National Art Education Association

Discipline-Based Art Education: An OverviewAuthor(s): Hilda Present LewisSource: Art Education, Vol. 40, No. 5, Discipline-Based Art Education (Sep., 1987), pp. 4-5Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193011 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 07:19

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 195.34.78.81 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:19:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Discipline-Based Art

Education: An Overview

This journal issue is the first of two focused on Discipline-Based Art Education. As you would expect, the rate of submission of manuscripts on this topic is high. Copy for the second issue is already accumulating. If you plan to submit a manu- script on this topic, please see that it reaches me by October 15. The addresses' and brief directions for preparing the manuscript appear on the title page.

isner's article provides the setting for considering DBAE. He views art education from many angles and at varying distances, like a camera exploring a subject by shooting it at close range and then moving away and around, in a spiral, to capture its complexity in deepening

perspective. The article first views art education as it relates to the mission of education. Next it examines the status of art in the schools. Then it goes on to discuss human development and artistic learning, the aims and content of discipline-based art education, and implementing discipline-based art education in the schools. The article deals with curricular concerns, such as aims, goals, and objectives, organization of learning experiences, content, resources, and evalua- tion. The article was first written for and published by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Copies of it may be obtained by writing to them at 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, California 90067-2561.

Chalmers' concern is that the list of scholarly disciplines on which DBAE is founded is too short. He points out that the world of art is also studied by sociologists, anthropologists, and others in the social sciences. Ignoring their work confines the study of art to examples suited to museums and galleries in our own culture. These works are just part of the range of art produced by the human race. Expanding the disciplines that define the scope of DBAE would per- mit a richer, less-ethnocentric, and more accurate view of human achievement in the arts.

Gray, on the other hand, believes the list of scholarly disciplines on which DBAE is founded is too long. He suggests limiting it to three by eliminating Aesthetics. He argues that Aesthetics is inextricably a part of any analysis of art production, art history, and art criticism. Aesthetics is implicit in teaching art. Attending to Aesthetics separately is an unnecessary diversion. Expecting school teachers to provide instruction in this complex branch of philosophy may turn them away from all of DBAE. Teachers should be given the opportunity to study Aesthetics as an element of Philosophy. But, Gray suggests, they ought not be re- quired to teach it.

4 Art Education/September 1987

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.81 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:19:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Lanier proposes an alternative to DBAE. He dubs it A*R*T*, which stands for aesthetic response theory. Lanier replaces aspects of DBAE that he finds objec- tionable with concepts and practices that he considers desirable. Thus the Elitist and Formalist philosophical underpinnings of DBAE are replaced by a Materialist and/or Pragmatic world view. Gone is the predetermined curriculum. In its stead is a curriculum designed by the teacher to meet the needs of a par- ticular class. In Lanier's model, children study the content of works of art and the context in which they were formed. Aesthetic scanning is no longer seen as the key that unlocks the meaning of a work of art. Lanier would expand the range of works deemed worthy of consideration. Works to be studied would be selected and sequenced by starting with what is familiar to the learners and mov- ing outwards. Lanier believes the young should study art; they need not engage in methods of scholarly inquiry as practiced by artists, critics, art historians, and aestheticians.

The articles in this journal raise many issues in DBAE. Expressions of reader response, in manuscript or in letter format, are most welcome.

Hilda Present Lewis

Art Education/September 1987 5

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.81 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:19:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions