Collaborative Partnerships || Re-Thinking Creativity: A Discipline-Based Perspective

National Art Education Association

Re-Thinking Creativity: A Discipline-Based PerspectiveAuthor(s): Dan E. DunnahooSource: Art Education, Vol. 46, No. 4, Collaborative Partnerships (Jul., 1993), pp. 53-60Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193433 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 08:55

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 91.229.248.67 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:55:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193433?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


And Now, on Another Matter...

Re-Thinking Creativity:

A Discipline-Based Perspective

Dan E. Dunnahoo

Photo courtesy of The Art Institute of Chicago

Jean Morman Unsworth's January 1992 article, "Re-thinking Lowenfeld," raised some interesting points concerning creativity and its place in two major orientations to art education: creative self expression and discipline-based art education. Unsworth joins any number of educators and politi- cians in stating that education is in crisis. Perhaps so, but to characterize the desire for knowledge and accountability as the

frantic grasping of a drowning victim (Unsworth, 1992) may be too pessimistic. On the one hand, the desire to encourage creative thinking, a cause celebrated by Lowenfeld and numerous followers, is admirable. On the other hand, so is the desire, advocated by proponents of DBAE, to foster reflective thinking. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. There are opportunities for creative behavior in

Art Education/July 1993 53



the reflective thinking fostered through the kinds of aesthetic, critical, and historical inquiry embraced by DBAE.

Misinterpretations Lowenfeld, perhaps, has had more influence on art education theory than any other single figure in this century (Eisner, 1984). The multiple printings of his text, Creative and Mental Growth, are an indication of its popularity and its influence in art teacher training. Lowenfeld instructs teachers not to impose adult standards on the child. Lowenfeld and a generation of followers saw art education as a means of encouraging children to express ideas, emotions, and feelings in a constructive manner. The art products of children were viewed as genuine expressions of deeply held feelings. On those grounds, children's art was not to be subjected to adult aesthetic standards. The primary role of the art teacher was to provide stimulation, encour- agement, and an atmosphere conducive to open expression (Sevigny, 1987).

Unfortunately, misinterpretations of this attitude led to the kinds of laissez faire activities denounced by advocates of both discipline-based art education and creative self expression (Unsworth, 1992). Recent articles have suggested that Lowenfeld's aversion to the application of adult aesthetic standards may have been influenced by the unique, oppressive social and political climate in pre-WWII Austria (Smith, 1989). Even so, he may have been more demanding in his expectations of children's art work than is often acknowledged (Saunders, 1982).

Unsworth points out that, in her view, some DBAE proponents have mischaracterized Lowenfeld's approach to art education as lacking sequence and articulation, and other "simplistic generalizations." Simplistic generalizations can work both ways. Some of the most vehe- ment opponents of DBAE base their objections on misconceptions of the aims of discipline-based art education. Propo- nents of DBAE have expressed fears that

Photo courtesy of The Minneapolis Institute of Arts

54 Art Education/July 1993



Photo courtesy of The Minneapolis Institute of Arts

misinterpretations of the discipline-based orientation may be responsible for some of the criticism aimed at DBAE. In an address to a Getty sponsored conference on Issues in Discipline-Based Art Education, Brent Wilson (1988) discussed the proliferation of discipline-based alternatives, referring to "generic", "name brand", and "popular" varieties and their varying degrees of authenticity. While stating that not all discipline-based art education must conform to the Getty model of DBAE, he argued that discipline-based art education has been an important energizing force in the field of art education and has served to provide a sense of direction and structure to art education reform.

Likewise, Margaret DiBlasio (1987) sees DBAE as a revitalizing agent in art education. She expresses some fears that the underlying structure of DBAE may be destroyed through wide and rapid dissemi- nation of its practices in a haphazard fashion. The primary purpose of DBAE as DiBlasio sees it is to reunite the various disciplines of art which, for reasons of academic convenience, have been frag- mented into separate units.

The differences between the orientations of creative self expression and discipline-based art education are funda- mental, based on differing world views.

These differences cannot be minimized. However, the continuing debate between proponents of the two orientations takes on, at times, some of the qualities of a political campaign in which each side misrepresents, intentionally or otherwise, the other's position. There are inherent dangers in attempting to represent another's position; indeed, this article may be criticized for attempting to do so. Despite obvious differences between the two orientations, there may be concerns common to both.

Creativity in the Discipline-Based Orientation One of the underlying assumptions of Unsworth's article seems to be that DBAE presents subject matter from the aesthetic, critical, and historical domains in a dry, rote, academic manner. Another apparent assumption held by Unsworth and other detractors of DBAE is that discipline-based art education does not allow for the development of creative expression. On the contrary, DBAE may allow for greater degrees of creative behavior, through its multiple forms of visual and verbal expression, than the orientation of "creative self expression" and its longstanding reliance on studio activities.

Unsworth goes to great lengths to spell




Photos courtesy of The Minneapolis Institute of Arts

out the characteristics of creativity presented in Lowenfeld's 4th edition of Cre- ative and Mental Growth: sensitivity to problems, fluency, flexibility, originality, capacity to redefine or reorganize, ability to abstract, ability to synthesize, and ability to organize. A careful reading of the defini- tions of each of these should reveal that properly conducted aesthetic or critical discussion can encourage the development of these characteristics in the partici- pants. Which of us has not been involved in a lively discussion or debate about a work of art that required the use of just such skills? Aesthetics, art criticism, and art history need not be limited to conver- gent thinking.

Unsworth further states that the current emphasis in art education "seems to be on knowing about art (adult art) and recognizing great art, not on the development of the child." (1992, p. 64) This attitude, another common misconception about the practice of DBAE, assumes that adult aesthetic standards must be imposed on children involved in discipline-based instruction. Enabling the child to articulate feelings or opinions about works of art - not simply rote learning of art facts - is a goal of discipline-based instruction and is a valuable education contribution. If indeed the "asking, curious, creative child" (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987, p. 77) is the goal of education, how can we ignore realms of expression beyond the making of art exclusively? Mental conformity, decried by Lowenfeld and his followers, is not the goal of aesthetic/critical inquiry in the discipline-based orientation to art education.

Reflective Thinking and the Developing Child Lowenfeld's stages in the development of child art are generally accepted as an accurate outline of a normal child's artistic progress. Lowenfeld regarded any aberra- tion from this progression as evidence of impaired creative and mental growth. Perhaps there is a similar progression of stages in the cognitive development of children which is related to their ability to inquire about and reflect on art.

In the text of a presentation to a 1987 Getty sponsored seminar on DBAE, Dennie Wolf, a research associate at Harvard, summarized some of the findings




of the research of Project Zero. The shift from picture reading to picture making, which occurs around age four, is accompa- nied by a shift in children's ability to look at a work of art from the perspective of an image maker. This new perspective results in an awareness that someone made a work of art and that the making of art is a deliberate act.

There is some evidence from Project Zero research that young children make little distinction between pictures and the reality they represent. Children have a tendency to look through art, resulting in a vicarious experience of the content of the work, rather than at the style, composition, or multiple meanings that a visual image might convey. In addition, children make little distinction between aesthetic and nonaesthetic objects.

Children at this age are just beginning to look at works of art from the point of view

of makers of art. Children allow themselves to be drawn into visual images, so much so that there is little difference in their responses to manmade objects of art, natural phenomena, or real life experiences (Wolf, 1988). Without guidance, children may not pose reflective questions until the later elementary years.

Wolf's statement does not imply that children are incapable of engaging in guided aesthetic or critical expenence. One of the goals of DBAE is to enable students to move beyond natural expressions of preference toward more reflective thinking. At the earliest level, engaging children in dialogue about the nature of art or the qualities of a particular work is the goal, not necessarily elicitation of a "correct" re- sponse according to predetermined adult criteria.

Children from the age of four to seven may not spontaneously respond to works


Photo credit: the Saint Louis Art Museum



of art in a reflective manner, but they are capable of attending to and questioning the nature of visual phenomena (Wolf, 1988). On the most basic level, simple recognition and naming of colors and shapes or the recognition of principles such as repetition or proportion (larger and smaller) are within the grasp of even the youngest elementary students. These kinds of simple terms and concepts serve as building blocks in the development of the proper vocabulary and perceptual skills necessary for more advanced levels of discussion. In an article related to the structure of a discipline- based art lesson, Jean C. Rush (1987) refers to visual analysis as the building of a store of vocabulary words and images. One of Lanier's (1984) eight guidelines for selecting art curriculum content is that instruction should move from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Moving from familiar vocabulary to the more specialized vocabulary required for aesthetic, critical, and

historical inquiry should make the content accessible to the average elementary student.

In the upper elementary grades, children become increasingly aware of differences in style and methods of representation and increasingly sophisticated in their ability to carry out formal operations. By the time students reach the high school years they are capable of posing alternatives to given visual solutions, of recognizing and invent- ing abstract symbols, and of comparing and contrasting visual images. These are the skills needed to engage in aesthetic, critical, and historical inquiry, but only those students who receive instruction during these years develop anything more than an innate sense of personal likes and dislikes (Wolf, 1987). The emphasis on aesthetic, critical, and historical inquiry inherent in DBAE is intended to address the current void in instruction which prevents many adults from moving beyond


Photo courtesy of the Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth, Texas



this innate sense of like or dislike. Just as sensitive, responsible teachers

of art were expected to be familiar with Lowenfeld's stages of development, so too should teachers be aware of the development of skills necessary for engaging in aesthetic, critical, and historical inquiry. Lowenfeld did not expect that each child should be forced to progress at the same rate and in the same manner along the continuum of artistic development. Neither do proponents of DBAE expect that students should be forced to conform to some preconceived adult standard.

Examples of approaches which might be used to encourage reflective thinking without prescribing adult standards can be found in recent publications. Mary Erickson (1988) has presented a systematic approach to building curriculum around concepts taken from the field of philosophi-

cal aesthetics. Erickson's framework is built, not so much on the terminology or the professional practices of the aesthetician (adult standards), but around a mode of inquiry which poses the right kinds of questions. Margaret Battin (1988) has presented a series of simulations, games, or puzzles that enable students to emulate, on an elementary level, some aspects of more advanced aesthetic inquiry. These approaches, while focusing on the development of visual and verbal vocabulary and logical modes of inquiry, do not prescribe responses based on adult standards.

There is nothing implicit in discipline- based instruction which consigns the student to mechanistic, rote responses. Just as Lowenfeld's beliefs were some- times misunderstood and poorly applied (Unsworth, 1992), DBAE is susceptible to


Photo courtesy of The Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Photo by Gary Mortensen



Photo credit: the Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth, Texas

poor understanding and implementation. Properly implemented discipline-based instruction should produce in students a sense of intellectual and emotional excite- ment based on their ability to interpret, analyze, and make informed judgments about works of art.

Dan E. Dunnahoo is an Ed.D. graduate of the University of Georgia, and a former Doctoral Fellow of the Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

References

Battin, M.P. (1988). The contribution of aesthetics. In Dobbs, S. M., Ed. Research readings for discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

DiBlasio, M. K. (1987). Reflections on the theory of discipline-based art education. Studies in Art Education, 28(4), 221-226.

Eisner, E. W. (1984). Alternative approaches to curriculum development in art education. Art Education, 25(4), 259-264.

Erickson, M. (1988). Teaching aesthetics K-12. In Dobbs, S. M., Ed. Research readings for

discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Lanier, V. (1984). Eight guidelines for selecting art curriculum content. Studies in Art Education, 25 (4), 232-237.

Lowenfeld, V. & Brittain, W. L. (1964). Creative and mental growth (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Lowenfeld, V. & Brittain, W. L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Rush, J. C. (1987). Interlocking images: The conceptual core of a discipline-based art lesson. Studies in Art Education, 28 (4), 206-220.

Sevigny, M. J. (1987). Discipline-based art education and teacher education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21 (2), 95-126.

Smith, P. (1989). Lowenfeld in a Viennese perspective: Formative influences for the American art educator. Studies in Art Education, 30 (2), 104- 113.

Saunders, R. J. (1982). The Lowenfeld motivation. Art Education, 35(1), 28-31.

Unsworth, J. M. (1992). Re-thinking Lowenfeld. Art Education, 45 (1), 62-68.

Wilson, B. G. (1988). Name brand, generic brand, and popular brands: The boundaries of discipline- based art education. (text of address) In Issues in discipline-based art education: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons. (seminar proceedings) Los Angeles: Getty.

Wolf, D. (1988). The growth of three aesthetic stances: What developmental psychology suggests about discipline-based art education. (text of address) In Issues in Discipline-Based Art Education: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons (seminar proceedings). Los Angeles: Getty.




Documents

Collaborative Partnerships || Re-Thinking Creativity: A Discipline-Based Perspective