who are we, where did we come from, where are we going?

National Art Education Association

Who Are We, Where Did We Come from, Where Are We Going?Author(s): Jack HobbsSource: Art Education, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 1983), pp. 30-35Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192713 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 17:58

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 91.229.229.210 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:58:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192713?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


C86 - Aienuer uoileolP3 lIV

U

,Bu!ooD M GJV GJ14M 'wO1j.I Wuo o fM PU! aJiGqM 'GM ?JV ?OM

1

U



Jack Hobbs

We art teachers are a special breed-not so much in our own eyes but in the eyes of

others. Everybody understands, at least basically, who a banker is and what he does-the same with a truck driver, a dairy farmer, even a brain surgeon. Moreover, the public probably understands other teachers better than they do us. Everyone knows that a music teacher teaches kids to sing, to play the scales on a piano, violin, or tuba; and that a Latin teacher teaches kids to con- jugate Latin verbs.

But what do we art teachers teach: perspective, color theory, and drawing, painting, and sculpture? Well, not ex- actly (especially if we teach the general student, such as those in elementary, middle school, or junior high school). After all, not all of these kids are going to be artists, so, therefore, it would be wrong to put too much stress on such skills. Well, do we teach them art history? No, of course not; they are not ready for such a thing, and it would bore them to death. Well, again, what do we teach?

At this point we pause, take a deep breath, and proceed to explain just what it is we do. It usually comes out something like this: we foster (not teach) such things as creativity, flexibility, sen- sitivity to the environment, personality growth, and self identification; we teach children, not a subject; we stress process rather than the product, etc., etc., etc. In other words, to give a straight answer about what we do as art educators is almost impossible.

But in the eyes of the public, we are a special breed in another way besides just the ambiguity of what we teach. Regardless of our particular artistic tastes, we are associated with that strange, exotic, difficult-to-comprehend entity known as the artworld. Whereas teachers of biology are identified with people working on the frontiers of medical research or solving problems in agriculture, teachers of English with those who win Pulitzer prizes, and teachers of music with Mozart, Beethoven, or Rogers and Hammers- tein, we are identified with such in- teresting, but nevertheless questionable, heroes as Picasso, Calder, and Andy Warhol.

My first teaching job was that of supervising and teaching art in the grade

school system of Crystal Lake, Illinois. I started there in the mid-fifties. At that time Crystal Lake had a genial superintendent who liked art in a general sort of way but claimed not to know anything about it. In those days, the im- portance of creativity and self expression (as pioneered by the venerated Lowenfeld) had not "filtered down" to the ordinary folk-such as school ad- ministrators-and "modern"abstract art was even more of a mystery than it is today. I defended my role as an art teacher by explaining what I was up to through presentations before parents' groups and other organizations, creating curriculum guides, and even writing for local and national periodicals. I "ex- plained" my role as an artist (and thus

my position vis-a-vis the artworld) by painting and entering my work in local art shows.

All art teachers, I believe, find themselves at the crossroads of three conflicting value systems: 1) art education, 2) the artworld, and 3) the com- munities in which they teach. Each must resolve these conflicting values in some way or other. I feel that I did so in Crystal Lake because I had a successful program that was supported by the faculty, administration, and commun- ty. But then, I had a lot going for me: a good superintendent (who was not only genial but a winner in every bond issue that came up during the nine years I was there) and history. The fifties and early sixties were a time not only of

educational expansion with plenty of available money, but also of growing tolerance for different educational ideas, a time in which special subjects like art could find a niche and flourish.

As we all painfully know the eighties are not that sort of time. Schools are contracting, not expanding; money is scarce; and the mood of the public is in- creasingly antagonistic toward areas like art that it perceives to be non-essential. If an art teacher does not have a genial superintendent then his/her job is on the line. Indeed, our whole profession, I believe, is on the line. Whereas in the fifties I, as an art teacher, had to establish a solid raison d'etre for myself and my program in order to grow with the times, in the eighties an art teacher has to do so in order to survive.

I use the French expression, "raison d'etre," advisedly because it means "reason for being." It is more urgent now than it ever was for not only in- dividual teachers but the whole profession to come up with a viable reason for being. But to do so requires a radical ex- amination of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. This I intend to do by stressing the realities (not the idealized image) of who we are and where we came from. Then, at the end, I will not predict where we are going, but declare where we should be going.

Who Are We? Initially, we can answer this question by simply listing our job titles: elementary art, junior high art, secondary art, art supervisor, professor of art education, etc. But, to most of us our profession means far more than mere titles; we would want to explain who we are by what we know and stand for.

We like to think of ourselves as experts in creativity and how to use it in the classroom. We also believe that we ourselves are very creative and open- minded in our approach to all things, favoring divergent reasoning over con- vergent. We are known to be better at global, wholistic thinking than the linear, detailed kind, to possess better developed right brain hemispheres than left, and to believe that the left hemisphere approach to life is overem- phasized in education. I think it is also fair to say that we are part-time psy- chologists and fulltime humanists (that is, we emphasize the welfare of people over that of institutions and subject matter).

Art Education January 1983

"Activities would include writing full- blown reviews of arts events in the school and community, selecting the 10 best movies of the year, identifying the 10 worst eyesores in the downtown, publishing their critiques and judgments in the school paper, etc."

I

31



The above sketch of ourselves is a familiar one that we read over and over in art education literature. I think it may be a legitimate sketch, but one that does not go nearly far enough. I have another one based on my observations of art teachers who return to do graduate work at Illinois State University where I am a graduate advisor. I have found that an analysis of their choices and attitudes in the context of graduate studies provides a revealing image of them as professionals.

First, let me point out that not all who were former art education majors choose to major in art education at the graduate level. Many of those who have been teaching-and even those who have not-are more attracted to studio programs (this, despite the fact that our studio programs are mostly filled up and therefore not advertized). Of course there could be many reasons for the popularity of studio programs among art educators, both good and bad. Some feel that, by finding their identities as artists, they will become better teachers of art, and a few still harbor a secret wish to become successful, creative artists. The most disturbing reason would be that some of these people respect studio pursuits more than art educational pursuits. If so, they are paradoxically reflec- ting a traditional art department attitude-a vicious form of snobbery- that puts down their own field. At any rate, in the overall market place of graduate art programs, the studio-artist model sells better than that of the art historian or art educator. And this is often true even for those who are in art education themselves.

As for those who do elect art education, the excitement of educational research or of in-depth studies in such things as aesthetics or perception do not seem to fare much better. Many are interested in just getting the degree, or ear- ning graduate hours to enhance their position on the salary scale, or simply picking up some practical suggestions that will help them in their own situations-all of which are legitimate goals, I suppose.

However, allow me to make a couple of generalizations about their attitudes related to art and the profession of art education that are germane to our analysis here: 1) many have a dislike of art history, which is reflected in their general lack of knowledge in this area, and 2) most look down on all cognitive approaches to art, which is reflected in their reluctance to analyze art and to

speculate about its aesthetic or social ramifications. But it is also true that, to their credit, master's students in art education show a sincere commitment to teaching and improving their own teaching skills. But on the matter of art history and cognitive approaches, art education majors are no different from their colleagues in studio. What is ob- vious is that neither group really has a good grasp of 20th century art. Although many can identify the major styles, few have more than a superficial understanding of the social and cultural motivations behind the various art movements of their own time.

To summarize about who we are: We are creative, open-minded, global, humanistic, and pretty dedicated to our jobs-even though we'd like more time for doing our own art. All of the above are positive qualities. But also, judging by what I have observed of art teachers in graduate school, we have a few negative traits. We seem to be indif- ferent, if not antagonistic, toward in- creasing our expertise in the theoretical and philosophical aspects of art while, at the same time, allowing our analytical skills to go undeveloped. Indeed, some of us are openly anti-intellectual about art, an attitude typical of many who pursue studio art-which brings me to the next question.

Where Did We Come From? Our place of origin as a profession is the university art department. It is where the majority of us received our undergraduate training. (Even those who received degrees at small colleges were influenced indirectly by the university art department because our teachers were trained there.) It is where we ob- tain our intellectual nourishment-not only by returning there to take graduate studies but by reading professional jour- nals which are written mainly by university teachers. Indeed, the NAEA, the principal professional organization of art teachers, is dominated by professors. Thus to understand why we think and behave the way we do, we need to look at the prevailing values and attitudes of art departments in general and art education programs in particular.

Although art departments vary in size, structure, and curriculum, they typically consist of three basic cores for all students-studio, art history, and design-with studio being the most im- portant. Meanwhile, art education is a fourth core for those intending to teach.

The fact that studio usually receives

first priority is in itself suggestive. This may account for the tendency of many art majors to become very involved in either the technical aspects of making art or the subjective aspects of creativity as opposed to learning more about the philosophical and social aspects of art. In other words, students are encourag- ed to manipulate forms rather than ideas. Furthermore, all students (for- mally or informally) are introduced to, and most become committed to, the values of the artworld-a network of big-city galleries, arts magazines, collec- tors, reviewers, and critics-of which university art departments are a minor adjunct. I am not saying that the studio faculty (or anyone) entirely understands the artworld and its values but that the former shares the latter's overall perspective on contemporary art. In- deed, this perspective is the litmus test for being a professional in art.

Art history could be thought of as balancing studio because it values the art of the past rather than the present and stresses the cognitive rather than the creative. But there are parallels between the two. Like studio, art history concerns itself exclusively with the high world of art, in other words, fine art. In the past this meant the art of the church, aristocracy, or rich middle classes; today it means the art of a relatively small art educated subculture, the artworld. Furthermore, the contents of most art history courses seem to be focused on issues of stylistic provenance more than those of religious, social, and political provenance. Students are almost led to believe that real art history is an unbroken continuum from the caves of Lascaux through Chartres Cathedral, Cezanne, cubism, to, finally, Post World-War II abstraction; that the historical development of art has a life of its own, a predetermined destiny free of social circumstances.

Whereas studio and art history stress the fine arts, design stresses the applied arts, but, actually, only for those relatively few who want to concentrate in an applied field, such as commerical art. Most art majors take only "basic" design-usually a requirement. Design, as a term, is an open one; as a course of study it suggests a broad scope of inquiry-no less than that of consider- ing the ways in which the material culture affects our daily lives. But, given the constraints of time, teachers of basic design usually can do little more than teach a few "principles" based on an aesthetic doctrine called "formalism."

Art Education January 1983 32



As we all know, the principles of design are ignored or mocked in today's artworld; formalism as a theory of criticism is losing its credibility, and Gestalt theories have been out of fashion in psychology for some time. If so, the formalistic approach of basic design would seem somewhat out of date, and, if so, one would think that this presents some contradictions. But the doctrine of formalism continues to be tolerated by the rest of the department so long as its role is restricted to the relatively minor one of developing students' skills for use in various studio media.

Whether art education is included as an area of the art department or is a department of its own would not have much effect on the nature of an art education program. In either case it would consist of requirements in both art and art education. The art education major, therefore, encounters the values of both components; and, hopefully, is able to synthesize both. The particular values of the art education component are not necessarily conveyed by systematic instruction, but by the nature and emphasis of the curriculum and by the "functional philosophy" of the art education teachers.

Probably, most of these teachers were raised on the art education ideals of the fifties and early sixties, a period of time that was dominated by the philosophy of Viktor Lowenfeld. We are all familiar with that era's catch-words-self- expression and creativity-as well as what they entailed as a philosophy of art education. In the early sixties that philosophy began to be seriously challenged ending the monolithic leadership of Lowenfeld and introducing in its wake a great amount of debate, self- analysis, and intellectual pluralism that have marked our discipline ever since. But let me hasten to add that this debate is carried on primarily at the graduate school level. And, although it was rather heady and stimulating in the sixties, many of us began to realize in the seven- ties that it was mostly talk and few results, not even to the extent of providing a body of coherent ideas. For all intents and purposes, I believe that art education of the eighties does not have an intellectual leadership-at least not a very united one with a solid program to offer. This brings us back full circle to what the philosophy of undergraduate art education really is.

In lieu of an intellectual leadership with viable alternatives, art education

"As you no doubt guessed already I am not in favor of continuing the way we are now in the schools .. ."

faculty typically fall back on disseminating to their undergraduate students the time-tested practice that they themselves grew up with. This con- sists, simply, of having children make art objects. The rationale (whether ex- pressed or implied) for this practice is that, somehow, making art objects is good for children's personality development. In other words, the operational philosophy of art education, that which is taught to undergraduate majors, is no different from that of Lowenfeld and little different from that of the Pro- gressive Education movement of 50 years ago.

To summarize this analysis of the university art department, the place where we came from: The department as a whole tends to foster in the minds of its clients an elitist concept of art, one that is mainly separated from the mainstream of American life. This is because of its unquestioned emphasis on the fine arts and its de facto philosophy of formalism. Meanwhile, one would think that such an emphasis would be counter-balanced to some extent in the art education program because of the need for those going out into the world

to teach to have a somewhat broader perspective. But, this is not necessarily the case. If anything, the elitist, socially- isolated concept of art is reinforced through art education's emphasis on personal expression which tends to relate art not to the society but to the in- dividual. Finally .....

Where Are We Going? In part, where we go depends on broad social developments-politics, the economy, another baby boom (or not), the mood of the people, etc.-things that we do not have much control over.

In part, it depends on educational developments-philosophical trends, material resources (or lack thereof), ad- ministrative decisions, etc.-things over which we have little control but in which we have some voice.

And, in part, it depends on us and what we can do to influence our own future-how we respond to social and educational developments, how we make a case for our continued existence, our raison d'etre.

Obviously, I want to focus on the latter part-what we do in art education.

One thing we could do is to continue the way we are-implementing a philosophy and practice of art education that are legacies of the past. This would be the safe thing to do, not only because it is familiar but because it fits our self image, our particular strengths and weaknesses as professionals (as I have tried to illustrate). Further, such a course would not be without public sup- port. The therapeutic potential of making art is a fairly accepted notion that has credibility with parents, teachers, and, importantly, school administra- tors. It no longer has to be "sold" in the same way it was, for example, by me back when I started teaching. But I also believe that the value of children making art has lost some of its former vitali- ty, that it is being taken less and less seriously. Not that its validity is necessarily being denied but that, in the face of more pressing problems-educational and economical-its impor- tance is being denied. Furthermore, in a society that thrives on pop psychology, the benefits of self-expression are not limited to just the making of art. After all, back in the days when Lowenfeld was arguing his case, the activities of role playing and creative dance, not to mention serendipity, jogging, and hot tubs were scarcely known.

As you no doubt guessed already I am not in favor of continuing the way we




are now in the schools, nor am I pleas- ed with the pluralism and lack of leadership in the universities. I would like to see all that changed. Many of my colleagues in the universities agree with this general analysis of the situation and, like me, advocate change. But, the final irony is that we all have different ideas for the change-differences that cannot be reconciled-which brings me back to the point about pluralism and lack of leadership.

So, let me submit my set of proposals for a new direction, realizing that mine is one among many. However, if you are interested in where they fit philo- sophically in the current art educational spectrum, I would suggest that you con- sult the writings of Laura Chapman, Ed- mund Feldman, and Vincent Lanier.

My concept of a future art education, as presented here, is sketchy and broad, leaving a multitude of details to be painted in later-if it were ever to be adopted.

The objectives of my art education program would be: 1) aesthetic literacy, 2) skills of art criticism, and 3) social relevance. Aesthetic literacy: This is a term that has been bandied about quite a bit for almost twenty years. I am not sure what the consensus definition of it is, but mine is roughly: knowing what to look for in an art work in order to perceive it aesthetically and interpret its meaning. Significantly, this model of aesthetic literacy is not limited to fine art but in- cludes popular art and, potentially, anything in the vernacular, material culture, e.g., public and commercial ar- chitecture, bridges and other engineer- ing projects, outdoor advertising, and, of course, film and all the media of jour- nalism. I would like to see our clients become aware of the continuum that exists between the fine and popular arts and the interrelationships between the two. We should not overlook the fact that, even as children, they have already come into contact with much of the vernacular culture (indeed, they often respond to it in a way that we would define as aesthetic) and that they are probably going to live with it the rest of their lives. The point is: how can we, as art educators, influence their relationship to the popular and vernacular culture? Skills of art criticism: As a corollary to aesthetic literacy I would have our charges not only develop some level of ability in art criticism but, more importantly, carry throughout their lives a

critical attitude toward their visual culture from an aesthetic and inter- pretive perspective. By critical attitude I mean responding to, say, a popular art work not only in a feeling way (which could range from indifference to ecstacy) but in an objective, analytical way as well. The work, therefore, would not escape the scrutiny of informed and systematic attention. As we all know, far too many things in our popular culture are meretricious or debased. If such phenomena were subjected to the critical attitude I am speaking of, the level of our popular culture might rise considerably. For years, the model for students taking art in the schools has been that of the artist; I am suggesting, instead, that it be that of the art critic. Social Relevance: It is by now apparent that my concept of art education has a lot to do with society. The overarching objective could be stated in a phrase that I borrow from Paul Goodman: "to bring students into contact with and in possession of their culture." It has been observed by many that our culture is becoming less literate and more visual. If this is true, one could see such a development as good or bad or both, but, more importantly to us as art educators, such a development has the potential for providing us with an enor- mous responsibility as well as oppor- tunity. We could and perhaps should bring our students to understand the ways in which their myths and values are shaped by images. In the short run, these ways have to do with the daily im- pact of advertising and the media; in the long run, with the deeper and more sub- tle influence on our lives of the rich and varied visual culture of Western civiliza- tion. My concept of art education is closely related to, but not the same as, values education. Unlike values education, which seeks to have students clarify their own and society's values, my art education would have students clarify the ways in which values are conveyed visually.

As to my program for carrying out the above objectives, I shall be very brief.

It may come as some surprise that I advocate the traditional practice of creativity for the pre-school through se- cond grade levels. Why? The Lowenfeld philosophy is most viable for these ages. Young children are unconscious about their image making and enjoy art very much. Furthermore, I believe with Lowenfeld that spontaneous image-

making is vital to their development- but perhaps for slightly different reasons. I justify the practice primarily on the grounds that, in lieu of language and other skills which are still underdeveloped, painting and sculpting are among the few means of expression available to them. However, along with this emphasis on expression, I would also advocate instilling a substantial vocabulary of simple art concepts.

For the remaining grades up through junior high I advocate a program that mixes creativity with aesthetic literacy, with the latter gradually assuming the lion's share of the students' time. The introduction of art concepts and the verbal-analytic skills of criticism would have to be staged in a way that would accord with their intellectual development, especially the transition from con- crete to abstract thinking that occurs about midway in this time period. In addition, the content of the program should capitalize on the aesthetic life that already exists with children, especially through the popular media of animated cartoons, comics, recorded music, etc. Further, it should deal with themes such as heroes, villains, good and evil, humor, etc. that they are familiar with and at a level that they can understand. Examples from the reper- tory of fine art that deal with these themes in understandable ways (to children) can be introduced, but with great care.

I have no recommendations for changing the current practice in high- school art because, usually, those programs are for art majors, not general students. However, I think that with aesthetic literacy as our main thrust, we could make a case for all high school students taking art. Such a development may be wishful thinking, but why not dream a little. The art program for the general student would be similar to the one I described for the previous age group except that there would be even greater emphasis on the study of art works-fine and popular-and the development of critical skills. The themes, of course, would have to be changed and expanded to include such things as the anti-hero, loneliness, sex- uality, and social concerns. Activities would include writing full-blown reviews of arts events in the school and community, selecting the 10 best movies of the year, identifying the 10 worst eyesores downtown, publishing their critiques and judgments in the school




paper, etc. In addition, I see no reason why they should not be subjected to some systematic instruction in the history of art.

Finally, these changes in public school art education would have to be reflected in the undergraduate training of art education majors. Although the details of those changes are beyond the scope of this paper, it should be pointed out that they would entail overhauling not only the curriculum but also the philosophy of the faculty. Talk about dreaming! Just as a major part of the content would have to be changed to emphasize the concepts of aesthetic literacy, critical skills, and the sociology of art, the teachers would have to com- mit themselves to this content and become as articulate in aesthetics and sociology as they are now about art making and child psychology. Mean- while, at the graduate level, art educators would have to provide an ade- quate intellectual base for the new program without compromising their in- dependence and commitment to continued inquiry.

But art education cannot bring about a change in direction without some help from the university art department-the place that determines who we are as art professionals. Of course one cannot ask the art department to overhaul its curriculum because of a perceived need in art education. However, from my obser- vation of graduate students in art (not just those in art education) I have come to believe there is a need in the undergraduate curriculum for more systematic instruction in aesthetics and the philosophy and sociology of art. Such instruction (perhaps no more than 6 semester hours) would help to restore greater balance to the total program (a need implied earlier in my analysis of the art department).

In conclusion, I do not believe that this heavier stress on the cognitive aspects of art-the image of art critic replacing that of artist-is going to ameliorate our uniqueness in the schools and the community. It could likely give us a greater role, thus making us more conspicuous than we presently are. In- deed, I hope that we art teachers will continue to be a special breed; I just don't want us to become a dying breed.









Jack Hobbs is professor of art at Illinois State University at Normal. Jack Hobbs is professor of art at Illinois State University at Normal. Jack Hobbs is professor of art at Illinois State University at Normal.

O nce upon a time in a land called "Mean," There was no art that could

be seen There were no pictures .....only

words, To learn about the bees and birds.

No shapes or colors, textile design, For furniture, toys or a fashion line, No decorative rugs on living room

floors, Or sculptured work on special doors.

There were no paintings on the walls, Nor greeting cards, or shopping malls, No fancy cars for people's delight, Or beautiful houses in colors bright.

No Sesame Street, or photographs, To bring forth knowledge, frowns, or

laughs, No puppets, plays, or fashion shows, Nor textured clothes, or buttons and

bows.

No Disneyland, or Disneyworld, Nor cartoons for stories to unfold, For no one knew, no one could say, This is the way! This is the way!









bows.










bows.


A noisy class. Timmy was crude! Teacher said . . .

Paint a food.

So I started Painting like crazy. Lines curved, Colors were hazy.


Paint a food.



Paint a food.


And then one day, it came to pass, An artists' ship arrived at last, With designers, sculptors, and much,

much more, Craftsmen, photographers, experts

galore!

They came to look, to help, to inspect, Discover, create, and start to correct, Those things they were told had

saddened "Mean," Who wanted their land a living dream.

And so they began, and soon in sight, Was a land of beauty, a land so bright, That frowns became smiles, and folks

were elated, At all the things the artists created.

And since things were different, No longer were people sad, They changed the land's name From "Mean" to "Glad!"



galore!








galore!






Alice Escobar is an art teacher and writer who teaches fourth graders in Palmetto, Florida.



Feeling proud, Completing the head, The teacher recoiled, Her face turned red.

It became clear, She really said FOOD, But all considered- I LIKE MY NUDE!





Richard L. Sartore is counselor at Ar- bor Hill Elementary School in Albany, New York.



Art Education January 1983 Art Education January 1983 Art Education January 1983

A Land

Without Art? Alice Escobar

A Land


A Land


Art Lesson Richard Sartore



35 35 35



who are we, where did we come from, where are we going?

Documents