three options for art education practice

7/27/2019 Three options for art education practice

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/three-options-for-art-education-practice 1/9

National Art Education Association

Art History Inquiry Methods: Three Options for Art Education PracticeAuthor(s): Jacqueline ChandaReviewed work(s):Source: Art Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, Critical Lenses (Sep., 1998), pp. 17-24Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193717 .

Accessed: 20/10/2012 09:38

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of 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 Art

Education.

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193717?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193717?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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



A r t HiStor

Three

Art

thods:

sfor

= T_ _ hefieldofart ducationasprogressivelyoved owardsmorenquiry-based

approachoteaching,earning, nd hinkingaboutart.Eachdiscipline onnectedwith

thestudyof the visualarts-production,criticism, esthetics,andhistoryofart-offers

differentmodesofinquiry.Thehistoryofart, nparticular,rovides numberof

diversemodesofinquiryhatenablehistorians oquestion raditionalssumptions ndmindsets,and

openunderstandingsonew issues andproblems.These samemodes ofinquiry an offerarteduca-

torsnewwaysofthinkingabout,ookingat,andanalyzing ictorial henomena.

SEPTEMBER 1998 / ART EDUCATION



866L 138W31d3S / NOllVOnG(l 18V

'SeAUe UOI! 'AjOnluao lLo 'aP!gS!H ue ultOUJVUUEAO!91oA UBAer

i

I

r, ^ */

",I'-

.. ;

~f'Q



Arthistoricalmodesof nquiry avenotremainedhe sameover ime.Each

generation'siewof artandhistory

determinesheprevailingutlook n,andproblemsnd nterestsn thevisualarts Antal,949;Bryson,Holly,&

Moxey,1994).Themodeof nquiryn

the16thand17th enturies,orexam-

ple,emphasizedhe artist iography.Thisapproach as nitiatedyGiorgioVasari, nItalian-bornrtist ndwriter.In his book, TheLivesofthePainters,

Sculptors, ndArchitects,irstpublishedin1550,he wrotebiographiesfwell-known rtists rom he14th o the16th

centuriesVasari,963).The 18th en-tury aw hedevelopmentf cultural rt

historynGermany ith heworksof

JohannWinckelmann. inckelmannwas hefirst oput hewordsartand

history ogether, nd hus ormulatedhistoricalrocesswhich xaminedhe

origin, rocess, hange, nddownfallfartwithin culturalontext.The19th

centuryaw heemergence f aestheticand ormalistpproaches.ormalistrt

historyollowed nart-for-art's-sakedoctrinend

emphasized atheringdatarom he closeexaminationftheworkof art o the exclusion f contextu-al orextrinsicnformation.hegoalofthisapproach as o determinehe

chronologyfstylecycles(Antal,1949).Theearly 0thcenturyawan

emphasis nformalism,tyle,andpsy-choanalysissprimarymodesof

inquiry. ormal nd tylistic nalysisexcluded aturalistictandards,he

cycle,andculturalontext Ferie,1995).Onceagain,ivesof ndividual

artists ecamemportant,swellastheir ontributionsostylesandmove-

ments,determinedypsychoanalysis

which tudiedheunconsciousmental

processes fthe artist.

Bythemid-20thentury, variety f

methods uchasiconography,conolo-gy,and ocialarthistory adbeen

developed.conography,hesystemat-icstudyand dentificationfsubjectmatter sopposeostyle,hadalwaysbeenused nthehistory f art Femie,1995).However, rwin anofsky,German-bornrthistorian,roughtnewdimensionoiconographyyana-

lyzingttheoreticallyndcorrelatingtwithhumanistdeaswhichpostulatethatworksofartcommunicate eaning

about ultures, rtists, nd ocieties.Thiscombinationroducedconology,the nterpretationfsubject-matteriathestudyofthebroad ulturalndhis-torical ontext. ocial rthistory, n

approach hich mphasizedherela-

tionship f theworkofart o socialandeconomic istories, evelopedromtheories fKarlMarx rominentnthe19th entury.twas heseminalworkofArnoldHauser,TheSocialHistory fArt

(1951),hatbroughthe deasofthe

sociologyfart otheforefront.

In he atter art fthe 20thcentury,"new rthistories"egan odevelop(Rees&Borzello, 986).Thenewarthistories mphasize strongerommit-ment ostudyinghebroader ulturalcontext fworksof art roma more he-oretical osition. number f different

approachesavedevelopeds reac-tions oformalism,onnoisseurship,andasimplisticiewof conography.These nclude:a)deconstructionismorpoststructuralism,napproachhat

challengesixed nterpretationsnddenies hegeniusandcontributionfthe ndividualrtist;b)semiotics,he

studyofhowsignsystemsproducemeaning nd erveparticularocial

functions;c)structuralism,eaning

derivedim esx..e oia tatomyofanobje- sii-po tetenand(d)feivd

fromafemalai ve (Minor,1994).Even h6ougite approachesarecalled"new,"heyarenothistorical-

lyrecentor, notherdisciplinesuchas literaturendhistory,heyhavebeen n use since he ate19thandeary20thcenturies. h howe wtoarthistory ecauseheybeginwithdifferent otions bout rt.The artistic

products no onger he solution utahistorical nd deological roblemo bestudiedRees&Borzello, 986).

Canarteducators enefitrom earn-ingabout rthistoricalmodesof

inquiry?ddisandErickson1993)agreetha l ?s- roaches and

metho aog -s 'ti`s-:ory can

incr i :fiI 1iilessldi;fte ieldof arted i.t Itn a-ar iwould like to

exire w: IVeeiEe Tove-men-

tio. Ktir ^lrzricesses-iconology,iconlCeg a- iart history-cane-e -:i5 tI:orsodevelopinteresi andrelevant edagogical

approacMwrhe

studyof art.

Thethreeaoaches, even houghnotallapart f the":ne:wt:i e--"

speak o someofthe ssues hatcon-cern"new rthistorians." ldermeth-ods ike conographynd conology,or

example, peak oandareconnectedwith he more ontemporaryoncernsofsemiologyFemie,1995;Holly,1984;Preziosi, 989).Social rthistoryreemerges odayntheformof"visual

culture,"hestudyof art ntermsofsocialuse and deologies Heller, 997).




THREE ART HISTORY

METHODS

ICONOLOGYNDICONOGRAPHY

Iconology s usuallygroupedunderthe general headingoficonog-

raphy.Manyhistoriansof artwilldis-

cuss iconographynthe samebreath

as iconology(Femie, 1995).Or,

ignore iconology altogether(Preziosi,

1996;Roskill,1989).Kleinbauer

(1987)definesiconographys inquiryintothe contentof the visualarts,while Femie (1995)defines it as the

studyofmeaningsofimages.

Iconography,ccording o Panofsky

(1955), s the naturalandconvention-almeaningofobjects n a work of art.

Itis "adescriptionandclassification f

imagesmuch as ethnographys a

descriptionand classification f

humanraces"(Panofsky,1955,p.31).

Iconology,n the otherhand,relates

to the discoveryand nterpretation f

possibleunderlyingphilosophicalideasinherent n thecompositions,

forms, motifs, mages,stories,and

allegoriespresent nthework of art.

Panofskygoes further o differentiatethe twobyconsidering heir suffixes

"graphy"nd"logy." Graphy"

denotessomethingdescriptivewhile

"logy"s derived rom ogos,havingto

do withthinkinganddrawing nfer-

ences and conclusionsfrom acts.The iconographic/iconological

inquiryrequires hreesteps.The first,

pre-iconographic,ntails he identifi-

cationofthe objects,motifs,and sub-

jectmatterpresent na work of art.

The identification houldbe done

throughpersonal nsightsand magi-nation.If,however,personalexperi-ence does not allowus to recognizethe objectencountered,we must

widen the rangeof ourpractical xpe-

rienceby consultingsources thatwillenable us to identify he object.For

example, nthe paintingGiovanni

Arnolfiniand His BridebyJanVan

Eyck (Figure1),ourpersonalexperi-

ence helpsus identify he objectat the

feet of the woman asadog. However,ifwe were from acountrywheredogswere notprevalent,we mighthave to

verify hatthis object rulyrepresentsa dogby comparing t withobjectsof

the same sort found n otherpaintingsor with documentsthatdescribeandnamethe object.

The second stepis the iconograph-ic analysis, he identification f con-

ventionalmeaningsofthe subjectmatterderived romtexts and histori-

cal and cultural ontext.Anicono-

graphicanalysisrequires,according

to Panofsky,knowledgeofliterary

sources, themes, andconceptsthat

appear nother artworksof the same

time andplace.Returningo the dogportrayednthe paintingbyJanVan

Eyck,whatmeaningcan we attribute

to the dog in thispainting?This analy-sis wouldrequireconsultingother

works of artthathavedogs inthe fore-

groundanddetermining-based on

writtensources ororal radition-the

meaningof the dog inthatsocietyat

thatparticularime.Inthe case of

GiovanniArnolfini nd HisBride,a

numberofmeaningshave come to

light.According o Panofsky(1934),the dog may represent he conceptof

marital idelity.Seidel (1993) ndi-

cates thatthe dog representsmore

preciselythe fidelityofthe wife to the

husband, or "themedievalwife, ike

the dog... wasexpectedto lickthe

hand that smote her"(p.124).The thirdandfinalstep, iconology,

is the interpretation funderlying

philosophicaldeasexpressed

throughthe composition,motifs,

images,stories,or

allegoriesound

during he iconographic tage.It is

the synthesisofthe informationound

inthe previous wosteps.Basedon

iconological tudies conductedby

Panofsky(1934),Bedaux(1986)and

Seidel (1993)we get a sense of the

possible underlyingphilosophiesrela-

tive to marriage n 15th-centuryFlandersas revealed nJanVan

Eyck'sGiovanniArnolfini ndHis

Bride.InPanofsky's nterpretation,

marriagewas asacrament,a meansof

grace; orBedaux, twas a ritualizeddomestic act thatfollowed he lawsof

the church;and forSeidel, twas an

economicventurebetween twofami-

lies.

i RT EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1998

h e f r t i s t i c p r o d u c t is n o l o n g e r t h e

s o l u t i o n b u t h i s t o r i c a l a n d

ideological p r o b l e m to b e s t u d i e d .



Zaire,dopfKing Bomosh.". 17thentury, ood, : 97/16"49.cm). rooklynuseum,ewYork.




o c i a la r t historians

v i e w

w o r k so f a r t a s o b j e c t s t h a t a r e

connected to a n d condit ioned

b y a n e c o n o m i c b a s e .

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS

ICONOGRAPHYNDICONOLOGY

The pedagogythatwillbe described

inthe followingsectionhas been devel-opedfrom old andnew arthistory

inquiryprocesses.The instructional

strategiesmaynotlook like arthistoryas we have known t,however,they typifythe arthistoricalprocessandcan

enrich thewaywe studyworks of art.

SOCIALARTHISTORY

Socialarthistoriansview works of

artas objectsthatare connectedto andconditionedby an economic base.They

studyworksinlightoftheir collective

political, conomic,religious,scientific,and socialbackground.Aestheticquali-ties are of minor mportance.Minor

(1994) ndicates hree different

approaches o a sociologicalstudyof

art: he causal, he expressive,and the

anecdotal.The casualapproach tates

that artexists for the benefit ofapartic-ularsocial class or economic base.

Historiansofart,consequently,

ook at

the contentofworksofartand relate

thatto some social event or circum-

stances. Whateconomic baseprovidesthe impetus or the creationof

GiovanniArnolfini nd HisBride?

According o Seidel (1993),thispaint-

ing representsatestimonyofthe

numerouseconomic transactions hat

tookplace during he courseof

betrothalsandmarriagesbetween two

wealthy amilies, hose of Arnolfini nd

Giovanna. t is thus a productof the

newbourgeoisculture nFlanders

(Antal,1949).The expressivemethodpositsthat

worksof artshouldexpress some cul-

turalvalue or crisis. Inshort,artreflects

social lls,problems,andtriumphs.

What socialill,problem,ortriumph sdepicted n GiovanniArnolfini nd His

Bride?Panofsky(1934) ndicates hata

numberof lawsuits ookplaceduringthe medievalperiod"inwhichthe valid-

ityof amarriagecould be neither

provednordisproved or wantofreli-

ablewitnesses"(p.124).Apparentlyn

those daysa "validmarriage...wasone

inwhichindividualsreelyexchangedvows withone another,withoutcon-

straint, ven ifthis act had been per-formed

privately,utside the church"

(Seidel, 1993,p.56).This lack of legalor ecclesiasticalevidence wasconse-

quentlyproblematic ndprovoked

manya marital awsuit nthe 15thcen-

tury.The anecdotalmode drawsparallels

between the socialclimateor mood.

Historiansof art husunveil,so to

speak,the social climateorcondition

hidden n works of art.Fromafeminist

sociologicalperspective, he composi-tionalelements and motifsfound n Van

Eyck'spaintingparallel he inferiorandsubmissive statusof women in 15th-

centuryFlanders(Seidel, 1993).

Howcould teachersuse the icono-

graphicapproachnthe classroom?

Panofsky(1955)has providedaframe-

workforstudyingworks of artthat can

be used withmost childrenbeyondfirstgrade.Children ould startwiththe

pre-iconographictep, developingan

inventoryof a workof artby identifyingand istingall the objects ound n the

work.They could ustify heir dentifica-

tionsby generalknowledgeorby com-

paring he objectswithphotographsof

realobjects, herebyverifyingor facili-

tating heir dentifications.The motifs

andobjects dentifiedcouldthenbe cat-

egorizedintogroupsof attributes-

characteristics faperson

orthing

like

the "S"hatdesignates Superman-and/or symbolic cons-images that

could stand or abstract deas,such as

the heartshapethat standsfor love.

Sinceattributes an also be symbolicsome objectsmightbe mentioned

twice. Once this is accomplished,chil-

drencouldbeginto speculateabout he

meaningsofthe attributesand cons,thusbeginningthe iconographicanaly-sis stage.When Iused this strategywith agroupofsecondand third

graders n Columbus,Ohio,the chil-dren dentified he swordfound on a

Kuba tatue (fig.2) romZaireas both

an attribute nda symbol.Studentscanbrainstorm bout he

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1998



meanings fthe temsontheir istbasedon theirown nsights nd magi-nations. ollowinghis,studentsould

beprovidedheopportunityo discoverprobablenterpretationsasedon theartwork'sistorical ndculturalon-text.The teacher ouldprepare ocu-mentationhatwould ndicatewhat hevarious ttributesnd consmighthavemeant nd ymbolizednthe cultureand ime romwhich heycame.Once

theyhave oundhepossible ultural

interpretationsftheattributesnd

icons, hechildrenoulddeterminehethemeorstorydepictedntheworkof

artandwhy heworkofartwascreat-ed.InColumbus,orexample, groupofsecondand hird raders nalyzedthesymboliclements na woodenKubaigurineromZaire sing he

processes f conography.nitially,theydeterminedmeanings ftheattributesnd ymbols.Forexample,theydecidedhat he swordwasanattributef thekingand hat trepre-sentedpower.Then hey dentifiedhethemeofthestatuebasedonthe nter-

pretationsf all he attributesnd ym-bols.Theydecided hat he themewas

kingship.Whenasked osynthesizethe nformationheyhadgatheredfrom he discussion ndanswerhe

question,whywouldpeople reatesuchastatue, nesecond-gradetu-dentresponded,Well,maybencase

theydied hiswouldbeasymbolorememberhem."Duringhe courseofthestudy,he studentswerenotpro-vided nformationbouthestatue'suseorwhy twasmade Chanda&

Basinger, 994).In he conologicaltepchildren

would ynthesizehe nformationnddraw onclusions boutphilosophicalideasexpressed ytheworkofart nrelationo aparticularimeandplace.Questionsouldbeasked uchas,whatdoesthisworkof art ellus about

thepolitical,conomic, rreligious hi-losophy f thisparticularulture ta

particularime?Or,whatdoes he

work eveal boutheperceptionsfwomen,men,orchildren uringhattime?Ananalysis fvisual ndwrittendata athered uring ne orseveralclasssessionscanallow tudentso

speculateboutworksof art nthemanner fthearthistorian.

SOCIALARTHISTORY

Thestudyof art rom heperspec-tiveof socialarthistorywouldbe

designedmore orsecondaryrhigh

school tudents.Like he socialhistori-anofart, he studentwouldneed o seetheworkof artas a documentf tstime hatpossiblyeflects:a) heeco-nomicorsocial ystems hat ausedtheworkof art o becreated,b)a cul-tural risisor riumphsossiblyllus-tratedntheworkofart,or(c)the

relationshipetweenhesocialmoodorclimate nd he artist rworkofart.

Inorder odetermineow heworkofartreflects neormoreoftheabove,a studentwouldhave o examine he

interdependenceetweenheworkofartand iteraryvidence, rtist nd

patronelationship,ocialandeconom-icenvironment,ndpractical urpose(Antal,949).Literaryvidencerom

poetry, ovels,newspapers, aga-zines,or etters anbe correlated ith

images o determineheculturalrisis,socialmood,oreconomic onditionsthatmayhave nitiatedhe creation ftheworkofart.Thereareplenty fpastandpresentworksofartconnected

with iteraryources. haveworkedwithhighschool tudents ostudyworksof artvisuallynorderodeter-mine he content. hisactivity as ol

lowedbyagamewhere heymatched

literaryourcewith heartworksheyhadstudied isually. tudentswere

intriguedthownearor ar heycametothe evidence rovidednthe iterarysource.

Once herelationshipasbeenestablishedetween possibleiterarysourceand heworkofart, tudentscanbe asked o assessorspeculatewhyapatronmighthaveaskedanartisto create uchan mage.Informationbout hepatronanbe

providedntheformof an nterviewwhere heteacher retendsobethe

patron r ntheformoffictitiouset-ters,discoverednanattic,hat evealinformationbout hepatron.

Determininghe social ettingmeans indingnformationbout he

time,place,and ocialandeconomicconditionsnwhich heworkof artwascreated. hiskindof nformationanbelocatednsociology ndhistorytexts fstudents nd eachers akean

interdisciplinaryeapoutside fthewallsoftraditionalrthistory.

The social etting, nceestablished,canrevealnformationbout hepracti-calpurpose ftheworkof art.

Questionsordiscussionmightinclude: as hework reatedo exalta

particularroup rclassofpeople,broadcastsocial risis,describe par-ticularocialmood,ormockan mpor-tantpoliticalvent?Alloftheinformationatheredsho!id.pojtback othefom--d, nf<;"h"'--'"-''....

work. r.



CONCLUSION

Manyeachers till ocuson the oldstructure farthistory sing hemes,

biographies,ndchronologies;oncen-trating nrememberingames,dates,and imeperiods;rdisseminatingoversimplifiedersions fexpertknowledge.Using hestudyofarthisto-

rymethods s avenues ordevelopingpedagogy ndmethodologiesor heK-12classroom anchangeourunder-

standingndenliven urnotions fart

history.tcanalsoallowus and tu-dents o:(a)engagewithexpertknowl-

edge; b)seemanypoints fview; c)

thinkabout rtandhistory ifferently;(d)enrich ndreinforcehe useofcog-nitiveprocesses uchas closeobserva-

tion,classificationf nformation,communicationf deas,nference

making,nterpretationfdata,ormula-tionofhypotheses,ndconfirmationrdenial fhypotheses asedonspace-timerelationshipsngeneral,nordertothinkandwork nthemanner f anarthistorian;nd(e)be moreopenand

receptiveomultipleruths asedonhistoricalontexts.

Throughnquirymethodswemightbe able o revitalizearthistoricalnderstandingnartedu-cation.

Jacqueline handasanAssociate

Professor,n theDepartmentfArtEducation, heOhioStateUniversity,Columbus.

REFERENCESAddis,S.,&Erickson,M. (1993).Arthistory

and education.Urbana:University fIllinoisPress.

Antal,F. (1949).Remarks n the methodofarthistory.TheBurlingtonMagazine, 1,49-52&73-75.

Bedaux, .B. (1986).Thereality fsymbols:Thequestionofdisguised ymbolismnJanVanEyck'sArnolfini ortrait.Netherlands uarterlyforheHistory fArt,16(1),5-25.

Bryson,N.,Holly,M.A.,&Moxey,K (Eds.).(1994).Visual ulture:mages nd nter-

pretations. ondon:University ressofNewEngland.

Chanda, .,&Basinger,A (1994,April).Understandingfrican rt.Paperpresent-ed atthemeetingoftheNationalArtEducationAssociation,Houston,Texas.

Ferie, E. (1995).Arthistory nd ts methA criticalanthology. ondon: haidonPress Limited.

Hauser, . (1951).The ocialhistory faX(vols,1-4).NewYork:VintageBo4S.

Heller,S. (1997, anuary).Whataretheydoing o arthistory?ARTnews,02-.

Holly,A. H. (1984).Panofskynd the ogntionsofarthistory.thaca,NY:Cornm6

University ress.Kleinbauer,W. E. (Ed.). (1987).Modern er

spectivesn western rthistory: n antholo-

gyoftwentieth-centuryritings nthevisualarts.Toronto:University f TorontoPress.

Minor,V.H.J. (1994).Arthistory's istory.

EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Panofsky,E. (1934).JanVanEyck'sArolfiniportrait. urlingtonMagazineorConnoisseurs,4, 117-127.

Panofsky,E. (1955).Meaningn thevisualarts.Chicago:University fChicagoPress.

Preziosi,D. (1989).Rethinkingrthistory.London:YaleUniversity ress.

Rees,A.L.,&Borzello,F. (Eds). (1991).Thenewarthistory. ondon:CamdenPress.

Roskill,M. (1989).Whats arthistory?Amherst:TheUniversity fMassachusettsPress.

Seidel,L.(1993).JanVanEyck'sArnolfinior-trait:Stories fanicon.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity ress.

Vasari,G. (1963).The ivesofthepa:s,sculptorsndarchitectsW.G;A.B.Hinds,Trans.).Londo: i.

ART EDUCATION SEPTEMBER1998

three options for art education practice

Documents