the interdependence of theory and practice in art education

National Art Education Association

The Interdependence of Theory and Practice in Art EducationAuthor(s): Per JohansenSource: Art Education, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 1983), pp. 20-22Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192710 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 01:51

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 188.72.127.68 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:51:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192710?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


The Interdependence of Theory

and Practice in Art Education

T he relationship between theory and practice is a much debated issue in education. Unfortunate-

ly, a perceptible gap seems to exist between theorists and researchers on the one side and "firing line" classroom practitioners on the other. Too often, theory and practice are viewed as opposing or unrelated forces.

In art education, the view that theory and practice are dichotomous appears particularly widespread and pronounc- ed. A strong indicator of this is the high degree of skepticism many art educators often express toward research and theoretical findings. There is a general tendency in the field, perhaps especial- ly among classroom art teachers, to reject these findings as having little or nothing to do with the real world of art teaching. Another indicator of the tendency to dichotomize theory and practice in art education is the "ivory tower" position taken by some researchers and theorists. These scholars are often not interested in interacting with or having an effect on practice. They seem reluctant to pay much attention to anything that smacks of actual art teaching. Instead, they tend to behave as if theory and research, sitting neatly bound on a shelf, or noted briefly in a resume, has significance in and of itself. These apparently opposite positions, that of the skeptical teacher and that of the isolated scholar, can be seen as representing two poles within the same fundamental view. It is a view which has theory and practice as disconnected elements in the overall art education picture. No matter what form it takes, the view seems extremely unrealistic and detrimental to improvement and growth in the field.

A Non-productive Thinking Pattern Eisner (1982) explains the skepticism of many art educators towards theory and research as being rooted partly in the apparent contradiction between science and art: "Science deals with the rational, the logical, the systematic, and

Per Johansen

the generalizable while art deals with the emotional, with the intuitive and spiritual, with the suprarational, and with the particular." (p. 4). Theory and research are strongly identified with science. For this reason, many art teachers feel that trying to use these scientific tools to inform educational practice is, at best, unfruitful. Or, they feel that, at worst, it can be destructive to the purity of art teaching. In the minds of these teachers, teaching, like art, appears to be a mysterious process to which theory and research can con- tribute nothing.

To a certain extent, it would seem that these teachers have a legitimate point. It is difficult to deny that a mysterious, trans-empirical dimension is a central part of both art and teaching. Good classroom art activities traditionally pro- duce elements of discovery, imagina- tion, surprise, and wonder. In various ways, both art and education clearly go far beyond the level of verbal language, numbers, generalizations, conceptualiz- ing, systematic planning, and thinking. To be protective of and devoted to this mysterious, transcendent dimension is, many would hopefully agree, to serve that which is most basic to our human life and therefore also to art and education: the pure, undifferentiated wonder and love of life which are evidenced not by theoretical arguments but by luminous eyes, inspired living, and brilliant artworks.

Yet, despite the genuine idealism of art teachers promoting this lofty and worthy goal, it is quite possible that many of them have become over- protective and too set against the structure of empiricism. Many of them may have adopted an unnecessarily rejecting attitude toward theory and research. As a result, their teaching may have come to suffer from lack of planning and structure. Guides for teaching art which may possibly be provided by theory and

research are automatically out of their reach. In their eagerness to guard the transcendent and mystical aspects of art and teaching, they deny the potential benefits of systematic thinking, planning, and investigation. Like some lovers of oriental culture who feel that gaining significantly from the great traditions of the East necessitates rejection of every single Western comfort, they rush to reject all theoretical thinking. This seems a strange and unnatural over-reaction.

Paradoxically, the extreme position taken by many idealistic art teachers against theory and research illustrates a curious but non-productive habit of thinking which is strongly rooted in our Western emphasis on scientific and rational knowledge. This habit of thinking is also illustrated by the extreme position taken by "ivory tower" theorists against practice. Along with being at the core of the conflict and disconnection between educational theory and practice, this pattern of thinking may also be the source of countless other personal, social, educational, and religious difficulties. The pattern can be simply stated as an in- sistence on always remaining within a dualistic framework. Those who are limited to this pattern find it extremely difficult, or impossible, to conclude that two things that are, apparently, very different or opposite, can both be good in that they serve to complete and comple- ment each other. People who think like this generally rush to separate the good from the bad, usually without seeing or caring about the complete picture of a situation.

In our Western culture, the emphasis has traditionally been heavier on scientific-rational thinking than on in- tuition, feeling, art and wonder. In our eagerness to categorize, isolate, and systematize for scientific and practical purposes, we seem to have lost the an- cient art of seeing a fundamental unity in life. We have great difficulty accep- ting the co-existence and interdependence of opposites. Unless clear

Art Education January 1983 20



connections between differences or opposites of a situation are immediately obvious, we tend to reject the part or parts which are the least attractive or familiar. In the broadest sense, we may, as a culture, have become too "confin- ed to differences and distinctions and (thus) unable to grasp the universal of which the particulars are only a limited expression" (Singh, 1979, p. 130). We have, it seems, to a great extent, lost the ability to see life whole, to see the pure wonder of that whole in all its parts, and to notice the organic interdependence between these parts. Not being open to this dimension, we often fail to see the subtler connections between apparently opposing aspects of situations we en- counter. With no unifying vision to guide us, we tend to see great difficulties where none may actually exist.

It seems likely that this pattern of thinking, this overly mechanistic mind- set, is, at least in part, behind the insis- tent rejection of theory and research on the part of many art educators. This basic pattern leads them to conclude that because art and education embody a significant dimension of mystery and wonder, all that smacks of science and empiricism must be unfruitful or destructive. Because the two aspects are so different, they seem completely in- compatible, mutually exclusive.

It is easy to see that this thinking pattern inevitably leads to fragmentation, prejudice, conflict, and stagnation. It provides no basis for co-operation, harmony, learning, and positive expansion. There is no other way to avoid the negative results of this fundamental fallacy than to adopt the opposite approach. By taking a more open, positive, and inclusive attitude, we automatically begin to dissolve dualism. Instead of starting out with an automatic rejection, we can look for and be open to discovering positive connections, even where these are slightly beyond our grasp at first glance. Where we fail to see such connections, no rejection is necessary, only a stepping back from the looking, a suspension of judg- ment. With this detachment in the face of complexity beyond our immediate comprehension, we insure ourselves of continuous positive results. We remain open to the wonder of life. We escape the finality and negativity of rejection. We escape disappointment.

search, whatever level of search it might be? Why should we ever accept anything less than perfect order, even if its expression at a given moment seems beyond our mental comprehension? Why should we not relate to both theory and practice as being fundamentally good and potentially useful? If we approach each educational situation with this openness and positivity, new levels of understanding will reveal themselves. With this attitude, new dimensions of connections and harmony between theory and practice will emerge as we investigate and ex- periment with these two aspects of the educational process.

Non-dualism Though their cultures have failed to pro- duce the many wonderful practical con- veniences we in the West enjoy, the Orientals have generally been much more successful than we have in developing and living by a philosophy that explains the co-existence and interdependence of opposites, and which explains the myriad of empirical particulars under a unifying principle. The Chinese, for example, have developed the well-known concept and symbol of

Iqhivq-.h2 kti ,r itth Inri Drron7- A 1/9" hinh

Why should we ever accept anything less than positive connections in our

Yin-Yang. The Hindus, particularly the people of the Kashmir region of India, have developed the Shiva-Shakti principle. In these instances, the world is viewed as the harmonious co-existence and interdependence of opposites and differences. Thus, they exemplify the unified world view we are lacking in the West.

In the philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism (Singh, 1963, Singh, 1979, Pandey, 1963), the problem of duality and differences is simply and completely resolved. Everything is seen as One, or Ultimate Reality. Yet this One con- tains two poles of the same reality: stillness and motion. These are referred to as Shiva and Shakti respectively. One gives rise to the other in a continuum. Because of this fusion, Ultimate Reali- ty is described as dynamic pulsation. In this Reality, Shiva is the unmanifest potential, and Shakti is the pure dynamic. Shakti is the opposite pole of Shiva. She is the movement that arises on the ocean of Shiva (also referred to as Consciousness). All manifestation is based on the movement of Shakti. Thus, all of life is an expression of the Shiva- Shakti principle. Shakti is the source of our material life and of our mind. The traditional iconography of Shiva and Shakti (Consciousness and Energy), is the lovers who are deeply in love, ex- periencing a continuous ecstatic union. Deep harmony exists. Without Shakti, Shiva would be inert, like an empty jar. Without Shiva, Shakti would be without structure, hysteria.

The Shiva-Shakti principle points to and underscores the mystery, wonder, and love, as well as the structure, which lie at the core of life. By extension, these qualities are also at the core of art and education. Though the verbally stated Shiva-Shakti principle points to a universal dimension, no words can, of course, adequately describe its subtle mystery and structure. Yet, life itself, as well as all great religions, philosophy, and art, reverberate with it. It is something so basic that it either rings true to us or it does not. No amount of evidencial arguments can persuade us of its truth if our mind is set against it. Still, verbal reminders of it can help point to it and inspire recognition of it.

Shiva-Shakti and Art Education The significance of the perspective expressed by the Shiva-Shakti pinrciple for art education is that it provides a vision




of fundamental unity based on many centuries of yogic experience and reflection. This vision was found as truth, as living reality, within the spiritual seekers of Kashmir. They experienced the One, the Shiva-Shakti principle, and the dissolution of dualism in the context of their inner and outer lives. As a result, the concepts expressed in their texts inspire an openness to and a recognition of all facets of life as expressions of the One, of Consciousness and Energy. Their ideas inspire us to seek a harmonious acceptance and understanding of all perceived opposites and differences. They point to equilibrium, vitality, wonder, and love rather than rejection, limitation, and conflict. They explain the world as both structure and movement, as an evolving entity with inherent order. Their challenge to us as art educators is to learn to grasp and in- teract intelligently with this inherent structure and movement in our com- merce with our field.

If we see educational theory and practice in view of the Shiva-Shakti principle of Kashmir Shaivism, it is possible to understand these two not as dichotomous elements, but as interdependent aspects. It is possible to relate to them as two poles of the same reality or process, functioning in a continuum. As such, they cannot ever be en- tirely separated.

On the practical level, this interdependence is evident in many ways. For example, teachers who are effective but claim they do everything by pure in- stinct are simply not conscious of the underlying theoretical constructs guiding their actions. Upon deeper reflection, the theories and structure behind their actions would emerge. Con- versely, theorists who disregard practice and take the position that some kind of pure, isolated system of intellectual logic is the only source of their theorizing are not recognizing the sources of their thinking, or else their theorizing is pure fantasy, completely divorced from reality.

The organic and complete interdependence of theory and practice is also, in many ways, built into our educational institutions. Yet, curiously, it often fails to be recognized by in- dividuals functioning within these institutions. For example, art education theorists and researchers are usually graduates of doctoral programs in art education. These programs generally

n our Western culture, the emphasis has tradi-

tionally been heavier on

scientific-rational thinking than on in- tuition, feeling, art,

and wonder."

have as a prerequisite that candidates have some years of public school teaching experience in art. For this reason, most art education theorists and researchers do not come to their intellectual tasks without some notion of what is practical in a classroom situation. Their practical experience invariably, if subtly, colors their research activities to some degree. Interests and general im- pressions are gained from the particulars of practical experience, and these never fail to guide theorizing and research. No one comes to these scholarly activities from a vacuum. In the case of certify- ing classroom art teachers, the opposite process is built in, yet it serves to il- lustrate the same point. Completion of a teacher education program is required for certification. Generally, these programs include at least some theoretical learning and some exposure to research findings related to art education. Therefore, no one comes to the practical arena of art teaching from a vacuum either. These examples indicate that con- siderable recognition exists within our institutions that theory and practice are interdependent.

As Shiva and Shakti complete the picture of Ultimate Reality, the One in Kashmir Shaivism, theory and practice complete the picture of art education as a process. Neither has independent, exclusive existence. Neither can be re- jected. They are linked in natural union, the one not complete without the other. This natural and complete interdependence of theory and practice suggests that art educators adopt a more open and positive stance towards the art education process as a whole. Art educa-

tion theorists and researchers need not be limited to scientific method and ivory tower intellectualism. By exposing themselves more to classroom situations requiring practical, human involvement, their scholarly activities would be more likely to reflect and affect classroom realities. Classroom art teachers, on the other hand, need not be limited to the confines of their practical interactions with students. They also need to con- tinue to study the structure and findings of theory and research. They need to be open to and to understand these, as Eisner (1982) puts it, not as rules, but as "rules of thumb" providing frames of reference and concepts which "make it possible for teachers to use their heads while teaching" (p. 5). Study of and reliance upon the structures offered by theory and research are not incompati- ble with the openendedness, flow, and mystery of the teaching/learning process. One aspect simply connects to and nourishes the other.

The parallel between theory-practice and the Shiva-Shakti principle of Kashmir Shaivism suggests the formula- tion of a fundamental principle for education. Under present circumstances, this principle seems particularly perti- nent to our field:

If not guided by sound educational theory, educational practice is hysteria. If not inspired by and geared towards educational practice, educational theory is like an empty jar-inert-elegant of appearance perhaps, but serving no practical purpose.

Per Johansen is assistant professor in art education at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.

References

E. Eisner, "The Relationship of Theory and Practice in Art Education," Art Educa- tion, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1982, pp. 4-5.

K.C. Pandey Abhinavagupta, Chowkham- ba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi-1, In- dia, 1963.

J. Singh, Siva Sutras: The Yoga of Supreme Motilal Identity, Banarsidars, Delhi, In- dia, 1979.

J. Singh, Pratyabhijnahrdayam: The Secret of Self-recognition, Motilal Banarsidars, Delhi, India, 1963.




the interdependence of theory and practice in art education

Documents