Why We Make Art

And Why it is Taught

Richard Hickman

• Publisher: Intellect Books
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9781841503783
• eBook ISBN: 9781841504407
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Art General
• Index: Social Sciences

Does art have any use or real purpose in today's society? Why do governments around the world spend millions on art education? Rejecting the vogue for social and cultural accounts of the nature of art-making, this book is largely psychological in its approach to discussing art-making and its place in education.

The 'we' in the title is intentionally polemical, with the author claiming a universal, i.e. pan-cultural basis for 'art'-making activities - or rather activities which can be described as 'creating aesthetic significance'. Developmental issues in art education are examined, together with the nature of learning in art, with reference to concept acquisition.

Section two of the four sections which comprise the book, focuses upon some 'mini case-studies', detailing conversations with people talking about their art-making, together with some autobiographical reflections. Section three then considers the issues in art and learning which can be gleaned from various respondents' accounts of their making activities; these include the nature of the artistic personality and the role of art in self-identity and self-esteem. Other topics touched upon include imagination, expression and creativity. The concluding section examines the notion of creating aesthetic significance as a fundamental human urge, drawing upon work done in evolutionary psychology.

Whilst questioning whether schools as they are currently conceived are the best places for teaching and learning anything, an art curriculum based upon the acquisition of 'threshold skills', such as drawing, together with a gradual introduction to the appreciation of visual form is advocated. Declaring that schools of the early twenty-first century will soon be seen as as dated as the Victorian workhouse, the successful art room, with a learner-centred rather than discipline-centred philosophy is put forward as a model for schools and schooling.

SECTION ONE:
ART AND ART EDUCATION

Art

The ‘art’ in the title of this book refers to a multifaceted, complex and contested phenomenon. Most people have at least a tacit understanding about the nature of art—that it is in some way concerned with making. Further discussion on this particular subject could run to many chapters and, while not wanting to re-invent the wheel, I feel that it is necessary to define our terms, although one might think that enough has already been written about art and that further debate is superfluous. However, the very nature of art as a dynamic and fluid phenomenon, means that previous debate often needs to be re-visited.

It was not until the late eighteenth century that the distinction between artisan and artist became more general; the terms share the same root—the Latin artis or artem which refer to skill. Dictionaries give at least fourteen different senses of the word ‘art’ as it relates to skill; only one of these is in the sense of what is often referred to as ‘Fine Art’. The general association of art with creativity and the imagination in many societies did not become prevalent until the late nineteenth century. I would say that in industrialised societies a commonly accepted notion of what art is includes the concepts of not just skill, but also expression and organisation, in addition to creativity and imagination. The distinction between ‘art’ and ‘design’ and that between ‘art’ and ‘craft’ is relatively recent, and is generally regarded by many commentators as a Western phenomenon. However, there are certain distinctions which can be made, and some authorities have felt it necessary to distinguish between art and craft, drawing attention to what are sometimes considered to be basic characteristics of craft which are absent in art [1]. Firstly, crafts involve the idea of an end product, such as a basket or pot, which has some utility; secondly, there is a distinction which exists between the planning and the execution of a craft; thirdly, every craft requires a particular material which is transformed into an end product and which thereby defines the particular craft.

These three distinctions between art and craft might apply also to art and design, if ‘design’ were to be substituted for ‘craft’; the distinction being more a matter of emphasis and degree, rather than of kind. Many artists plan their work and then execute it in a particular medium. Moreover, the notion of utility need not be confined to physical phenomena. Any distinctions which may be made between art and design would be similar to those proposed for art and craft, and again, those distinctions would be simply differences of emphasis. For example, one might view art and design as part of a continuum which has expressive/philosophical qualities at one end and technological/utilitarian qualities at the other; in this sense, art and design are indivisible, although some do not share that view. Misha Black, for example, writing in 1973 on design education in Britain, asserted that the view that ‘art and design are indivisible’ is a misconception, stating:

At their extremities of maximum achievement art and design are different activities sharing only creativity and some techniques in common. Art I believe to be expressive of the human condition; it provides clues to what cannot be explained in rational terms [...] Design is a problem solving activity concerned with invention and with formal relationships, with the elegant solutions to problems which are at least partially definable in terms of day-to-day practicability. [2]

I prefer the view of the concepts of art and design as being at either end of a ‘philosophical/technological continuum’, that is, the differences in epistemological terms are in degree rather than in kind. Practicability appears to be an essential aspect of design, while being an unnecessary and occasionally undesirable aspect of art. It could of course be argued that art which is expressive of the human condition is an essentially ‘practical’ phenomenon in that it serves to give meaning to life.

In art education, the term ‘art’ is often used to cover ‘craft’ and ‘design’, this extended use of the term is usually made explicit, as in the UK government’s Art in the National Curriculum (England) which declared that ‘art’ should be interpreted to mean ‘art, craft and design’ throughout the document [3]. This declaration does not appear in a later edition published in 2000, which includes the word ‘design’ in the title, although there is a note to say that ‘art and design includes craft’; the latest manifestation simply uses the terms ‘art and design’ or ‘art, craft and design’ throughout [4]. ‘Art & Design’ has come to be the term favoured by examination boards and award giving bodies in the UK and so it would seem that the concept of ‘art & design’ (if not the label itself) although complex and wide-ranging, is the most frequently encountered concept which refers to the kinds of activities which normally occur in school. The polarised view of ‘art’ and ‘design’, exemplified by Misha Black (quoted above) underlines the often uneasy relationship between different approaches to art in education. This is eased to some extent by the term ‘design & technology’; a designation which can be said to give a clearer focus to the concept of design as a utilitarian and problem-solving enterprise [5].

It can be seen then that there may be some degree of overlap between the concept of art and the concept of design. The main area of difference seems to lie in the extent to which the notion of producing something to fit a particular requirement is considered important. There is clearly a lot of scope for confusion, as the terms ‘art’ and ‘design’ are both used in a number of ways. In the case of art, we also have the distinction between using the term ‘art’ in its classificatory or categorical sense—as a means of categorising or classifying it from other things—and using the word ‘art’ in its evaluative sense, that is, giving value to something as in ‘a work of art’.

What is commonly known in industrialised societies as ‘art’ has undergone many changes. The concept of art does not reside in art objects, but in the minds of people; the content of those minds has changed radically to accommodate new concepts and make novel connections. It is perhaps odd that what is popularly referred to as ‘modern art’ is often work from the early part of the last century. ‘Modernism’ is a preferable term and paradoxically, many people appear to be more aware of this term as a result of the coming of age of ‘post-modernism’. Some years ago, I observed a group of post-graduate trainee art teachers in a gallery training session, run by the education officer. They were divided into two groups of about ten; one group was asked to discuss and identify concepts associated with modernism, while the other group focused upon post-modernism. To my surprise, the group discussing modernism had some difficulty with coming up with ideas related to the term, while the other group quickly produced a list of words which they felt were associated with post-modernism. These were plurality, eclecticism, irony and humour: a group of words as good as any perhaps to describe the loosely knit body of ideas which make up post-modernist thought. I have since asked similar groups and individuals about their understanding of modernism and post-modernism and have received similar responses, with post-modernism being more widely understood.

Post-modernism is derived in part from the writings of twentieth century philosophy (especially French philosophy), in particular those influenced by Marxist theory [6]. It has generated a whole new range of issues; these include the notion that art is a redundant concept, and that it is inextricably bound up with hierarchies, elites and repression. In particular, many artists working within the post-modernist framework, consciously seek to challenge and subvert many of the presuppositions which have been made about the nature of art over the past two centuries. These presuppositions include the notions that an art object is made by one person, usually a white male; that it is of value as a commodity, and that the viewer needs to be educated and informed (usually by a critic) in order to appreciate it fully. Further to this, if the art-work is deemed to be of value (by critics acting on behalf of the art establishment), then it should be in an appropriate setting, i.e. an art gallery or museum, where it will be seen by suitably educated and respectful people for years to come. As a reaction to these notions therefore, we have instances of art-works which are made by groups of people, rather than individuals; by minority groups and by women who celebrate their status through their art-work; art-works which are not meant to last, created from non-traditional materials (or no material at all), displayed in non-reverential places, and which are conceived as being of no value.

It is of course ironic that the work of artists, who are already valued by the art establishment as ‘important figures’, choose to attempt to subvert the commodification of art by sending their work as a fax, by making multiple copies or by making it out of ephemeral material. The irony, in true post-modernist fashion, is compounded when such work is itself considered to be of value as a commodity, representing ‘cutting edge’ contemporary art. The real irony however is that much of what passes for contemporary art is even more inaccessible than the modernist art is supplants. More than ever, contemporary art is in need of interpretation by critics, before many people can begin to appreciate it, by which time potential viewers will have lost interest or will have deemed that such art is only to be viewed by a privileged elite.

Art remains a contested concept, all the more so when we examine the shaky foundations upon which it is built. Some might say that ‘art’ is such a fuzzy concept, fraught with contradiction and ambiguity, that we need to sub-divide what currently comes under its umbrella into several different concepts, or that art itself is but one aspect of a broader concept of visual culture. Of central significance is the need for those concerned with inducting young people into a greater understanding of their world to examine carefully their own presuppositions about visual form and its relation to that world.

Art in education

In the UK, provision for the training of specialist art teachers has gradually been eroded in recent years, particularly for the primary phase of compulsory education. There has also been a cut-back in allocated time to allow for more emphasis on so called ‘core’ subjects. Such developments have fuelled the fears of art advocates and have contributed further to a kind of siege mentality, where art rooms are isolated behind barricades to fend off further incursions by the barbarians. Overall however, art has rarely been more secure in terms of its (currently) assured place in the curriculum, at least in the UK, with large numbers of young people continuing to take public examinations in the subject [7].

In English primary schools the subject has nevertheless been under threat, largely as a result of a misguided drive to get ‘back to basics’, as if art itself was not a basic and fundamental part of education and culture. At the time of writing, there are signs that learning strategies which in many places supplanted creative activity with rote learning are being phased out, with a welcome return to a more enlightened approach to the curriculum. However, the fact remains that specialist teachers of art in English secondary schools and elsewhere are in short supply, due principally to the closure of specialist courses for pre-service training. Roy Prentice, in a report commissioned by the then Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) noted that from September 2002, due to government directives, ‘students will have reduced opportunities to develop their subject knowledge in art and design’ [8].

At post-16 level, the outlook appears relatively buoyant, with large numbers continuing to pursue the subject beyond the years of compulsory schooling, but the relationship between what is taught in schools and practice in Higher Education remains, for the most part, tenuous. There is little conceptual overlap—some would say a huge chasm—between school art and the kind of art which occurs in art colleges. But this is to be expected; a similar kind of gulf would exist between the school and university versions of most subjects, and probably more so between classroom practice and professional practice. Some would say that this is not only to be expected but also desirable—asserting that, for example, conceptual art is to school art what quantum physics is to school science. My contention here is straightforward—that in order to understand art concepts at an advanced level, it is necessary to have an understanding of the building blocks for those concepts; partly in support of this contention, I discuss the role of developmental psychology later in this section.

There are those who advocate a real connection between art e...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Tables and Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Preface to second edition
• Foreword
• Section One: Art and Art Education
• Section Two: Conversations and reflections – some ‘mini case-studies’
• Section Three: Issues in art and learning
• Section Four: Concluding chapter
• References
• Appendix I: Coding system for determining levels of understanding in art
• Appendix II: General Educational Aims and the Role of Art in Education
• Appendix III: Barrett’s ‘worthwhile outcomes...’
• Appendix IV: Prompt Questions
• Appendix V: Questionnaire on aims for art & design in education
• Subject Index and Name Index