Introduction: The Value Dimension in Art Education Part 1

All discussions of educational issues entail considerations of values, and this truism has been embodied in the often controversial domain of art education. Plato viewed education in the arts dangerous to the social fabric of society; religious and political leaders provided (and occasionally withdrew) support for the ateliers of the most gifted artists during the Renaissance; totalitarian governments in the twentieth century immediately insert themselves into the arts classroom; and even in democratic societies, there are heated and unresolved debates about whether public funds should be used to support art schools, particularly if some of the student produce works which offend the social or political mores of segments of the community.

In most cases, the values and priorities of a culture can be readily discerned in the way in which its classroom learning is organized. If one ventures into the art class in an elementary school anywhere in contemporary China, one sees youngsters bent over their desks producing paintings and drawings in a classical ink-and-brush- style, in much the same manner that this approach has been inculcated over the centuries. Models of the “correct schema” are posted around the room and in the textbook; the teacher himself will have produced a “textbook” version of the desired “end product” on the front wall; and the students will work assiduously until “their” version has become virtually indistinguishable from the others on display. There is little opportunity (and apparently, little desire) to fashion works in an alternative style, and no trace of abstract designs, which are generally forbidden. Nor is there any discussion of the history, meaning, or purpose of these works, in times past or in the contemporary era. As in many other traditional cultures, art classes in China are dedicated to the transmission of the skills needed to produce exemplars of the most valued works and genres from the past (Gardner, 1989). (For an intriguing exception see Ho, 1989).

Education policy in the United States is set at the local level, and so it is less feasible to anticipate what will be observed in different schools, even when they are located in nearby communities (Jones, 1989; National Endowment for the Arts, 1988; Stake, 1989). Still, some generalizations are relatively feasible.

During the early years of schooling, students have considerable latitude with respect to what they may do when given a surface on which to make marks. Only infrequently is an adult model’s work on display; and only rarely does the child’s own teacher provide that model. Instead, consistent wit h a progressive ethos which continues to hold sway in the arts, young children are simply provided with lots of inviting materials and encouraged to draw or craft whatever they like. The resulting collection of works is often technically of indifferent quality, but in contrast with China, there will be a wider range, including at least some works that are abstract in flavour and some works that stand out for imaginative flavour or idiosyncratic originality. Children may be encouraged to talk about their own feelings or purposes in creating a particular work, bur for the most part, there is unlikely to be discussion of historical or aesthetic matters. At older ages, art classes wane in frequency, except for those youngsters who have special interest in, or aptitude for, the arts. Even in these latter cases, the emphasis falls very much on artistic production: historical, reflective, or aesthetic issues have seldom figured as a significant component of American precollegiate education in the visual arts.

In the light of such contrasting vignettes, it is relatively straightforward to surmise the different attitudes that dominate visual arts education in two countries. In China, it is assumed that cultivation of the “best” from the past is the principal goal of art education; children have the potential to become participants in a venerable tradition. Indeed, the goal of education in the schools is to enlist children in these practices as early and as readily as possible. Talk about art and exposure to alien art practices are not (and never have been) considered a priority. In contrast, in the United States, study of the artistic practices of the past has not been considered relevant to youthful production, and such activity has been infrequent even during secondary education. Nor have technical skills in rendering been deemed a priority. Instead, like other art forms, the visual arts are thought to provide opportunities for younger children to explore media, to invent their own forms, and to express ideas and feelings that they deem important. As older students become interested in representing reality with accuracy, they may well be introduced to suitable techniques (or discover them even without explicit tutelage). But except for those who choose to become involved in visual arts in a vocational or a seriously avocational way, little effort is made to inculcate technical facility, to teach youngsters how to render “beautiful” works, or to familiarize students with traditional approaches, values, or historical considerations in the visual arts. Whether, in the wake of recent initiatives, this picture will change, it is too early to tell.

As one surveys regimens of art education around the world, one encounters a variety of educational stances and procedures, reflecting the range of historical factors and value considerations at work in diverse cultures (Ott and Hurwitz, 1984). Indeed, given the dramatically different conceptions of aesthetics in different cultures, this diversity seems more likely to occur in the visual arts, in say mathematics or foreign language instruction. But from a scientific perspective, it is appropriate to ask whether the approaches and practices in art education are (or could be) infinitely varied; or whether, instead, the principles that govern human development place meaningful structures on the course of art education: on what can be taught, on how it can be taught, and on what the educational outcomes can be. While the answer to his research question is exceedingly difficult to determine and cannot in itself dictate the optimal course for art education, an examination of scientific findings about human development can help to delineate the options from among which educators can make informed choices.

# Developmental Perspectives in the Arts: The Theoritical Basis

Initially Goodman’s inquiry began asa philosophical analysis, once descending linearly from the earlier efforts by Langer, Cassier and other semioticians. Like certain of his predecessors, however, Goodman became interest in the psychological implications of different kinds of symbolic competences. In fact, in his classic study Languages of Art (1986), Goodman speculated that different symbolic systems might well call for different skill profiles might prove to have edicational consequences in the arts and in other disciplines as well. As he put it:

(MS 8) Once the arts and sciences are seen to involve working with-inventing, applying, reading, transforming, manipulating-symbol systems that agreeand differ in certain specific ways, we can perhaps undertake pointed psychological investigation of how the pertinent skills inhibit or enhance one another; and the outcome might well call for changes in educational technology (Goodman, 1986, p. 265).

# Developmental Perspectives in the Arts: Some Empirical Findings

(MS. 15) Early investigations revealed that, in the absence of tutelage, young children exhibit impower-ished and often faulty conceptions of the arts (Gardner, Winner and Kircher, 1975). They believe that works of art are produced by machines or have always existed; they feel that the merit of a work cab be judged by its size, its subject matter, or (exclusively) in the costs of the materials; they fail to appreciate the reasons why someone might produce a work of art; and they seem unable to find any connection between their own artistic activities and the kinds of “high artworks” on display in museums or reproduced in books.

# Most studies of traditional societies yield portraits of early production similar to those put forth over the last century by Western investigators. It was of special importance when the American anthropologist Alexander Alland had the opportunity to study the beginnings of drawing in a number of remote societies, including those where children had not drawn before. While the discovered some parallels, Alland was more impressed by the differences across populations and by the ways in which the values and atmosphere of those culture were reflected in the first drawing: