How Research Influences Art Teaching and How Art Teaching Influences Research

National Art Education Association

How Research Influences Art Teaching and How Art Teaching Influences ResearchAuthor(s): Brent WilsonSource: Art Education, Vol. 24, No. 5 (May, 1971), pp. 3-6Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191661 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 16:43

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 195.34.79.101 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:43:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191661?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


How Research

Influences

Art Teaching And How

Art Teaching Influences

Research

Brent Wilson

Among art teachers there are two rather common reactions to art educational researchers. One is of distain of the "Why do you even exist?" variety. The other is much less

threatening and just a little bit flattering. It goes something like "Surely through your research you have discovered secrets of art teaching, but I can't understand what you are saying. Just tell me what I ought to do in simple language." Both these reactions and others like them indi- cate a deep misunderstanding of the role of art educational research and its relation to the total art educational enter- prises. Hopefully the following will clarify some of the functions of art educational researchers and draw attention to some of the key relations between teachers and researchers.

In characterizing how scientific advancements take place, Arthur Koestler describes what he calls the "eureka act". The eureka act refers to the situation wherein a creative individual experiences a moment of truth-a new break- through or new insight, and his act is followed by a quick succession of similar or related discoveries by several other individuals. This period of rapid advancement, break- through and synthesis usually follows a period of relatively minor advancement. It comes at an auspicious time-a time when something is in the air, a time that seems ripe for the advancement. It is as if a discipline, an area, or sometimes even a larger segment of mankind is expecting, ready to welcome, and ready to contribute to the act of synthesis.

Without claiming that we have ever had any overwhelm- ing break-throughs in art education (in my opinion we have not), I would like to claim that something similar to the eureka act, which I shall call the ground swell phenomenon, does indeed function in art education. I shall claim

that it functions among classroom teachers, students, supervisors, researchers, and others concerned with art education. For example, during the period of the mid-fifties to the mid-sixties we experienced a heavy emphasis on creativity in art education. A great number of researchers did studies of creativity, and teachers and supervisors claimed that crea-

tivity was one of the most important goals for art education. From my vantage point it seems that the concept of crea-

tivity had gone through a long period of incubation, and

during the fifties the time became ripe for the break-

through. This long incubation period for creativity in art education

may have begun in 1899 when creativity was mentioned as a goal by the Committee of Ten on Drawing.2 The goal as stated then was: "To develop the creative impulse." The

progressive education movement during the nineteen- twenties spawned the publication of a book called Creative Expression Through Art." 3 By 1926 G. Wallas had formulated a theoretical structure of creative behavior,4 and Viktor Lowenfeld published his book The Nature of Creative Activ-

ity,5 in 1939. Victor D'Amico's book, Creative Teaching in Art,6 was published in the early forties, and Lowenfeld's Creative and Mental Growth 7 appeared in 1947. I'm not sure to whom to ascribe the first eureka, but the synthesis of work in creativity was contributed to by well-known individuals such as Guilford, Koestler, Ehrensweig, Kubi, Getzells and Jackson, Torrance, Barron, Taylor, Wallach and

Kogan and by Eisner, and Beittel and Burkhart and many others in our own field. But, as mentioned earlier, it wasn't

just the researchers who were concerned with creativity, it was also teachers and supervisors who were contributing to the groundswell of activity in creativity. Indeed, it was as if we were ready and waiting for the synthesizing activity

3

I 4

i



to begin. We now seem to be riding out the tail of that

groundswell, and it seems to me that during this time when researchers have turned away from inquiry into creativity, we might be able to reassess this area in a more reasoned manner than was ever before possible by taking advantage of the synthesis that has taken place, but also by being able to do our reassessing free from the turmoil of the groundswell action.

In passing I might state that the new groundswell phenomenon seems to be directed toward aesthetic education.

Advancements and changes in practice do take place in art classrooms. Attributing changes to groundswells of activ-

ity in which there are many individuals contributing in some ill defined way seems not to shed much light on how

change actually takes place. Regardless of how change oc- curs there are some persuasive arguments which state that

change seldom results from specific research findings. Furthermore, these arguments hold that educational research has little if any direct effect on classroom practice.

J. W. Getzels 8 states that as of 1969 over 70,000 research

reports had found their way into the Review of Educational Research. It was further suggested that only seventy, that is one in a thousand, had any marked influence in educational practice, and even in these cases it was doubtful that there was a direct influence between the research and the

practice. In light of such speculation by a highly influential and

respected educational researcher, art teachers do seem

justified in questioning the purposes of and even the value of educational research. However, Getzels goes on to maintain that marked changes have taken place in educational

practices. He uses as examples the change from classrooms with desks bolted to the floor and the discontinuance of

4

flash cards and drill. He claims that changes in education actually result from changes in our conception of the nature of our learners. He cites the change from viewing the learner as a stimulus-reducing organism to a stimulus-seeking organism, and now sees a change in emphasis from problem- solving to problem-finding as desired pupil behavior. When an individual is viewed as a problem finder he requires an open and rich environment in which to function, and indeed, some classrooms are becoming just that. Getzels' claim is that the function of research is not to alter classroom practices directly, but to change our ideas about the nature of the young people we teach and consequently change their learning and environments to correspond with our conceptions of their capabilities.

Although I agree with Getzels that this is the way changes usually take place in education, I would refer to groundswell phenomenon and claim that teachers, social scientists, philosophers, social critics, and many others influence our view of the nature of the individual, and consequently, effect educational practice. I believe that even though Get- zels gives educational research a very modest role, the role ought to be considered even more modest.

At this point one might be tempted to ask that if educational research, which is a rather well-developed enterprise, and especially art educational research, which is just begin- ning its infancy, seem to have so little influence, then why is research continued. My claim is that research plays a very valuable role in the groundswell phenomenon, and that without it our art teaching might be much less effective than it is now and than it will be in the future. But the role art educational research plays is definitely just one role among many interrelated roles. It provides one type of information and draws its information from many other sources in the

groundswell phenomenon. In order to see the immensity of the task of being more

effective art educators, let's look at the nature of art and art learning for a few moments. First of all, art is what Gallie 9 has called an essentially contested concept. That is, 1) a concept which is value laden and at once prescriptive and descriptive, 2) a concept which is fantastically complex, 3) a concept which at different times refers to an object, the response of a spectator, and a process of making, and 4) an open concept which is continually modified by changes in circumstance. Consequently, art teachers and researchers find themselves working with a phenomenon which seem's as complex as life itself. In making a work of

art, whether a student or artist, one confronts a fantastic number of variables such as expressive aspects, composi- tions, images, symbols and sensory qualities, which might be related in an infinite number of way to result in an infinite variety of works of art. And, of course, in art we

prize the open and the divergent. The unusual is the rule. Indeed, there seems to be no single answer to an artistic

problem. In fact, if art is to stay alive it must continually redefine itself. Art then is a far cry from school subjects such as mathematics, where there seems to be a sequential set of learnings which lead to mastery.'? There seems to be very little in the concept of mastery learning which is

applicable to art education. Furthermore, when we consider the nature of art learning

there seem to be so many requisite behaviors, skills, and attitudes which might be useful in making one of many forms of art, that any single, solidified, stable, conventional method of educating the young in art seems unachievable and undesirable. For example, if one considers the role the



preconscious plays in the creative process of making art,'' it seems that much that is important in art making is beyond the reach of direct rational control. In fact, perhaps at times art teaching should be arational or even irrational.

To say the very least, art, art learning, and art teaching are most complex, illusive, and fluid. To assume that now or perhaps ever we will have any reasonably adequate theories of art learning or teaching seems wishful thinking. It may even be the case that a true theory of art teaching or learning is just as impossible as a true definition of art.

At the very least I must claim that art teaching and learning are infinitely richer and more complex than the theories that seek to describe them. In fact, there have been few attempts at comprehensive theorizing about art teaching and learning. Far too often art educational researchers function without explicit theories to guide their work and consequently the findings of much research do not accumulate systematically into a useful body of knowledge about the teaching of art.

Even when art educational researchers' inquiry is directed

by theory the usual pattern of operation has been to single out a few variables such as age, social-economic class, conception of space, and media and to study these aspects in depth. By limiting themselves to a few variables the researchers can make careful and accurate observations, but in doing so they risk the danger of losing sight of the larger and more complex aspects of art teaching and learning.

The teacher's practical, common sense knowledge of the art classroom comes from having to exist daily in this fluid and rich context. What the art teacher does depends upon his conception of the nature of art, art students, how art might be taught, and how it is learned. Many of his actions are intuitive and based on what feels right. In fact many of the things an art teacher does might be considered from the aesthetic viewpoint where one move or action follows another because it has a nice relationship and directs art teaching toward a desirable end. In this kind of situation the teacher simply cannot wait to see what the researchers have to say; he has to perform now. And as I have indicated, it will be a long time before the researchers have much systematic knowledge about the teaching of art.

It seems to me that the proper attitude for an art teacher to take toward research in art education is not, "What does research tell me that i might apply in my classroom?"; but rather, "How can I use the findings of research to sharpen my ability as an art teacher?" Mainly we teach by responding to what our prior experiences, our assumptions about art and art learning, and our purposes for our students lead us to do in a given situation. Any useful insight about the process of art learning and teaching adds to our assump- tive world and has the possibility of sharpening teaching abilities. The researcher is one among many in the groundswell phenomenon who contribute insights into art teaching. But, because the art educational researcher is often trained to observe things about art teaching and learning that teachers overlook, the special insights of the researcher can be most valuable to the teacher.

A useful illustration of the relation between teaching and research is an analogy based on the relation between art, aesthetics, and art criticism.

One of the primary tasks of aestheticians is to define the nature of art-that is, to assist us in our understanding of what art is through a careful and systematic description of its characteristics and symptoms. Earlier it was indicated that art is an essentially contested concept for which no

v-* la s e r v *by? g u eii i w ar* *has

. , * * - e'e ? * * - - e ? * J*/ l - - *t -? *- I

r.*. . ^.*. .-.-.-.aa *.-.-. . . : . *.* - ..............: .been.Howv. H rit seems to me that is not the task of

historian is oriented to the past rather than to the prescrip-

. ..... ' ,

..

When it comes to art criticism, agre e with Stol nitz that

tne oef the primary fnctions of criticism is edcati ve..

is the task of the critic to explicate, and to describe in as

valuabl e service by giving us inpossibeghts into whatork of art has likbeen. However,hat it seems to present, and howit is not presents itself the aesthetician to dictate what art ought to se. e thl there

historian is oriented tobe the pasuggestion that wher than to thelp in lookingp-

hen it comes to art cri , I are e with Stoln a wor tha arone of the primary functions ofll criticism is educaritics,ve. It

overlook some aspects and relations and consequently we

ise taskome of the signcritic to explicate, and twork.o Thdes critibe i ex-as

pectefull and torich a manner as possibl the function of a highly experienced guide wholike, whas traveled seems to present, and how it preseoints itself

thio altin or e aeriee. I t is distasteful to some e dthat the should even be the suggestion that we need help in looki onat works o art. lOf c ourse anyo who viws a rt they ha

noart sees something ofto define, describe, and judge. Andll, ofincluding critics, art overlook somn the artispects whoand relations proand consequently we

maris seeme tof e significance of the work. The critic is e

pected to perform the functiabors on of a highly experienced guide who has traveled similar routes beforeritics, and can point outs.

othe aeiistii' s abs te need for aestheticians total deendent

minimal at best. The artist can function quite swhatisfactorilyt has

wonone theve, itsmeems art methat itis ofart thee ot sef

deends on the artist. whoT art olike iprodcers. ndeed the istan aisl toereie to b th e rst im ta t facto b case it isee -

one of the produimary funct of his labors on whof icismh allis else focuses. His art feeds the aestheticians,k of the critic to explicate, and the rescribe in as fuThell and rtist'sch absolute manneed for as possible whaticians and criticsk of art is

minimal what it ebest. The artist can function quite satisfactorily without them. This doexperiences. n't is distastmean that they are not useful, should even beto the suggesation thait we need help isn't under-looking

ovstand all there is to understand relabout artions and its consequently we

stand all there is to understand about art and its conse-

5

I



quences. In fact I maintain there are few if any artists who are aware of all the things they have brought about in their own work. As an artist I have gained some valuable insights into my own work by reading what insightful critics have had to say about it, and I have also been amused and dis- appointed by the mindless and insensitive things said about my work by other critics.

Now for the analogy: the art teacher in his classroom is like the artist, and the art classroom with its art learners is his art. The art educational researcher is like the aesthetician and critic. To carry the analogy one bit further there are art educational researchers who, like aestheticians, deal with more theoretical issues, and there are other researchers who deal with more empirical matters and seem to function very much as art critics function by assessing and describing the immediate and specific.

The art educational researcher is dependent on the art classroom and its art learners just as aestheticians and critics are dependent upon works of art. And just as it seems inappropriate for the aesthetician and the art critic to tell the artist what to do and how to do it, it also seems inappropriate for the art educational researchers to tell art teachers what they should teach and how they should teach. However, just as artists can gain greater insight into the nature of art and even into what they have done in their own work, so too can art teachers gain greater insight into what art teaching is about, what they have and have not accomplished through art teaching, and how they might improve their performance as art teachers by listening to the art educational researchers.

But just as one should continually test the words of the aesthetician or the critic against his own experiences, so too should the art teacher test the words of the art educational 6

researchers against his own art teaching experience. This seems especially true in the case of the art teacher, because sometimes researchers go off on tangents and deal with things which are not central to and sometimes not even related to art teaching and learning. When we as researchers dwell in peripheral areas or completely outside the realm of art and art teaching, we keep ourselves occupied and amused, but we contribute little or nothing that is useful to art teaching and learning. Art critics are severely ridiculed when they direct their attention from art to themselves. But art educational researchers have occasionally researched some rather strange things with little or no criticism regard- ing the relevance of the research.

The formal art educational enterprise is one in which art, art teachers, art students, art supervisors, and art educational researchers all contribute to current groundswells of activity. Some of the roles performed by the actors in this enterprise are vital and necessary, while other roles are supportive and less vital. To me art educational research seems supportive and exists primarily for the purpose of giving insight into the very complex phenomena of art teaching and learning.

What research has to say can be useful and even important, but it is only a part of the action.

Brent Wilson is associate professor of art and education, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.

References

Arthur Koestler, The Act of Creation: A Study of the Conscious and Unconscious in Science and Art. New York: Dell Publishing Co. Inc., 1959, pp. 224- 254.

2 W. Klar, L. L. Winslow, C. V. Kirby, Art Education in Principle and Practice. Springfield, Mass.: Milton Bradley, 1933, p. 27.

3 Gertrude Hartman, ed. Creative Expression Through Art. Washington, D.C.: The Progressive Education Association, 1926.

G. Wallas, The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. and Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1926, pp. 79-96.

5 Viktor Lowenfeld, The Nature of Creative Activity. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1939.

6 Victor D'Amico, Creative Teaching in Art. Scranton: International Textbook, 1942.

7 Viktor Lowenfeld, Creative and Mental Growth. New York: Macmillan, 1947.

8 J. W. Getzells, "Paradigm and Practice: On the Con- tributions of Research to Education," Educational Researcher, No. 5, 1969, p. 10.

9 W. B. Gallie, "Essentially Contested Concepts," The Importance of Language, Max Black, ed. Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1962, pp. 121- 146 (especially p. 121).

o0 Benjamin S. Bloom, J. Thomas Hastings, George F.

Madaus, Handbook on Formative Summative Eval- uation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1971, pp. 43-57.

n Anton Ehrenzweig, The Psycho-Analysis of Artistic Vision and Hearing. New York: George Braziller, second edition, 1965.

2 Jerome Stolnitz, Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1 60, pp. 493-501.



Documents

How Research Influences Art Teaching and How Art Teaching Influences Research