Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Leonardo
Self-Development and CreativityAuthor(s): David CarrierSource: Leonardo, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Summer, 1980), p. 262Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1577864 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 09:35
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].
.
The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:35:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Leonardo, Vol. 13, pp. 262-264. Pergamon Press, 1980. Printed in Great Britain.
LETTERS
Readers' comments are welcomed on texts published in Leonardo. The Editors reserve the right to shorten letters. Letters should be written in English or in French.
Leonardo, Vol. 13, pp. 262-264. Pergamon Press, 1980. Printed in Great Britain.
LETTERS
Readers' comments are welcomed on texts published in Leonardo. The Editors reserve the right to shorten letters. Letters should be written in English or in French.
Leonardo, Vol. 13, pp. 262-264. Pergamon Press, 1980. Printed in Great Britain.
LETTERS
Readers' comments are welcomed on texts published in Leonardo. The Editors reserve the right to shorten letters. Letters should be written in English or in French.
INTERDISCIPLINARY SECONDARY-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
This is a response to Willy Moerman's letter in Leonardo 13, 174 (1980) regarding my article in Leonardo 12, 201 (1979).
Moerman does me too much credit in suggesting that I might approach competency in the several subjects he has mentioned. My problem, a common one among generalists, is to have tasted just enough of each to wish for more-more insight, more knowledge, more information.
I agree that the often rigid structure of school programs admits little latitude in setting up interdisciplinary projects. One therefore has to work around them. In a series of Saturday morning lessons we conducted, for example, we contacted art students in secondary schools of Edmonton, Canada, and held classes at the University of Alberta. The team in this case consisted of an industrial designer, an engineer, an Earth scientist and myself as art educator. What we found was that our students continually needed informa- tion that none of us could supply. Hence, some kind of 'access switchboard', of the kind adopted a few years ago for secon- dary schools in Philadelphia, Penn., U.S.A., becomes a further necessary extension of the teaching process, drawing in artisans and other members of a community.
Moerman notes that interdisciplinary projects tend to be of limited scope. My thinking is that projects like these must begin in the humblest ways: as a one-day-per-year venture or as a special option open to students who might have a block of spare time. As administrators see evidences of success, so they may become increasingly willing to take the idea seriously. But one cannot hope for instant notice.
Finally, the importance of time for planning cannot be overstressed. It is unfortunately something that few secondary school teachers have. Yet, without the chance to talk out those differences in priorities that subject specialists possess, an interdisciplinary resolution cannot occur.
R. N. MacGregor Dept. of Secondary Education
University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G5, Canada
SELF-DEVELOPMENT AND CREATIVITY
Michael Krausz's article in Leonardo 13, 143 (1980) makes several very interesting points worth further consideration. How is his account of 'at-oneness' to be understood? One might contrast doing something while fully involved and doing that activity while remaining detached. Thus, sometimes while running I find my stride and feel the smooth co-ordination of my muscles. At other times I am detached while I run, wondering about the class I will teach tomorrow. Understood in this way, the notion of 'at-oneness' seems intuitively plausible to me. It seems easy to believe that being a creative artist requires a total absorption in making art. But sometimes Krausz speaks of 'at-oneness' in a stronger sense. He says that
INTERDISCIPLINARY SECONDARY-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
This is a response to Willy Moerman's letter in Leonardo 13, 174 (1980) regarding my article in Leonardo 12, 201 (1979).
Moerman does me too much credit in suggesting that I might approach competency in the several subjects he has mentioned. My problem, a common one among generalists, is to have tasted just enough of each to wish for more-more insight, more knowledge, more information.
I agree that the often rigid structure of school programs admits little latitude in setting up interdisciplinary projects. One therefore has to work around them. In a series of Saturday morning lessons we conducted, for example, we contacted art students in secondary schools of Edmonton, Canada, and held classes at the University of Alberta. The team in this case consisted of an industrial designer, an engineer, an Earth scientist and myself as art educator. What we found was that our students continually needed informa- tion that none of us could supply. Hence, some kind of 'access switchboard', of the kind adopted a few years ago for secon- dary schools in Philadelphia, Penn., U.S.A., becomes a further necessary extension of the teaching process, drawing in artisans and other members of a community.
Moerman notes that interdisciplinary projects tend to be of limited scope. My thinking is that projects like these must begin in the humblest ways: as a one-day-per-year venture or as a special option open to students who might have a block of spare time. As administrators see evidences of success, so they may become increasingly willing to take the idea seriously. But one cannot hope for instant notice.
Finally, the importance of time for planning cannot be overstressed. It is unfortunately something that few secondary school teachers have. Yet, without the chance to talk out those differences in priorities that subject specialists possess, an interdisciplinary resolution cannot occur.
R. N. MacGregor Dept. of Secondary Education
University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G5, Canada
SELF-DEVELOPMENT AND CREATIVITY
Michael Krausz's article in Leonardo 13, 143 (1980) makes several very interesting points worth further consideration. How is his account of 'at-oneness' to be understood? One might contrast doing something while fully involved and doing that activity while remaining detached. Thus, sometimes while running I find my stride and feel the smooth co-ordination of my muscles. At other times I am detached while I run, wondering about the class I will teach tomorrow. Understood in this way, the notion of 'at-oneness' seems intuitively plausible to me. It seems easy to believe that being a creative artist requires a total absorption in making art. But sometimes Krausz speaks of 'at-oneness' in a stronger sense. He says that
INTERDISCIPLINARY SECONDARY-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
This is a response to Willy Moerman's letter in Leonardo 13, 174 (1980) regarding my article in Leonardo 12, 201 (1979).
Moerman does me too much credit in suggesting that I might approach competency in the several subjects he has mentioned. My problem, a common one among generalists, is to have tasted just enough of each to wish for more-more insight, more knowledge, more information.
I agree that the often rigid structure of school programs admits little latitude in setting up interdisciplinary projects. One therefore has to work around them. In a series of Saturday morning lessons we conducted, for example, we contacted art students in secondary schools of Edmonton, Canada, and held classes at the University of Alberta. The team in this case consisted of an industrial designer, an engineer, an Earth scientist and myself as art educator. What we found was that our students continually needed informa- tion that none of us could supply. Hence, some kind of 'access switchboard', of the kind adopted a few years ago for secon- dary schools in Philadelphia, Penn., U.S.A., becomes a further necessary extension of the teaching process, drawing in artisans and other members of a community.
Moerman notes that interdisciplinary projects tend to be of limited scope. My thinking is that projects like these must begin in the humblest ways: as a one-day-per-year venture or as a special option open to students who might have a block of spare time. As administrators see evidences of success, so they may become increasingly willing to take the idea seriously. But one cannot hope for instant notice.
Finally, the importance of time for planning cannot be overstressed. It is unfortunately something that few secondary school teachers have. Yet, without the chance to talk out those differences in priorities that subject specialists possess, an interdisciplinary resolution cannot occur.
R. N. MacGregor Dept. of Secondary Education
University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G5, Canada
SELF-DEVELOPMENT AND CREATIVITY
Michael Krausz's article in Leonardo 13, 143 (1980) makes several very interesting points worth further consideration. How is his account of 'at-oneness' to be understood? One might contrast doing something while fully involved and doing that activity while remaining detached. Thus, sometimes while running I find my stride and feel the smooth co-ordination of my muscles. At other times I am detached while I run, wondering about the class I will teach tomorrow. Understood in this way, the notion of 'at-oneness' seems intuitively plausible to me. It seems easy to believe that being a creative artist requires a total absorption in making art. But sometimes Krausz speaks of 'at-oneness' in a stronger sense. He says that
that phrase 'is not just a metaphorical expression to say that one is absorbed in one's work'. And he uses the notion of 'circumscription' to conclude that 'one may be part of one's work'. This is perplexing. Surely artists are separate from their works. The painting 'Autumn Rhythm' still exists, though Jackson Pollock is dead.
Here are two connected ways Krausz's analysis might be defended. First, knowing how something was made is impor- tant for interpreting it. One can see that the swirls of paint in a Pollock painting were made by arm gestures. Looking at Hans Namuth's photographs of that painter is relevant to the appreciation of his paintings. A full account of creativity requires considering the process by which an artwork was made, as well as the product resulting from that process. In an article entitled Art without Its Objects? [Brit. J. Aesthetics 19, 53 (1979)], I explore this viewpoint by imagining a people who appreciated artworks without knowing how they were made. Second, I understand Krausz as attempting to focus aesthetics on the experience of artists rather than of spectators. As Nietzsche pointed out in his critique of Kant's aesthetics and as Richard Wollheim has emphasized recently in many of his writings, a central defect of many traditional aestheticians is their exclusive focus on spectators. Krausz indicates how his account can be thought of as avoiding this defect. But some large questions remain. If one accepts Krausz's account, does it follow that a painting is not identical with a physical object, the pigment on canvas? And, can spectators in a museum who see a painting made by Pollock be said to fully appreciate the artwork made by that artist? These problems have been raised in connection with Dewey's aesthetics, mentioned by Krausz in his article. One might ask, also, if Krausz intends his concept of 'programs of self-development' to be applied to the making of other objects besides artworks. In part, he seems to be discussing a capacity for one to make a reflective analysis of one's own activities. Thus, I can analyze mine by asking myself: Are they the sort I should be doing? Do they lead to the kind of life I want? What more general implications would such an analysis have? Would it suggest that other objects beside artworks cannot be said to be solely physical objects?
David Carrier Dept. of History and Philosophy
Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
AESTHETIC MOTIVE AND MULTICULTURAL EDUCA- TION
Although Ralph A. Smith's article in Leonardo 13, 146 (1980) contains many excellent ideas with which I entirely agree, I cannot refrain from making some comments on his casual statement that 'there is also something to be said for the view that vigorous competition among disparate and irreconcilable positions in the marketplace of ideas is a sign of strength and vitality'.
To speak my mind freely, such metaphoric transfer of
that phrase 'is not just a metaphorical expression to say that one is absorbed in one's work'. And he uses the notion of 'circumscription' to conclude that 'one may be part of one's work'. This is perplexing. Surely artists are separate from their works. The painting 'Autumn Rhythm' still exists, though Jackson Pollock is dead.
Here are two connected ways Krausz's analysis might be defended. First, knowing how something was made is impor- tant for interpreting it. One can see that the swirls of paint in a Pollock painting were made by arm gestures. Looking at Hans Namuth's photographs of that painter is relevant to the appreciation of his paintings. A full account of creativity requires considering the process by which an artwork was made, as well as the product resulting from that process. In an article entitled Art without Its Objects? [Brit. J. Aesthetics 19, 53 (1979)], I explore this viewpoint by imagining a people who appreciated artworks without knowing how they were made. Second, I understand Krausz as attempting to focus aesthetics on the experience of artists rather than of spectators. As Nietzsche pointed out in his critique of Kant's aesthetics and as Richard Wollheim has emphasized recently in many of his writings, a central defect of many traditional aestheticians is their exclusive focus on spectators. Krausz indicates how his account can be thought of as avoiding this defect. But some large questions remain. If one accepts Krausz's account, does it follow that a painting is not identical with a physical object, the pigment on canvas? And, can spectators in a museum who see a painting made by Pollock be said to fully appreciate the artwork made by that artist? These problems have been raised in connection with Dewey's aesthetics, mentioned by Krausz in his article. One might ask, also, if Krausz intends his concept of 'programs of self-development' to be applied to the making of other objects besides artworks. In part, he seems to be discussing a capacity for one to make a reflective analysis of one's own activities. Thus, I can analyze mine by asking myself: Are they the sort I should be doing? Do they lead to the kind of life I want? What more general implications would such an analysis have? Would it suggest that other objects beside artworks cannot be said to be solely physical objects?
David Carrier Dept. of History and Philosophy
Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
AESTHETIC MOTIVE AND MULTICULTURAL EDUCA- TION
Although Ralph A. Smith's article in Leonardo 13, 146 (1980) contains many excellent ideas with which I entirely agree, I cannot refrain from making some comments on his casual statement that 'there is also something to be said for the view that vigorous competition among disparate and irreconcilable positions in the marketplace of ideas is a sign of strength and vitality'.
To speak my mind freely, such metaphoric transfer of
that phrase 'is not just a metaphorical expression to say that one is absorbed in one's work'. And he uses the notion of 'circumscription' to conclude that 'one may be part of one's work'. This is perplexing. Surely artists are separate from their works. The painting 'Autumn Rhythm' still exists, though Jackson Pollock is dead.
Here are two connected ways Krausz's analysis might be defended. First, knowing how something was made is impor- tant for interpreting it. One can see that the swirls of paint in a Pollock painting were made by arm gestures. Looking at Hans Namuth's photographs of that painter is relevant to the appreciation of his paintings. A full account of creativity requires considering the process by which an artwork was made, as well as the product resulting from that process. In an article entitled Art without Its Objects? [Brit. J. Aesthetics 19, 53 (1979)], I explore this viewpoint by imagining a people who appreciated artworks without knowing how they were made. Second, I understand Krausz as attempting to focus aesthetics on the experience of artists rather than of spectators. As Nietzsche pointed out in his critique of Kant's aesthetics and as Richard Wollheim has emphasized recently in many of his writings, a central defect of many traditional aestheticians is their exclusive focus on spectators. Krausz indicates how his account can be thought of as avoiding this defect. But some large questions remain. If one accepts Krausz's account, does it follow that a painting is not identical with a physical object, the pigment on canvas? And, can spectators in a museum who see a painting made by Pollock be said to fully appreciate the artwork made by that artist? These problems have been raised in connection with Dewey's aesthetics, mentioned by Krausz in his article. One might ask, also, if Krausz intends his concept of 'programs of self-development' to be applied to the making of other objects besides artworks. In part, he seems to be discussing a capacity for one to make a reflective analysis of one's own activities. Thus, I can analyze mine by asking myself: Are they the sort I should be doing? Do they lead to the kind of life I want? What more general implications would such an analysis have? Would it suggest that other objects beside artworks cannot be said to be solely physical objects?
David Carrier Dept. of History and Philosophy
Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
AESTHETIC MOTIVE AND MULTICULTURAL EDUCA- TION
Although Ralph A. Smith's article in Leonardo 13, 146 (1980) contains many excellent ideas with which I entirely agree, I cannot refrain from making some comments on his casual statement that 'there is also something to be said for the view that vigorous competition among disparate and irreconcilable positions in the marketplace of ideas is a sign of strength and vitality'.
To speak my mind freely, such metaphoric transfer of
262 262 262
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:35:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
