National Art Education Association

Art in the Schools: No Fork in the RoadAuthor(s): Guy HubbardSource: Art Education, Vol. 17, No. 9 (Dec., 1964), pp. 10-12Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3190467 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 18:46

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 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:46:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GUY HUBBARD

Art in

the

schools

no fork in the road

10

WE EDUCATORS ARE WELL AWARE that our world is in a ferment today of a kind that would have been difficult to have anticipated a decade ago. The art teacher in the schools has a stake in this pirouetting world. He has a legiti- mate right to be present in it; but if he hopes to prosper he would be unwise simply to stand by while events occur. He has to join in the hurly- burly or be forced into a professionally humiliat- ing position. It is also true, however, that his problem is one to be shared with educators in general since the problems faced by a minority among the teaching profession-and art teachers are a minority group-are also the responsibility for the majority to recognize and to consider in the quest for the finest education that can be de- veloped. The alternative is for American educa- tion to be at the mercy of the powerful lobbies among educators and in society at large.

Success for the endeavors of art educators stems in part from the strength which arises from internal unity. The measure of prosperity to be enjoyed by art educators is also governed by edu- cators who frame policy and by those who im- plement it. For these reasons the writer seeks to describe a current dilemma which prevails among art educators-a dilemma which all educators may help to resolve.

For many years the art teacher has been dubbed "artist" both by his colleagues in the teaching pro- fession and by his fellow citizens. This perform- ing role has, in fact, become an expectation of major proportions in many communities where, but for the art teacher's presence, the visual arts would be in the doldrums. To counter this unjust assumption a number of educators have promoted the concept of "artist-teacher" where the art teacher retained his identity as an artist and yet was also shown to be a person dedicated to the education of others.

In spite of the acknowledgment given to this concept of balance-or perhaps because of it- art teachers have found themselves with not one but two sets of expectations to meet, that of artist and that of teacher. Numerous art teachers have, as one might have expected, rebelled against this situation as, for example, a physics teacher might rebel if he were expected to unite his teach- ing with contributions to scholarly journals in the physical sciences. The misconception continues, and while art teachers have persisted in their con- tributions to education, the distinction between the art teacher as an artist and as a teacher has become entrenched. Two broad groups of opinion among art teachers now exist; namely, that where the teacher primarily seeks artistic excellence both

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:46:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in his own work and that of his students; and that where the teacher seeks as his goal improvement in his competence to educate others in art. Many shades of opinion lie between the extremes, as one might expect, but the division is well established.

If one may turn to education in general, it is quite apparent that the subject matter taught in the schools centers on verbal competence, on reasoning, and on the acquisition of scientific principles. Few people could disapprove of such an emphasis in view of the times in which we live, and, for that matter, few could disapprove of the growth of this emphasis in recent years. Art Education, in concert with a number of other areas, however, also contributes to education, and does so in ways that are unique. For this reason it is no less important than any other component of the total effort toward a sound education for American youth, that is, if one is prepared to consider education as a broad enter- prise and not as a set of narrowly defined skills.

The pre-occupation of art teachers with prac- tical tasks and with problems which are not ob- viously open either to rational analysis or to empirical test, often sets them aside from the main body of educators. One result of this feeling of separation and of the uncertainty that can accom- pany separation has been the call by a number of art educators for a revision of the function of art in the schools: these critics express their desires variously but in most instances they seem to be identifying themselves with the recent resurgence of the so-called "solid" subjects. Among the numerous points of view which have been aired are those in which is expressed the conviction that the practice of art has no place in a school curriculum. Others seek to make high school art respectable by making it a verbal subject and thus gaining college entrance credit for it. Another point of view, one which is probably the most profound, describes two different tasks which have to be undertaken in art education-one is verbal, historical, and relatively passive: the other is active and productive.

These suggestions may have some substance but they point the way, however, to a further divi- sion among art educators, one which could take on such proportions that it might end all hopes for professional unity. Such a division might well lead to a situation comparable with the independ- ence with which studio and art history faculties pursue their respective paths on a number of college campuses. One cannot but acknowledge, on the other hand, that where art teachers have been lacking in a grasp of the history and theory of art they have not been able to meet their re- sponsibilities as art teachers. To substitute the study of history for studio practice would be

equally undesirable, since the task would continue to be inadequately handled. In fact, if such an unlikely concept as substitution were embraced by school administrators across the nation a dis- service would have been perpetrated toward American education. Our society is in need of well developed diversity of talents in order to prosper, and a dangerous imbalance would occur if only a narrow range of competencies were de- veloped. The studio art teacher who cares for nothing but the act of creation reveals grave in- adequacies as an educator, but he does offer his students a wealth of opportunity for learning of a kind that is characteristically different from any other form of learning to be found in the school -or elsewhere in society for that matter.

A prime task of an educational system, how- ever, is to transmit the culture to its charges, and human culture functions within a time continuum. Our system is no exception and for this reason visual art is an important element of our culture and has a valid place in the school curriculum in both its practical and its theoretical manifesta- tions. If the verbal, largely historical, physically passive study of art is legitimately one of the art responsibilities the schools must shoulder then three questions must be answered. Who should teach it? To whom should it be taught? How may it be incorporated into existing curricular struc- tures?

Among school personnel the obvious person to do this work is the art teacher, but one may expect him frequently to be neither qualified nor willing to undertake this work. A ready alternative would seem to be the Social Studies teacher who may well be a history graduate. And yet few history graduates can be expected to have a suffi- ciently close acquaintance with the visual tradi- tion of western culture, not to mention the world scene, necessary for competence in this work. Since no other candidate is likely to be available, one must next turn to the possibility of hiring people trained specifically in the area, namely, art historians. Such a proposition would probably be rejected because it would throw an added burden on the already straining school budgets. In addition, one would have to develop more and larger training programs than currently exist in order to meet the demand that would arise from such an innovation.

The question of staffing such a study could be resolved, but only with great difficulty and much expense. The next problem is to identify the stu- dents who might be exposed to this curricular addition. If the work of learning about art were intended as a continuing part of the education of all students the realities of time-tabling, notably in the high school, would probably lead to its 11

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:46:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

defeat-unless some other subject were removed from the curriculum. If, as a compromise, this study were designed as a single experience, for example, during the senior year of high school, one could hardly expect more than a handful of students to benefit from so brief an encounter. On the other hand, if this study were intended only for gifted students or for the high achievers in school one might anticipate that only in wealthy school districts and very large systems could such an expense be carried for the relative- ly few students involved. Another possibility, and one which seemingly possesses more merit than the others would be to offer the study of art his- tory and theory as an elective. Such a plan might well serve those who, for one reason or another, are reluctant to engage in practical arts studies.

The problem relating to incorporating this study into existing curriculums has been touched on lightly in the last two paragraphs. School administrators might very well see the addition of such a study as being highly desirable while at the same time realizing that because of the pres- ent competition for time and talent only the less able and the less willing students have empty spaces in their timetables to permit additional elective work. These students, needless to say, are the ones who are least likely to possess the qualities necessary for the successful study of this topic. Above all else, however, is the tendency of educational policy makers to try and hold the line with elective offerings and, if anything, to cut back on them rather than to proliferate them.

The preceding points are but a sampling of the problems which face those who wish to intro- duce this study into the school curriculum as a distinct entity. The only choice left open, that is from this writer's point of view, is that of inte- gration, since the widespread addition of courses is unlikely and the substitution of one form of art for another is undesirable. On the question of integration one may turn for guidance to school subjects where other teachers are concerned with the integration of knowledge with performance. The English teacher, for example, seeks to com- municate to his students the rules of language and their use; he also attempts to develop in- dividual writing styles among his pupils. The teacher of English who, in addition, does not- or cannot-teach literature both in its aesthetic and in its historic senses is not likely to be com- mended for his work. Likewise, the science teacher who cannot or does not place his subject within a time continuum, and who cannot involve his students in the drama of their own discovery cannot be credited as a good science teacher.

12 In the same vein, the teacher of art can never

be simply either a studio practitioner or an historian.

Teachers, like everyone else, tend to specialize. This specialization, however, becomes more pre- cisely defined with the level of instruction: in the elementary school it prevails only moderately whereas in university graduate schools it reaches a high degree of concentration. Specialization ex- ists in the public schools, but it does not reach major proportions except in the very large schools where subdivisions of a general teaching area may be made. Within their subject fields teachers may well be compared with those in medicine who are general practitioners rather than with those who practice only their specialties in medicine, such as dermatology. The art teacher can be ex- pected to have developed special strengths, but he is nonetheless a generalist and his major concern lies with promoting that goal in his work. Those, therefore, who propose the expansion of study in the history of art are proposing what, to any responsible art educator, is a very worthy cause. But where these proposals include plans which would drastically modify current practices, a potential disservice is present toward the cause of art in general education.

Art educators must not be asked to choose whether to travel down the road of studio or of history. The future of art in the schools cannot be said to have a fork in the road.

In conclusion, one cannot help but be aware that the proposals for change contain a clear in- dictment of inadequacy, since if art educators were at all active in seeking a balanced curriculum in art then such suggestions would never have been voiced. The problem may be resolved by those engaged in the training of art teachers and by art teachers themselves. It may also be helped considerably by school superintendents and prin- cipals. These appointed officials are responsible for the effective operation of schools and need to consider closely the competencies of those who apply for appointments under their jurisdiction. Art teachers may be encouraged to specialize in some area of art, but they must possess a com- prehensive understanding of the content of art, inasmuch as they must also be well informed about the processes of communicating their knowledge to others. The prevailing educational conditions and those which lie in the near future demand that the art teacher be that person in a school-if he is alone-who knows art: He must be aware of the visual aesthetic in its his- torical context; he must be conscious of con- temporary directions in this tradition; and he must possess some competence in studio work.

Guy Hubbard is Assistant Professor of Education at Indiana University.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:46:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions