reflecting postmodernism || a blessing on all your houses

7
National Art Education Association A Blessing on All Your Houses Author(s): Timothy R. Gallucci Source: Art Education, Vol. 51, No. 6, Reflecting Postmodernism (Nov., 1998), pp. 41-46 Published by: National Art Education Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193751 . Accessed: 15/06/2014 21:36 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 This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:36:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Upload: timothy-r-gallucci

Post on 21-Jan-2017

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

National Art Education Association

A Blessing on All Your HousesAuthor(s): Timothy R. GallucciSource: Art Education, Vol. 51, No. 6, Reflecting Postmodernism (Nov., 1998), pp. 41-46Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193751 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 21:36

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 195.34.79.253 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:36:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

::: ::- :I : ::: : :iii -:

ismayed by the factionalism, disciplinary myopia, and self-promotion that have marked much of art education's history, Vincent Lanier felt compelled in 1974 to write a paper titled "A Plague on All Your Houses." Lanier detested the modernist motto, "Art for Arts Sake," believing instead that art should be made and studied for the sake of humanity. The current widespread interest in studying art as a form of cultural expression suggests that much of the profession has begun to embrace Lanier's advocacy for learning about the human side of art. Still, some researchers'

advocacy of their own educational theories to the exclusion of others continues to contrast with the profession's more general embrace of pluralism and diversity. Recent research by Efland (1995) points the way toward reconciling apparently divergent educational theories, suggesting that the coexistence of a variety of classroom techniques and strategies really reflects the diversity of art, humanity, and the world itself. Efland's research implies that by rejecting either/or factionalism and valuing variety in educational practice, just as we value diversity in art and humanity, it may be possible to wish not a plague but a blessing "on all your houses."

BY TIMOTHY R. GALLUCCI

NOVEMBER 1998 / ART EDUCATION

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:36:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

During recent decades, the general trend has been to shift school art programs away from expressivist, child- centered studio production and toward cultivating what Clark, Day, and Greer (1987) have called "students of art." University teacher-training programs, too, are increasingly focused on preparing art teachers to include the non-studio disciplines in their curricula and to more closely relate studio activities to aesthetic, critical, and historical inquiry. Recently published survey findings by Mims and Lankford (1995) suggest that these trends have affected everyday classroom practice. These findings reveal that, on average, elementary art specialists are currently devoting 65% of class time to studio production, with the remainder of time divided among such content areas as art history, criticism, and aesthetics. When asked about their educational priorities, these teachers report an even higher interest in the non-studio content areas, stating that studio production tends to be the dominant classroom activity primarily because it consumes so much of an increasingly limited resource: time.

As Mims and LanMkord acknowledge, research still needs to be done to determine just how content-based art programs are actually being carried out in school classrooms. For example, the apparently disproportionate amount of time spent on studio production may not reflect the fact that an increasing number of art teachers are designing studio activities that reinforce learning in the other disciplines, so that the real role of history, criticism, and aesthetics may be somewhat understated. Nonetheless, Mims and Lankford believe it is clear that teachers feel hard- pressed by shrinking time and money resources not only to include discipline- based content elements in their programs, but also to address such "hot

topics" as outcome-based curricula, multiculturalism, proficiency testing, gender issues, and national standards. Therefore, when teachers choose to address these topics in their curricula, they are understandably eager to do so in ways that use their limited time efficiently while offering maximum benefits to their students.

The anecdotal experience of such observers as Smith (1995), however, suggests that teachers continue to be troubled about the best ways to put current educational theory to practical use, particularly with regard to relating studio activities to the other discipline- based content areas and multicultural studies. As suggested above, one way to efficiently use classroom time is to design studio activities that are intended to reinforce and deepen learning in the non-studio content areas. An increasingly common approach to relating studio production to cross- cultural and historical studies is to have the students create works of art in response to learning about cultures and exemplary artworks. But as Smith (1995) observes, this exemplar/response model may take forms ranging from static, outright copying to highly personalized interpretations of themes and techniques. Teachers seeking the most effective ways to relate studio production to historical and cultural studies find little comfort when authors such as Garber (1995) and Stoddard (1996) present apparently contradictory theories concerning how and why students should study "other" cultures and their artworks. These divergent theories seem to suggest quite different reasons for, and approaches to, mounting a studio response. Given limited time and money, art teachers may be wary of responding to contemporary calls for relating studio

production to cultural and historical inquiry, but doing it "wrong."

Efland's (1995) recent research relates contemporary cognitive learning theory and disciplinary analysis to art education methodology. He points the way toward reconciling apparently divergent theories such as those of Garber and Stoddard, suggesting that, when designing an exemplar/response model, art teachers are not confronted with either/or choices but with a variety of useful possibilities. Garber and Stoddard have concerned themselves primarily with multicultural studies, but their general arguments can be applied to the study of art from other time periods as well as other cultures. After examining their respective positions and their implications for mounting a meaningful studio response, we shall return to Efland's research to determine whether his advocacy of a "lattice" learning model provides the basis for accommodating multiple approaches to making art in response to historical studies and learning about alternative cultures and their artworks.

Garber (1995) believes, along with educators such as McFee (1995), Chalmers (1992), and Blandy and Congdon (1991), that pluralistic, cross- cultural dialogue and understanding should be an important part of the contemporary art education agenda. She argues that such an outcome requires deep, prolonged immersion in the study of other cultures, and that particular emphasis should be placed on those cultures that exist adjacent to the dominant culture and create an overlapping area of social interaction that she calls a "borderland." An important element in such deep immersion into alternative cultures, their beliefs and practices is to place less emphasis on the dominant role of the mainstream local culture. The primary

ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 1998

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:36:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

purpose of such cross-cultural study, according to Garber, is a true appreciation of America's cultural pluralism, which is an important source of arts richness and diversity. But this mission is subverted when students from the dominant mainstream culture are encouraged to treat the study of other cultures and their art as a vehicle for self-understanding and affirmation, which only reinforces the existing cultural hierarchy. Therefore, Garber disparages such practices as having students make highly personalized masks in response to learning about cultures in which mask-making plays an important role. Although Garber does not specifically address the issue of what form a studio response should take, it can be inferred from her general argument that student artworks should remain faithful to the originals being studied. Such a "literal" response would presumably best serve Garber's stated goal of encouraging deep cross-cultural understanding, since interpreting exemplars in terms that primarily relate to the student's own experience actually tends to demean and devalue the true context and meanings of the artworks being studied.

Stoddard (1996), on the other hand, is equally adamant in arguing that the studio response to studying artworks arising from cultures and time periods other than the students' own should "consider how the value and meaning of such artifacts can be related to [the students'] own culture and time period" (p. 19). Therefore, after studying the origins and meanings of Canadian and Alaskan totem poles, Stoddard's students made use of the basic totem pole structure and worked in groups consisting of "artists and chiefs." Their motifs were derived from mainstream popular culture, a familiar children's nursery rhyme. In this model, learning

NOVEMBER 1998 / ART EDUCATION

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:36:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

about other cultures and their art may dominate the non-studio content areas, but the primary purpose of a studio response appears to be, as Garber suggests, self-understanding and affirmation, rather than reinforcing the assimilation of cross-cultural learning. Smith (1995) seems to support this approach, asserting that art education will remain totally irrelevant to students "unless [they] are able to create imagery truly evoking their experiences" (p. 125).

This appears to represent an irreconcilable division of opinion concerning how the studio experience of students should relate to their studies of art and its role in diverse cultures. Stoddard's approach is, as Stankiewicz (1996) suggests, essentially metaphorical, while Garber's prescription calls for a more literal studio response. Garber's conception of cross-cultural exchange answers art educators' calls for contextualizing art in a cultural matrix, while Stoddard's metaphorical model embraces the postmodern art world's practice of appropriating and decontextualizing images from diverse sources in order to create artworks that reflect the interests and imperatives of the contemporary world. Garber echoes Gomez-Pena's (1986) admonition that we must learn each other's language, art, and literature, but not as "cultural tourists" (p. 97), while Stoddard's prescription aligns itself with Spellmeyer's (1993) belief that we must enter the culture of others "again and again, in order to understand ourselves" (p. 149).

Classroom teachers apparently are faced with a difficult choice when designing lessons to help students internalize cross-cultural and historical learning through an active studio response. Garber and Stoddard both

ther

disciplines, however,

such as art and the

humanities in

general, are "ill-

structured domains,

because learning must

be based on particular

details and individual

cases, without

recourse to the

deductive assumption

that all cases are

linked together by

universal principles.

make convincing arguments, but which approach is more meaningful and beneficial to students? Efland's (1995) research in the areas of cognitive theory and the nature of academic disciplines suggests that art teachers need not necessarily make either/or choices, that a variety of exemplar/response models are essential to enhancing children's understandings of the meanings and purposes of art. This conclusion is based on Efland's assertion that a lattice learning model best represents the evolution of students' understanding in "ill-structured" domains, such as art

Efland (1995) begins by acknowledging both the contributions and the limitations of the research of Jerome Bruner (1960; 1965). At a time when educational methodology was tilting strongly toward "content-free" learning in the early grades-learning, that is, intended as cognitive preparation for the later introduction of specific disciplinary content-Bruner stepped forward to assert that essential disciplinary concepts can (and should) be introduced to children at a very early age, as long as those concepts are presented in a manner that is appropriate to the developmental stage of the students. Bruner did not dispute the idea that early childhood learning should be preparation for later learning experiences, but he believed that essential disciplinary content could be introduced to students in an intellectually honest way at much earlier stages than did many of his contemporaries. Learning about the principle of a see-saw, for example, introduces young students to the balanced-equation concept that is foundational to the discipline of algebra. To illustrate this method of introducing foundational concepts early on, with

ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 1998

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:36:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

progressively more sophisticated and abstract learning taking place as the child matures, Bruner developed the spiral learning model, which places essential disciplinary ideas at the center of an ever-expanding spiral of developmental complexity.

Bruner's ideas helped set the stage for Barkan's (1962) advocacy of discipline-centered art education reforms, but in practice Bruner's theories about developmental learning processes proved to be flawed in several ways. Researchers such as Perkins and Simmons (1988) have expressed concerns that over-simplifying disciplinary concepts to accommodate early learning stages can sometimes lead to naive and garbled concepts, but Efland asserts that a more serious limitation of Bruner's spiral learning model is that such an orderly, progressive model poorly represents learning in some disciplines. In these "domains," developmental learning does not proceed from a set of discrete foundational concepts. Drawing on the work of Spiro et al. (1988), Efland asserts that some disciplines, such as science and mathematics, which do proceed from essential foundational concepts, could be described as "well- structured domains." Other disciplines, however, such as art and the humanities in general, are "ill-structured domains," because learning must be based on particular details and individual cases, without recourse to the deductive assumption that all cases are linked together by universal principles.

From this discussion it may be inferred that a learning model or curricular model must take into account not only the developmental learning processes of children but also the nature of the discipline being described. As a description of learning an ill-structured discipline like art,

Efland offers the lattice model developed by Alexander (1988). In this model, learning is visualized not as an expanding spiral centered around a few basic concepts, but as a multidimensional structure built up from numerous interlocking and overlapping experiential "planks." Alexander developed variations of this model to describe the differences between planned and unplanned, or "natural" cities. But, as Efland points out, this lattice model is equally useful for describing curricular structures. Learning in well-structured disciplines like the sciences can be compared to becoming familiar with a planned city. Once the basic structure is mastered (numbered streets running north- south, for example, and named streets running east-west) the basic organizational principle may be applied to navigating any part of the city. The problem becomes more difficult, however, and a much more complex lattice model is required, when describing unplanned, organic communities like Boston or Washington, DC. Becoming familiar with such complex,ill-structured cities simply cannot proceed from any set of foundational organizational assumptions. Each specific, individual experience of one of these cities' multiplicitous elements must become a plank in a conceptual lattice structure, which, though outwardly ill-organized, is held together by numerous areas of overlap, intersection, and confluence. Understanding and appreciating a complex, organic city, in other words, can only result from the accumulation of numerous and varied individual experiences. Although these experiences may not appear to be held together by any shared underlying

principle, they eventually organize into a complex, internalized, lattice structure of understanding.

If learning about art is comparable to becoming familiar with a complex, organic city, requiring the development of a cognitive lattice structure built up of accumulated individual experiences, the next challenge is to develop teaching strategies that reflect and embody this conceptual model. Here, it must be strongly emphasized that while concepts in ill-structured domains may not be held together by one or a few fundamental principles, an important element of developing teaching strategies in such domains is to help students find connections between various learning experiences. Efland points out, as has Spellmeyer (1993), that one danger of discipline- based education is that disciplinary concepts may be taught in intellectual isolation, without acknowledging any connections between students' studies in various fields of inquiry. Therefore, art teaching strategies based on the lattice model should not be seen as occurring in isolation, but rather as part of a larger curricular framework which may itself be visualized as an ill- structured but interconnected lattice. The overall curricular goal, as Efland clearly states it, should be to expose students to the greatest possible number of overlapping and interconnected ideas, in order to encourage what he calls "transfer" of concepts, not only within disciplines but among them.

As one approach to achieving this goal, Efland again turns to the work of Spiro et al. (1988), who offer the computer hypertext program as a model for developing teaching strategies in complex, ill-structured disciplinary and curricular domains. Such programs enable students to

NOVEMBER 1998 / ART EDUCATION

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:36:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

traverse complex "conceptual landscapes" not as a progressive, top- down deductive process, but as deep explorations based on visiting, revisiting, and criss-crossing the landscape from many directions. Such multi-directional, multifaceted, "hypertexted" learning experiences help foster cognitive flexibility and the ability to transfer individual experiences to multiple disciplinary and curricular contexts. These programs are perhaps even more useful as conceptual models for teaching strategies that reject presenting art concepts "in a single treatment, in a single context, for a single purpose," in favor of approaches that dynamically reflect art's, and the world's, interconnected complexity (Spiro et al., 1988, p. 6).

The essential concepts here are that art is among the most complex, ill- structured of human endeavors, and that students' learning in this domain should take the form of an interconnected cognitive lattice structure built up of many and varied experiences over the course of many years. Thus conceived, encountering individual art teachers who use multiple teaching strategies, and having a number of art teachers with different perspectives on the subject over the course of a school career, are not merely acceptable, but essential, components of an art education aimed at developing a deep appreciation of art's complex interconnected relationships with the many facets of human existence. Squarely stated, we need to value, nurture, and encourage not only learning about diverse cultures and artistic traditions, but also diverse pedagogical approaches to that life- enhancing learning process. Exemplar/response teaching models

arising from such diverse perspectives as those of Garber (1995) and Stoddard (1996) should not, therefore, be viewed by classroom teachers as competing theories demanding an either/or choice, with the attendant risk of making the wrong choice. Rather, they should be viewed as equally valuable starting points in encouraging students to visit, revisit, and criss-cross the subject of artistic expression in human culture from the greatest possible number of directions.

By introducing art educators to the concepts of the lattice learning model and the ill-structured disciplinary domain, Efland (1995) has provided a potential venue for humanizing art study, for reconciling divergent theories and classroom practices, and treating them as valuable components of a varied, interconnected disciplinary and curricular whole that reflects and embodies the sometimes confoundingly complex, disorderly richness of the world itself. Alas, many art education researchers continue to base their theories on the rejection, and sometimes the demeaning, of what are interpreted as "competing" theories. Lattice learning theory suggests that in advocating quite divergent educational motivations and classroom practices, two scholars can be equally right, but it also suggests that in advocating their theories to the exclusion of others, they can be equally wrong. Practicing teachers need to remember this, even if the researchers to whom they turn for guidance sometimes don't.

Timothy R. Gallucci is currently an Assistant Professor ofArt Education and Crafts at Kutztown University in Kutztown, Pennsylvania.

REFERENCES Alexander, C. (1988). A city is not a tree. In J.

Thackara (Ed.), Design after modernism:

Beyond the object (pp. 67-84). New York: Thames & Hudson.

Barkan, M. (1962). Transition in art education. ArtEducation, 15(7), 12-18.

Blandy, D., & Congdon, K G. (Eds.). (1991). Pluralistic approaches to art criticism. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1965). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chalmers, F. G. (1992). DBAE as multicultural education. Art Education, 43(3), 145-159.

Clark, G. A., Day, M. D., & Greer, W. D. (1987). Discipline-based art education: Becoming students of art Journal ofAesthetic Education, 21(2), 129-193.

Efland, A D. (1995). The spiral and the lattice: Changes in cognitive learning theory with implications for art education. Studies in Art Education, 36(3), 135-153.

Garber, E. (1995). Teaching art in the context of culture: A study in the borderlands. Studies in Art Education, 36(4), 218-232.

Gomez-Pena, G. (1986). Border culture: A process of negotiation toward utopia. La Linea Quebrada/The Broken Line, no. 1, 1-6.

Lanier, V. (1974). Aplague on all your houses: The tragedy of art education. Art Education, 27(3), 12-15.

McFee, J. K (1995). Interdisciplinary and international trends in multi-cultural education. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Multi-Cultural and Cross-Cultural Visual Arts Education, Taipei, Taiwan.

Mims, S. K, & Lankford, E. L. (1995). Time, money, and the new art education: A nationwide investigation. Studies in Art Education, 36(2), 84-95.

Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review ofEducational Research, 58(3), 303- 326.

Smith, P. (1995). Art and irrelevance. Studies in Art Education, 36(2), 123-125.

Spellmeyer, K (1993). Common ground: Dialogue, understanding, and the teaching of composition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Spiro, R, Coulson, R, Feltovich, P., & Anderson, D. (1988). Cognitiveflexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. (Tech. Rep. No. 441). Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.

Stankiewicz, M. A (1996). Metaphor and meaning. Art Education, 49(3), 4-5.

Stoddard, S. S. (1996). Making the art experience meaningful: Totem poles created by preservice teachers. Art Education, 49(3), 12-19.

ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 1998

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:36:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions