Ken Robinson: Changing Education Paradigms 2010

Because I love this talk (and animate) and referenced it in my last post:

To Be Continued...Last post for Z590

The last week of readings for this course focuses more on the future of art education. Over the past several weeks of study I have come to accept one thing for sure: The campaign to validate art study and careers as something more than a hobby is ongoing.  It is tiring to constantly have to defend and explain the importance of my field but it is something many have done before me and many will do after me. Rarely does the Math or English teacher have to defend their worth; we accept these disciplines as needed subjects to "succeed” in life, even though I haven't used Algebra in my adult life, yet, nor do I always use proper English when communicating. It's funny how an ideology, once popularly accepted as "the way" is carried on and on with little question. We are such a nation of followers. People commonly accept what they are told or raised to believe without questioning or caring to consider alternative viewpoints or seek facts. Perhaps that is the legacy thus far of our shortened provision of art and humanities programming in formal education. As Ken Robinson (2010) points out in his popular TED talk Changing Education Paradigms, we are often taught there is "one right answer...and it's in the back of the book." If school is supposed to prepare children for adult life, how can we believe that focus on these decided "right answers" on only a few accepted topics delivered uniformly to a diverse body of young learners is going to do that?

Clark and Zimmerman (1978) identify "creativity, art therapy, self-realization, perception training, environmental awareness, cultural awareness, social equality, special education, projective techniques, and mastery of communication media" as elements of arts education (34). I think all of these are elements of a healthy, successful adult life. Students are also not taught nearly enough on personal finance management (how to balance a checkbook, how to apply for a loan, how a credit report works, how to file income taxes) in school. I think the class today is called Facts (it was Home Economics when I was in school) that attempts to teach kids these things today, yet the effort is marginalized and associated with women just as art classes are. Too many high school graduates are leaving for college or adult life unprepared and without realization of the importance of this knowledge just because as a society we have decided, rather accepted, other areas of study are more valuable (or worse, gender specific). I also question the influence of politics, religion, and for profit business a.k.a "the powers that be" have on deciding what gets taught at school. I mean, who else would seek to stifle critical thinking, curiosity, understanding of natural sciences, and financial competence of its population than entities that stand to profit or benefit from an unaware, unquestioning, and otherwise ignorant citizen base? It’s really unfortunate that asking questions like this makes people uncomfortable and even fearful in cases where employment may be threatened by expressing or advocating such opinion. Apologies for the "rant" but I do get fired up when I think about the many ways our education system inhibits individual growth by lumping us all in this decided pattern of "correctness" then has the nerve to label people who operate outside of that paradigm as "failures." 

Is Art a Discipline?

Manuel Barkan (1913-1970) was an instructor at Ohio State University who identified a social need for more disciplinary structure in art education.  In the late 1950’s after the Soviet Union achieved space travel, there was focus on reforming American education to involve more discipline-based curricula. Unlike other disciplines taught in formal education, art lacked a determined set of rules to be followed. Art education could be a discipline if a set of rules and criteria could be determined to inject it as such, but Balkan seemed hesitant to allow for “ any single-minded or fixed ideology” of art education (4). Enter art history, criticism, and aesthetics. These aspects of contemporary art education are derived from facts, allowing for the measureable results characteristic of a discipline. Barkan designed a curriculum that incorporated art history and art criticism with art making in order to allow for discipline-based assessment in art education.

I think having art history and art criticism integrated into my studio courses over the years has helped me develop a greater appreciation of art and my knowledge of the field. Reviewing the work of others, be it observing work of Old Masters or a simple classroom critique, always challenges me to work harder on my artwork. I also think having this aspect in art curricula wards off the critics who think art is all fluff and no worthy content. Some people need that “right answer” to validate purpose. I, however, value the problem solving skills the “no set answer” characteristic encourages. As with other humanities courses, development of cultural understanding, social awareness, and aesthetics are fostered via art. I met recently with a past president of the bank I work for during the summers. He commented that business and economic degree holders currently saturate the job applicant pools of financial institutions in Indiana and individuals holding degrees in Anthropology and more culture-based areas of study are more likely to be hired because they have something different, but equally valuable in business, to offer. Whether this is fact or his flattering opinion of my education choices, I can’t be sure, but it does make me optimistic for growing the validity (at least in popular opinion) of art education.  Perhaps new reform is on the horizon that will lessen the discipline-based ideology of the late 20^th century and allow for more art education opportunities?  Perhaps the hiring of arts degree-holders will be a new trend in business workplaces and generate a more concrete opinion of art as a valid discipline? Whatever changes come, I’m confident that contemporary and future artists and educators will always find methods to adapt their purpose, curricula, and manners of delivery to meet whatever "decided" learning needs society throws at them. 

Art Education WWII to Present Day

Head VI 1949 Bacon

I had never considered the differences between art education before the World Wars and after. It is amazing the responses held immediately following the traumatic events of war. There is so much to take in about emotions and human nature expressed in the visual art of post war society. The text describes it as an "existential nightmare" (224). I agree the conditions that inspired this work are terrible but when I viewed the pieces mentioned in the text, I viewed them as healthy expression...working out the traumas and frustrations...therapy! But I do not think art as a therapeutic practice had been officially recognized during that time. Art therapy as a profession did not arise until the mid twentieth century, in which case knowledge of art as a therapeutic practice would have coincided with the period this work was created (Wikipedia, accessed 8/5/14). I observed only one female artist was mentioned from this period in the text. That was a little disappointing given so many great women artists were active at the time.

There was great expansion of art education programming in the U.S. as well as a demand for art educators. Young folks using their G.I. Bills to attend college created a need for more opportunity in the arts. This spurt of growth was not without its obstacles though. Fear instilled by the after effects of the Depression and the wars made for an even more cautious and conservative society. I think it also aided in the development of more prejudices and denial of America as an equal global entity, meaning it seems this ideology of America as not only the "greatest" world power but the only acceptable one was really encouraged during this period. The baby boom and rise of suburban households also added to the demand for art programming. The text states, " as the suburbs became enclaves for middle-class whites, they tended to offer educational programs in accord with middle-class values, and to a large extent these were the subjects favored by progressive educators" (229). I think most art educators and advocates believe still to this day as Lowenfeld believed. We do see evidence of aesthetic, social, physical, intellectual, and emotional growth reflected in the art of children. His observations of the developmental stages of art skill in children are still used, discussed, and written about today. In all I see the foundations of modern art education have been laid out now. The structures and expectations have been communicated. So while I am seeing the operational patterns of today's education system and art programming falling into place now, I have to also acknowledge the roots of some unfortunate practices: focus on white and European values and artists, small mention of and little credit given to women and people of other ethnicities and social status. These are still fallbacks today and it doesn't seem to originate so much from the artists or individuals who pursue teaching careers as the politicians and business people who interfere with progress. Perhaps that is my own prejudices surfacing? I'll have to think some more on that!

Expressionist and Reconstructionist Streams

In this week's readings I have arrived in the early to mid twentieth century. I am always very interrested in this period of time as its rich American History is a favorite topic of discussion for my dad and I (both being American History "buffs"). The optimism and lively sprit of the roaring 20's is knocked down quite a few notches by the stockmarket crash of 1929 and the lingering effects of the Great Depression. American art was only slightly influenced by the avant garde art movements happening in Europe. The influence apparent during new events such as the Armory Show and the opening of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. For the most part American art remained "narrow and conservative" staying loyal to modernist art and art of the old masters (118). I can see where Americans during this time were at the same time looking for stability and escape. Stability being a conservative value and something taken from most citizens after the crash. Escape being a more progressive or liberal value and desired in reation to the struggles shared. Perhaps this was the reason American artists were not quite comfortable enough following the patterns of Europe into the more experimental art education? They were rattled by the economic state of things and afraid to steer too far away from the known, the "safe"?

The progressive ideas of science and pshychology in art education were fueled by expressionist art and unique spurts of educational advances shared by educators believing in the natural role of self-expression and teaching from a socialogical perspective rather than a literary one (192). Activists supporting this shift in educational practice sought to find a broader view of instruction relative to the life of the individual and to examine and foster personal perceptions. This philosophy aligns close to my own, but I do see where there needs to be a mix of instruction methods. The more structured methods that align with the philosophies of educators like Mann and Dewey would allow for easier evaluation of the student's learning, but I disagree with the more extreme conservative ideas like that of George S. Counts (1934/1978) who seemed to conclude children shouldn't have a voice in their own education. Finding a proper balance of liberal and conservative interests in education (in anything) is like nailing Jell-O to a tree.

By the 1930s the reputation of art education had evolved so that institutions were now evaluating the effectiveness of their programing, organizing their curricula into the various "fields" of art offered by their school or practiced in their community. An awareness of art in education hightened as European influence continued to sway perspecives on American art and art education via exhibitions and publications, but also through the influx of immigrants prior to the war. I'm attracted to the evolving theories of this time that connect art education to the community by integrating art practice into other subjects and developing programming that addresses the life-problems of citizens. I don't think that is all art education should strive to achieve, but in a community that might be struggling to accept art's value in education, it's a brilliant idea. Make art relative to the individuals you seek to teach and watch the doors of acceptance swing open!