of Amos Bronson Alcott drew from nature for 30 minutes each week (Hanks, 1975). Horace Mann introduced the first public school art classes in the 1840s, based on art lessons published in his Common School Journal. Nancy Hanks (1975) states that these lessons were not expressive but practical: "It wasn't ars gratia artis but early mechanical drawing, which had a high market place demand as New England's manufacturing capacity expanded with her industrial ambitions" (p. 17). The emphasis was less on appreciation and more on imparting certain skills suitable to "breadwinning" (p. 18).

    If art appreciation was taught before and during World War I, it was limited primarily to the study of masterpieces, according to Winsand (1961). After the war, a concern for art in industry prevailed. This was especially true during World War II as art education was aimed at training students who were skilled at creating well-designed products (Moore, 1991). However, Hanks noted a different approach slowly emerging early in the 20th century. She quotes the president of the Western Drawing and Manual Training Association, the antecedent of the National Art Education Association, or NAEA, as predicting "a general awakening to the importance of the arts... as instruments of education and... as means in fitting for life" (Hanks, 1975, p. 18).

    The founding of the Progressive education movement in 1919 introduced the idea that the student's creative activities, not the subject matter, should assume the major role (Michael, 1991). According to Winsand (1961), many art educators believed that the only way to appreciate art was to participate in it. "It must be... caught from concrete experience " (p. 122). This approach grew slowly in popularity through the 1930s, while nurturing, or subject-centered approaches, in which teaching of subject matter was the main concern, dominated. The nurturing approaches grew out of the Picture Study method that promoted moral and patriotic lessons and illustrated narrative qualities and compositional principles and elements (Winsand, 1961). Belle Boas, a disciple of John Wesley Dow, supported these types of picture studies; she believed a picture could be understood intellectually through a study of its composition. Art assembly programs were also staged; tableaus of famous paintings were acted out, and art

    JULY 2001 / ART EDUCATION

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:41:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • appreciation contests that tested memory of facts about paintings and artists were held. According to Winsand, these exercises and picture studies, based on masterpieces, soon became inadequate as emphasis on universal qualities, and art in the everyday environment became priorities.

    In 1.924 Newhaus advocated Pestalozzi's idea of moving from the concrete (for instance, a well-designed spoon) to the abstract (sculpture or painting) as a way of seeing art as more than just painting (Michael, 1991). (Also influential was Goldstein's [1925] Art in Everyday Life, in which she advocated relating principles to objects in everyday life.) This new view, that appreciation required an understanding of art beyond knowing the masterpieces, was mirrored in Famum's 1925 publication, Art Education in the United States, (cited in Winsand, 1961, p. 20). During this time, Thomas Munro advocated teaching a chronological history of art, emphasizing the evolution of styles rather than memorizing facts. Margaret Mathias (1924) presented a Progressive view that seemed to combine several goals: "If we are to hope for a society with art appreciation... an adequate art course must provide for developing ability for self-expression and for understanding the expression of others" (Winsand, p. 22).

    These goals give witness to the fact that art had acquired a greater status than at any previous time.

    The late 1920s continued the gradual shift from subject- centered approaches to student-centered approaches, from art appreciation taught to art appreciation caught. Barriers between fine and useful art continued to fall, and the scope of art education continued to widen. Winsand (1961) notes a call for more teaching of design and more study of both fine and useful arts. Scientific activity in art appreciation resulted in many new tests, developed in the 1920s, to measure appreciation and judgment. Among these were the Christensen-Karwoski Test in Art Appreciation, the McAdory Art Test, the Meier-Seashore Art Judgment Test, and Whitford's Multiple-Choice Art Appreciation Test. Winsand notes that Dewey (1929), in Art and Education, suggests art appreciation is no longer passive but should be thought of as active reenacting of the original experience of the artist. Dewey's belief set the stage for the prevailing attitude of the 1930s-that art was for everybody.

    The "art for all" era of the 1930s was accompanied by a nationalistic movement away from European art and accommodated those who would appreciate art rather than those who would make art (Winsand, 1961). Schools were now seen as playing a major role in developing standards of aesthetic value. New York City schools' appreciation program, begun in 1931, required high school students to undertake a 2-year study of art appreciation twice weekly. This study was based on Pestalozzi's belief that a greater understanding of art results when study begins with objects in the viewer's immediate world and then moves to more remote works. The method, based on Riley and Collins's ArtAppreciation (1948), was based initially on a nurturing, subject-centered art historical approach but by the end of the 1930s had shifted to a student-centered approach (Winsand, 1961). Where teachers once set forth accepted standards of value, now students were allowed to develop their own standards. Munro's question- naire for picture analysis of 1934 was designed to aid students in doing just that. Efland (1983) cites policy statements from the 1930s in which art teachers are charged to encourage creative expression, originality, and initiative as vehicles for expressing inner feelings. Lofty objectives such as "self- realization, human relationship, economic responsibility, and civic responsibility" were established by the Education Policies Commission of 1938 (Winsand, p. 133).

    Despite all these progressive goals and objectives proliferating in the 1930s, Lanier (1974) says that "art was a marginal curriculum area only recently liberated from 'picture study' and the rather heavy-handed design exercises of John

    ART EDUCATION / JULY 2001

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:41:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • The founding of the Progressive education movement in 1919 introduced the idea that the student's creative activities, not the subject matter, should assume the major role (Michael, 1991). According to Winsand (1961), many art educators believed that the only way to

    appreciate art was to participate in it.

    Wesley Dow" (p. 12). Art activity, now almost exclusively studio work, was no longer rigid design exercises controlled by the teacher but creative experiences controlled by the student. Certainly Dewey's (1934) beliefs that (a) appreciation is an active process on the part of the viewer, and (b) each individual responds uniquely to art, and (c) that art became more meaningful when integrated with other parts of the curriculum, had great influence on this new trend (Winsand, 1961). These ideas, coupled with the belief that analysis was valuable as a way to understand and appreciate art, encouraged a new way of teaching. This new methodology de-emphasized teachers' nurturing roles and emphasized the students' natural experiencing of art as a creative activity. New activity and interest in the arts produced new studies and experimental programs, federal sponsorship of the arts, and educational programs in museums formerly dedicated to custodial roles.

    In the 1940s the curriculum remained primarily studio work, but the belief that art education was important to the growth of personalities continued to grow (Lanier, 1974). Victor D'Amico's Creative Teaching in Art (1942) reflected his belief that the art teacher provided a key to the child's creative growth (Lanier, 1974). This belief is echoed in the March-April 1949 NAEA Statement of Policy quoted by Michael (1991) that "art classes should be taught with full recognition that.. .art is less a body of subject matter than a developmental activity" (p. 20). Lowenfeld's (1957) work with levels of development would lend great support to NAEA's current belief in art as a developmental activity. Teachers were urged by both Boas and Dewey to promote, among students, not only analysis of artwork but also synthesis, in an effort to encourage development of individual standards of value.

    Abandonment of another nurturing tendency, the chronological study of art historical traditions, was urged by

    the Progressive Education Association (1940), citing "no valid reason... to cover wide fields of art tradition, especially since the results are usually superficial or even negative in terms of the development of the adolescent" (Winsand, 1961, p. 94). Ralph Pearson (1941) echoes the sentiment that developing art appreciation through study of art historical data "can completely fail to find the art in a work" (cited in Winsand, p. 94).

    Although pleas were rampant for abandoning chronological survey approaches in the 1950s, a 1953 survey by Beittel found that the most frequently used approach to art appreciation was the historical survey, followed by "design principles," then "art in everyday life," and finally "free expression" (Winsand, 1961, p. 106). Dorothy Blyler's 1950 survey found that over half the colleges surveyed approached art appreciation through study of art in everyday life. Clearly, there was no universal approach to the teaching of art appreciation. There was, however, a shift of opinion taking place. In a call for deliberate aesthetic education, art education experienced an abrupt swing from a student-centered approach to a subject-centered approach. The impetus for this change was the criticism directed at U.S. schools after the 1957 launching of the Russian space satellite Sputnik and the publication of The Process of Education by J. S. Bruner (1960) that called attention to the intellectual content of all levels of curriculum (Michael, 1991).

    The early 1960s brought responses to Bruner's book from Elliot Eisner and Manuel Barkan, both of whom insisted that a careful look be taken at the subject content of art education (Winsand, 1961). Much talk about aesthetic education-and only a little change-followed. Lanier (1974) commented that "meanwhile the vast majority... still maintain almost unadulteratedly studio programs and justify them... by invoking the icon of creativity" (p. 13). It wasn't until 1985 with the Getty Center's publication of Beyond Creating: The Place forArt in America's Schools that curriculum content was reinforced in a way that produced lasting effect. The publication stated that "if art education is to be accepted as essential to every child's education, programs will need to be developed that teach content from four disciplines that constitute art: art history, art production, art criticism, and aesthetics" (Getty, 1985, p. 3). The Getty Center promoted its new content-based curriculum, Discipline-Based Art Education, or DBAE, with 3.75 million dollars of support (Michael, 1991). Moore (1991) notes that simultaneous with recognition of the phenomenon of postmodernism, Discipline- Based Art Education challenged modernist studio-based curricula and began incorporating ideas rejected by

    JULY 2001 / ART EDUCATION

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:41:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • Lowenfeld. He notes that these changes recognize the adult's nurturing contribution to a child's artistic knowledge. Moore goes on to discuss the pluralism of postmodernism and the similar view of the Getty Center that DBAE should encourage examination of many cultures and styles. Whatever the other relationship between postmodernism and DBAE, the pendulum had indeed swung from nature to nurture, from the student-centered approach to the nurturing teacher- and subject-oriented approach.

    The preceding historical account tells of changes in both the definition of art appreciation and the skills associated with it. At certain times these changes have taken student needs into consideration, at other times, subject content. To achieve both understanding and enjoyment of art, student needs and subject content must share importance. Through the study of art history, aesthetics, and art criticism, Smith (1993) says a student can develop "a well-developed sense of art... [and a] conceptual framework for responding to art" as well as "a knack for knowing one's way around works of art and their various contexts" (p. 26). In Beyond Creating: The Place forArt in America's Schools, the Getty Center for Education in the Arts (1985) suggests that art be thought of as an academic subject including several disciplines, with the goal of teaching art as enriched encounters with art as well as increased knowledge of styles and great works of art. The disciplines included are aesthetics, art criticism, art history, and studio art (Getty, 1985). Through aesthetics, the student acquires an art vocabulary and foundation of concepts about the nature of art. Learning critical skills builds confidence to talk about specific works, both familiar and unfamiliar. Criticism prepares a student to have what Tom Anderson (1991) calls "a direct, personal encounter with a specific work of art... [resulting in] analysis and/or interpretation... [and] informed opinion" (p. 18). Not only exemplary works of art from the history of art but also examples of popular art from the student's world can be experienced through this approach. Chalmers (1978) asks: "How much of our own everyday subcultural visual experience, that we actually see, is used effectively as a basis for curriculum development in visual arts education[?]" (p. 20). Neperud (1995) asserts that content is historically and culturally situated in particular times and places. The implication, says Neperud, is that constant updating of teacher education is necessary to retain a vital connection between art and students' lives. McFee (1995)

    reinforces this concern: 'Teachers experienced in only one culture are ill-prepared for teaching in multicultural classrooms, as most classrooms are today" (p. 190).

    At both the 1990 and 1991 conventions, the subject of NAEA President David Baker's address was a plea for integrating art into the lives of students, advocating, once more, a student-centered approach (Michael, 1991). Where is the pendulum now? Perhaps the pendulum rests at mid-swing, while art educators entertain the possibility of concentrating on both subject content and student needs, or as Michael would say, on both nurture and nature. After all, as Michael concludes, "We always must take into consideration... [both] those we teach [nature], and what we teach [nurture] " (p. 23). When the nature of the student is nurtured, when both cognitive and affective goals are met, then the outcome is appreciation-understanding and enjoying art.

    Betty Oliver Seabolt is an Associate Professor of Art at Southern Polytechnic State University in Marietta, Georgia.

    ART EDUCATION / JULY 2001

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:41:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • REFERENCES Anderson, T. (1991). The content of art criticism. Art Education, 44 (1),

    17-24. Bell, C. (1913). Art. New York: Frederick A Stokes. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

    University Press. Chalmers, F. G. (1978). Teaching and studying art history: Some

    anthropological and sociological considerations. Studies in Art Education, 20(1), 19-25.

    D'Amico, V. (1942). Creative teaching in art. Scranton, PA: International Textbook Co.

    Dewey, J. (1929). Art and education. Merian, PA- Barnes Foundation Press.

    Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch. Efland, A. (1983). Art education during the Great Depression. Art

    Education, 36(6), 38-42. Farnum, R. B. (1925). Art education in the United States. Bureau of

    Education, Department of Interior, Bulletin No. 38. Feldman, E. B. (1994). Practical art criticism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

    Prentice-Hall. Getty Center for Education in the Arts. (1985). Beyond creating: The

    place for art in America's schools. Los Angeles, CA: The J. Paul Getty Trust.

    Goldstein, H. (1925). Art in everyday life. New York: The Macmillan Co. Hanks, N. (1975). The arts in the schools-a 200-year struggle. American

    Education, 11(6), 16-23. Johnson, M. H. (1989). Dialogue and dialectic: Developing visual art

    concepts through classroom art criticism (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(10), 4693.

    Lanier, V. (1974). A plague on all your houses: The tragedy of art education. Art Education, 27(3), 12-15.

    Lankford, E. L. (1992). Aesthetics: Issues and inquiry. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

    Lowenfeld, V. (1957). Creative and mental growth (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Mathias, M. (1924). The beginnings of art in the public schools. NewYork: Scribner.

    McFee, J. (1995). Change and and the cultural dimensions of art education. In R. Neperud (Ed.), Context, content, and community in art education: Beyond postmodernism. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

    Michael, J. A. (1991). Art education: Nurture or nature. Art Education, 44(4), 16-23.

    Moore, J. (1991). Post-Modernism and DBAE: A contextual analysis. Art Education, 44(6), 34-39.

    Munro, T. H. (1941). Powers of art appreciation and evaluation. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The Fortieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Art in American life and education. Bloomington, IL: Public School Pub. 323-363.

    National Committee for Standards in the Arts. (1994). National standards for arts education: What everyyoungAmerican should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference Publications.

    Neperud, R. (1995). Transitions in art education: A search for meaning. In R. Neperud (Ed.), Context, content, and community in art education: Beyond postmodernism. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

    Osborne, H. (1970). The art of appreciation. London: Oxford University Press.

    The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed., Vol. 1). (1989). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Pearson, R. M. (1941). The new art education. New York: Harper and Bros.

    Progressive Education Association. (1940). The visual arts in general education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Riley, 0. L., & Collins, M. (1948). Art appreciation. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Smith, R. A. (1993). Art and its place in the curriculum: What should you consider when requiring the study of the arts? The School Administrator, 50(5), 23-30.

    Winsand, 0. M. (1961). Art appreciation in the public schools from 1930 to 1960. Dissertation Abstracts International,22(06), 1900. (University Microfilms No. AAT 6106021).

    Clean Sheets, Central Location, Cuban Cuisine, Art Deco, Savory Stone Crabs, and lots of Pre-neo and Post-retro Stuff...

    all the things you really, really, want.

    March 22-26, 2002 Fontainebleau Hilton Resort and Towers

    JULY 2001 / ART EDUCATION

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:41:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    Article Contentsp.44p.45p.46p.47p.48p.49

    Issue Table of ContentsArt Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, Growing in Appreciation (Jul., 2001), pp. 1-55Front Matter [pp.1-3]An EditorialGrowing in Appreciation [pp.4-5]

    Multicultural Art and Visual Cultural Education in a Changing World [pp.6-13]The Culturally Competent Art Educator [pp.14-19]Two New Murals by John Biggers: Salt Marsh and Nubia, Origins of Business and Commerce [pp.20-24]Instructional Resources: Selected African-American Artists: 1859 to 1945 [pp.25-32]Bringing Image and Language Together: A Workshop at the Lehman College Art Gallery [pp.33-37]Express Yourself: Beginning at Home with Family Stories [pp.38-43]Defining Art Appreciation [pp.44-49]National Art Education Association Constitution and Bylaws [pp.50-53]Back Matter [pp.54-55]