Fine art education supposes a central concept: "art". It makes this school subject differ from subjects similar mathematics, history, mother tongue and all other subjects that are taught at school. Every bit with all schoolhouse subjects, the content of art education is not immanent. It is subject to changes in educational policy, to developments in the related professional person area, and to shifts in didactic approaches. The field is likewise also broad and too complex to arrive at one common curriculum that is fit for all countries and for all times. Simply although the contents might change, what about the cardinal concept: "fine art"?
In (visual) art education we are facing a strange miracle. The concept of "fine art" has get and so diffuse, that teachers are condign uncertain most what to teach.
Showtime of all, the key focus of fine art education on what artists are doing, is questioned. The discipline is broadening its field to all forms of visual communication and civilization, generating a new subject: "visual civilization". Also the fine art world itself is stretching its definitions of art and of what artists are supposed to exercise. But when at that place is no fine art object at all, like in conceptual art, what and then is left of "fine art"? When traditional artistic skills and rules of the game are changed to such an extent that even a urinal or an unmade bed tin become a most relevant art work, what then should art educators learn their students to make? Finally, we see movements in education and in educational policy to replace art instruction by "arts educational activity", "interdisciplinary arts instruction", or "cultural educational activity", in which all arts are combined into i school discipline, or even extended with cultural heritage and media instruction.
So when we replace the proper name of the subject by "visual civilisation", what then is the role of "art" within that domain, except from existence a special case? Special to what? When anything artists exercise tin can be called "art", what makes information technology special compared to all other man-fabricated objects? And, finally, when visual fine art education is becoming part of a larger domain in education, what then is the specific contribution of the visual fine art(s) to the bigger picture of "the arts", "media" or "culture"?
As there is so little fourth dimension for art education in school, choices must be made. Similar in mathematics, ane has to decide to limit the field of learning in the art field of study to those aspects that are considered relevant for the student. In the history of fine art pedagogy we can see shifts in importance given to different areas or roles of art. In the nineteenth century, in the outset art educational activity curricula, students had to learn to describe or make objects -according to prescribed designs, in social club to make them good workmen or housewives who were able to produce practical objects with an added artful value. In the early twentieth century fine art pedagogy shifted towards the development of the individual mind and fantasy of children, introducing a psychological approach to the role of fine art in education, and to the importance of play in child development. Information technology generated the practice of "expression", and art equally a special way of learning. The psychological shift besides brought forrard an interest in research on how visual images work on the perceptual system, equally exemplified in the tradition of the Bauhaus, which development also entered art education. At a more general level, the relevance or creative evolution for a total-fledged -cognitive development was acknowledged as a leading principle. Information technology introduced the cognitive approach to fine art -educational activity: making art as a unique style of thinking. As presented by field of study-based art teaching, in art four different "disciplines" of thinking could be distinguished: fine art making, art critics, art history and philosophy of art. Currently, the almost advocated interests of art in education are its role in developing "creativity", to serve economic innovation and international competition, and in using the subject to strengthen (inter)cultural agreement and (national) citizenship.
The fluidity in goals and contents of "art education" as a school subject seem to make it almost impossible, if not elusive, to ascertain what is cardinal in this school subject. But if so, what then makes this subject differ from mathematics, history, mother tongue, economics, physics or philosophy? And what makes the visual skills that are addressed in this subject differ from the skills that students learn in the other traditional art subjects of music, dance or theatre?
I think we have to exist honest with ourselves and accept that at that place are man-made visual objects that are particularly relevant for exposure to a larger public. These objects have sure concrete qualities that are perceived through our visual perceptual system, sometimes supported by other senses, like impact and proprioception. Like in music, thanks to their physical qualities some visual objects tin can generate emotions and reactions in the observer that accost feelings and understandings that are rewarding in themselves. Inevitably these processes are influenced past and related to the social and cultural context of the person observing. But the social and cultural contexts are not enough to explicate how nosotros perceive. We as well need to accept our biological and psychological make-upward into account. Actually, civilisation is irrelevant when non observed past or expressed through living human beings. When nosotros wait at the history of "art", and the role given to art in contemporary societies, nosotros must acknowledge, that those special objects we call "art objects" are important to united states of america. They are relevant because of their beauty, their social use, their psychological value or their power to transmit ideas, experiences and emotions. Although works of art interpret reality, the estimation is not the main purpose to appreciate art objects. Many interpretations shown in art are traditional (like in religious art), socially irrelevant (a mural) or referring to issues that take been worded much better by writers or philosophers. What makes fine art actually interesting is the ability of the visual epitome itself, not the content to which information technology refers.
What does this mean for fine art education?
When nosotros take "art" seriously, and acknowledge that some objects are "special", we should put the processes that generate this "specialness" central in schoolhouse. We also know that to make objects like this practical preparation is needed. As in music or in dance, information technology is an illusion that we can brand interesting objects when we have not developed the practical skills to limited forms, ideas, experiences and feelings through the media and tools nosotros use. The fact that a urinal or an unmade bed is presented as art in a museum, does not mean this type of objects should be the indicate of reference for fine art education in school, whatsoever more as John Cage'southward composition 4'33" should play the same office in music education. Besides, many artists still make art that is visually highly intriguing and skilled from an artistic point of view.
The skills needed to make highly-seasoned visual objects should be the starting bespeak in art education and in that location is nix incorrect with this. When we actually want to support our students in developing skills that chronicle to any art class, nosotros should not exist agape to train those skills. As at that place are far too many materials and techniques to exist learned, information technology is more effective to concentrate on a few, like in music, where we do not expect children to learn to play equally many instruments every bit possible. In visual art we could limit ourselves to drawing, painting and modelling, to make certain that students can be proud to have learned something helpful. In order to become creative ane first must have a firm basis in a discipline, for 1 can only exist artistic within a discipline. We should also non be afraid to train students in these skills at moments when they are most prepared and about eager to learn. It is a waste matter of precious educational time when we do not make better utilise of those moments. And information technology would be highly preferable when nosotros could requite all our students in compulsory education a chance to develop basic artistic skills in other media as well, like music, trip the light fantastic, language, or theatre. Hopefully students will thus notice their favourite discipline and exist given the opportunity to accept an art every bit a subject in higher secondary education.
We should also be less directive in the problems students accost in their work. The importance given by teachers to specific problems of content in art pedagogy, – beingness these social, political, cultural or psychological in character, – is limiting the time of students to follow their own interests. Students have enough fantasies, experiences, ideas and emotions. What a student wishes to -visualize is a more than effective point of departure for learning. It will increment their involvement and make the issue how to arrive at successful visual result more relevant: "Is what I have fabricated really expressing what I had in mind?" The all-time thing a teacher can do in the classroom when supporting students in their search for meaning, is to forbid students from drowning in the complexity to visualize their ideas.
Concentrating "art education" on the procedure of giving form to meaning inside visual media, does not mean other issues that are currently addressed in the art subjects, should not play a role in instruction, on the contrary. Order has many good reasons to learn students to develop critical skills towards the (ab)use of media, to foster respect for cultural heritage and to learn them how to enjoy concerts, museums and theatre they commonly would not encounter. Only these are other skills and areas of learning that should not exist learned to the detriment of what makes art special: learning to requite form to meaning through objects and processes that are visually effective in communicating significant and that are rewarding in themselves. And permit us exit "Art" to Artists.

[Dieser Text findet sich im Reader Nr. 2 auf S. 304.]

[Es sind keine weiteren Materialien zu diesem Beitrag hinterlegt.]

Diederik Schönau

(*1950) studied fine art history and psychology. In 1970 he came across the work of Herbert Read, and since he developed a special interest in the office of fine art in education. Later finishing his studies he specialized with Rudolf Arnheim in the psychology of art. In 1991 he joined Cito, the Dutch institute for educational measurement in Arnhem, the Netherlands, where he became involved in art education in general and in assessment in art instruction in particular. From 1999 till 2002 he was President of the International Society for Education through Fine art (InSEA). From 2007 till 2010 he was professor in arts education at ArtEZ Institute for the arts, in Zwolle. He is currently senior consultant at Cito International. He has a special interest in the potential of developmental self-assessment in visual fine art didactics and has published and presented extensively on bug in art education.

Ausdruck, Bauhaus, Bildung, Interdisziplinarität, Interkulturalität, Kanon, Konzeptkunst, Kreativität, Kultur, Kunst, Kunstgeschichte, Kunstkritik, künstlerische Praxis, Kunstpädagogik, Kunstunterricht, Lehrer, Medien, Schule, Visual Studies

Cage, John  ·  Schönau, Diederik

qrcode