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!