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!