Child-Centered and Discipline-Based Art Education: Metaphors and Meanings (abridged)

National Art Education Association

Child-Centered and Discipline-Based Art Education: Metaphors and Meanings (abridged)Author(s): Carol S. JeffersSource: Art Education, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Mar., 1990), pp. 16-21Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193202 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 09:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:49:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193202?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Carol S. Jeffers

Child-Centered and Discipline-Based Art Education:

? Vivienne della Grotta, 1989

16 Art Education/March 1990



Metaphors and Meanings (abridged)

Scholars and practitioners alike agree that the Lowenfeld model of a child- centered or creative self-expression approach to art education appears to differ from the Getty model of a discipline-based approach (Clark, Day & Greer, 1987) (Eisner, 1987a, b). Indeed, the Lowenfeld view, which sees art education as a "means of fostering creative and mental growth" and "unlocking creative potential" appears to differ from that of DBAE which sees art as a discipline or as four disciplines. Also, the Lowenfeld view of the teacher as "facilitator" or "catalyst" differs from the DBAE view of the teacher as "instructor."

Furthermore, Clark, Day & Greer (1987) claim that "the creative self-expression approach, even with the addition of some art history and art criticism for enrichment or motivation still differs from DBAE because of fundamentally different philosophical foundations and different psychological orientations" (pp. 134-135).

Because of these stated differences between the two approaches, the field of art education appears to have encountered a curriculum crossroads of sorts. That is, the field may shift away from the long- dominant Lowenfeld model of a child- centered approach, possibly to embrace the recently proposed Getty model of a discipline-based approach. Such a shift will affect the ways in which art, teachers, and students are viewed in and by the field of art education.

If the Lowenfeld approach represents a view of art education in the past and DBAE represents one aspiring view of art educa-

tion in the future, then we might be well advised to take the present moment to examine the differences between and possible similarities among the two approaches. Appearing to stand at a curriculum crossroads, we may want to ask "what are the fundamental philosophical differences between the two approaches? How might such differences manifest them- selves with respect to views of teachers, students, and art? Can similarities among the two approaches be identified? If so, how might such similarities be translated into views of teachers and students?"

To answer these questions, the child- centered and discipline based approaches can be compared and contrasted in terms of their views of students, teachers, and art. The lens which can magnify these views, aiding in a comparison of the two approaches, is that of metaphor. Metaphor, as conceptual lens, "can be of help ih reflecting and organizing social thought and practice with respect to schooling" (Scheffler, 1965, p. 52).

However, such a lens must be used with care because educational metaphors can selectively emphasize and suppress pedagogical and curricular features as they afford only partial glimpses of theory and practice. Metaphors can also carry latent and unrecognized meanings to events, says Foshay (1980). In spite of their selective viewing and latent meanings, metaphors are of help in organizing the world that "lies beyond immediate percep- tion" (Kliebard, 1982, p. 12). Furthermore, "metaphorical statements often express significant and surprising truths," says

Art Education/March 1990 17



Scheffler (p. 47). Certain metaphors in use in general

education, such as the growth and molding metaphors, can be used to study these two approaches to art education. A combina- tion of Freedman's "medical metaphor" (1987) and the metaphor which sees the "school as clinic" (Foshay, 1980) can also be used. These metaphors have been chosen because they seem to bear important resemblances to the child-centered and discipline-based approaches and vice versa.

Eisner (1987b), Foshay (1980) and Scheffler (1965) describe the growth metaphor as that which sees the child as flower or growing plant, teacher as gardener and school as garden. In this view, the child is to be nurtured so that his/her potentialities may blossom. Without interfering with the child's natural development, the teacher is to provide the opti- mum conditions under which the child may flourish.

The thinking is that, left to their own, children will pass through certain stages of development quite independently of the teacher. However, the teacher must study the child in order to gain an understanding of these stages so that he/she may indirectly help the child's development.

The growth metaphor seems to provide a useful means of "reflecting and organizing thought and practice" with respect to the Lowenfeld model. Lowenfeld's influen- tial work, Creative and Mental Growth (1947) describes stages of creative, social, perceptual, aesthetic, mental, and emotional development. Indeed, the teacher is to understand such development and to nurture it at the various stages without imposing an "adult concept of what is important or beautiful" on the child. The teacher is to make the child's life "richer and more meaningful" by creating a stimu- lating environment in which the child can grow through his/her creative self-expression.

Another way of reflecting and organizing thought and practice with respect to the Lowenfeld model is by means of a combi- nation of Freedman's medical metaphor and Foshay's school as clinic. That which Freedman calls the medical metaphor sees the student as patient, the teacher as therapist, and the school as clinic. Foshay points out that like a clinic, a school has an

intake procedure, a referral procedure, and "specialists who work with individuals according to their needs" (1980, pp. 89- 90). In such a clinic-school, the emphasis is on "individualization," "special needs," and the standard operating procedure is to diagnose, to make referrals, and to provide specialized treatment.

In the medical metaphor, Freedman says that art education is seen as therapy with psychology as its method of treatment; its importance is for personality growth and development in general and for the development of the healthy democratic personality in particular. The creative activity of art education provides an emotional outlet for the release of tension. Thus, the therapeu- tic nature of art activity is instrumental in developing happy, well-adjusted children. Such children are also flexible, free, and independent, able to resist authoritarian and fascist forms of control. Such children, who have developed this "democratic personality," will be able to assume adult roles in the democratic society.

Lowenfeld himself referred to individual needs and psychological and personality development. It was Lowenfeld's conten- tion, according to Michael & Morris (1984) that children are by nature, born with a drive toward creative activity. Eisner (1987c) says that in Lowenfeld's view, "art is to be used as a means to provide cathar- sis, to contribute to mental health, and to foster creative thinking" (p. 51). These and other authors tend to describe the Lowen- feld approach in terms associated with psychology. Such descriptions provide a basis for the metaphor that views art education as therapy, teacher as therapist, student as patient.

The molding metaphor may also have some application to art education. In the molding metaphor, the child is seen as clay, the teacher as sculptor. According to Scheffler (1965), this metaphor conjures the following image: "the teacher imposes a fixed mold upon the clay, shaping it to the specifications of the mold" (p. 50). The final shape of the clay is entirely dependent upon the choice of a given mold. The student as metaphorical clay, "neither selects nor rejects ... any final shape for itself" (Scheffler, p. 51). Thus, those choosing and applying the mold have considerable power and responsibility.

Although proponents and critics of




DBAE do not seem to speak metaphorically of molds and a molding process, they do describe a "written, sequential," "formal- ized, comprehensive" curriculum. Indeed, a fourth "defining characteristic of a DBAE program," according to Clark, Day & Greer, is that "curricula are written with sequen- tially organized and articulated content at all grade levels" (1987, p. 135). Further- more, such written curricula are to be implemented on a district-wide basis. A student who transfers from one school to another in the district would continue his/ her study of art by means of the written DBAE curriculum.

Metaphorically speaking, the written curriculum can be thought of as a mold, while teachers using such a mold across a district are contributing to the molding process. Furthermore, the fixed mold which the teacher is to use has been specified by the curriculum planners at the Getty Center and by the professional practitioners and scholars of art who are to serve as prototypical role models.

Implications of Metaphor The views of teachers and students taken by the growth, medical, and molding metaphors have implications for general education. Such implications are also of importance to art education. For example, Scheffler pointed out that the growth metaphor encompasses a "modest conception of the teacher's role, which is to study and indirectly help the development of the child, rather than to shape him" (1965, p. 49). The conception of the teacher as one who is not to interfere or intervene does not allow for "guidance from elders," hence, it denies the "validity of adult experience" (Foshay, p. 83). If adult guidance and experience are nullified, then it is difficult to see how the historical and cultural riches of human experience can be shared with children. Given the nature of the teacher's role, it is highly doubtful that teachers and students can interact fully, freely, and authentically in settings mod- eled after the garden of the growth metaphor.

Like Scheffler and Foshay, Eisner and Clark, Day & Greer share the concern that the view of teacher as gardener diminishes the teacher's role. Eisner says that the Lowenfeld model required the teacher to have little knowledge of art and that "art

was not so much taught as caught" (1987b, c) (Brandt, 1987a). Clark, Day & Greer (1987) note that a Lowenfeld teacher must not "impose adult concepts or images" and must "take care not to inhibit the child's self-expression" (p. 134).

The teacher, as conceived of by the metaphor and by the model, is not to interfere with the child's natural growth and is therefore, prevented from interacting fully, freely, and pedagogically with the child. By the same token, the child is prevented from interacting fully and freely with the adult. Thus, the growth metaphor, as magnifying lens, helps us to see that the Lowenfeld view of the teacher as facilitator or gardener is also responsible for deter- mining the character of the adult-child or teacher-student relationship.

The medical metaphor for the Lowenfeld model, which sees art activity as therapy or treatment, is based on the assumption that society is unhealthy. The metaphor, together with this assumption, has implications for theory and practice in art education. In this metaphor, the Lowenfeld teacher is to protect children from the "unhealthful, debilitating effects of mass society" (Freedman, p. 23). Such protec- tion is necessary because contact with society not only destroys the child's inherent independence, but it also pro- duces an inner tension in the child who must resolve the age-old conflict between the needs of the individual and the needs of the society.

In the view made possible by the medical metaphor, we see that the Lowen- feld child is restricted from interacting fully and freely with society. In this case, the character of the child's relationship with groups of adults is affected. Indeed, the restricted relationship of child to society seems to be an outgrowth of the restricted relationship of child to adult that we saw through the use of the growth metaphor.

Implicit in the molding metaphor are questions of molding the moral, social, and cultural development of the young. Such questions involve the teacher as sculptor at the classroom level and schools as sculptor at the district level. When teachers and schools are seen as sculptors, questions about authority for molding must be raised.

According to Scheffler, the nature of the molding process is "dependent on the character of the adult social environment"


Detail of photograph. ? Vivi- enne della Grotta, 1989



(p. 51). When this environment vests itself with authority for certain forms of the culture, then the molding process is used to develop particular forms of cultural literacy. In this way, a particular view of the culture, of society, is stamped upon the clay child by means of the mold.

In the DBAE model, the curriculum is seen as the instrument of the molding process and can therefore be considered a metaphorical mold. Curriculum planners at the Getty Center have decided that the specifications of this mold shall be deter- mined by the prototypical aesthetician, art historian, art critic, and artist. As a result of the molding process, the child, who will have engaged in the modes of inquiry and methods of practice of the prototypical art professionals, will emerge from the mold as an "educated adult" with a "sophisticated understanding of art" (Greer, 1984).

The DBAE teacher's task is not to develop curricular content or materials, but rather to manage that which he/she is given. That is, he/she imposes the curriculum mold as specified. Once entrusted with the curriculum, the teacher can be seen as manager.

To Apple, such a view of teacher as manager has important ideological implications. When conception of materials, or planning is separated from execution, Apple says that processes of deskilling and reskilling begin. "While the deskilling involves the loss of craft, the atrophy of educational skills, the reskilling involves the substitution of skills and ideological visions of management" (Apple, 1982, p. 151).

In Apple's view, the teacher is being molded as he/she molds his/her students. The Getty Center can be seen as the sculptor in the case of DBAE. Jackson (1987) points out additional implications of the Getty molding process, related to the deskilling and reskilling processes. If the teacher is not free to exercise his/her curricular and pedagogical judgment, then Jackson (1987) doubts that the teacher will be free to decide when parity or a balance among the four disciplines of DBAE has been achieved. Jackson also notes that by making school districts the unit of reform, the Getty Center can make DBAE "hard to circumvent or undo" (p. 42). Apparently, principals, as well as teachers, will not be free to make decisions in matters relating

to DBAE. The implication is that teachers and

principals must be prevented from tamper- ing with the curriculum mold and the molding process. If the view of the teacher is that of one who tampers, then a teacher- proof curriculum must be imposed on the teacher. The principal, as regulatory agent, checks to see that all are in compliance.

The view of the teacher as sculptor and/ or manager, tends to once again determine the character of the adult-child relationship. The clay child who is being molded by the teacher and the Getty Center is not free to interact fully and authentically with the adult. Of course, this will mean that the adult cannot interact fully or freely with the child.

Latent and Surprising Similarities In comparing and contrasting the views of the child-centered and discipline-based approaches, the growth, medical, and molding metaphors have been most helpful, allowing us to focus on the seem- ingly divergent views and to discover some unexpected similarities among them. To be more precise, analyses of the implications of these metaphors revealed the latent and surprising similarities. Thus far, these metaphors and their implications have revealed that the character of the adult- child relationship is similarly constrained in and by both approaches. Both the Lowen- feld and DBAE models deprive teachers and students of a richness and fullness in their interactions.

These approaches also seem to be similar in their modest conceptions of the teacher's role. In both the child-centered and discipline-based approaches, this role is effectively diminished. Whereas in the Lowenfeld model, the teacher is not to intervene, but rather, is to manage the environment, the DBAE teacher is to intervene only by means of a pre-specified mold and is to manage the curriculum materials. In both cases, the teacher is reduced to managing. As managers, the Lowenfeld and DBAE teachers are unlikely to engage in reflective, interpretive pedagogical practice.

Another similarity is the way in which the child-centered and discipline-based approaches view the child. Metaphorically speaking, the child is viewed as flower, or patient, or as clay. But a closer look at




these metaphorical views reveals a similarity among them. In both approaches and in each of the metaphors, the child is seen as non-adult or someone or something that is different from an adult. Indeed, a flower is different from a gardener, as is a patient from a therapist, and clay from a sculptor. Paradoxically, this common view of the child as non-adult seems to arise out of the two approaches' distinct and separate views of art education. For example, Lowenfeld (1947) claimed that 'for the child, art is not the same as it is for the adult. Art for the child is merely a means of expression. Since the child's thinking is different from that of the adult's, his expression must also be different" (pp. 1-2). Greer (1984) hopes that DBAE will produce "educated adults" with a "sophisticated understanding of art." By implication, then, children are seen as different from adults because they are not yet educated and they lack a sophisticated understanding.

The significance of the view of child as non-adult becomes much more apparent when we ask, "where is the place of the non-adult in an adult society?" Ostensibly, the child-centered approach places the non-adult within a garden or perhaps in a clinic, where his/her healthy psychological development can be carefully tended or treated. In the discipline-based approach, the non-adult is placed inside a mold, where the great works of art, like the Great Books, can be stamped upon his/her head.

Each of these places is removed from that place where the larger community can come together. The non-adult, who occu- pies a separate, decontextualized space, cannot experience a sense of connectedness to the community. Neither the non- adult, nor the adult-teacher is challenged to interpret, or even to reflect upon the meaning of a connectedness and the building of community.

Given the nature of the similarities among the two approaches, it may be fair to say that the field of art education has not yet reached a curriculum crossroads. By shifting from a child-centered to a discipline-based approach, we may be traveling along the same path after all. The growth, medical, and molding metaphors have helped to light the way. If we use these metaphors as lamp posts, we might see that as we travel, we have not changed our

views of the child, the teacher's role, and the relationship between them.

Carol S. Jeffers is a former high school art teacher, currently completing her doctoral program in art education at the University of Maryland, College Park.

References Apple, M.W. (1983). Curricular form and the logic of

technical control. In Apple, M. and Weis, L. (eds.). Ideologyandpractice in schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. (pp. 143-165).

Brandt, R.S. (1987a). On discipline-based art education: A conversation with Elliot Eisner. Educational leadership, 45 (4), 6-9.

Clark, G., Day, M. & Greer, D. (1987). Discipline- based art education: Becoming students of art. The journal of aesthetic education, 21 (2), 129-193.

Eisner, E.W. (1984). Alternative approaches to curriculum development in art education. Studies in art education: A journal of issues and research, 25, 259- 264.

Eisner, E.W. (1987a). An analysis of Lanier's analysis of Beyond Creating. Studies in art education: A journal of issues and research, 28, 118-122.

Eisner, E.W. (1987b). The role of discipline-based art education in America's schools. Art education, 40 (5), 6-45.

Eisner, E.W. (1987c). Discipline-based art education: A reply to Jackson. Educational researcher, 16 (9), 50-52.

Foshay, A.W. (1980). Curriculum talk. In Foshay, A.W. (ed.). Considered action for curriculum improve- ment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (pp. 82-94).

Freedman, K. (1987). Art education and changing political agendas: An analysis of curriculum concerns of the 1940's and 1950's. Studies in art education: A journal of issues and research, 29, 17-29.

The J. Paul Getty Trust (1985). Beyond creating: The place for art in America's schools. Los Angeles: author.

Greer, W.D. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study.Studies in art education: A journal of issues and research, 25, 212- 218.

Greer, W.D. (1987). A structure of discipline concepts for DBAE. Studies in art education: A journal of issues and research, 28, 227-233.

Jackson, P.W. (1987). Mainstreaming art: An essay on discipline-based art education. Educational researcher, 16, 39-42.

Kliebard, H.M., (1982). Curriculum theory as metaphor. Theory into practice, 21, 11-17.

Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. New York: MacMillan Co.

Lowenfeld, V., Brittain, W.L. (1975). Creative and mentalgrowth, 6th ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc.

Michael, J.A., Morris, J. (1984). European influences on the theory and philosophy of Viktor Lowen- feld. Studies in art education: A journal of issues and research, 26, 101-110.

Michael, J.A., Morris, J. (1986). A sequel: Selected European influences on the theory and philosophy of Viktor Lowenfeld. Studies in art education: A journal of issues and research, 27, 131-139.

Scheffler, I. (1965). The language of education. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.




Documents

Child-Centered and Discipline-Based Art Education: Metaphors and Meanings (abridged)