Research Trends in Art and Art Education

National Art Education Association

Research Trends in Art and Art EducationAuthor(s): Donald Jack DavisSource: Art Education, Vol. 20, No. 7 (Oct., 1967), pp. 12-16Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3190990 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 08:23

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 185.2.32.152 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:23:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3190990?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


- - - m -

- - -

-~~ ~~~ - - 'L~~~

m - =^

r~~ I II 1.AI

L m~ ~m

_ _. _ '

-'~~1 IL k ^

I

- - - - - - - - -

- m IlL TRENDS IN ART AND ART EDUCATION

Lij /I

- -



BY DONALD JACK DAVIS. At the outset of any discussion on research, it seems necessary to establish a general concept or working definition of what research is. Need- less to say, research is not an easy term to define and it is often misused and misunderstood. Although the scientific method of inquiry was first applied to the meth- odology of the physical sciences, it has also become useful in the study of human behavior. Probably the most commonly used types or classifications of educational research are: (1) historical research-investigating, recording, analyzing, and interpreting the events of the past for the purpose of discovering generalizations that are help- ful in understanding the present and in predicting the future; (2) descriptive research -describing, recording, analyzing, and interpreting the present nature, composi- tion, or process of phenomena; (3) experimental research -what will be when certain factors are carefully con- trolled.1

In order to examine and discuss trends in research in art and art education, it seems imperative to establish a broad statement of principle which encompasses all of the many types and levels of research which provide a common base for integration and an opportunity for each type or level to make a contribution to knowledge in accordance with its respective possibilities and limitations. In such a survey, it is not of concern whether any one type or level of research is better, more sophisticated, or more respectable than another. Rather, a broad, general framework or concept of research is needed if a compre- hensive examination of research trends in the visual arts is to be made. Such a perspective encompasses research as including all forms of scholarly work which is aimed at discovering new knowledge or at making creative inter- pretations, organizations, or applications of this knowledge. Therefore, research may involve experiments in the laboratory, clinic, or classroom, requiring considerable apparatus and equipment, or it may be abstract and theo- retical, demanding few facilities beyond paper and pencil.2

Research activity has become increasingly important in the field of education during recent years. As a vital and integral part of the larger field of education, art education has also experienced a phenomenal interest in research, especially since 1950. A survey and examination of the research literature relating to art and art education reveals some interesting facts and trends. Although the past 15 to 25 years have seen the most vigorous activity in research relating to the visual arts, scientific experiments of interest to artists and art educators were carried on prior to these years. As early as 1890, Wolfe3 published the results of his investigations concerning the color vocabulary of children. A survey4of the research literature made in 1940 reveals that during the 57-year period between 1883 and 1939, approximately 162 scientific investigations relating to art and art education were carried out and published. These investigations were pri- marily related to four areas of investigation: (1) studies relating to color vision and color preference; (2) studies concerning drawing and/or graphic ability; (3) investiga-

tions of picture preferences and appreciation; (4) studies relating to tests and measurements in the field of art knowledge and appreciation and drawing ability.

An examination of this early research relating to the visual arts reveals that much of the research activity was carried on by individuals in disciplines other than art, with many studies being conducted by psychologists and sociologists. In many instances it appears that art was being used only as a means to an end, without pre- liminary investigations into such vital and foundational areas as aesthetics, creativity, and artistic processes. Con- sequently, much early research resulted in sporadic and short-term investigations whose direct contributions to art education are questionable. By contrast, a survey5 of the research literature in art education between 1940 and 1960 revealed an increased interest. Compared to the 162 scientific investigations relating to the visual arts published between 1883 and 1939, 210 scientific investigations relating to the visual arts were published during the 22-year period between 1940 and 1960.

There seem to be two or three significant reasons which account for the increased interest in research and the increased volume of research produced during the past 25 years. First of all, the rapid development of the field of art education has played a major role. It appears that by the 1940's the field of art education had developed to the point that research was necessary if continued growth was to be made. As can be seen in other disciplines, there comes a time when growth can only continue if an organized approach and program of research can be established. As Eisner6 pointed out, art educators wanted evidence to substantiate the generalities and beliefs so prevalent in the literature. Such question- ing of long-accepted ideas has naturally led to scientific research in the visual arts. By the same token, art educators were becoming more cognizant of research investigations and findings in related fields such as education, sociology, psychology, and anthropology. The growth of graduate education in art education has also made a contribution to the surge of interest expressed in art education research. The increased number of masters and doctoral programs in art education has demanded emphasis on research. Eisner7 points out that between 1960 and 1963, more doctoral programs in art education were begun than were begun in the 10 years prior. A third and important factor which has contributed to the growth of art education research is the support and emphasis given research by the professional organizations. The monetary support has not been great; however, moral support has been excellent. Not only have existing publications been faithfully reporting research in the visual arts, but the past decade has seen the birth of a publication devoted entirely to research: STUDIES IN ART EDUCATION. Special yearbooks and publications of the National Art Education Association have also been issued. In addition to these, professional art education meetings have been saturated with research-type programs - not just art education research per se, but related research such as general creativity research. In more recent days, the interest

13



and financial support of the federal government in educational research has been a significant factor in the growth of research in the visual arts. All of these and many more factors are responsible for the present interest and emphasis in research in art and art education.

An analysis of the research literature of the past 25 years shows that some interests have been maintained in research areas established prior to 1940: (1) research relating to color vision and color preference; (2) research relating to drawing and graphic ability; (3) research relating to picture preference and appreciation; and (4) research relating to tests and measurements in art.8 How- ever, major emphasis seems to have shifted in the past 25 years with the development of four additional areas of research interests which have dominated the literature. They are: (1) research relating to the study and teaching of art; (2) research relating to art and the personality; (3) research relating to creativity and art; and (4) research relating to the therapeutic values of art.9

The area of research relating to color vision and color preference was of major interest prior to 1940 with 57 major investigations found in the research literature. By contrast, between 1940 and 1960, only 16 major investigations were published. This area of investigation is dominated by studies of color sensitivity and color preference, and seems to be of primary concern to people outside the field of art education, especially psychologists. Investi- gations have been made in such areas as color and form reaction as a basis of interpersonal relationships, color combinations as indices to personality traits, and abstrac- tion of form and color as a function of the stimulus object.

Research relating to drawing and graphic ability has continued to receive intense interest since 1940; 33 investigations were published between 1940 and 1960. A great deal of work has been done in studying the de- velopmental patterns of children in relation to their drawing and graphic ability. Interest has also been shown in the effect of various factors such as socioeconomic status and different motivational devices upon drawing and graphic ability. Considerable interest is also expressed in comparing the drawings produced by abnormal children and those produced by normal children. This has resulted in some rather interesting implications for pro- viding and improving art programs for mentally retarded children, emotionally disturbed children, and the like.

The nature of a general factor in aesthetic perception has been of primary concern in research relating to picture preference and aesthetic appreciation since 1940. In the 27 investigations published in the literature between 1940 and 1960, there has also been concern and studies made to determine children's preferences for traditional and modern pictures, as well as the influence of various factors such as prestige and age upon picture preference and appreciation.

Research related to tests and measurements in art has been an area of rather interesting activity. Between 1920 and 1940, standardized tests in art enjoyed a great deal of popularity. As early as 1912, "Thorndike's Drawing

Scale" was published in an attempt to standardize evalua- tion and set up criteria for judgment. This was followed by the "Kline-Carey Measuring Scale for Freehand Draw- ing" in 1922, the "Providence Drawing Scale" in 1928, and others. Aside from the early interest in drawing scales, standardized measurements also appeared in relation to art aptitudes and art appreciation. These early tests were hindered by the fact that there were no working defini- tions of the factors which were being measured. Funda- mental factors such as art appreciation and art aptitude were not adequately investigated and delineated before attempts were made to measure these factors. The useful- ness of these tests was further crippled by the lack of use of established statistical methods in constructing and validating the instruments. The result was that many of the tests measured things which they were not con- structed to measure and did not measure factors which they were intended to measure.

In general, a lack of interest has prevailed in the last 25 years in the field of art measurement. Since 1940, some attempts have been made to revise the existing tests and to create new ones; however, the research literature has been virtually devoid of any concentrated or serious efforts in this area. By contrast, recent efforts of art educators in testing and measurement have been devoted to the testing and measurement of creativity or creative thinking abilities. This work has not, by any means, been limited to art education; rather some of the most basic and extensive work has been conducted outside the field of art education by psychologists, educational psychologists, and others. Work in this area was stimulated by Dr. J. P. Guilford10 in his presidential address to the American Psychology Association in 1950, in which he outlined his interests and proposed research program in this area. This address and the subsequent research of Guilford and his associates has provided the basic ground- work upon which measurements of creative thinking have been built. These efforts have been extended by the work of Getzels and Jackson, Taylor, Torrance, et al. In 1964 Torrancell pointed out that there were at least 17 groups12 (most on university campuses) in the United States who indicated a sustained interest in creativity research which should result in the accumulation of knowledge concerning creative thinking and creative behavior.

Although individuals outside the field of art education led the way in this most important area of measurement, art educators have not been totally unaware and uninter- ested. At least one major research center -Pennsylvania State University -has been largely devoted to efforts to measure creative thinking similar to those identified by Guilford. Brittain scanned the literature on creativity and composed a test of 36 sections to cover 17 qualities which he had abstracted. The results of his research indicated that eight of the 36 sections clearly differenti- ated a more creative from a less creative group as judged by an art faculty. Guilford, working under a grant on aptitudes of high-level talent, used a factor analytical approach to determine whether or not there were stable criteria which significantly measured creativity in the

14



exact and applied sciences. He started with 35 tests and found that eight factors emerged. A comparison of the two studies reveals that six criteria were named identi- cally; one was in content alike, while one in the Brittain study appeared to differ. Upon the basis of similarities noted in these two studies, further research was carried on by Beittel at the Pennsylvania State University in an effort to correlate four tests developed by Brittain. The results of Beittel's work further supported the position that creativeness, whether applied in the arts or in the sciences, has common attributes.13

It appears that in contrast to early attempts at the development of measuring devices in art, the more recent attempts to measure creative thinking abilities have been based on a more solid foundation. A more scientific approach has been established, with concerted efforts made to determine what kind of mental operations are involved in creative thinking before attempts were made to measure it. Yet there is a definite need for continued thinking and experimentation with means of measuring the creative thinking abilities, especially artistic creative thinking abilities.

Art educators hoping to develop measures of aesthetic judgment, art aptitudes, and the like can learn much from the basic work done in measuring creativity. With this background, it appears that the field is wide open for more systematic and scientific approaches toward standardized measurement in art. Needless to say, there is a great need in this area.

In addition to attempts to measure creativity, interest has been shown since 1940 in the various effects of different factors on creative thinking in art. Another area of intense interest has been the effect of various methods of instruction upon creative thinking abilities. Efforts have also been made to compare the creative art work of children from different cultures, socioeconomic situations, and the like. Aside from specific research studies involving creative thinking in the arts, general creativity research has contributed much to the field of art education. In light of the philosophy of art education being a vital part of the general education structure, art education must include some of the range of activity called art as well as the fundamental fields from which much of educational practice is derived. McFee14 points out that it is when art becomes a part of education that a new range of activity takes form. This new activity should include con- sideration of the implications derived from the sciences and art, because art education is concerned with the nature of the learner, his range of variability, and the subject matter field. Consequently, one of the most press- ing research needs in the field of art education is the systematic and documented application of research findings in related fields to art education.

In recent years researchers in art education have shown a great deal of interest in the study and teaching of the visual arts, with 38 investigations published in the literature between 1940 and 1960. Much of the work in this area has been descriptive in nature; nevertheless, it has

provided some valuable information and much needed direction for growth in art education; public school art programs-time allotments, motivational techniques, bud- gets and expenditures; teacher preparation; college art programs; graduate education in art education; teacher supply and demand; and art for special groups such as the mentally retarded and the art gifted.

Considerable interest has also been expressed in research relating to the personality structure of the artist and the effect of various factors on the artistic personality. With most of the work being done since 1940 by psychologists, the most researched area has been the general nature of the artist's personality. The results of these investigations have provided basic knowledge which is fundamental to art education.

The fourth area of research activity in art education, which has been developed since 1940, is that of the therapeutic values of art. Again most of the work in this area has been done by psychologists; however, it does have implications for the visual arts. The use of art work as a projective technique has dominated this area of interest, with figure drawing and finger painting the two media most explored. Twenty-three investigations were published in the literature between 1940 and 1960.

Along with this increased research activity in art and art education, there has come an increased awareness of the many problems associated with research in the visual arts. One of the primary problems hinges around the very subjective nature of art and the creative process. In doing research in the visual arts, it becomes necessary to first define such abstract qualities as the creative process, aesthetic judgment, art aptitude, and the like. Needless to say, this is not an easy task. Volumes have been written concerning such problems. Besides the problem of definition, there is the problem of measuring these qualities. Because measurement in the visual arts is still in a very unrefined state, it frequently becomes necessary to devise and construct instruments in order that measurements of these qualities can be obtained for the purposes of research. In addition to the construction of measuring devices, great amounts of time and energy are necessary to determine the validity and reliability of the instruments.

In addition to these basic methodological problems, the sheer attitudes of persons in the field raise serious problems to be confronted by researchers. There are those people who think that no attempt should be made to examine such personal and abstract qualities as aesthetic judgment, creative thinking, and the like. They fear that it will kill or hamper the very qualities which make it a unique experience.

Still another problem of importance to art educators is the fact that up to this time, much of the research work done in relation to the visual arts has been done by people in other disciplines such as psychology and sociology. Realizing the major contributions which have been made to art education by these individuals, they some- times merely use art as a means to an end. Furthermore, much of the research carried on by individuals outside

15



the field of art education suffers from the same problem as much of the research carried on by art educators- a lack of understanding of the real nature of such things as aesthetic experiences, creative thinking, and artistic processes. This, in turn, has resulted in much research whose contributions to art education are questionable. Nevertheless, recent breakthroughs have been made in research in the visual arts. In spite of weaknesses of past and present research studies, research has made significant contributions to learning and instructional practices in the art classroom at all levels.

Donald Jack Davis is associate professor in the department of Applied Arts, Texas Technological College.

REFERENCES 1. Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1959. 2. Hastie, Reid. "Introduction," Research in Art Education,

Ninth Yearbook of the National Art Education Associa- tion, a department of the National Education Association. Kutztown, Pa.: State Teachers College, 1959, pp. vi-ix.

3. Wolfe, H. K. "On the Color Vocabulary of Children," University of Nebraska Studies, Vol. 1 (July 1890), pp. 205-234.

4. Strange, Mary. 'A Summary of Scientific Investigations Relating to Art." (Unpublished masters thesis, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1940).

5. Davis, Donald Jack. "A Summary of Scientific Investiga- tions Relating to Art, 1940-1960." (Unpublished masters thesis, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1961).

6. Eisner, Elliot W. "American Education and the Future of Art Education," in Art Education, the Sixty-fourth Year- book of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. W. Reid Hastie, editor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 299-325.

7. Ibid. 8. Strange, loc. cit. 9. Davis, /oc. cit.

10. Guilford, J. P. "Creativity," American Psychologist, 5: 444-454, September 1950.

11. Torrance, E. Paul. "Education and Creativity" in Crea- tivity: Progress and Potential. Calvin W. Taylor, editor. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., pp. 49-128.

12. University of Southern California; The Pennsylvania State University; University of Utah; Institute of Personality Assessment and Research at the University of California in Berkeley; Ohio State University; The Creative Educa- tion Foundation at the University of Buffalo; University of Texas; University of Chicago; Michigan State Univer- sity; University of Illinois; University of California at Los Angeles; National Merit Scholarship Corporation; Teach- ers College, Columbia University; University of Delaware; University of Minnesota; Experimental Teaching Center, New York University; Graduate School of Education and Laboratory of Social Relations, Harvard University. 13. Beittel, Kenneth, and Lowenfeld, Viktor. "Interdisciplinary Criteria in the Arts and Sciences: A Progress Report," Research in Art Education, Ninth Yearbook of the National Art Education Association, a department of the National Education Association. Kutztown, Pa.: State Teachers College, 1959. pp. 35-44.

14. McFee, June King. "Visual Arts: Psychological Implica- tions of Individual Differences in the Perception-Delinea- tion Process," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Stan- ford University, Palo Alto, California, 1957.

16



Documents

Research Trends in Art and Art Education