Interpretation || A Student-Centered Approach for Understanding Art

National Art Education Association

A Student-Centered Approach for Understanding ArtAuthor(s): Richard HickmanSource: Art Education, Vol. 47, No. 5, Interpretation (Sep., 1994), pp. 47-51Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193500 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:02

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 195.34.79.20 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:02:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193500?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


A S*tudent -^---S BY RICHARD

HJI ICKMAN

Approach For Understanding Regarding his elementary school art experiences, Bernard Levin (1983) wrote: ... the only point at which art impinged on my consciousness at all was the weekly hour under that heading in the curriculum ofmy elementary school, which revives memories so dreadful that I begin to sweat at the recollection as I wrote ... Here Ifirst discovered, without consciously realizing it, thatI am devoid, so

completely that it seems as though there must be a part of my brain missing, of even the slightest capacityfor artistic expression through my hands. (p. 57)

Things were no better at a later date in his boarding school, where his discovery of the fact that there were no compulsory art lessons was "the most joyful single instant in my life up to that point, and few have surpassed it since ..." Yet a few pages on he writes of his love of art in adult life. Referring to Vermeer's 'The Servant Pouring Milk" he writes

what leapsfrom the wall to warm the heart and the soul is ... veracity. And there, surely, the mystery ofpainting and the pleasure itgives is explained. The artist... is painting truth, and it is the truth in light and shade, in inanimate objects, in fruit, in dogs and cats, in landscape, in human beings, in thegods themselves, thatproduces the pleasure wefeel before the artist's work. (pp. 73-74)

D. H. Lawrence's experiences of art at school were no less negative: "Plaster casts and pin-wire outlines were always so repulsive to me, I quite early decided I 'couldn't draw"' (Lawrence, 1952, p. 69); a few paragraphs later, he writes, "One may see the divine in natural objects; I saw it today, in the frail, lovely little camellia flowers on long stems ... I saw them like a vision. So now, I could paint them" (p. 70).

SEPTEMBER 1994 / ART EDUCATION



For these two writers at least, art at school was not an elevating experience; in fact it is surprising that they write so passionately about art in later life. So what happened to make them so positively affected towards art? It certainly wasn't their schooling. To answer this question, we, as people concerned with art education, need perhaps to examine the nature of our own aesthetic experiences, and our relationship with art.

It would be useful at this point briefly to review some of the art viewing strategies that have been suggested over the years. Feldman (1970) formulated what could be described as a subject-centered approach to responding to art objects, based on description, analysis, interpretation and evaluation. Subsequent approaches to art criticism in the classroom have been formulated which have refined and developed Feldman's suggested approach (e.g., Feinstein, 1989), but they have tended to be rather complex and dependent upon students' verbal skills.

Eisner (1972) proposed a model for art criticism which comprised six "dimensions" of critical judgments: Experiential, Formal, Symbolic, Thematic, Material and Contextual. "Experiential" refers to how the art work affects the observer-what is experienced when face to face with art. The "Formal" dimension focuses on the visual elements (color, texture, line, etc.) and the principles of composition (symmetry, direction, weight, etc.) which bring them together. The "Symbolic" dimension refers to the meanings which may be attributed to the various images-the symbols and metaphors which may be present in the art work. The fourth category, the "Thematic" dimension is concerned with the general meaning underlying

the work. The fifth category, the "Material" dimension is concerned with the way in which the artist uses media and materials in order to achieve certain effects, and the constraints implicit in the use of such techniques. The last was the "Contextual" dimension: the need to be aware of the artwork's relationship to its historical context, as well as cultural, social and

technological contexts. Eisner's apparent emphasis upon

the art object rather than the observers' response to it was echoed later in Broudy's (1988) model for "aesthetic scanning". Broudy identified four properties of art works which might be attended to if one is to make an informed aesthetic response: sensory properties, formal properties,

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1994



expressive properties and technical properties. Broudy's guidelines for art criticism revolve around what he termed "historical," "recreative" and "judicial" considerations. The historical factor is concerned with relating the nature of the art work to the contexts in which it was produced. The recreative factor involves "apprehending and relating

imaginatively what the artist has expressed in a given work"; this appears to require observers not only to know what to look for but also to have an appropriate aesthetic vocabulary at their disposal. The "judicial" aspect of Broudy's approach to art criticism involves comparing the work under review with other, presumably similar, works, using the criteria of "formal excellence, truth, and significance." One might argue, however, that these criteria in turn need other criteria for them to have any real meaning (How does one define "excellence"? What is the nature of "truth"? Significant to whom?).

In general, these approaches to art criticism in education tend to emphasize the importance of the art object and the student acting as critic (or aesthetician). The work of Rod Taylor offers a somewhat different approach in this respect. Taylor has done much to promote critical studies in art education, and has produced several publications arising from his work in Wigan, England (Taylor, 1986; Taylor, 1988; Taylor, 1992). He suggested that there are four fundamental standpoints from which art objects can be approached: Content, Form, Process, and Mood; Taylor also formulated the following questions, which could provide starting points within these four areas:

CONTENT- what is the work about?

FORM - how has the work been arranged?

PROCESS - what materials and techniques did the artist use?

MOOD - how does the work affect you?

Taylor's approach can be seen to be less discipline centered than

Feldman's, Eisner's or Broudy's, and takes more account of students' affective responses. The emotional response to a work of art is sometimes seen as being of little educational value, but if we are to value school students as individuals, it is appropriate to take account of their initial reactions to adult art. This philosophy was intrinsic to the work of David Hargreaves (1983) who put forward the "traumatic theory of aesthetic learning". Such learning was characterized by concentration of attention, sense of revelation, inarticulateness, and arousal of appetite. To many art teachers, the idea of their pupils having aesthetic experiences of this nature in the classroom might seem bizarre, or even threatening, but one outcome of such an approach is to allow pupils to be affected by artworks so that they may seek further experiences, and actively participate in learning about art.

Criteria for choosing the kind of art work to be looked at might need to be examined; pupils could choose for themselves art objects for critical appraisal, rather than have them selected by the teacher. This might include the pupils' own artwork and other art objects which do not have status in the "art world." A fundamental issue is that of making art meaningful to students. To do this we must shift the focus of art criticism and aesthetic response back towards the student. Unless those of us who are paid to teach art believe in its life- enhancing properties, the teaching of art will become ossified, reduced to a series of dead and deadening exercises concerned with training psychomotor skills and lessons where students are simply taught the names of famous painters.

As art educators we need to remind ourselves from time to time about the




importance of personal aesthetic experience. In our teaching, this would be reflected in focusing upon our students' initial reactions to art, and using these as a starting point for the development of aesthetic understanding.

When I was first teaching in a University, the Professor of Education in his pastoral role used to invite novices such as myself into his office for sherry. On one occasion he said in his avuncular way, "Don't worry about having the odd day off to re-charge the old batteries-go for a walk in the woods." I took this advice recently and spent some time in the woods which adjoin the campus where I currently work. A short while after entering the woods I noticed some foxglove flowers in a clearing. I walked over to them and looked at them carefully. As the sunlight shone through the petals, I had what I would like to think of as some sort of aesthetic experience. Back in my office, I reflected upon my short woodland walk. One of the questions which I asked myself was, "Is art education concerned with facilitating such (aesthetic) experiences?". Bearing in mind the experiences of Levin and Lawrence quoted above (plus, no doubt, those of thousands of others), the answer must be "Yes", but the real question is "How?". The answer lies in examining the nature and contexts of my own aesthetic experiences. In my experience, aesthetic responses to natural phenomena have been similar to those felt when viewing art; art forms differ from natural forms in that they are created for the specific purpose of aesthetic apprehension. In broad, general terms with regard to both art and nature, I would have had an initial

As art educators

we need to remind

ourselves from

time to time about

the importance of

personal aesthetic

experience. reaction which caused me to investigate further, wanting to find out the name of the artist or the species of plant; researching by examining the phenomenon more closely, looking in books and perhaps asking other people. Then I would look at it in a new light, I would know what to look for and my perception would be sharpened through knowledge. The experience gained would then be internalized and personalized and could be reflected upon in terms of my knowledge and understanding of wider issues. This process can be abbreviated as reacting, researching, responding, and reflecting.

I asked some of my postgraduate and undergraduate students to write about their experiences with art works; their brief was to choose an art work or object which they found interesting, enigmatic, or perhaps difficult to relate to, and note initial reactions to it. They were then asked to research into it, both "intrinsically" (by way of a formal analysis) and "extrinsically" (looking at, for example, contextual and/or biographical factors). They were then encouraged to look at their chosen item in light of this research and note down their considered responses to it. I then suggested that they spend some time reflecting upon the art object's meaning and purpose in relation to themselves, considering such things as whether it has in any way contributed to their view or understanding of wider (anthropological, sociological,

psychological, philosophical) issues. Most of the students' responses

indicated a significant development in their understanding of art in a broader context. They tended to feel more positively oriented towards the art works which they chose to look at. For example, one student chose to research further into Millais' "Christ in the House of His Parents" after dismissing it initially as "chocolate box" art. When first exhibited, it had attracted more virulent criticism, such as Dickens' description of the boy in the foreground as a "hideous, wry-necked, blubbering, red-haired boy in a nightgown." The student wrote

I love the fact that the picture can be viewed in a purely one dimensional way, but at the same time can be "read". Each image meaning something deeper than first thought: the cut on Christ's hand and the blood on his feet a premonition of the Crucifixion: the sheep, the door and the setsquare...

This is a considered response, arising out of her research into the painting, and built upon an initial reaction. An overall general strategy for facilitating meaningful responses to art should be a synthesis of pupil- centered and subject-centered approaches, based on four areas of activity-Reacting, Researching, Responding and Reflecting.

REACT- an initial affective response to the art work (How do you feel about it? What does it remind you of? How do you relate to it?)

RESEARCH - a systematic inquiry a) within the artwork: examining the formal elements, the art work's content, and the processes which the artist went through in order to arrive at the product under scrutiny; and inquiry b) without the art work: investigating the artist's intention; looking at the

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1994



relationships between the content and process and the social/historical/cultural and technological contexts in which it was produced; considering the theoretical and philosophical issues which may have influenced it.

RESPONI) - A considered response, based on what has been discovered through systematic inquiry (Having found out about the artists and his/her circumstances, how do you now feel about the art work?).

REFLECT- An opportunity to think over and contemplate the meaning and nature of the art work in light of the above (What does it mean to you? How does it relate to issues which concern you?).

The "Research" component allows for investigations to be undertaken which are appropriate to students' abilities, needs and aptitudes. Additionally, structured teaching and learning based on, for example, the Feldman model may take place within the overall student-centered framework.

This framework acknowledges the validity of students' personal engagement with art and recognizes the importance of the relationship between the observer and the observed. It provides a strategy for structured teaching and heuristic learning. The Respond stage can be compared with the React stage to help evaluate students' learning and to determine the extent of the development, from naive to sophisticated, of students' dialogue with art, and could form the basis for developmentally referenced assessment. The proposed framework is not intended to be seen as a linear model; the Reflect aspect can and should be encouraged at every opportunity, particularly with regard to

personal aesthetic experience. Underpinning this is the notion that an appropriate role model for art educators is that of "experiencer" rather than "producer".

Undoubtedly, there is a place for contemplation and reflection in schools and colleges, particularly for adolescents, who may be struggling to find their identity and to come to terms with their place in the world. The Reflect aspect of what I call the "4R" framework is particularly important in that it refers to what could be seen as one of the principal aims of art and art education: to present alternative ways of viewing the world; to inspire and elevate, and to challenge assumptions.

Richard Hickman is a lecturer in Art & Design Education at the University of Reading, UK.

121~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 1.11[

sa

REFERENCES Broudy, H. (1988). The uses of schooling.

London: Routledge. Eisner, E. (1972). Educating artistic vision.

New York: Macmillan. Feldman, E. B. (1970). Becoming human

through art Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall.

Feinstein, H. (1989). The Art Response Guide: How to read art for meaning, A primer for art criticism. Art Education, 42(3), 43-53.

Hargreaves, D. (1983). The teaching of art and the art of teaching: Towards an alternative view of aesthetic learning. In Hammersley and Hargreaves (Eds.) Curriculum practice: Some sociological case studies. Falmer Press.

Lawrence, D. H. (1952). Making Pictures. In Ghiselin, B. (Ed.) The creative process. Mentor Books.

Ievin, B. (1983). Enthusiasms. Jonathan Cape.

Taylor, R. (1986). Educatingforart. Harlow: Longman

Taylor, R (1988). Wigan schools, Critical Studies andArt & Design. Wigan: Drumcroon.

Taylor, R. (1992). The visual arts in education: Completing the circle. London: Falmer.

an you cultivate critical and creative thinking

by learning to look at art insightfully? In this

book David N. Perkins, codirector of

Harvard's Project Zero, presents a powerful

argument that comprehensive art

education not only helps students

understand art, but develops their

_l ^ ~minds as well. Witty, enlightening,

and challenging, The Intelligent Eye is

an engaging eye-opener for everyone

interested in art or in developing more

effective thinking strategies. $10.00

THE GTY To place your order, please call the CENTER FOR Jetty Center for Education in the Arts, E D U CATION )0-223-3431. E24V IN THE ARTS




Documents

Interpretation || A Student-Centered Approach for Understanding Art