National Art Education Association
Contemporary Art and Art Education
Author(s): Jerome J. Hausman
Source: Studies in Art Education, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn, 1963), pp. 82-91
Published by: National Art Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1319992
Accessed: 20-06-2016 07:26 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of 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
Studies in Art Education
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CONTEMPORARY ART AND ART EDUCATION
Jerome J. Hausman/Ohio State University
I shall begin with what may seem to be simple and obvious assertions
about the teaching of any subject. Teaching in any field involves an
individual in the practical and theoretical problems of communication.
Moreover, teaching any subject necessarily involves examining the nature
and content of what is being taught. Thus, it would follow that the
teaching of art involves the teacher in practical and theoretical problems
of communicating ideas drawn, in large part, from the nature and content
of art.
My relatively naive assertions take on added complexity (and some
confusion) when we turn to questions of "how" and "by whom" are the
conceptions about the nature of art and the teaching of art established.
Given the current art scene-the happenings in our galleries and museums
of modern art-there are certain fundamental questions that can be raised.
Not too long ago the Baltimore News Post published an account of
a chimpanzee's painting that was compared with a recent acquisition of
the Baltimore Museum; even more recently there was a report of an inter-
view with Premier Khrushchev, in which he compared abstract expres-
sionist painting to what would be a likely result if a donkey's tail were
placed in a bucket of paint and then allowed to swing freely over a flat
surface. There have been all too numerous tales of the paintings of two- or
three-year-old children whose uncontrolled scribblings have been awarded
prizes in art exhibitions. A report in the College Art Journal described
how art students at UCLA were moving a large pliece of sculpture into
the department's courtyard for a display last spring. It was so heavy that
they left it on the sidewalk while they went to get some moving equipment.
At that moment the Trash Department came along, assumed the large
object was junk, and, as it was too heavy to handle, smashed it and
carried it off. The students failed to appreciate this ending. Each of
these instances serves as a part of the background against which current
teaching of art takes place. They serve as background for describing
confusions and doubts about the intentions, seriousness, capabilities,
indeed, the sanity of many contemporary artists, museum and gallery
directors, and teachers in our universities and art schools. Some would
put the whole affair as a gigantic hoax in which artists and their allies
have banded together to create confusions and doubts about human
values. Many have argued that contemporary abstract art is a consequence
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is based on a lecture given at the Graduate Club
Conference, Pennsylvania State University, July 1963.
82 STUDIES IN ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
83
of bourgeois degeneracy; an art that the people cannot understand or
appreciate. Seen from the other end of the political continuum, it is an
art that is leftist or surely "suspect." As Westbrook Pegler put it: "There
comes a time when a free-born American citizen gets darned good and
sore the way those culture-bums push clean living, God-fearing, baby-
having Americans around shoving culture at us."'
It would be grossly unfair if I were to give the impression that
questions and doubts about what is going on in our art world are limited
to Marxist or ultra-conservative critics. Anyone attempting to characterize
the current art scene, as viewed in our major art centers, would surely
have to contend with directions and tendencies that shake some of our
very foundations for making value judgments about painting and sculpture.
Certainly questions can be raised as to what there is left for the teacher
to "teach." The simple fact is that the art of our time poses many ques-
tions and contradictions. No simple "yes-no," "good-bad," judgments are
possible that would apply to the range and diversity of current artistic
efforts. Certainly the impact of what is happening today is difficult to
assess; there are many valid questions about the role and intentions of
the avant-garde in modern painting and sculpture. Assemblage, environ-
ments, happenings, pop-art, neo-Dada-each are terms to identify some
of the directions and tendencies of contemporary artists. To even pose
questions and problems that these directions imply requires some general
background concerning the artist and the setting in which he works.
For better or worse, our world is one in which time and space con-
cepts have been dramatically altered. Our system of communication and
travel make possible levels of awareness never before realized in human
experience. We are confronted with situations when switching a radio dial
can bring forth a variety of languages being spoken; a fantastic range
of ideas being projected through complicated symbol systems. In the art
world, Picasso paints a picture today, and tomorrow its image is being
readied for publication in the Art News, Arts, and Art International; to
say nothing of Time, Life, and Look. To be sure, we refer to "New York"
and "Paris" schools, to "West Coast" painters; regionalism and schools,
however, cannot long exist as isolated phenomena. The artist reacting to
the city landscape soon has his work viewed in towns and hamlets.
Suffice to say, the complexity and range of ideas and feelings that may
motivate a work oftentimes have little basis for sympathetic understanding
in the experience of other persons who may view that same work. Our
system of mass communications is effective in transmitting images and
symbols; the fundamental experiences that can enable deep insight into
the meaning and significance of these images is not as readily transmitted.
Related to the impact of our mass media, we now have museums,
galleries, and private collections that are made available to the public,
and other mechanisms whereby people are able to see works of art. Never
1Pegler, Westbrook. New York Journal American, November 13, 1961.
CONTEMPORARY ART AND ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
84
before have so many people been exposed to such great variety and
quantity of artifacts. The statistics as to the number of people who saw
the Mona Lisa in the National Gallery are staggering; the sums of money
paid for "masterpieces" have raised eyebrows, if not bank accounts. In
short, a wide range and diversity of art from a historical as well as a
geographical perspective has been placed before us. Through mass media,
museums, and galleries, the creative arts of other times and places are
literally and bodily present for our viewing. This tremendous increase in
images has not served to increase our powers of perception or discrimi-
nation. Indeed, there, are those who have argued that mass media and
culture have dulled these very powers; that the pervasiveness of the mass
image has served to make of art a political and commercial tool.
Just as we have our doubts and confusions about art, there are
comparable doubts and confusions about science. However, we are not
as prone to question and doubt the scientific symbols that we do not
understand. The newspapers may carry reports of scientific innovations
containing complex formulae; there may be diagrams of rockets or auto.
motive systems that are beyond our comprehension. Yet, there remains one
simple criterion that allows us to put aside doubts and lack of under.
standing: most products of science lead to something that "works"--
something that lends itself to utility, control, or common understanding.
The creative acts of science grow one upon the other; the 1963 models
replace those of 1962, which, in turn, replaced those of 1961. New ideas
become the basis for new innovations-each lending itself to test and
verification. Yet, in man's artistic efforts, the conditions are different. What
we refer to as the art of the past exists in the present. Chronology is not
a reliable index for quality or improvement. Art does not provide us with
objects whose utility can be tested. The work of art turns to our humanity
for its rationale. Fundamentally, each person is called upon to make his
own judgment. We are dealing with judgments that grow from human
sensitivity and understanding. The work of art stands in mute testimony
for what it is: it can be nor do anything else.
And what of the artist whose efforts seem to have led to some of our
joys, satisfactions, doubts, and ambiguities? The Greeks had little regard
for manual work of any kind; they tended to view the artist's mental
activity as being separate from and more important than his physical
activity. What the artist did, the artifact, was an imperfect result from
his original ideal. For the Greeks, the physical act of making the work
of art was a mechanical "carrying out" of something already formed by
the mind. Hence, they classified the artist's efforts as a mechanical task:
a craft requiring physical and manipulative skills. This attitude persisted
through the Middle Ages. The uniqueness of the artist's efforts received
little or no emphasis. A conscientious copy was as acceptable as an original,
since the original itself was an imperfect copy of the ideal form conceived
in thought. No wonder historians and archaeologists must struggle with
STUDIES IN ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
85
problems of attribution in Greek and Roman art. Copies and casts exist
in such large number and with such accuracy that it is oftentimes
impossible to identify the "original."
In the Renaissance we encounter evidence that works of art were
valued as embodiments of individual style. Creating the work of art began
to achieve a new dignity and significance. The trend is one in which
artists moved away from the impersonal standards of craftsmanship, and
the idea of autonomy of art and artist came into existence. The change
has been gradual; so gradual that the words "artist" and "artisan"
continue to be used with varying meanings. What is important to note is
that there have been fundamental changes in the very concepts of "artist"
and "art." In its most general terms, the transition has been from a
conception of art founded on notions of perfection derived from handcrafts
to ideas of art that grow from the infinity of possibilities stemming from
the human mind. Georges Mathieu described the freeing of art from the
yoke of its inheritance; of how an art form such as painting has moved
through three major phases: (1) painting as an object that remains an
object; (2) painting aspiring to become an act, and becoming an event;
and (3) painting as nothing more than an attitude, that is to say, the
result of a decision, or even of an absence of decision.2
The change in concept of art to include the idea of unique human
activity is not an isolated phenomenon. It is intimately related to the
growth of individualism in the 18th and 19th centuries. The displacement
of artisans by machines and the popularization of ideas of freedom
inaugurated a new age in whose stream of development we still live. Artists
in the 19th century did not visualize themselves as painters, musicians, or
writers merely in terms of the work they did-their painting, sculpture,
poetry, music, etc. Their very association with this type of work was a
declaration of independence against the ordinary life of the times, and
an affirmation of the mythical free individual who had become their ideal.
Artists, having abandoned the limits of craftsmanship and the securities
of patronage, turned to another cause: a quasi-religious as well as moral,
social, and political mission. As part of this role, they endured the
material hardships of poverty and neglect-a sort of martyrdom. This
role became so pervasive that many artists in the 19th century looked
askance at comfort and success as threats to their integrity.3
Thus far, I have sketched in an all too brief fashion a background
of present-day mass media for communications with its impact in trans-
mitting images and symbols; of museums, galleries, and other institutions
that have assumed the function of bringing together and making available
the art of our own and other times; and the changing role and image of
the artist-from that of the artisan and craftsman to the more individually
oriented creative performer.
2Mathieu, Georges. From the Abstract to the Possible, Editions Du Circle D'Art Contemporain,
Paris: Foundation Internationale, 1960. p. 21.
SPellers, Geraldine. "The Image of the Artist." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Winter
1962, pp. 119-137.
CONTEMPORARY ART AND ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
86
For the art educator, the dynamics that I have described pose some
intriguing problems. Greater individuality and diversity on the part of
artists has been magnified, indeed, distorted by our mass media. Art has
become intertwined in a gigantic network of business and so-called
"cultural" activity. This has had its inevitable consequences: some artists
have fallen prey to the very success that their predecessors disdained.
As pointed out by Brian O'Doherty, "it is the prospect of such success
that seems to draw many young artists to their profession. It is not unusual
nowadays to hear a young artist talk-like a young actor-of 'making it."'
Judging from some of the letters and photographs that arrive in this
office, one would think some young artists were trying to launch stage
careers. Their work is apparently the vehicle for their ambition, not an
end in itself. Their criterion of success is a write-up in Time or pictures
in Life."4
The historian can view the dynamics of the contemporary scene with
a certain amount of detachment; after all, given the distance afforded by
time, he can make his judgments when the initial flurries of popularity
die down. The gallery owner is, alas, a business man. While there are many
gallery owners who accept the aesthetic responsibility for their critical
judgments, the fact remains that taste-making and attention-getting devices
are intimately related to money-making capabilities. Indeed, a certain
amount of "fanfare" is attractive for the snob value attached to the
works being sold.
For the art teacher there is something very immediate as he under-
takes to discuss contemporary art; there is something very operational
as his student's work unfolds and as questions are posed. How can the
art teacher react to the many art forms that we encounter-images of
the new and the popular; the unusual and the unique? Given our
indeterminate values, how can he be confident of his judgments about
what is right or wrong; good or bad? If conceptions of art include actions
and ideas as well as form, how can he respond to the assertion "anyone
is capable of actions and ideas; therefore, anyone is capable of art?" In
short, the art teacher is faced with questions that turn him to his own
values and beliefs about the area in which he teaches. Given a period of
profound shifting of artistic aims, values, and meaning, art teachers are
faced with questions that seek greater clarity and stability. How may
they respond?
I see no recourse but to seek serious engagement with the diverse
(and sometimes strange) directions being pursued by artists. Time and
again we have seen artists creating forms which have not fit the "going-
definitions" of art. Later, as radical principles and forms become more
familiar, as our distance from the event becomes greater, we are able to
make other judgments. In some cases, such distance provides connections
40'Doherty, Brian. "The Corruption of Individuality," New York Times, June 30, 1963.
STUDIES IN ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
87
which did not seem apparent; "nonart then becomes art through
acceptance."5
The argument that I shall present for the avant-garde art of our time
is that it may have significance and relevance exceeding many well-
intentioned efforts that do not move or disturb us as much. In a time
when people may be seeking a false state of security through art, some
artists are performing one of the most worthwhile functions of art: turning
our eyes and mind toward meaning of things habitually ignored. For the
present, I would want to put aside the question of gallery interests,
commercial values, and shock effects as aims in themselves. Clearly, these
are to be viewed with real concern.
Last year there were numerous exhibitions of the art of assemblage-
works of art made by joining materials and objects not intended as art
materials. Exhibitions of works by Oldenburg, the massive metal forms of
Lee Bontecou, John Chamberlain's sculpture, and Arman's assemblages
are examples. These are not the comfortable images that help one to
sit back in serene contemplation; there is a moving and harsh reaction
to the way in which materials and forms have been placed together.
Many are bothered by the lack of craftsmanship, the fact that junk and
discarded materials are put before us in strange and sometimes shocking
juxtaposition. The materials suggest urban and mechanized forms, meta-
phors for the poverty and richness that characterize our times. It is as
if these artists have cast aside more academic expectations about what
"art should be" and have undertaken to create forms more powerful and
moving than could be achieved through the more conventional illusions
usually associated with "art." In this sense, the current movement has been
called "an art that is anti-art." It is an art form that disdains sentimen-
tality-it seeks to make us see our lives from another perspective.
"But, it's so ugly; so unreal!" many would protest. "Does art need
to concern itself with such a violent protest?" "What has happened to
those values and skills that helped paint the Mona Ltisa?" Hence, when
the Mona Lisa came to this country-thousands upon thousands flocked to
our National Gallery. They treated the painting, not as a painting, but
as a visiting dignitary. The Associated Press reported, "MONA LISA
LEAVES-Mona Lisa leaves the capital Monday after proving that her
mysterious smile can really pack'em in." After comparing gallery attend-
ance at exhibitions of treasures from King Tut's Tomb and masterpieces
found hidden in salt mines when the Allies conquered Germany, the re-
port went on, "Gallery officials pointed out that it was not fair to compare
Mona's attendance record with that of these exhibitions. She was only one
lady, competing with rooms full of representative masterpieces." At the
behest of President Kennedy, "Mona" was given the VIP treatment
throughout her visit to the new world. "For her trip to New York, offi-
cials arranged the same fanfare that attended her coming-a motor caval-
5Seitz, William C. "Assemblage: Problems and Issues." Art International, February 1962, pp. 26-34.
CONTEMPORARY ART AND ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
88
cade attending her small black van, Secret Service men with eyes roving
right and left, and special escorts of state police."
While the motorcade of vehicles transport masterpieces from the Na-
tional Gallery to the Metropolitan and from the Metropolitan to the Na-
tional Gallery; while we pay thousands of dollars for one masterpiece, and
then another; and while people throng to the museums to see these curios
(if for no other reason than to satisfy their curiosity and tell their friends
about it), there are harsh realities that impose themselves upon sensitive
men. Our junk yards and waste piles grow higher and higher. Turmoil and
confusion are not new words for describing the current scene; "Cold
War," "riots," "scandals" are common to our vocabularies. Just read your
newspapers, listen to the radio, watch your television receivers-indeed,
look around you every now and then for evidences of a very real world
in which we exist.
To be sure there is still joy and satisfaction in living; there are mo-
ments and events of beauty. All is not dark, nor lost. Yet, the art about
which I am speaking shakes us from moments when we deceive ourselves
with sentiment and stereotype. As was the case with the Dada move-
ment in 1916, the art I am describing is more of a social than an aesthetic
statement; it has its implications for the freedom with which an artist can
and should approach his world; it has its implications for the stark reali-
zations that can be achieved through the shaping of materials and ideas.
Compare these statements (the first about Dada written in 1916): "Dada
is forever the enemy of that comfortable Sunday Art which is supposed
to uplift man, by reminding him of agreeable moments. Dada hurts. Dada
does not jest for the reason it was experienced by revolutionary men and
not by philistines who demand that art be a decoration for the mendacity
of their own emotions."6 The second by Claes Oldenburg in 1962: "I am
for an art that does something other than sit in a museum. I am for an
art that grows up not knowing it is art at all, an art given the chance of
having a starting point of zero. I am for an art that takes its form from
the lines of life, that twists and extends impossibly and accumulates and
drips and spits, and is sweet and stupid as life itself."7
Still the refrain can be heard, "it's so ugly; I can't understand it ...
why can't artists deal with ordinary, everyday life-of people and the
things they really do? As if in response, we now have the phenomenon
of pop-art. What could be more "everyday" than Oldenburg's pair of
pants, hamburger, August calendar, and piece of pie; Robert Indiana's
sign entitled "Eat;" Roy Lichtenstein's enlarged image taken from a comic
strip; or painted, bronze forms that are cast from beer cans by Jasper
Johns? These are elements in our ordinary, everyday life; surely, it can
be said that the objects are recognizable. These same objects taken out
of their everyday context and placed in a gallery bring forth reactions that
6Huelsenbeck, Richard. "Dada Lives." August 1916. (Translated by Eugene Jolas.) "Transition"
No. 25.
7Oldenburg, Claes. Catalogue for exhibition "Environments, Situations, Spaces." Martha Jackson
Gallery, 1961.
STUDIES IN ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
89
range from all-out admiration to alarm and revulsion. Taken out of con-
text, we are able to see the everyday (indeed, the popular) aspects of our
culture in a new light. In Jasper Johns' bronze casting of two ordinary
beer cans, there is nothing distorted. The objects are presented without
any overt manipulation to imply judgments of beauty, desirability, or
morality. They are cast and painted to simulate two cans: one opened, one
closed. But, of course, there is a judgment and point of view that mo-
tivates the work. Apart from the metaphorical possibilities of ordinary ob-
jects in our everyday lives (after all, painters have been painting still-life
subjects for a long time), there is the insistence that we look at our-
selves and the objects of our lives.
The language of assemblage and pop-art is derived from contemporary
social realism. Robert Indiana spoke of his work as being in a "new Ash
Can School." It is just about 50 years ago that artists such as John Sloan,
George Luks, William Glackens, and Robert Henri were part of the group
referred to as the Ash Can School.
I do not wish to convey the impression that Indiana and Chamberlain
or Oldenburg are masters needing only to be discovered and understood.
I do, however, want to make the point that what they have done should
not be dismissed as the efforts of "crackpots." It would be ironical if his-
tory's judgment will be that neo-Dada, pop-art, and assemblage has paved
the way for a more effective and constructive social commentary.
In summary, we are given a period of great complexity and indeter-
minate goals. Mass media and mechanization have made men aware of
their own physical power. Media and machines, however, do not provide
the depth of understanding and security for dealing with this power. The
specialized requirements of modern technology have created a situation
where men are growing increasingly dependent, one upon the other. We
are forced to deal with abstractions and machines whose inner mechan-
isms we do not understand, except as to observe that they "work." We
travel at greater speeds; we are open to more information through mass
media; we can build greater and more complex structures; we can destroy
with greater skill and efficiency.
One can speculate that the doubts and confusions of having to deal
with increasingly complex and indeterminate goals has led men to seek
the safety of fixed ideas. The phenomena of organization men, group iden-
tification, and institutional decision-making can be understood in such a
setting.
No wonder that there is a strange aura of respect for the artist: un-
like the man who gets along with the organization, he represents a model
of deviance and individuality. Indeed, unlike others who depart from the
"rules of the game" (and are punished by society), the artist is a more
or less desirable deviant; to some, an idealized prototype of the individ-
ual who does what he does for its intrinsic value.8
SPelles, Geraldine. "The Image of the Artist." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Winter 1962,
pp. 119-137.
CONTEMPORARY ART AND ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
90
There we have part of the picture in its grossest terms: many con-
fused people seeking to understand the value of art and artists so that
it can have greater meaning for their lives. Just look at the attention given
to the concept of "great masterpieces." Look at the attendance in museums
and galleries; look at what is being paid for paintings by Rembrandt,
Cezanne, Picasso, and other masters.
What are some of the contemporary artists doing? They have turned
their backs to the fixed ideas embodied in the concept "masterpiece;"
they are disdainful of simple answers that art can bring stability and
serenity to the confusions of our world. For example, Cesar, at the age
of 40, has abandoned a career in which he did sculpture in a classical style
and has turned to a series of new sculptures consisting of automobiles
mechanically compressed into cubes.
The art about which I have spoken cannot be discussed in the formal
terms of design or color; it rejects traditional concepts of beauty. It was
Braque who observed that the purpose of science is to reassure us (by
extending our grasp of the physical world), while that of art is to dis-
turb us (probing the hidden recesses of our consciousness).
Given the intangibilities and abstractions of science; given the imper-
sonal values represented in cliches, slogans, and stereotypes (cliches,
slogans, and stereotypes that, I might add, have extended into the art
world itself), there is danger that the artist's protest will destroy his own
art. Ironically, the artist can be trapped by his own myth-the fact that
he courts differences rather than similarities; mystery rather than the
known. The balance may well become one in which ambiguity will be-
come the stereotype; protest, the slogan; distortion and confusion, the
cliche. In such a state, where the nonconformist is conforming, it is con-
ceivable that we could destroy art. Herein rests the problem created by
the pressures of mass media and culture; of business and financial success.
"Caught up in the artificial forces of big business, the artist is having a
hard time being his own man. He is under pressure from the public, the
dealer, the collector, and the critic. He must create under false, but ac-
cepted, notions that confuse originality with innovation. He is expected to
conform to ideas of individuality that are not his own. From all this has
come what might be called 'the corruption of individuality'-giving the
illusion of being different while being very much the same."9 Thus, it be-
comes the responsibility of the perceptive and informed teacher to dis-
tinguish between the "real" and the "gimmick;" the "genuine" and the
"cliche." Teachers of art, at whatever level they are engaged, need to
foster insights into the demanding and difficult disciplines involved as one
seeks to give form to ideas and feelings. To be sure, our world of in-
determinate values has cast grave doubts about right-wrong, good-bad
judgments made regarding something as complex as a work of art-but
there is still the responsibility for making judgments.
90'Doherty, Brian. "The Corruption of Individuality." New York Times, June 30, 1963.
STUDIES IN ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
91
I have indicated that teachers of art need to be aware of what
artists are doing, just as teachers of science need to be aware of the
activities of today's scientists. Unlike the sciences, where the pattern of
advancing knowledge ("progress") is related to chronology, the arts pre-
sent no such pattern. The 1963 models of science can be said to be better
than those produced in 1936 (they're more efficient, better designed, etc.);
both can be said to be "better" than those produced in 1836, if, indeed,
the objects were conceived by human minds. In art, however, we've little
confidence that the paintings, sculpture, poetry, music, etc., are in any
way "advanced" over those forms produced in 1836, or 1736, or 1636, or
100 B.C. Works of art "exist in the present." Their meaning and signifi-
cance is the resultant of our capacities to deal with them here and now.
As such, art teachers have the broad area of artistic accomplishment as
their resource; as part of the frame of reference for helping students to
think and feel in aesthetic terms.
It is here that I would place greater emphasis upon the traditions of
art, rather than what is happening in New York or Paris, as a basis for
judgment. I would give balanced emphasis to the craft of art, rather than
sole emphasis upon the expressionistic and spontaneous tendencies now in
vogue. Students, at whatever level they are working, should gain some
sense for the great tradition of man's carving and incising in stone; his
chasing, hammering, and engraving in metal; his drawing and painting
on rocks, parchment, paper, and canvas-in short, man's profound rela-
tionship between idea, feelings, and the forms he creates. Given this sense,
I would have confidence in the judgments our students make. As to
whether or not everyone is capable of making art, I can only respond that
all men of normal capacities are able to confront and/or create expres-
sive and aesthetic forms. Obviously, most men cannot be professional poets,
mathematicians, or physicists. I am, frankly, tired of the question: "is it
great?"; rather, the concern that motivates me is one of seeking greater
development of those qualities that enable greater aesthetic insight and
experience for all people.
Thus, the answers to my questions seem clear: "How should the art
teacher react to the many art forms he encounters?" He should seek to
engage himself in the spirit, vitality, and integrity of artists at work.
"Should he be all-accepting?" Of course not! Each teacher, having con-
fronted works of art from an informed and sympathetic point of view, is
called upon to make his own aesthetic judgment. It should be clear, how-
ever, that in art criticism, as in most other things, the quality of the judg-
ment is fundamentally related to the quality of the judge and his criteria
for judgment. Given the teacher whose sensitivity and insight draws him
to the dynamics and traditions of art, I would have greater confidence that
these qualities would be prime factors in fostering imaginative and in-
ventive activity on the part of all people.
CONTEMPORARY ART AND ART EDUCATION
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:26:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
