National Art Education Association

Tradition and Innovation: Time out of ContextAuthor(s): Mary Ann StankiewiczSource: Art Education, Vol. 49, No. 4, Contexts: Tradition and Innovation (Jul., 1996), pp. 4-5Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193626 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 23:07

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 support@jstor.org.

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:07:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

~~U~mUEE. U:UW?UU

'^^^^^ ~One of the peculiarities of life as an editor is that one seems to live in past, present, and future simultaneously. Due to the requirements of our production schedule, my pre- sent is late February 1996, but you, as the reader, are experi- encing the summer of 1996, or perhaps early fall as you try to catch up on the professional reading that accumulated

during your well-deserved summer vacation. The March 1996 issue that has not yet been published as I write is part of my past because the editorial work was completed several months ago. Any day now I expect to receive galley proofs for the May 1996 issue that is still in the future but which will be part of your past by the time you read this editorial.

Time is only one of the contexts in which we, as art educators, operate. Art educators also work within contexts of place-rural or urban, state, region, and country-, and institutional type-public or private school, higher education institution, museum, social service agency, or other provider of opportunities for art learning. Contexts unite us into the regions and job-alike divisions of NAEA, but contexts can also divide and isolate us, as my experience of editorial time separates me from you and your experi- ence of time as a reader or writer for this journal.

The special theme for the May 1995 issue of Art Education was "The Broader Context" (MacGregor, 1995). Manuscripts submitted during my first year as editor reveal that issues related to contexts continue to interest art educators. The mission of this journal is to address the broad range of needs and interests among members of the National Art Education Association; our goal is to publish articles that connect research and theory with art educa- tional practices. Although the editor selects the themes for each issue, poten- tial themes emerge from current trends and interests among art educators. The voices that speak through the pages of this journal are voices from many different art educational contexts.

These voices are united in their attempts to gain perspective on art edu- cation theory and practice through the process of writing for publication. In a broad sense, most manuscripts submitted for this journal are related to research. While few manuscripts report results in the format typical of experi- mental or quasi-experimental studies, many authors use ethnographic research methods, qualitative forms of inquiry, or traditional approaches to scholarly research as bases for their articles. Laura Chapman once described research as "'searching again'... an effort to be honest with ourselves" (1979, p. 4). Teacher-researchers seek to practice such honesty when they reflect critically on their practices, seeking to improve and inform practice by examining it within broader contexts of theory and research. Wanda May has described action research as "the study and enhancement of one's own prac- tices" (1993, p. 114). Action research may be especially suited to the mis- sion and goal of Art Education, but all types of manuscripts are welcome as

long as they address topics of pro-. fessional interest to art educators, . '

are clearly written in a straightfor- '

ward manner, and follow conven- tions for professional writing.}

One of the eight content areas in the NAEA research agenda is labelled Contexts, i.e., research about situa- tions in which art teaching and learn- ing occur, about environments, cultures, and histories. Within this very broad area, Kristin Congdon has identified seven subject areas for study: "history, values, culture, envi- ronment/ecology, settings, partner- ships/collaborations, and policy" (1996, p. 53). The articles in this issue touch on all these subject area; however, these articles also address another aspect of contexts-tradi- tion and innovation.

Art education is informed by ideas drawn from a variety of con- texts: historical, social, cultural, edu- cational, and artistic. At any one moment, certain ideas might seem new and fresh, innovative perhaps, even trendy. Other ideas form a back- ground of tradition and accepted practices against which the innova- tion is perceived as a novel figure. Over time, today's innovation becomes tomorrow's tradition. In time, the original innovation may be rediscovered and hailed as a new and important innovation.

Connie Mullineaux sketches part of this historical process in her arti- cle in this issue, describing child-centered teaching practices that she observed in British primary schools during the late 1970s. When I started as an elementary art specialist in 1970, American educators had discovered

_ ART EDUCATION / JULY 1996

Tradition and I', I

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:07:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

vh ov3to +vt o-

g __ Time out of Context these practices and were adapting ',

4 *Xi _ them to American schools. Some writers have traced these innovative practices to the work of Susan Isaacs, a teacher-researcher whose work contributed to understanding of early childhood development (Silberman, 1973). Mullineaux traces British infant school prac- tices to the work of Friedrich Froebel, the early 19th-century

•., U t; ' Swiss educator whose theory and s:' i } { ; practices were hailed as important

innovations leading toward child- centered teaching in the late 19th century. Bringing these past inno- vations to the present, Mullineaux suggests similarities with current work in performance assessment. Practices that seem traditional in one context may become innova- tive when placed in a new context.

Some contexts privilege tradi- tion and others prize innovation. Modernism has been among the latter, so that we might speak of a tradition of innovation as one char- acteristic of modern art. George

Szekely's article reflects this emphasis on innovation. As a participant-observer, Szekely

advocates learning from chil- dren's interests, bridging contexts of popular culture and fine art, and

regarding shopping and playing with children as forms of art education research.

Although the convenience store may seem a novel context for art educa- tional inquiry, schools are the traditional sites for art educational practice. Alice Arnold reports her observations of Ashley River Creative Arts

Elementary School in Charleston, South Carolina, a school which has received national recognition for its innovative approach to integrating the arts into the curriculum. Arnold examines this approach in the context of psychological literature on the development of self-actualization. These first three articles remind us that child-centeredness has been a tradition in art education.

The Native American Ak-Chin people who live in Arizona balance a tradi- tional way of life with an innovative approach to museums and museum edu- cation. Mary Stokrocki describes the concept of the eco-museum and its realization on the Ak-Chin reservation. In contrast, Michelle Goulette describes the move of the Art Gallery of Windsor from its specially designed building to a site at a shopping mall. The former museum building is now a casino and attendance at the Art Gallery has doubled. These articles raise questions about political, economic, and social contexts for art education; the authors address issues of values, culture, settings, and policy.

Drawing on work by Joanna Frueh, John Stinespring reminds us that tra- ditional Western criteria for evaluating works of art may not fit works created by ethnically diverse artists or women artists. He argues that art educators need to present works of art from diverse artists in the contexts of the artists' life experiences, society, and culture. Broadly defined, research provides us with an oportunity to step out of our own context, to experience another's time and place, to question tradition, and to examine innovative practices against the context of theory.

Mary Ann Stankiewicz Editor

REFERENCES Chapman, L. (1979). Editorial: The utility of research. Studies in Art

Education, 20(2), 3-4. Congdon, K. (1996). Contexts. In NAEA Commission on Research in Art

Education, Creating a visual arts research agenda toward the 21st cen- tury (pp. 51-58). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

MacGregor, R. N. (1995, May). Editorial: The ripple effect. Art Education, 48(3), 4-5.

May, W. T. (1993). "Teachers-as-researchers" or action research: What is it, and what good is it for art education? Studies in Art Education, 34(2), 114-126.

Silberman, C. E. (Ed.). (1973). The open classroom reader. New York: Vintage Books.

JULY 1996 / ART EDUCATION

Pr H--. ~az , ??

I/

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:07:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions