National Art Education Association

Interdisciplinary Courses: Mythology and Methodology: ResponseAuthor(s): Jim HallSource: Art Education, Vol. 26, No. 6 (Sep., 1973), p. 23Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191801 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 16:55

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 195.34.79.101 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:55:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

response Jim Hall

When a group of teachers come to- gether to form a team to teach an interdisciplinary course, the main problem, as Wenner suggests, is finding a common ground to proceed from. The theme approach, the chron- ological approach, the related arts ap- proach, etc., are all attempts at find- ing this common ground. One reason these approaches often fail is that they are still compartmentalized, subject-oriented approaches. The interdisciplinary course is seen as the relating of different subject mat- ter areas and as the relating of facts from one disciplines to facts of an- other. Interdisciplinary learning is really a new course: it is looking at the world environment without the bias of labels (cubism, classical, Freudian, etc.) It is important for all teachers involved in interdisciplinary learning programs to eliminate their personal preconceptions of subject matter and to proceed as "non-disciplinary" (i.e. non-specialized) teachers. Their new "subject" must deal with the whole person: how he perceives, experi- ences, comprehends, and communi- cates his awarenesses of his environment. A course of this nature must deal with first hand experience and not be limited to memorizable facts.

In present interdisciplinary courses, standards tend to be set by the academic subject teachers who have college prep credit to peddle. They require verbal modes of expres- sion, testing, and memorization of verbal facts. The teachers who comprise the team for an interdisci- plinary learning course must all have equal responsibility and must give equal attention to all modes of ex- pression (learning). Active involvement with materials and creative problem solving should be encouraged, as should personal, divergent solutions. Much attention must be given to the strengthening of the visual, auditory, and other sensory skills that are essential to the full compre- hension and experiencing of the arts.

Jim Hall is visual arts teacher at Attleboro Comprehensive High School, Attleboro, Massachusetts.

respon Rick George

Mr. Wenner's article is a clear, if some- what generalized, overview of the two predominant approaches to interdisciplinary studies in the arts: the humanities and the allied or related arts. His analysis of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each approach seems to be rather accurate, and one can certainly be in agreement with most of it. The general nature of the article makes it mere nitpicking to question the valid- ity of certain generalized statements. For instance, one could certainly argue with the statements that the Baroque style of composition was considerably more complex than the Renaissance style, or that "... orna- mentation was used mostly in keyboard music only." One might ask, however, about the ornamentation in the concerti and sonatas for violin, flute, and other instruments, the da capo aria, etc. Certainly orna- mentation and improvisation were important characteristics of most Baroque forms. At the same time, one can agree with the point being made here, which is that we must not fabricate superficial relationships among the arts. It is as important to understand how the various art forms are dissimilar as it is to understand how they are alike.

As space is a factor, let me simply add emphasis to the following points which seem important:

1.) We must not use as justifica- tion for the inclusion of the arts in education the fact that they may help the student learn more about English, social studies, or good citi- zenship. The arts can be justified on- the basis of the unique contributions which they can make to the develop- ment of an individual. These contri- butions are in the area of the aesthetic satisfaction derived from an arts experience; the sharpening of the senses and the ensuing increased sensivitivity to self, others, and the en- vironment; and the development of creativity. These are vital to the search for a better quality of life in

today's mechanistic, automated, and de-humanized society and can be dealt with most directly through that area of human acitivity called "the arts."

2.) One must applaud Mr. Wenner's statement concerning the weakness of a humanities course which is verbally oriented and consists mostly of a "read about" and "write about" approach. Art must be experienced firsthand, not vicariously, in order to be meaningful.

3.) The section entitled "The Teach- ing" is excellent. One is frequently annoyed by the "arts scholar" who is so concerned with the memoriza- tion of isolated and often incon- sequential facts about arts that he neglects to communicate the excite- ment, beauty, and personal satisfaction which art is about.

4.) I do not have an answer for the evaluating problem; nor, I suspect, does anyone else. How does one evaluate the experience of others? We can evaluate technical accuracy in a musical performance or a stu- dent's ability to recall facts, but how do we measure attitudinal changes, creative growth, aesthetic response, and increased sensitivity?

In conclusion, I would urge caution that we do not let our legitimate concern for course content evalua- tion, facts, projects, "Mythology and Methodology" blind us to what should be our primary task. That task is to use all necessary means to turn a student on to himself as a creative, sensitive human being. If possible, we should try to develop a human being who truly enjoys the arts, who is sensitive to his environ- ment, and who can utilize his creative abilities to help improve the quality of life for himself and others. These should be our goals in any general arts course-not to train artists or scho- lars, but to help people discover and develop their own natural creativity, to increase their sensitivity, and to experience that special thrill which comes only from being able to respond emotionally and intel- lectually to a great work of art.

Rick George is director, Professional Arts Division, South Carolina Arts Com- mission, Columbia, South Carolina.

23

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.101 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:55:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions