Review: [untitled]Author(s): Donald L. Cleary, Jr.Reviewed work(s):

Education in Drama: Casting the Dramatic Curriculum by David HornbrookSource: Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 114-115Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333257Accessed: 17/07/2009 12:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofAesthetic Education.

http://www.jstor.org

114 Book Reviews 114 Book Reviews

curriculum that is truly based in the relevant disciplinary approaches to the arts.

E. F. Kaelin Florida State University, Tallahassee

EDUCATION IN DRAMA: CASTING THE DRAMATIC CURRICULUM, by David Hornbrook. London: The Falmer Press, 1991, 179 pp., paper.

Any educator would benefit by the warning about what David Hornbrook claims has happened to dramatic education in Great Britain. He argues that it has largely been "child-centered and psychological in its orientation, not aesthetic" (Editor's notes, p. x). The value of the psychological uses of drama in education notwithstanding, Hornbrook defends dramatic educa- tion on the basis of performance alone. His cry is for theater versus drama,

performance versus process, culture versus the child, and stage space ver- sus open space (p. x). He maintains that education should value the devel-

opment of designers, directors, actors, writers, and critics within a social, political, and cultural context. He argues that "role-playing"-though valu- able as a tool for development of personal skills, dealing with stress, build-

ing confidence, and developing social skills-has become the "all embrac-

ing substitute" for theater (p. 8). What apparently began with the Cox Committee and was carried into practice via the statutory Order of English and by the nonstatutory guidance of the National Curriculum Council, led to the condition that Hornbrook feels compelled to amend. Thus, his book is dedicated to the task of rescuing and securing those aspects of drama which he finds lacking in education (p. 10).

Hornbrook contends that since the dramatized story is integral to any cultural system, performance-based cultural dramatizations are needed to

help "explain the world and to show us how we should live" (p. 40). He

suggests three kinds of texts as appropriate to this goal for use in the class- room: (1) the stage text-that is, a play; (2) the electronic text-any form of drama given performance by technical means; (3) the social text-improvi- sations based on those aspects of life that bear characteristics of dramatic

performance, for example, the court-room, the interview, the wedding, and so forth. Additionally, any curriculum is made complete through reception and interpretation by those who watch and listen to performances of these three kinds of texts.

Hornbrook offers the nonspecialist a practical methodology for putting these ideas into practice. First, he breaks the production process into a se- ries of logical steps-investigating, experimenting, designing, directing, editing, rehearsing, managing, and performing-and provides a brief de-

scription of the kinds of activities involved in each. The reception process is divided similarly into impact, design, actions and performances, music and effects, management and pace, and interpretation. Indeed, this methodical

approach would be a useful one to the nonspecialist director/teacher and is

perhaps the strength of this work. Unfortunately, Hornbrook has dedicated

only one third (fifty pages) of his short volume to this methodology. This

curriculum that is truly based in the relevant disciplinary approaches to the arts.

E. F. Kaelin Florida State University, Tallahassee

EDUCATION IN DRAMA: CASTING THE DRAMATIC CURRICULUM, by David Hornbrook. London: The Falmer Press, 1991, 179 pp., paper.

Any educator would benefit by the warning about what David Hornbrook claims has happened to dramatic education in Great Britain. He argues that it has largely been "child-centered and psychological in its orientation, not aesthetic" (Editor's notes, p. x). The value of the psychological uses of drama in education notwithstanding, Hornbrook defends dramatic educa- tion on the basis of performance alone. His cry is for theater versus drama,

performance versus process, culture versus the child, and stage space ver- sus open space (p. x). He maintains that education should value the devel-

opment of designers, directors, actors, writers, and critics within a social, political, and cultural context. He argues that "role-playing"-though valu- able as a tool for development of personal skills, dealing with stress, build-

ing confidence, and developing social skills-has become the "all embrac-

ing substitute" for theater (p. 8). What apparently began with the Cox Committee and was carried into practice via the statutory Order of English and by the nonstatutory guidance of the National Curriculum Council, led to the condition that Hornbrook feels compelled to amend. Thus, his book is dedicated to the task of rescuing and securing those aspects of drama which he finds lacking in education (p. 10).

Hornbrook contends that since the dramatized story is integral to any cultural system, performance-based cultural dramatizations are needed to

help "explain the world and to show us how we should live" (p. 40). He

suggests three kinds of texts as appropriate to this goal for use in the class- room: (1) the stage text-that is, a play; (2) the electronic text-any form of drama given performance by technical means; (3) the social text-improvi- sations based on those aspects of life that bear characteristics of dramatic

performance, for example, the court-room, the interview, the wedding, and so forth. Additionally, any curriculum is made complete through reception and interpretation by those who watch and listen to performances of these three kinds of texts.

Hornbrook offers the nonspecialist a practical methodology for putting these ideas into practice. First, he breaks the production process into a se- ries of logical steps-investigating, experimenting, designing, directing, editing, rehearsing, managing, and performing-and provides a brief de-

scription of the kinds of activities involved in each. The reception process is divided similarly into impact, design, actions and performances, music and effects, management and pace, and interpretation. Indeed, this methodical

approach would be a useful one to the nonspecialist director/teacher and is

perhaps the strength of this work. Unfortunately, Hornbrook has dedicated

only one third (fifty pages) of his short volume to this methodology. This

Book Reviews 115 Book Reviews 115

would fulfill only the initial needs of the nonspecialist who might wish to

apply Hornbrook's ideas. Other chapters include a brief discussion of the history of dramatic edu-

cation in England and an incomplete look at dramatic and aesthetic theory as applicable to his argument. His brief discursion into "what art is and is not" (pp. 20-21) contributes little to his argument as a whole and tends to sidetrack the main issue. His astute observation that arts education should concern itself with the "social or political context of artmaking" (p. 19) is never fully developed, and allusion to it is made only by inference in sub-

sequent chapters. The profundity of his observation would seem to demand further discussion.

Written for educators in Great Britain, the non-British reader will find this work beneficial if he or she is willing to sift through, or ignore, the use of numerous acronyms-like HM1, HMSO, TGAT, GCSE, and CSE-which are meaningful only to educators in the United Kingdom. What a shame that this book's editor has not accommodated the international reader as well.

Donald L. Cleary, Jr. Ohio University-Zanesville

THE SYMBOLIC ORDER: A CONTEMPORARY READER ON THE ARTS DEBATE, edited by Peter Abbs. London: The Falmer Press, 1989, 300

pp., paper. THE CLAIMS OF FEELING: READINGS ON AESTHETIC EDUCATION,

edited by Malcolm Ross. London: The Falmer Press, 1989, 355 pp., paper.

These two anthologies represent almost the last flourish of educational de- bate that managed to persist in the eighties. Sadly, at this remove, they are

beginning to look outdated and very nearly irrelevant. This doleful state- ment is made in recognition of the hard reality that direct government in- tervention in English education, in the form of the legislated, mandatory National Curriculum and in all forms of assessment and examination, seems to be rapidly approaching totalitarian levels. Since the 1988 Educa- tion Act that made the National Curriculum obligatory in schools, we have had three, or is it four, Secretaries of State; each has introduced modifica- tions or yet more reviews of the content or teaching of this or that subject. It is not surprising that the views of teachers throughout every sphere of edu- cation have become jaundiced and many simply "go through the motions" of meeting the requirements of the National Curriculum, for there is every likelihood that some aspect-the content, the assessment, the composition of the National Curriculum Council, or its Chair-will be changed; all these

things have happened several times already. Over the past decade or so it has become inevitable that papers by

English educators have been peppered with references to reports, direc-

tives, and populist criticisms arising from government pressure in one form or another. Increasing centralization has been such that even a range of

would fulfill only the initial needs of the nonspecialist who might wish to

apply Hornbrook's ideas. Other chapters include a brief discussion of the history of dramatic edu-

cation in England and an incomplete look at dramatic and aesthetic theory as applicable to his argument. His brief discursion into "what art is and is not" (pp. 20-21) contributes little to his argument as a whole and tends to sidetrack the main issue. His astute observation that arts education should concern itself with the "social or political context of artmaking" (p. 19) is never fully developed, and allusion to it is made only by inference in sub-

sequent chapters. The profundity of his observation would seem to demand further discussion.

Written for educators in Great Britain, the non-British reader will find this work beneficial if he or she is willing to sift through, or ignore, the use of numerous acronyms-like HM1, HMSO, TGAT, GCSE, and CSE-which are meaningful only to educators in the United Kingdom. What a shame that this book's editor has not accommodated the international reader as well.

Donald L. Cleary, Jr. Ohio University-Zanesville

THE SYMBOLIC ORDER: A CONTEMPORARY READER ON THE ARTS DEBATE, edited by Peter Abbs. London: The Falmer Press, 1989, 300

pp., paper. THE CLAIMS OF FEELING: READINGS ON AESTHETIC EDUCATION,

edited by Malcolm Ross. London: The Falmer Press, 1989, 355 pp., paper.

These two anthologies represent almost the last flourish of educational de- bate that managed to persist in the eighties. Sadly, at this remove, they are

beginning to look outdated and very nearly irrelevant. This doleful state- ment is made in recognition of the hard reality that direct government in- tervention in English education, in the form of the legislated, mandatory National Curriculum and in all forms of assessment and examination, seems to be rapidly approaching totalitarian levels. Since the 1988 Educa- tion Act that made the National Curriculum obligatory in schools, we have had three, or is it four, Secretaries of State; each has introduced modifica- tions or yet more reviews of the content or teaching of this or that subject. It is not surprising that the views of teachers throughout every sphere of edu- cation have become jaundiced and many simply "go through the motions" of meeting the requirements of the National Curriculum, for there is every likelihood that some aspect-the content, the assessment, the composition of the National Curriculum Council, or its Chair-will be changed; all these

things have happened several times already. Over the past decade or so it has become inevitable that papers by

English educators have been peppered with references to reports, direc-

tives, and populist criticisms arising from government pressure in one form or another. Increasing centralization has been such that even a range of