Read an Excerpt
Critical Studies in Art & Design Education
By Richard Hickman Intellect Ltd
Copyright © 2005 NSEAD
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84150-922-8
CHAPTER 1
A Short History of 'Critical Studies' in Art and Design Education
Richard Hickman
Debate within art and design education over the past 50 years has followed broadly the debates within education in general. Of particular significance has been that concerning apparently opposing educational philosophies based on subject-centred approaches and student-centred approaches. These differing, sometimes polarised views are at the heart of any discussion about the function of visual art in education and are two approaches which determine the nature of the art curriculum: education in art and education through art.
Education in art implies learning about the nature of the subject and its related disciplines; it is bound up with the notion of declarative knowledge, that is 'knowing that'. This inevitably leads to further debate about balance between the component disciplines. Education through art is based on the notion that the most important factor is education in its broadest sense, and the most important consideration is the learner; in this case, procedural knowledge, 'knowing how', takes precedence. Herbert Read referred to these educational philosophies as being concerned with 'originating activity', that is concerned with facilitating creative expression, and 'didacticism', that is concerned with instruction that is based on the transmission of knowledge and skills. Read advocated a synthesis of these two approaches in the teaching of artbut for him the emphasis was on procedural knowledge - making, not 'appreciating'. In a similar way, Viktor Lowenfeld referred to the need to cater for the artistic predilections of both the 'visual' child who strives towards naturalism in representation, and the 'haptic' child who interprets the world in an expressive way; the work of Lowenfeld was very influential in both the United Kingdom and America in advocating a child-centred, process-based approach to art education. Lowenfeld emphasised the importance of the growth and development of the child as a primary goal for art education; this approach characterised much of art education in the post-war years and beyond.
A change in emphasis began in the late 1960s; Dick Field noted this in his influential book Change in Art Education:
Only within the last two years or so have certain art educators begun to argue that a truer balance must be sought between concern for the integrity of children and concern for the integrity of art.
Field advocated a move towards a subject-centred approach, asserting that the art teacher must draw upon a range of disciplines, including philosophy, criticism, and history. This heralded the start of a fundamental change in art education in the United Kingdom. The past 30 plus years, has seen a shift of emphasis away from child-centred art education towards a more subject-centred approach, with an attendant emphasis upon cognitive elements in art, in particular, an emphasis upon critical discourse about art.
Developments in art education in the United Kingdom have to some extent paralleled those of America, both are described here. General concern in America about standards in education could be said to have its roots in the late 1950s, during a period of critical reflection on the education system, popularly ascribed to a concern over the then Soviet Union's apparent superiority in space technology with the launching of Sputnik 1 in 1957. Arising from this general concern, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was set up as a long-term, nationwide curriculum project. Barkan's 1962 article 'Transition in Art Education', which proposed that art should be taught in a more structured way than had been advocated previously, provided some direction.
In the American Summer of 1965, twelve fine art experts were appointed to define the nature and scope of art education. This panel of experts developed four major goals for students to aim towards:
• Perceive and respond to aesthetic elements in art.
• Recognise and accept art as a realm of experience, and participate in activities related to art.
• Know about art.
• Form reasoned critical judgements about the significance and quality of works of art.
The first two goals are concerned with perception, attitudes and production, while the second two goals focus on art history and criticism. Several committees, who recommended that more emphasis be put on art production, reviewed these goals but clearly, the goals reflected a significant move away from a view of art education based on what we might term the 'child-as-artist' model. Goals, such as the four described above, were used as a basis for developing specific objectives for the age levels of nine, thirteen and seventeen, becoming progressively more demanding, according to age. We have, then, a structure for art education in America which not only emphasises the role of the consumer of art (and by implication, diminishes the role of the maker) but in addition, a structure which is set firmly within an overall model based upon incremental learning objectives.
The theoretical foundations for the development of subject-centred curricula for art in American schools were laid at a seminar in art education research and curriculum development at the Pennsylvania State University in 1966. In particular, a paper by Barkanrecommended that art curriculum development should be derived from its disciplinary sources: the artist, art historian, art critic and the aesthetician. Elliot Eisner, adopted this approach in his influential curriculum development study known as the 'Stanford Kettering Project', but it was not until its endorsement by the Getty Center for Education in the Visual Arts that the subject or discipline centred approach to art education came of age. Dwaine Greer coined the phrase 'discipline-based art education' (DBAE) and outlined seven features that characterise it. Greer asserted that a discipline-based art curriculum:
• Focuses on the intrinsic value of art study.
• Operates within the larger context of aesthetic education.
• Draws form and content from the four professional roles, i.e., art historian, art critic, aesthetician and artist.
• Is systematically and sequentially structured.
• Inter-relates components from the four role sources for an integrated understanding of art.
• Provides time for a regular and systematic instruction.
• Specifies learner outcomes.
These seven features encapsulate the philosophy of DBAE and give an indication of how far removed this philosophy is from the 'child art' approach of the progressive movement advocated by educators, such as John Dewey, over one hundred years ago. We can see from this outline that there is, or at least appears to be, a link between a concern for educational 'standards', a structured subject-centred curriculum and sequential learning; such learning would inevitably be about art rather than through art.
As Swift noted, there was no real equivalence in British art education at that time and many of the ideas circulating in Britain have their roots in America. The notion of sequential learning in art was first discussed publicly in the United Kingdom in 1972 at a conference at Rolle College in Exeter. The principal speaker, Brian Allison, subsequently published several papers which presented an argument for a re-evaluation of the purpose and content of art curricula. He stressed the need for learning in art to be cumulative and systematic, covering four inter-related areas or 'domains':
• The Expressive/Productive Domain
• The Perceptual Domain
• The Analytical/Critical Domain
• The Historical/Cultural Domain
This curriculum model, which emphasises the need for what was described as a 'balanced' art and design curriculum (i.e. one which deals with cognitive as well as affective aspects of art), was accepted by the Schools' Council, thus helping to establish an analytical, critical and historical dimension to art in British schools. The movement towards a greater emphasis on critical skills in art and design education, and the development in school students of aesthetic concepts was given more impetus by the formation of the Schools' Council/Crafts Council 'Critical Studies in Art Education Project' (CSAE). Its formation was in response to, amongst other things, a concern for the apparent lack of emphasis on the 'contemplative aspects of art education' and the 'consequent reduction in the amount and variety of verbal communication'.
The importance of verbal language skills and the attendant emphasis upon the cerebral aspects of art and design activities accompanied a move away from the child or learner-centred affective approach to art in education. This was of course entirely in keeping with the general concern about 'standards' and the need for teachers to be 'accountable', which meant engaging in assessable activities. Some arts educators, notably Malcolm Ross, former chair of the now defunct National Association for Education in the Arts (NAEA), protested strongly against the notion of increased assessment in the arts, seeing it as undermining the very essence of what makes arts subjects worthwhile. In the following passage, Ross places the arts (including visual art in schools) firmly within the affective domain, with its emphasis upon expression and imagination:
What is learnt through the experience of the arts is sensitivity to the affective dimension of personal expression itself: in particular the arts extend our awareness through the imaginative realisation (and dwelling within) of invented worlds, fictions that are in a sense truer (because closer to our hearts) than the illusory world of everyday reality.
Despite such passionate opposition, many visual arts educators appeared to welcome the added status which formal assessment gave to the subject, especially when linked to the greater emphasis accorded to the cognitive aspects of the subject. It came as no surprise that the national examination at the end of what became known in England as 'Key Stage 4', the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), introduced a specific allocation of marks for critical studies; as Wass and Bloxhamlater reported, the 'added introduction of assessment objectives in 1998 [gave] 33 per cent of marks for critical studies' and presented many art teachers with a significant challenge. So we can add another piece to the links between standards, subject-centred curricula and sequential learning, the missing link being assessment, tied to accountability.
The Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) was set up by the British government's Department for Education and Science (DES) in 1974, and was closely linked to the general climate of accountability in education. A sub-group was formed in 1977 which was known as 'The Exploratory Group on Aesthetic Development', its terms of reference included considering to what extent assessment of pupils' aesthetic development would be desirable and the feasibility thereof; they published a discussion document, Aesthetic Development in 1983. In this document, 'aesthetic' was equated from the outset with 'artistic', and the Group argued that artistic development could be assessed without any restriction on individuality and creativity. The report was not, in general, well received; statements such as 'there are no available procedures suitable for assessing artistic appraisals' appeared to be rather sweeping and indicated a lack of familiarity with the field. It was criticised on a number of issues in the educational press, not least for apparent 'crudeness and sloppiness of the thought and writing'. The National Society for Art Education responded to the discussion document in an appraisal published in the Journal of Art and Design Education; this response drew attention to the 'idiosyncratic' and 'ill defined use of language' and expressed 'profound reservations' about its philosophical basis. However, the NSAE welcomed the importance that the document ascribed to 'skills of discourse'. Under the general heading of 'Facilitating Skills', the document draws attention to the value of developing pupils' language skills:
The importance of the linguistic ability to communicate clearly with others about the arts is not always adequately recognised or understood. Yet the lack of it could be a severe handicap to both artistic and aesthetic development. Consequently, we regard the learning of the appropriate skills of discourse as of considerable educational importance for artistic experience and appraisal. Facility in language is critical for the pupil's development of concepts not only about technical means but also about artistic criteria and goals.
Despite the weaknesses inherent in Aesthetic Development, it provided some useful material which not only reflected the growing trend towards more accountability in education, but in addition, the growing recognition of the felt need for school students to understand art as well as produce it, and what was perceived as the crucial importance of written and oral language in the acquisition and development of concepts.
It is interesting to note that in the same year of Aesthetic Development's publication, 1983, David Hargreaves, observed that:
... only on unusual occasions have [art] teachers made use of established works of art, either as reproductions or as art objects on loan to the school, for teaching purposes; though of course normally the art room has a shelf full of books which pupils are encouraged to consult from time to time, mainly for 'ideas'. Lessons in 'art appreciation' are, according to my observations and to art education authorities, rare events.
The 'art education authorities' to whom Hargreaves refers include Louis Arnaud Reid, writing in 1980, and Dick Field, writing in 1970. There was clearly a growing consensus for there to be a more cerebral element to the teaching of art in schools, linked to a requirement for a structured and assessed art curriculum.
The first clear indication of the British government's move towards a national curriculum, with all that that entails, came in 1985 with the publication of a White Paper Better Schools. This formed the basis for the consultation document The National Curriculum 5-16 by proposing, amongst other things, to work towards a national system of records of achievement for school students and to promote national agreement about the purposes and content of the curriculum. This culminated in the Education Reform Act of 1988, which placed a duty on the Secretary of State to establish the National Curriculum which must include appropriate attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements for each of the 'foundation' subjects, of which art is one. The statutory Order for art were laid before parliament in March 1992, with its provisions relating to the first key stage (i.e. up to age seven) coming into force in August of that year. For the first time, in English education there was a statutory obligation for state schools to provide art as part of the curriculum; such provision was expected to include teaching about art as well as to facilitate art-making experiences. The need for a more assessable, structured and subject-centred approach to art in education was explicit in the official documentation for the first time; this had not previously been acknowledged but had been well represented in academic literature.
While there was an obligation for schools to deliver an art curriculum that had a critical studies element - 'knowledge and understanding' - there was little in the way of prescribed content. This allowed a free-for all, which, without a strong theoretical base, opened up another avenue for perpetuating stereotypes and elitist cultural values.
John Swift, who as a former editor of JADE, did much to shape that journal to ensure a gender balance amongst contributors and to reflect issues of international concern, alerted us to: '... the potential that critical studies possesses for the manipulation and hierarchical ordering of cultural values'.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Critical Studies in Art & Design Education by Richard Hickman. Copyright © 2005 NSEAD. Excerpted by permission of Intellect Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
