art museum/school collaborations || can philosophical change take hold in the american art museum?

National Art Education Association

Can Philosophical Change Take Hold in the American Art Museum?Author(s): Melinda M. MayerSource: Art Education, Vol. 51, No. 2, Art Museum/School Collaborations (Mar., 1998), pp. 15-19Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193737 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:10

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].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:10:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193737?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


l l l

_ NOllVOna3 18V / 866L HOUVN



patterns of philosophical change which occurred during the 20 century in art museums and explore whether changes now taliing place in the discipline of art history, called the "new art histories," are likely to result in systemic change in art museums. VVlll a new relationship between the art museum and its audience, especially the schools, emerge?

I will begin by exarnining differing notions of the educational mission of art museums in America. Four philosophies of art inquiry that determined educational practices during the 20th century will be mapped. The persistent dominance of one, the art history philosophy, will be examined in terms of the structures which allowed it to reign supreme. Particular attention will be focused on the 1930s and 1940s when education made great strides towards becoming the primary mission of the art museum. The writings of Theodore Low, director of education at the Walters Art Gallery, will illuminate this period. Low's prophecies and critical analysis might also serve as a signpost indicating whether current shifts in the discipline of art history will result in changing educational practices in art museums. This article will close by considering the sig nificance of the new art histories to art museum/school relationships.

EDUCATION AND THE ART MUSEUM'S MISSION

Is the primary mission of the Arnerican art museum to serve people or works of art? The answer to this question determines the nature of the institu- fion, specifically wheier or not it is an educational institution. A quick perusal of the founding charters of the first Arnerican art museums indicates that the question was settled over 100 years

One conception of education held by some museum directors and curators is that by displaying the object the muse um has fulfilled its educational function. The viewer is educated simply by looking atthework of art (Lee, 1978). The extreme of this view is recorded by Eisner and Dobbs (1986). A director interviewed for their report on the field of museum education states, "If you hang a picXre in the dark, that is not education. If you put a light on it, that is education" (p. 8). This philosophy cen- ters on the work of art and endows the object with the power to speak for itself. Although not all museum directors share this perspective, it continues to assert a strong presence. Museum directors tend to come out of the curatonal rank, where traditionally this position has prevailed.

Eisner and Dobbs's document rocked the world of art museum education on many levels. One of the more positive outcomes, however, occurred in November 1987 when 23 museum educators representing the museum divi- sion of the National Art Education Association and the Education Committee of the American Association of Museums gathered in Denver to dis- cuss art museum education. From this meeting emerged a definition of art museum education that could be said to represent the understanding of education held by museum educators.

Art museums function as educational institutions by presenting original works of art and by making these primary resources accessible to broad audiences. The purpose of art museum education is to enhance the visitor's ability to understand and appreciate original works of art and to

ago: American art museums are educational institutions. In fact, the impor- tance American museums placed on their educational function distinguished them from European museums dedicat- ed to the acquisition and care of collections (Rawlins, 1978) . If the question was settled a century ago, why pose it now?

In tuth the place of education in the mission of the American art museum is far from setfled. It is a divisive issue that has stirred debate among directors, curators, and museum educators throughout the 20th century. How these professionals define education and how important a function they deem it direct- ly affects the status of the museum educator in the organization, his or her voice in policymaking, and, most importantly, the educator's opportunity to perform his or her job.

After 1870, no museum (hereafter "museum" will refer to art museums) in this country was founded without includ- ing education, in some form, in its mission statement (Rawlins, 1978). 7he crux ofthis debate, therefore, is not whethera museum has an educationalturpose, but what the director, curator, and museum educator view as education. Embedded in that definition of education is its rela- tive primacy in the insfitufion.

_ A R T E D U C A T I O N / M A R C H 1 9 9 8



transfer these experiences into other aspects of the visitors' lives. (Pittman- Gelles, 1988, p. 21)

Although some difference of opinion arose whether people or art objects are central in museum education, the con- sensus definition above states that both objects and people must be served. While acknowledging the work of art as the basis of museum education, the museum educators' definition reflects a philosophy which is decidedly people- centered, concerned with facilitating meaningful interpretations of works of art which will contribute to the individ- ual's understanding of his or her world. This education philosophy requires more to occur in the galleries than the positioning of a few well-placed light bulbs for lights to go on in the mind of the viewer.

To understand the roots of conflicting viewpoints of museum directors and educators regarding education, we need to look back to theories of art and education that gained prominence in the museum world during the 20th century. Zeller (1989) provides athorough overview of four philosophies-aesthetic, art history, social education, and interdisciplinary/humanities-which shaped museum education.

AMERICAN ART MUSEUMS' PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS

Laying foundations, both literal and figurative, marked the first distinctive period (1870-1900) of Arnerican museums. As buildings rose, trustees and directors amassed great collections of European art to fill galleries and vaults. The Mlctorian moralism of the late l9th century and the Aesthetic movement appeared to provide the soil out of which the aesthetic philosophy grew just after the turn of the century (Zeller, 1989) .

The aesthetic philosophy was more a

theory of museum purpose than educational practice. Museum education was eclipsed through this view which held at its heart the "sanctity of the object" (Low, 1948, p. 34). Quasi-religious phraseology abounded in the literature. The object possessed "spiritual" quali- ties; itwas "sacred." Writers described museums as "temples," "shrines," and "sanctuaries." One was moved simply by looking at the object, but not to art historical understanding or interpretation. Better taste and improved quality of life were the expected outcomes of the aesthetic philosophy (Zeller, 1989).

The art history philosophy emerged concurrentlywith the aesthetic, and became a dominant force during the first 30 years of this century. This philosophy took form and gained strength in large part due to the development of art history as a distinct discipline in universities. Harvard became noted for producing art historians who went into the field insist- ing a purely art historical approach be practiced in their museums. For these young Harvard men scholarship and connoisseurship were ends in them- selves (Low, 1948). These arthistorians were interested in attribution, iconogra- phy, style, and artists' biographies (Zeller, 1989). Like the aesthetes, propo- nents of the art history philosophy advo- cated direct, unmediated experience of the work of art. When the aesthetic philosophy came under attack and waned in the 1930s, it was the art historical that emerged victorious.

A third philosophy affecting museum education arose near the turn of the century-the social education philosophy. Here the relation of the museum to the object, the audience, and society at large is remarkably altered. This most socially activist of the philosophies advocates that the museum "make a direct and

practical difference by improving the quality of everyday life" (Zeller,1989, p. 66). Museum audiences, conversely, need to demand relevant educational practices from museums for the museum to justify its existence.

The fourth philosophy appeared to tread a middle ground between the activism of social education and the pas- sivity of the aesthetic and art history philosophies. The earliest educational programs in museums often featured an interdisciplinary approach. Concerts, dance recitals, story hours, films, etc., were used to teach art in relation to other art forms and to teach other sub- jects through art. A stnking feature of this philosophy was the insistence that the object not be contemplated for its own sake. Such isolating of the object from a meaningful context was considered "unwholesome" leading to idoliz- ing objects (Zeller, 1989, p.62). Zeller called this theory of education the interdisciplinary or humanities philosophy. Theodore Low (1948) termed itthe cultural history ideal.

THEODORE LOW: PROPHET OF HOPE

Low wrote actively on the subject of museum education during the 1930s and 1940s. In his 1948 book Low traces the history of the field, outlines key theoreti- cal patterns, assesses progress, and pre dicts the potential for a healthy future because "education is now considered the dominant function, to the fulfillment of which the others contribute" (Low, 1948, p.94) . His views were certainly not shared by all museum professionals (Zeller,1989), therefore, whatbasis did Low have for making such a bold state ment?

Low wrote during a period of great social and museum change. He partici- pated in and witnessed the life-altering effects of the Great Depression and

M A R C H 1 9 9 8 / A R T E D U C A T I O N



World War II. From this vantage point Low could see that museums as sacred halls for an elite few were senseless. His vision for museums embraced all people in active, meaningful learning.

Economic uncertainty appeared to be the root of this turning point. Wealthy museum patrons had lost their fortunes and could no longer funnel money into museums. As the coffers dried up, museums had to turn to a skeptical public for financial support. Museum directors found their public relations campaigns of the previous 30 years were not believed by the public (Low, 1948). The public was unfazed by museum needs and unconcerned about the institution's future. A period of self- examination ensued in which museum administrators realized the necessity of serving the public more meaningfully.

Low points out, however, that exten- sive publicity for the programs of the Works Progress Administration and the Federal Art Project generally improved the visibility of art in society. Thus, a middle class interested in adult education and more aware of the visual arts became the target audience for museum education services. Low observed that more, not different, education programs emerged. The content of the programs remained effectively the same (Low, 1948) . Not until World War II did museums fully reassess their philosophies.

Low characterizes the war period as one of "spiritual regeneration" for museums (1948, p. 68). Museum offi- cials started shifting their focus from providing mass quantities of programs to providing educational programs of rich quality. During this time of self- examination, the central issue was iden- Wing the nature of an education with lasting value to the visitor. The result was a discernible move away from the

aesthetic philosophy to teaching "history of culture in the anthropological sense" and "final acceptance of the belief that the primary function of the museum is education and that all other functions are subsidiary" (Low, 1948, p. 69).

Low recognized strong conservative forces afoot in museums which resisted these fundamental shifts. He believed, however, thatforces of change coming out of the Depression and World War II were sufficiently powerful to dislodge entrenched theories. Low appeared to be justified in his optimistic outlook.

THE POWER OF THE ACADEMY Nevertheless, Low was wrong.

Despite the decline of the aesthetic philosophy and rise of the cultural history ideal, the art historical philosophy con- tinued to exist just under the surface of change. Even today the cultural history ideal only occasionally shapes museum practice and education is seldom considered the museum's primary function. Art historicism prevails. Why was Low's optimism ill-fated? What kept longterm, systemic change from

* q occumngK Low himself provided a clue to this

puzzle in his concerns regarding the academic training of art historians. He wrote of the inextricable tie between the graduate training of the art historian and the direction of practices in art museums. Low believed in the inevitability of graduate students mov- ing into curatorial positions replete with the art historical philosophies and atti- tudes so preciously cultivated through their education.

If Low was right, the schooling of the men (and one woman) who were museum directors during the post- Depression and World War II era needs to be examined. What philosophical foundation formed the infrastructure of

the leadership of directors during the 1950s?

An examination of the directors of seven leading American art museums reveals that 6 of the 12 directors active during the 1950s received degrees from Harvard. The other 6 received degrees from Yale, Columbia, Case Western Reserve, and Radeliffe.

In 1921 Paul Sachstaughtthe inau- gural session of Harvard's Museum Course. Sachs was associate director of the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard and full professor in art history. Well-recognized as an astute collector with a dis- cerning, intelligent eye, Sachs taught connoisseurship based in art historical research-the art history philosophy. A 1946 survey of "important" museum and university art historians (Sachs retired in December 1945)revealed that 200 of them were graduates of the Museum Course (Harvard, 1996). In light of this army of Harvard-trained art historians, it hardly seems surprising that, in the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II, museums reverted from the cultural history ideal to the art history philosophy. Low was right in linking the future of museum education with the schooling of the art historian.

Such findings paint a discouraging picture for the future of the museum educator and museum visitor regard- less of social or economic pressures. If the academic training of art historians does not change, museum educators will continue to be dominated by the art history philosophy. They will not achieve parity with curators in policymaking or status. I=he disparate values of the directors and educators will remain. Museum directors will pursue their object-centered priorities of col-

A R T E D U C A T I O N / M A R C H 1 9 9 8



xx __!-T - - -

-

um educator, director, curator, artist/work of art. The goal of such school/museum education would not be to discover the original meaning of the art object, what the artist intended, or to define the cultmral context in which the work was created. With the stmdent viewer at the center of this interpretive collaboration, the mission would be to examine contemporaty and histoncal contextpersonal, cultmral, economic, institmtional, cumcular- which bring meaning to the interpretive dialogue. Stmdentviewers would become empowered as acfive, equal, thinking members of an expanding community of inquiry.

Melinda M. Mayer is a Lecturer inArt Education at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas.

R E F E R E N C E S Bal, M., & Bryson, N. (1991). Semiotics and

art history. TheArt Bulletin, LXXIII(2), 174-208.

Eisner, E. W., & Dobbs, S. M. (1986). The uncertain profession: Observations on the state of museum education in twenty American art museums. Los Angeles: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

Harvard University (1996). Harvard's art museums: 100years of collecting NewYork: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Lee, S. (1978). Art museums and education. In B. Newsom & A Silver (Eds.) A 77ze art museum as educator (pp. 21-26). Berkeley: Universitz of California Press.

Low, T. L. (1948). The educationalphilosophy andpractice of art museums in the United States. New York: Teachers' College Press, Columbia Universitr.

Pittman-Gelles, B. (1988) . Defining art museum education: Call we agree? 77zeJoarxaal of Museum Education, 13(3), 21-23.

kwlins, K (1978). Educational metamorpho- sis of the American museum. Studies in Art Education, 20(1), 4-17.

Zeller, T. (1989) . The historical and philosophical foundations of art museum education in America. In N. Berry & S. Mayer, (Eds.), Museum education: History, theory, atad practice (pp. 1(}89). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

lecting, preserving, and exhibiting, while museum educators strive to translate their people-centered philosophy into education practice.

Change is occurring in the academy, in the training of the art historian. A body of literature is building a support structure for these changes. Even the effiibition practices of some museums are showing signs of a significant philosophical shift. VVhat do these initiatives portend?

THE NEW ART HISTORIES During the 1980s and l990s, post-

modern perspectives in culture and art history have gained momentum. The "new art histories" suggest alternate views of interpreting works of art Fom those of the art history philosophy. Informed by semiotic, poststructuralist, deconstruction, psychoanalytic, Malxist, multicultural, and feminist theory, the new art histories expand interpretation. Pertinent to this inquiry is redefinition of context and articulation of the viewer's role.

Semiotics defines context as unlimit- ed. The art object is one component in a chain of factors producing meaning. As Bal and Bryson put it "context can always be extended" (1991, p. 177). Thus, art history is brought closer to the cultural history/interdisciplinary philosophy of museum education. New

art historical inquiry also resembles the activism of the social education philosophy.

The most significant change in art historical theory that semiotics offers educators concerns the "receiver" the viewer. Central to semiotics are theories of reception. As Bal and Bryson (1991) point out, the goal of semiotic analysis of works of art is not to produce interpretations of those works, but to investigate the processes viewers use to make sense of visual art. The "new" art historian, like the museum educator, therefore, should be especially concerned with how the viewer constructs meanings from works of art. The art historian is shifting Fom object-centered values to people-centered values. Curators and directors trained in the new art histories would share values with museum educators. Systemic change would more likely occur. Low's vision of museums devoted to education would be realized. We may still wonder, however, what promise this would hold for the relationship between schools and museums.

Such profound change could rede- fine the relationship between the museum and the school. The new relationship would be collaborative, but not an institutional collaboration alone. Instead there should be collaboration among all members of the interpretive community student, teacher, muse-

M A R C H 1 9 9 8 / A R T E D U C A T I O N



art museum/school collaborations || can philosophical change take hold in the american art museum?

Documents