National Art Education Association

Art Education: We Are Not AmusedAuthor(s): E. Louis LankfordSource: Art Education, Vol. 34, No. 6 (Nov., 1981), pp. 40-41Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192509 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 13:19

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 support@jstor.org.

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:19:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Art Education: We Are Not Amuse

"Only through careful analysis may an individual distinguish an ordinary from a truly sublime pile of dirt."

E. Louis Lankford

W hen it comes to their profession, art educators are generally seri-

ous. Very serious. And well they should be, for it has been their lot over the years to plead, justify, exon- erate, and otherwise defend their existence and effectiveness in public education. Their professional jour- nals reflect the thoughtful, sincere attitude of individuals eager to exchange ideas and opinions intended to better the lot of the field. With but a few exceptions, these authors have approached their task in all earnest- ness. Their articles are very serious. Librarians seldom shush the guffaws of art educators pouring over the lit- erature.

Such serious intent lends an air of dignity, discipline, and professional- ism to art education, and this is admir- able. This can also be tiresome. Most people like a good laugh now and then, and art educators are no excep- tion. Art educators, while often dull, are seldom humorless; anyone who has ever attended an NAEA conven- tion can attest to that. So why shouldn't these courageous scholars, who have proved their mettle time and time again on the field of aca- demic honor, allow themselves the luxury of an occasional bit of frivol-

ity? Can a case be made for levity within the framework of a serious professional field? Perhaps the best way to answer this latter question would be to determine if, in fact, there is anything funny about art edu- cation and its various enterprises in the first place. Let's take a look at some basic elements of the field:

Art fundamentals. Art educators spend a great deal of time tutoring students on the greater and lesser rules of the elements and principles of design, so that in later life each student may rise above such things by breaking all the rules and thereby achieve the stature of great artist. The underlying assumption here is that the more knowledgeable an artist is when it comes to rules of design, the better equipped he or she is to totally disregard them and go on to

better things, such as dumping a pile of dirt on a gallery floor. It is the art educator's task, then, to make sure students learn what they should for- get.

Art criticism. This increasingly popu- lar area of art education encourages students to discover within works of art the elements and principles of design that have been daringly ignored in order to create monuments of artistic genius. Only through care- ful analysis may an individual distin- guish an ordinary from a truly sub- lime pile of dirt.

Aesthetics. Besides being one of the most difficult words in the English language to pronounce, aesthetics as an area of inquiry must address such conundrums as, "If this is supposed to be art, why does it look like a pile

0

67 0

/ /

ART EDUCATORS CASUALLY PERUSE THE LITERATURE.

Art Education November 1981

-- l

40

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:19:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of dirt to me?" Anyone who has tried to answer a question like that in a classroom situation knows that aes- thetics is supremely unfunny.

Art appreciation. Frequently using art fundamentals, aesthetics, and art crit- icism in their programs, art educators concerned with art appreciation attempt to wean individuals from the rank and file of modern philistine society into the echelon of connois- seurship. Students are generally less than eager to forsake the comfortable yet mundane world of the fruit-bowl still life for the more meaningful and deeply satisfying experience afforded

by a pile of dirt on the floor.

The point of all this is that there is really no reason why a little more fun can't work its way into the main- stream of art education. Anyone who might see such a trend as threatening to the integrity of the profession underestimates the ability of people to learn and laugh at the same time. After all, art educators must be in it for the fun; they couldn't be in it for the money.

E. Louis Lankford is assistant profes- sor of art education at Alabama A & M University at Normal.

I

Creativity comes

to

... with new ideas from Nasco's FREE Arts & Crafts '81 Catalog. Contains thousands of teaching aids to help add variety, interest, and learning fun to all your art classes. Includes supplies for painting, sculpture, lapidary, leather craft, metal enameling, jewelry making, ceramics, weaving and much more.

For your free catalog, write Dept. EE-8111.

Free Phone Order Service 1-800-558-9595 In Wisconsin 1-800-242-9587

Fort Atkinson, Wl 53538 Modesto, CA 95352

L A

Art Education November 1981

l C )

ART EDUCATOR SHOWS STUDENTS HOW

TO APPRECIATE ARTISTIC GENIUS.

I

I

I

41

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:19:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions