A Philosophical Frame of Reference for the Art Educator Turned Environmental Design Educator

National Art Education Association

A Philosophical Frame of Reference for the Art Educator Turned Environmental DesignEducatorAuthor(s): Anne TaylorSource: Art Education, Vol. 31, No. 5 (Sep., 1978), pp. 9-10+12-13Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192277 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 15:00

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 91.229.229.210 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:00:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192277?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Philosophi Fra

Referer

Educe Turr

Environmer Des

Educe Ani

Afterta team teaching a seminar in art education this which addressed itself to 1 sophical and psychological reference in art and educati discovered that it is very diffi fine art in 1978. And, if it is ( define art, it is certainly an E monumental task to define < tion. So why are we art educ fighting for a place in the curriculum, and what really i fighting for in such docu Coming to Our Senses (1977 and Aesthetics: An Agenda f ture (1977)? What do we re by art education, or aesthet tion, or, of late, built envirc environmental design educa these all art education? WhE latter two fit into the former tV do they share? Can environn sign education be included art education, or are those o ested in this field creating a of concentration within and/( art education?

If we are creating a new ar centration within or without

A philosophic base are we making some assumptions about the conceptions of reality, the nature of knowledge, and the application of each to survival in

^^Jl what remains of the 20th century and the next hundred years of the 21 st cen-

,nn ~ tury? While searching for answers to

these questions in the art education ^O^ fseminar last semester, I was also

searching with graduate architectural students in the school of architecture,

n7c) e the answers to similar questions. Since their medium for self expression f{Y> is the built environment, and in this

r case the learning environment, we were exploring the philosophical and psychological foundations of educa-

tneI I tion, and the developmental needs of children as determinants for designing better educational settings. What I discovered in my new affiliation with

+*tor the School of Architecture was:

1. There is an appalling lackof aesthetics in architectural educa-

ecdi tion (It seems to have become a dirty word, probably because of

dtal its linkage to an elitist concept). 2. My students and I, after examin-

*^^^ "ing idealism, neo-thomism, ,I jg n ttirealism, experimentalism, exis-

tentialism, and reconstruc- =It r tionism, felt that Western

philosophies have been in- adequate as frames of references for what we are trying to do in

ne Taylor environmental design education.

doctoral At least man's interpretation of dctoar them has virtually eliminated rev- past year,

the philo- erence for or sensitivity to his re- frams of lationship to the environment. frames of

on, I have 3. The study of man or person envi- cuIlttode- ronment relations seems to be difficult to grounded mostly in realism and :ven more the study of the order in the uni- art educa- verse of which harmony and bal- -ators still ors still ance are a part. American s it we are In America, which for the most part ments as is based on Western philosophy and ) andArts pragmatism, we have allowed our- or the Fu- selves to push against nature, swallow ally mean up resources, grab land, sweep across :ic educa- the country exploiting Native Ameri- )nment or can people with our so-called rights of ltion? Are eminent domain, own humans as 3re do the slaves, build ugly cities, and commit wo? What other environmental crimes without nental de- regard for long term consequences of as part of short term actions. This idea is related f us inter- to consumerism and to our way of new area life which has given those persons r without who accumulate goods a high status

in society. One might depict this view ea of con- of environmental boundary pushing in , on what the following way.

One Way Philosophy -Humans pushing

from the outside

THE ENVIRONENT

THE ENVIRONMENT

In this view, humans work against the environment, pushing against it and making it bend to their will. The danger here is that there is a lack of awareness of and knowledge about the effects of short term actions on long term consequences.

In this view humans are at the center of their world, yet realize the boundary of the environment in reciprocating harmony. In this model humans must realize their limits. Sensitivity to the boundaries or limits of the environment sets up a feedback mechanism for modifying one's behavior if the environment responds negatively and causes an imbalance. This imbalance could be both physical or psychological.

In a way, the elitist and hence idealist group of artists have perpe- trated a philosophic view compatible with a similiar Western philosophy which has given artists egocentric license to express themselves in imagery without regard for social consequences. The teaching of art con- tinues, even today, especially at the higher education level, in formalist

9



fashion looking at the art of the past, emulating the great ideas of the past with a desperate attempt to formulate an art for today by the use of upstag- ing and outrageous gimmickry. Even Christo, in his attempts atart, engineer- ing, and "eminent-fencing to the sea" could care less that what showed up most on the cover of Art in America was not his fence, but the ruts and de- secration of the land by hoards of helping technicians who irreverently marched across the hills and dales of farms to erect this "work of art."

Art may be temporarily dead. Art education may be dead, too. Or

is it in a state of metamorphosis? In my opinion, art education needs redefini- tion. Yes, it is self expression, image making, direct encounter, and per- formance. It is also the development of critical-aesthetic judgmental abilities in people about art. It is sensorial. It draws upon the cognitive, but uses imagery as the vehicle of expression. Art and art education explore the self. The inside in each of us comes out for all to view. This is good. Our contribu- tion to an overly cognitive approach to education is unique. But what is the role of the arts in human life and cul- ture? What responsibility does the artist have to others other than himself? Should s/he be concerned only with doing "his or her own thing," seeking buyers to consume his or her work in another form of materialistic accumu- lation? I think not. This is an an- tiquated view of self seeking behavior, a view which is no longer viable in a country whose cities and schools are dying, whose population is suffering from an over abundance of destructive as opposed to creative energy, and where somehow, freedom has gotten mixed up with license. The tenants of true democracy seem to be fading toward a preference for a police state because, like children, we can't seem to "help ourselves."

It is useless from my point of view to teach aesthetics in the schools whose environments are sensorially sterile and unappealing. It is useless to look exclusively at paintings and sculpture while all around us the environment, which should be another form of art, deteriorates. The ineffectiveness of present social and physical school environments is reflected not only by the boredom and apathy of students, but their increased violence toward school buildings. The incidence of school vandalism has become a major national problem and represents a signif- icant drain on educational resources. Too often the architectural response to the increasing hostility toward

schools has been to design them more and more like prison structures with chain link fences, heavy doors, and windowless classrooms. These accoutrements have little to do with creative learning, nor do they act as a support system for learning. Sensory deprivation exists. Visual perception and aesthetic judgmental decisions are impossible. The social environment of the school does not provide release for the child's frustration and negative attitude, for if the child selects this channel, he is dismissed from the system. Therefore, s/he di- rects this aggression towards the physical environment in which s/he spends a major portion of his or her adult life.

Added to this concern for learning environments is the concern for the present state of the ecological and physical environment and the deterio- ration of natural and man-made resources such as air, water, land, and the spaces in urban areas. Recent interest in these topics has pointed up the lack of sensitivity people have to their surroundings. Exploration of environmental systems which support these kinds of learning have been examined by such people as Harold Cohen (1969) whose work in design and the behavioral sciences has been labeled educational ecology. In the context of this paper, it could be educational aesthetics. New models of teaching in education such as simula- tion models would conceive of the pupil and the teaching environment as a single system. Such a system demands total participation by the student through as many channels of communication as possible (Burn- ham, 1969). The student, whose psyche is being programmed for tempo, information, and relevance by his electronic environment, is still being processed in classrooms of another day (McLuhan, 1969). Though McLuhan said this in 1969, it is still a relevant comment in 1978.

If one sees humans as part of a total system and as part of the order in the universe, then there must be a reciprocal transaction between the person and the environment of which s/he is a part. We can no longer ignore the quality of the environment of which we are a part. We are very deeply affected by it. It could well be, then, that the artist of the future, or even the art teacher of the future, could be an architect who can use by himself or with students, color, line, form, space and texture and move these elements in different configurations as art forms into the everyday life of everyday people. In this way art is not separate from, but an integral part of one's life.

One can be just as expressive with lumber, paint, and nails, maybe even grass seed, dirt, and trees as one can be with canvas and paint. The effect on the ambience of a room may be similar to that when several paintings are hung, especially since modern art has become highly abstract and dec- orative.

Several art education colleagues may not accept environmental design or architecture as art. However, one's definition of art is dependent also on a philosophic point of view. My definition sees art as a way of life and holistic in scope.

Art objects in a school might include forks, knives, spoons, and furniture made by art or woodworking classes. The landscape design of ten acres of surrounding playground might well be park-like and include sculpture gardens, shrubbed mazes, personal space, flower gardens, or a greenhouse. The systems of a finely tuned and engineered solar greenhouse can be a useful work of art as well as a functional learning space where children can discover the order in the universe or the beauty of natural systems. These are aesthetic systems for learning-well conceptualized using interdisciplinary design determinants and a holistic approach to using them for learning.

For the past eight years this researcher has been studying the effects of aesthetically well-designed environments on the behavior and learning of children. Initial work was created to measure the effects of environment on art productive and ap- preciative behaviors (Taylor, 1971). Subsequent work has led to measur- ing overall aesthetic quality of creative work of children, oral language development of bilingual children, concept formation, visual perception, the basic skill areas, and the ability to make critical aesthetic judgments. Descriptive data collected have shown that well provisioned learning environment has a marked effect on teachers (Taylor, 1972). Participatory design techniques utilizing teacher input increased teacher awareness of excellence in design and how an environment with built-in-tasks could be used as a learning tool (Taylor, 1975). In 1978 a first grade classroom was gutted and re- constructed by architect students whose knowledge of designing for children was greatly expanded. Data are still being assembled as to its effect on the occupants.

Teaching methodology in this kind of learning environment will necessi- tate an opportunistic approach to using the new type of environment. The teacher becomes an environmental manager. A pattern of teaching which includes questioning strategies has been developed by this researcher to help the teacher through in-context

10 Art Education, September 1978



communicative experiences (as opposed to terminal tests) in assessing the child's expressive (as opposed to receptive) development. This system offers a form of teacher diagnostic procedures and techniques to serve as an alternative to formal standardized testing. These techniques involve di- vergent and convergent teaching strategies, intensive communicative experiences which act as reciprocating in-context feedback and assessment procedures. This article supports a new philosophic frame of reference for new kinds of personnel in the school. What is needed perhaps even as much as art teachers, are environmental designers to help teachers, administrators, and parents aesthetically retrofit the schools in America.

OBJECTIVES FOR STUDENTS 1. Intellectual 2. Affective 3. Psycho-motor (Interdisciplinary learning)

Teams of artists, sculptors, landscape architects trained to work with children and staff to totally immerse school populations in environmental aesthetics could be formed. From what we know about environmental psychology, this kind of change in the schools could result in attitude changes not only about the micro- environment, but teach large key con- cepts and principles about the macro-environment as well.

Post occupancy evaluation of exper- imental environments has shown that the program for design can provide better evaluation because the objectives for children and students can be translated into hardware. Then the effects of such hardware can be meas- ured. The following model shows how

MACRO-ENVIRONMENT AESTHETIC SYSTEMS DESIGN WHICH WILL FACILITATE EACH OBJECTIVE 1. floors 2. ceiling 3. walls 4. solar systems 5. landscape design 6. wind generators 7. paintings, graphics

developmental needs of children are incorporated into the design process and then ultimately evaluated. The crucial interpreter of the environment is the architect-designer and the teacher. The design of the environment and the methodology used to interpret it are based on a very different philosophic and psychological base than traditional classrooms. Teaching is done by concept. Design is executed by concept. Learning is interdisciplinary and holistic. Com- partmentalized teaching by subject matter discipline does not work in this kind of situation.

The following model depicts a design and evaluation model for learning environments based on developmental needs of children.

MICRO-ENVIRONMENT

THE THINGS WHICH HELP TO TEACH OBJECTIVES 1. furnishings 2. manipulatives 3. machines 4. artifacts 5. children's lit-

erature

RECIPROCAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCES WHICH HAPPEN IN THE LEARNING ENVIRON- MENT AND HELP STUDENT ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES

HARDWARE SOLUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNER- ARCHITECT AS TEACHER AND TEACHER TRAINER FOR AESTHETIC SYSTEMS LEARNING

EVALUATION PROCESS

A feedback model used in the design and evaluation of learning environments based on the developmental needs of children.

This feedback model has as its objective the assessment of the learning environment solely in terms of what the environment does to directly contribute to the learning objectives for the student. It is assumed that no object should be part of a learning environment if it does not contribute directly to learning. Every object, color, texture, spatial configuration, place- ment of objects has educational sig- nificance. The designer of such spaces must therefore ask him or her- self: "What educational implication does this or that design decision have for the occupant?" In order to do that, the designer must work closely with the educator to articulate what those goals for children are. And the educator must articulate more than square footage as the conceptual base for education.

Environmental Modification and Self Determination

The recent infusion of the discipline of architecture and the Architects-in- the-Schools program by the National Endowment for the Arts, demonstrates an increasing interest in the study of and better utilization of learning spaces by students. This applied learning approach has been successfully used at the Albuquerque Indian School, where, because of a new public law 93-638, the all-Indian Pueblo Council assumed the responsibility for a Bureau of Indian Affairs school. The buildings in which secondary Indian students lived, worked, played, and ate, resembled an outmoded mental institution. In keeping with their goals of self determination, it was decided to use an environmental modification project as a "hands on" applied learn-

ing experience for students to improve the aesthetic quality of their learning and living environment. An Indian woman architect-in-residence was hired to assist all departments to or- chestrate interdisciplinary projects to accomplish program goals. Students are participating in the renovation and landscaping of the campus which has the short term effect of immediate aesthetic improvement and long term goal of preparing students to partici- pate in developing plans for a new all Indian Pueblo school of the future. This modification project is tied to math, science, home economics, art, ethnobotany, social development, guidance, and counselling. Student organization of projects, execution of murals and graphics, aesthetic judgmental making, and project evaluation of the effects of environ-

12 Art Education, September 1978

Ap- -%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

J



mental improvement on behavior have increased, changing passive lethargy to active student participatory behavior. Vandalism has decreased 100%. Runaways are non-existent, as they were not in the past. Student attitude toward school has changed, and academic achievement has markedly increased for 75% of the students. In this case the aesthetic environmental modification of a school is highly compatible with:

1. Present Indian philosophy of self determination

2. Aesthetic cultural value systems 3. An applied learning approach to

experience centered education 4. The decision making processes,

aims, and goals of American and Indian tribal democracy.

If one were to visit the Indian school campus today, the visitor would be impressed with the freedom, lack of chain link fences, absence of police and narcotic agents, which we find in the public schools everywhere, and the open campus policy. Could it be that the "first Americans" have a better chance at changing their educational system than the American public school system? Could it be that a "systems aesthetic" approach to learning, compatible with the Indian reverence for the delicate balance between man and nature and the impor- tance they place on mutualistic and reciprocating ways of interacting with the environment can be used as an emerging philosophical base for American education, including art education?

Since traditional art education is temporarily (or maybe even perma- nently out of business), it is crucial that we begin to rethink the definition and function of art and art education in the schools k- post-secondary, including teacher training, graduate study, and research. Once rethought, vitalized, extended perhaps into other disciplines which facilitate its ends, then a philosophic framework can be pieced together which begins to make sense for an extended definition of art education.

Plato gave us the world of the mind, but man has used his mind without sensitivity to the long term consequences of imbalance. Aristotle touched on universals and knowing the universals through perception. Art educators, of course, have been concerned with increasing perception in people, but the question is, perception about what? Dewey gave us the world of experimentation and pragmatism. Both Dewey and Piaget have shown us that learning is best done by doing, by interacting and building knowledge within the context of applied learning. Existentialism has made us self seeking, selfish, and unconcerned with responsibility for groups. What is needed now is a philosophy of inter-

dependence among men and women, between persons and their environment, both natural and built. There is. need for mutualistic interchange and exchange of energy for goals of survival. We need a consciousness and heightened awareness of transactions inherent in the universe (from realism). What environmental design educators need is to define the reality of survival in the 21st century, the ways of knowing those survival techniques, what the learner should learn from and about aesthetics of the environment, including perhaps the aesthetics of self. In Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, basic health and safety are at the low end of basic considerations for living. Psychological health and safety include the ambience of the environment which also includes aesthetics. How a curriculum can impart this needs to be examined. Teaching methods may have to change in dras- tic fashion. What objectives we have for our children may also have to be re-examined, for what they know or don't know will affect society for years to come.

The environmental design educator's place in the schools is essential to change as we describe it. S/he must be futuristic and flexible. Most of all s/he must not work in a vacuum of new curriculum imposed on the old. A revolutionary way of looking at the world, art, and art education may be at hand. It may well be that art education and art may become a way of life cen- tral to all activity in educational settings. That necessitates a new definition for art and art education. And a new definition demands a new philosophy from which to operate. Are we ready?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arts and Aesthetics: An Agenda for the Future, St. Louis, CEMREL, 1977

J. Burnham, "Modern Art As A Teaching Machine?," Art Education, 22:27-28, November, 1969.

Gary Coates, ed, Alternative Learn- ing Environments, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1975.

Clare Cooper, and Robin Moore, "Children and Their Environments, A Review of the Research, and a Discus- sion of Why the Findings have Largely Been Ignored," Journal of Architec- tural Education, Volume XXIX, Number 4, Washington, 1976.

Coming to Our Senses: The Signifi- cance of the Arts for American Educa- tion, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.

C. Deutsch, "Effects of Environmen- tal Deprivation on Basic Psychological Processes," Art Education, 22, 1:16- 18, January, 1968.

Clifford Drew, "Research on the Psychological-Behavioral Effects of the Physical Environment," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 41, No. 5, 1971.

Arthur Efland, "Relating the Arts to Education: The History of an Idea," Studies in Art Education, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1978.

Jean Piaget, and Inhelder Barbel, The Psychology of the Child, Basic Books, 1970.

Anne Taylor, "The Effects of Selected Stimuli on the Art Products, Concept Formation and Aesthetic Judgmental Decisions of Four, Five and Six YearOld Children,' continuing research since 1971. Tempe, Arizona 1971. Albuquerque, New Mexico, Monte Vista School 1974. Albuquer- que, New Mexico, The Ranchos Proj- ect 1978.

School Zone: Learning Environ- ments for Children, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975.

Graphics for Learning, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, to be released 1979.

$4y k .; ^ '-^

The most complete line of pottery and metal enameling supplies and equipment available anywhere. Write for free catalog and the name and address of the AMACO stocking distributor nearest you.

The FIRST name in ceramics.

AMERICAN ART CLAY CO., INC. 4717 W. 16th ST.

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46222

13

J101-

=00

I

,} , "I-

lr' :~Z'_i .-:

I



Documents

A Philosophical Frame of Reference for the Art Educator Turned Environmental Design Educator