Social Darwinism and the Quest for Beauty

The familiar themes continue in my reading of Efland’s text. I’m not sure at this point if the circumstances I am reading about really do mirror contemporary social issues regarding arts education or if I am merely projecting the similarities, creating connections of actions past to actions of the present day. I think the saying “history repeats itself” must have originated from the observation that society has a tendency to repeat mistakes, judgments, etc. but I also think it could also indicate how slow we are to progress at times. Our varied beliefs and values seem to inhibit productive growth because each debate of action becomes overshadowed with pride and prejudices.  Everyone has his or her own idea of what “the greater good” entails.

At the beginning of the chapter Efland states “ a changing industrial order was indirectly responsible for a host of new institutions for the teaching of art” and that “these institutions were then shaped and reshaped as new social wants were recognized” (148). Americans were up to their eyeballs in the business of industrialization and beginning to buck traditional ideologies regarding gender roles (women’s suffrage) and science (child development and psychology). These changes in social mindset led to reform of how education was to be delivered in order to satisfy the demands of a changing society.

It was interesting to me how many advances in art were made during this period: The invention of photography and artist’s reaction to and adaption of it, Surrealism and expression of inner self, beginning recognition of the Art of other non-white cultures, and Abstract art and applying scientific theory to art practice. Yet in the face of all the innovation, I surmised this is also where we began to compartmentalize the reach of art education. Systems of debating quality and reasonable purposes of making art arose during this era. Art made for the sole purpose of expression or beauty somehow became less significant as practicality and function became more important attributes. I think this is one of perhaps many ways American art broke away from European art. While European educators were seeking to develop art education by evolving away from the academic model when integrating lessons learned from the impressionists and post impressionists, American artists and educators were systematically establishing a framework for new information based upon the academic models in place that would continue to control not only what types of art were of value enough to teach, but also which citizens were acceptable learners.

I think when Herbert Spencer (1861) posed the question “What knowledge is of most worth?” (157), he doomed us all to live under the perception that one prescribed course of decidedly “worthy” knowledge was adequate for all learners. It’s like at that point learning became akin to “one size fits all” at the T-shirt shop. I think his campaigns of self-preservation and pursuing necessities in life helped to usher in the blind ideology that we are actually capable of determining these things for people other than ourselves. Following this method the majority groups have full control of what is taught, passing along whatever ideological baggage they carry with it.  I don’t go so far as to assume this was Spencer’s intent, because subsequent developments in art education were beneficial to the field, but I do think he tightened the grip institutions felt they needed to have on public education. And given that arts education (and some other disciplines) still fight to prove their validity in today’s education system, I’d say his idea instilled a long-lasting obstacle.

Asch (1974-5) observed we must be “masterfully aware” of the information we are presenting. “And for writers so immersed in their subject, so profoundly committed to developing and encouraging the use of qualitative art educational practices, it is equally difficult but important to avoid making overly idealistic recommendations” (34). In context of the article he is discussing printed texts on art education, but I find consideration of that statement wise prior to communicating any type of instruction upon an influential learner. I think I will need to constantly remind myself of this, especially after observing how ideas like Spencer’s “knowledge of worth” idea might have sprouted modern standardized learning. The last thing I want is one of my “great ideas” to become some dogmatic practice that effects generations of future learners!

Age of Industrialization and Founding Public Education Practice

I know as I am reading my text that I should focus more on the philosophies of art education and their evolution to contemporary practice, but I had some difficulty doing that this week.  After discussing the last chapter, I now question how much women’s dominance of the teaching profession has hindered or helped the progress of public education over time. It seems so far in history, the foundations of study and institutions created for the teaching of art were established either solely by or with the help of men. But the philosophies were adapted, altered, and otherwise carried out by a bunch of women. For example Froebel’s kindergarten movement, a program of study developed by a man, but subsequently advocated by lots of women. I’m not making that observation to undermine these men’s contributions. I’m just curious about how much is actually shared about or credited to women’s involvement during the formation of these formal education practices in history.

That said, I have to share I quite enjoyed the story about how Elizabeth Peabody foresaw the coming backlash of Alcott’s “conversations,” and disassociated herself with him prior to his demise. Alcott identified children as saintly and also attempted to expose them to knowledge that wasn’t exactly appropriate in adult conversations let alone conversations with children; Peabody left Temple School and saved herself from the eventual censure and public ridicule of her former partner…Bravo! Smart girl!

Women campaigning for equality during sufferage movement of the late nineteeth century.
Image source: Google Images

Always repeated is the perception that women’s efforts are somehow less meaningful than those of men. It’s disappointing that this behavior continues today. A shining example is Governor Pence’s interference with Superintendent Glenda Ritz’ duties.  I never realized how much prejudice and inequality still exists until I started graduate school  (which conveniently coincided with our first black president’s re-election and my use of social media).  I haven’t decided yet if this newfound awareness is a gift or a burden, because it bothers me to know just how intolerant and uninformed some of my friends really are.

What I see happening during this period of time (mid-nineteenth century) is foundations being laid for contemporary practice and then, just as today, people working out exactly how most appropriately to bring art education to public school. I should add that I am quite okay with that. I'm not okay with how little has changed in our education system since industrialization, but I am okay with the fact it is always up for debate. Ideas about education should always be challenged, that's how (ideally) education evolves to meet our current needs. But it seems there are at least two sides to the advocacy of art education: people who campaign art as a natural part of development, healthy expression, the root of aesthetic experience and innovation, and people who regard art as more vocational, a means to acquire the “nuts and bolts”  of art to be used for industrial purposes, typically drawing/drafting skills, and engineering. It’s almost like the first group can’t get on board with being told what to do with their art and the second can’t find value in making art for fun! Why not both? It seems we have made issues in education so much more complicated than they should be. An effort that should focus on developing thoughtful, aware, and productive members of society chooses to focus more on control, influence, and who gets their say in what our kids learn. It’s become a manner of establishing and maintaining control instead of fostering individual growth. God bless the educators who have found avenues of providing students with independence and confidence in their own ideas and individual skills, because I see now how long they have had to manage the bureaucracy to do so!

A quote shared in the text from Emerson's 1838 address.
What a beautiful way to describe corporate insensitivity and the plight of workers. 

History Repeats...Again and Again...How to Participate?

“Anyone who can learn to write, can learn to draw.” ~John Gadsby Chapman 1847

Identity of an art educator.  It’s a jacked-up, ever-liquid, state of consciousness!

Identity of an Artist..Liquid and Changing...Adaptive

As I sort out who I will be as an art educator post-graduation, I find myself looking for heroes and advocates as I continue reading A History of Art Education: Intellectual and Social currents in Teaching the Visual Arts by Arthur D Efland (1990). So far I feel I have singled out some familiar complications that existed thousands of years ago within the question of whether or not formal arts education held a place in society. They are very similar to the questions and challenges still being fought by modern arts educators. As I said in my last post, albeit unfortunate that society has still not worked it out how much we have to gain from art practice, advocacy and education, I am glad to know that the challenge that seemed so daunting to me: bringing art to the unaware, inexperienced, and even uninterested parties who hold such down and negative opinions of art to hold it as a as vital to education and a healthy expressive life…has in fact been going on forever and is no longer on my list of problems to solve in my lifetime. Whew! Now that that is behind me I feel I can participate in this advocacy with passion that is easy going and inviting to all rather than feeling I have to make a “hard sell” so to speak every time I talk to someone about art. I need to get back to creating art and celebrating how it makes me feel and inviting others to share in that experience. Many of these early art educators had minimal art backgrounds themselves. For example, Pestalozzi had no knowledge of drawing, yet he found a way to connect its practice to something he was knowledgeable about (geometry) and built upon that knowledge to support a widely accepted means to educate others how to draw (78).

Pestalozzi, Krusi, and Whitacre all developed systems that revolved within their own strengths and abilities concerning how to draw. I think that it is important to recognize that what these men did was take what they knew, what they were good at, and developed systems of learning for others to integrate into their practice of art. I feel they overthought it in some cases. For example when Joseph Neef took Pestalozzian drawing and reduced it to a more formalized, standard procedure (85), I feel he killed what little experimentation this method allowed. But it seems this is what we do. We take a method and fine-tune it until what was great and inspiring about the original theory has been reduced to a boring, standardized “correct” way. All in the name of "educating the masses." It is amusing, but also sad to read how this happens over and over again in education. Look at today's struggles with standardization. We truly do kill creativity and critical thinking by delegating "appropriate" and "correct" methods of learning. Why do we feel the need to compartmentalize such a thing? 

The failure of the American textile market during the economic recession corresponding to the Civil War springboarded a need for art education - drawing in particular – that could aid with technical/industrial drawing used for advancement of technology during the industrial revolution. It seems to me the art educatior pioneers in this era seized the opportunity to use the acknowledged need for drawing instruction to escort in art education in general. Much like the observation I made in methods class last semester: an artist can take what "the system" says they have to have and use those criteria to encompass whatever goal they in fact held themselves...meaning we can usually take whatever lesson we want to teach and present it in such a fashion that satisfies whatever checklist of "standards" our superiors demand us meet. Tricky, sneaky art teachers...that darn critical thinking at work again! Walter Smith did this. He viewed the term “industrial” as not only connected to works needed for the factories, but also as the “virtue of industriousness,” which he communicated in his instruction as emphasis turned to science, seen as “accuracy of perception” in neatness and precision (102) and elevated the focus on learning to draw with accruacy. 

Though in general, I do see some similarities in the efforts and obstacles arts educators of these early days faced with those faced by my peers and myself. It also seems during this time the acceptance of craft and functional art such as textiles, pottery, and home crafts began to be identified as more like housework rather than art. Housework that was also identified primarily with subordinate females. I question how much effect the abundance of women able to create works of arts and crafts influenced the majority opinion of whether the trade of art be worth associating with the formal educations of (then primarily) men. Even in my class, women outnumber men. I’ve known many talented and worthy male art educators in my experience, but it does seem that I have observed an abundant population of women interested, practicing, and advocating the arts and I can’t help but ponder if that has inhibited its advancement in society over the years. It does seem the more liberal communities, those more open to cultural diversity, are able to promote and celebrate the arts more readily than conservative communities such as my own. Is is partialy due to the high female population of the discipline? Perhaps that is projecting and I have no proof to back it up,  but I am curious how the arts would be regarded if they were a male-dominated discipline comparable to athletics, outdoor sports, or racing…would art enjoy the spotlight more if it were?