National Art Education Association

Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny by Stephen M. DobbsArt Education, Vol. 36, No. 2, Art and the Mind (Mar., 1983), p. 4Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192651 .

Accessed: 09/06/2014 18:31

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 194.29.185.136 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 18:31:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

z Phylogeny

Recapitulates Ontogeny

A rt education may be experienc- ing a profound metamorphosis as consequential for the field

as the synthesis and application of ideas from the biological and psychological sciences was to education in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. At that time G. Stanley Hall, an early experimental psychologist, formulated his famous "Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny," asserting that each in- dividual in his or her own maturation repeats and undergoes the development of the entire species. This evolutionary principle was one of the foundations of the Child Study Movement, out of which emerged a philosophy of educa- tion based upon scientific principles, furnished by psychological observation and study of children.

Child Study psychologists and resear- chers often looked to children's draw- ings as a source of important informa- tion about their emotional and mental growth. This new child-centered em- phasis encouraged curriculum based on subjects and activities in art which led to play, making-experiences, and im- aginative thought. This was a shift from the logically-derived academic drawing programs of such pioneer art educators as Walter Smith. Thus the focus upon psychologically-based methodologies appropriate to children became a resource for theory in art education throughout the twentieth century, brought to full flower by the Gestalt psychologists of the 1940s and 1950s, notably Viktor Lowenfeld and Rudolf Arnheim. At least with Lowenfeld and his followers it could be said that this approach was additionally characterized by a somewhat romantic view of the child which was a consequence of the blending of progressive ideology. Art for creativity, self-expression, and per- sonal development were bywords of art education from the 1920s into the pre- sent day.

Art education remains child-centered, and since the inception of Child Study

the mental functioning of the child has been of interest and to a limited degree of use to the practitioner of art educa- tion. Certainly in the last twenty years the copious research conducted in the field of children's art and artistic development underscores that children's intellectual as well as emotional develop- ment is of long-standing and continuing interest. But we may be seeing a signifi- cant shift; we may now be moving away from the progressive, romantic orienta- tion of creativity and personality development to a predominant focus upon the cognitive maturation of the child and how art facilitates this com- plex process.

Such a change would bring art educa- tion more in line with the trend in educa- tion and educational research in general in recent years. In that sense we may be living through Hall's dictum, with art education "catching up", as it were, with other subject areas. The attention of many of the newer and younger peo- ple in the field is centered on cognitive studies, right-brain applications, and the like. The reiteration of "Art Means Language" in the recent mainstream statement of the National Art Education Association is noteworthy for its stress on literacy. But the connection between art and cognition is not itself a new one; John Dewey's Art and Experience, published almost fifty years ago, gave intellectual functioning a primary, in- dispensable role in the artistic develop- ment of the human being. Rudolf Ar- nheim, who appears appropriately enough in the following pages, also moved the field a quantum leap forward with his pathbreaking Art and Visual Perception twenty years later in 1954. Among these and other thinkers the con- gruence and potential interdependence of art and mind have always been pro- nounced and paramount.

But perhaps never before in the history of art education has the theme to which this special issue of Art Educa- tion is dedicated, Art and Mind, taken such hold and been argued as per- suasively as it now is. The debate has at- tracted the involvement of many

educators and social scientists from out- side the field of art education, including prominently the cognitive psychologists whose influence on concepts of educa- tion in general has been substantial. Together with art educators sympathetic to the utilization of the social sciences, interdisciplinary studies, and research, they have looked at art or the arts as a primary source and catalyst for cognitive development, literacy, and enhancement of the life of the mind as well as of the eye. This new richness has manifest itself in curriculum and in the classroom in the structured learning systems of the 1960s and 1970s, and to a degree in the "back to basics" and visual literacy movement. The point is that the historical concern of art educators for the relationship and con- sequence of art and mind has been ex- tended and has achieved new interest, credibility, and sophistication in con- temporary art education.

Whether or not this is truly a paradigmatic development in the field or a passing trend remains to be seen, but the fact is that the attention to art and mind is broad, and it is deep. We felt that Art Education should acknowledge the exciting prospects of this theme by inviting an impressive constellation of writers, from both inside as well as out- side the field, to share their thinking with our readers. Martin Engel, Arts and Humanities Advisor to the National Institute of Education in Washington, D.C., has provided invaluable service as the Guest Editor of this milestone publishing effort for Art Education.

In fact, this is the longest issue of the Journal ever published in its history, with more than twice the usual number of pages. The Editor wishes to express. appreciation to Edmund B. Feldman, J. Theodore Anderson, Beverly Jeanne Davis, and the staff and Board of Direc- tors of the National Art Education Association for their collaboration which made this project possible. We hope that it will become an edifying and enduring contribution to the literature of art education.

S.M.D.

Art Education March 1983

10,

11

4

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.136 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 18:31:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions