National Art Education Association

What Do You Believe?Author(s): Pat VilleneuveSource: Art Education, Vol. 55, No. 6 (Nov., 2002), pp. 4-5Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193971 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 03:01

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 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:01:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What Do You Believe? ver wonder what At our last conference,

proessrs alk I went out to dinner with a professors talk group of colleagues, and I about when they found myself sitting next

get together? to a professor I didn't know. As the evening progressed, we

discussed art, food, Miami Beach, recent practices in our field, and this journal. I was having a wonderful time until my new acquaintance asked, "But what is it you believe in?" My mind raced, and for a moment I wished to be back in graduate school. I was so certain of the answer back then-and the answer was so short. DBAE. I pushed aside my umbrella drink and tried to explain the growing uncertainty that I have experi- enced since becoming editor of Art Education. Yes, I believed in discipline-based art education. I still think much of the theory is sound. Yes, I also think visual culture art education has merit. And I think inquiry- based learning and interdisciplinary education can be exciting when done well. "Anything else?," he probed. "Well, yes. Or maybe." His brow knotted as I continued. Poor man.

Being editor of this journal has exposed me to diverse ideas about art education practice and theory and to many art education contexts. I've shared the hopes, passions, and frustrations of those working in the field. I've seen dedication to all manner of practices. These experiences have not strengthened my belief in one approach to art education. Instead, I now find it nearly impossible to believe that there is a one-size- fits-all answer to what art education should be. (And I realize that having only one answer disenfranchises a multitude of practitioners and learners.) I have seen the field change, and new ideas confront me in every mail delivery. My short answer from graduate school, nearly 20 years ago, has turned into an essay answer, complete with disclaimers. Although I still have strong ideas about what constitutes good practice, I'm slower to reject new ideas and alternate practices, and I'm reluc- tant to prescribe once and for all what art education should be.

King and Kitchener (1994) have described the development of reflective judgment, a "progression that occurs between childhood and adulthood in the ways that people understand the process of knowing and in the corresponding ways that they justify their beliefs

about ill-structured problems" (p. 13). They list seven stages that they group into three levels, pre-reflective thinking, quasi-reflective thinking, and reflective thinking. Their work has given me a new way to under- stand the sometimes frustrating debates art educators and our constituents have over competing educational philosophies and practices.

At the level of pre-reflective thinking, people do not yet recognize that knowledge is changing and that some problems lack definitive answers. When asked to justify their positions, they may defer to personal belief systems-"I feel in my heart it is wrong"-or invoke a "right" answer: "My mother (or my place of worship) says we shouldn't be looking at that kind of art in school." At the next level, quasi-reflective thinking, individuals begin to realize that knowledge is uncertain. Although they may consider or present evidence in response to problems, they do not yet use it to reach conclusions. "Judgments" become relative or idiosyncratic: "You can't really say what makes a good work of art. Jaime didn't follow the direction, but he had fun and tried hard, so he should get an 'A'." At the level of reflective thinking, people recognize that knowledge and judgments are constructed over time, bound to their contexts, and subject to change: "At one point we believed that children should not be exposed to the works of adult artists. Now we recognize that there is much to be learned there, and we particularly like to include underrepresented artists in the curriculum."

The first two articles in this issue take an historical approach, underscoring the changes that have taken place in our field. Carole Henry documents the contributions of Manuel Barkan, and Donald Gruber and Jack Hobbs trace the development of assessment in art education. The following article by Barbara Bensur provides commentary on assessment expectations and practices. The Instructional Resource and remaining articles reflect diverse practices. Barbara Yoder looks at Mennonite art, carefully pointing out that similar approaches could be used with other cultural groups. Margaret Peterson discusses the use of dream imagery as a source for artmaking. Glen Coutts and Lorna Rusling document a public design education activity in Scotland, and Erin Tapley approaches the idea of censorship in art and art education.

_ ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 2002

I_ m . II :I il 11

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:01:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

They are a mixed bag of readings, indeed. As a graduate student, I would not have included all of them in this issue. Now I think it is important to think reflectively about as many ideas as possible because our collective practices will determine what art education is in the future. The door is open. I hope our minds are, too.

Want a concise answer? Don't sit next to me at dinner. It's not all black and white any more.

Pat Villeneuve Editor

Pat Villeneuve is curator of education at the Spencer Museum ofArt and associate professor of visual arts education and art museum education at the University of Kansas. Direct questions and comments about the journal to patv@ukans. edu.

REFERENCE King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994.) Developing reflective

judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

LETTER

I Feel Sorry For... I feel sorry for art teachers, and especially for their students, if the aims and objectives/concerns that I see in the current writings in the publications in our field are carried out in the classroom. The areas appear to be multi- culturalism, art history, and intellectual aspects of art. When art education is based upon any one of these the student is not able to create his or her own artwork, assuming the making of art involves the student's own creative expression of his/her ideas, feelings, and perceptions, all coming together in the work of art. One of these approaches, multiculturalism, appears to be wherein various aspects of foreign cultures around the world are emphasized, and artwork of those cultures is studied and apparently emulated as art experiences by students. The multiculturalists usually write about the cultures of India, Mexico, New Zealand, American Indians, and the like. If only one culture is emphasized, the objec- tive of developing a knowledge of the various cultures of the world is never achieved. In the limited time allotted to art in schools, even considering one culture concerning its history, geography, and artworks, etc., would be nearly impossible. I feel sorry for the students who never get to do their own creative expression in such a setting.

Another emphasis I read about is knowledge of art history. As a university student, I attended art history class for one hour, five times a week, for an entire year, listening to the professor lecturing about art from all periods of history and showing slides of it-in addition to hours of homework and reading about it in our textbook. We did no art work in this class. How can present-day art educators put so much emphasis on a knowledge of art history when so many public school classes usually meet two or three times a week from 30 to 50 minutes? Who are we fooling, thinking we can teach art history with the limited time allowed for teaching art? I feel sorry for the students who never get to do their own creative art work and express their own thoughts, perceptions, and feelings in such a setting! A third emphasis appears to be centered on intellectual aspects of art/art criticism (looking at and talking about visual art). I assume intellectual aspects must mean knowledge of art materials (tools, paints, etc.) and processes, as well as studying design elements and principles. Herein the student and his or her own personal expression/development is not considered. Whereas the student may make art, it is made according to the teacher's specific directions and formula. The personal emotion/

Continued on p. 24

NOVEMBER 2002 / ART EDUCATION

--Vmmmmmmm

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:01:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions