Developing Aesthetic Literacy through Contested Concepts

National Art Education Association

Developing Aesthetic Literacy through Contested ConceptsAuthor(s): Karen HamblenSource: Art Education, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Sep., 1985), pp. 19-24Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192855 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 10:49

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 185.44.79.40 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:49:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192855?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Karen Hamblen

lthough aesthetic literacy is often cited as a goal of art instruction, relatively little has been done in developing

aesthetic literacy curriculum content (Clark & Zimmerman, 1978; Lanier, 1983). For several years, this author has given an assignment to entry-level art education majors that has revealed a possible approach to the teaching of aesthetic literacy. Students are asked to bring in two objects for discussion. One is to be an art object, the other a nonart object. In small groups of four to six students, they discuss their responses to the objects, why objects were designated as art or nonart, and

criteria used in making their designations. Later, each group shares and de- fends its conclusions with the rest of the class. This usually precipitates further discussion and provides new in- sights.

This assignment, which can be used at essentially any grade level, forces students to examine their preferences, develop skills in defending their choices, share ideas, and, often, develop a tolerance for other aesthetic taste preferences. While this assignment is valuable in its own right, observations of art-nonart object discussions have also suggested to this author that this approach could actually serve as the framework for a curriculum model.

Although the students observed have had essentially no background in philosophy or formal aesthetics, aesthetic

In this article . . Hamblen describes a

simple teaching activity and its far-

reaching implications for teaching art. "This assignment, which can be used at essentially any grade level, forces students to examine

their preferences, develop skills in defending their

choices, share ideas, and, often, develop a tolerance for other

aesthetic taste preferences."

Art Education September 1985 19



.? ";' ''' I!..;.??? r: ?Ijl*? ? .?)?.?1-,

r' ?.`' My,cr;yy )?l?.??:ilr;:f(::? (5,i ?? lir '.?i,'? .'I,?\? i; t I? ai.?:rp. ?I?r'l?I :t ,.?. IC:PC 1.?"Y,rCL'v? '4?LIx*?I

I r??.? ?((?i??;f eFLktilSI( 1 ?. ..,?.= ,, 'r?rr-?s??,-? N ?1- '9? irL ...

i.'v?l.('.r 3'i?::1'.? ?? u ?Ilr ??? Ir: I r p... I R??r..??? :?. :1: L ?1), ,: :? ':' .?.5'"W -?I C '' I

.?1,??, : ?. r :e ???.;????? .? ' ;? ;?u: ;:: I::??;..;?: ii-I r? iic . 3:?' ? ' ?I ?In? "?' r..* ?-? C.? . r"-

r,? fl?:I` ? ? r -:1 ??n(.I:?3:. u?

^'' f ? " ?:?:.:?n .:Ci.?,;;?)l.':;i'?i .2;? t.., ? ;

??.: ?.? .t i: i ?;? L.' I ?. ?I I ;c: '? ?r ?..r t,, ?t_? : ". :II '-?''

?..T?rr,l.,?;?'.r :?? i! j ' ?)S?1: '' ?; .; ? .? ?L? ?CI??,. ?1'?. I,'. ;::??I?'?' r u Il

?y:?.'? ?,.': ?? :?, l(f ?"C ,??: ''

D? ;=? ??'.?? .Y? ?:? ? ?? ?? r,

??rj??.,, ?; r ??r.!?? ????: ?: r.s, r., i"'?'

:i 'r~4Y89P"CrY BWF"? ,i: i:SijZii:al r 1. II .?I

c r :JIIYXi\

: ii: ii I ?\I I i

issues are readily discussed, albeit without appropriate labels or even an awareness that highly sophisticated aesthetic concerns are being examined. Even if students rely on a textbook example for art objects selected, they must examine their aesthetic assump- tions and definitional criteria when se- lecting nonart objects. This assignment, or others in which art is dealt with problematically, can serve as a catalyst, forcing students to probe the nature of art, attitudes toward art, and reasons for aesthetic responses. Aes- thetic literacy concerns itself with questions of "What is art, and how and why do we respond as we do" (Lanier, 1983, p. 36)?

Any examination of visual objects wherein students are asked to formu- late their own hypotheses and definitional criteria will generate a certain

amount of controversy. Students might be asked to discuss the artistic status of forgeries, art reproductions, ugly art, accidental art, the art of dictators, and so on. In essence, the teacher needs to act as a devil's advocate by presenting problems that generate many possible contested solutions. The art-nonart assignment elicits an examination of aesthetic issues from the very nature of the initial questions asked.

Just as observations of the art- nonart assignment revealed that controversy serves to generate aesthetic issues, the manner in which students deal with this assignment has also revealed the general structure of the model presented in this paper (See Fig- ure 1.). It has been noticed that aesthetic issues discussed can be subsumed within seven general thematic categories: (1) type, (2) media and tech-

nology, (3) audience, (4) context, (5) time-space, (6) artisan, and (7) function. The fact that these categories emerged from students' ongoing discussions as well as the fact that these categories easily overlap suggest some sense of coverage, if not validation. For example, a framed painting hung in a museum acquires aesthetic significance from its environmental context and its creator's intent. The same painting used in a magazine advertise- ment communicates commercial meanings that are dependent on context, function, and intent.

Within each of the categories, there is a sequence of six levels of experience. In his observations of children's discussions of art, Ecker (1973) noted that "talk of children may diverge so widely that aesthetically irrelevant ideas, asso- ciations, and conclusions may result

.A

,c,Y -Q

? .P* ~YZ

N4 1'

~' `3

Level I l)cscription

Level II Discussion

Level III Criteria

Level IV Theory

Level V Meta-Theory

Level VI Multi-disciplinary

/ /

F locus Questions, Level II:

a. In reference to its . . . (type), what influences it being or not being an art object?

b. In reference to its . . . (type), what are the meanings and attitudes toward this object?

c. In reference to its . . . (type), what influences do those attitudes and meanings have on this object's art or nonart status?

K d. In reference to its ... (type), why is or is

J not this an art object?

l Levels IV, V, and VI, OPTIONAL

A CONTESTED CONCEPTS MODEL FOR AESTHETIC LITERACY

Art Education September 1985

I

20



from inquiry that is undisciplined." (p. 71). Although an open, free- wheeling discussion may reveal many aesthetic issues, the levels of experience provide a framework and focus that al- lows for a systematic examination of already present, taken-for-granted as- sumptions.

In Level 1, Description, students are to describe an object in relationship to a particular thematic category. For example, media and technology descriptions entail describing an object's materials and mode of production. Level II, Discussion, consists of an examination of an object in relationship to its artistic status and the responses it elicits. Within the thematic category of artisan, questions might be raised as to how the value of an object changes when it is found that it was made by a machine, an untrained layperson, a craftsperson, or a socially recognized artist. The goals of aesthetic literacy, as written in question form in Figure 1 for Level II should form the nucleus of discussions for each of the seven thematic categories.

Level III, Criteria, consists of establishing relevant criteria for artistic designations and evaluations. If possible, some sort of consensus is formed, such as that an object's meaning and evaluation is dependent on its current context. Conversely, a consensus might be arrived at that aesthetic value transcends time and space.

In Level IV, Theory, the criteria established in Level III are either seen as being compatible with an existing theory or a new theory is constructed. In Level V, Meta-Theory, the merits of the theory established in Level IV are examined for application beyond the specifics of the particular object being examined. In the final level, Level

VI, Multi-Disciplinary, issues discussed in previous levels are related to theories and research findings in other fields. For example, if within the Type Thematic Category unity and balance are deemed to comprise the essence of aesthetic quality, a formalist aesthetic theory might be proposed that is, in turn, related to some of the findings in experi- mental aesthetics and to the philosophical tenets of the Bauhaus.

The core of this model consists of Levels I, II, and III inasmuch as these levels can be adjusted to the interests and abilities of any age or readiness level. It is significant that these first three levels have also been observed as naturally occurring when artistic choices and responses are examined. As in- dicated in Figure 1, Levels IV, V, and VI are optional.

Although the levels of experience are hierarchical and it is important that students proceed accordingly, the thematic categories are not sequential. Moreover, it is neither necessary nor feasible for an object to be examined within each themaic category. In the following section of this paper, each of the description and discussion levels of the seven thematic categories are re- viewed briefly to indicate some of the aesthetic issues that often arise.

Thematic Categories for the Generation of Aesthetic

Concepts 1. TYPE Level I: Description The description level asks students to provide a linguistic object designation, such as a chair, a painting, a vase, etc.. Second, an overall description focuses on the object's definitional status, whether it is commercial, popular,

folk, craft or fine art, or whether it is a functional object, a natural object, and so on. Specific types within these designations may refer, for example, to a fine art object such as a sculpture relief resulting from the subtractive method. Style may also be specified. Level II: Discussion In the twentieth century, one-of-a-kind objects that display the imprint of human creation have been contrasted with the uniform appearance of mass- produced goods that result from specific, set procedures of manufacture. Types of objects and types of art have been contrasted to each other and eval- uated in terms of uniqueness, the inten- tions and knowlege of the artist or pro- ducer, how the object is used, and the sophistication of the appreciating audience. These considerations have played a role in regard to commercial and popular arts being compared un- favorably to the fine arts.

Natural objects and phenomena may provide aesthetic (intrinsically valuable) experiences but not be classified as art until they are changed in some way or labelled as being art through some type of human intervention. Dewey (1934), for example, differen- tiated between the aesthetic which provides noninstrumental experiences and the artistic which is specifically created to provide aesthetic experiences. Though according to Osborne (1970) art objects provide an intensity of experience not evident in natural objects or nonart, Peckham (1967) suggests that there may be no essential distin- guishing differences between art and nonart (Hamblen, 1984).

To label an object as being art has often been a designation of praise rather than merely a definitional category that delimits art from other types




/ > t 4) (

/:

of objects. It then follows that the criteria for one's praise becomes the criteria for defining art. If an art object is praised for its uniqueness, uniqueness becomes a criteria for differen- tiating art from nonart. Conversely, the art designation may be used merely to describe a certain group of objects among which there may be good art as well as bad art (Weitz, 1962).

2. MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY Level I: Description The object is described in terms of the materials of which it is made and the techniques used for its creation. Major texts in art education often delineate the characteristics and physical nature of art in terms of medium, subject mat- ter, visual structure, style, etc. (Chap- man, 1978). Developing an art vocabu- lary and establishing a factual knowledge base are some of the purposes of the description level. Level II: Discussion Issues of craftsmanship as they relate to artistic evaluations can be traced as far back as the ancient Greeks (Os- borne, 1970). Cultures in which there are no specific semantic differentia- tions between art and nonart often evaluate objects on fitness of medium and technical execution. Intricate de- signs, precious materials, and rarity of form may contribute toward an object being designated as art. For an art object, an ordinary material may be used in a new and sensitive manner. An unexpected use of a medium may height- en responses, such as has been the case with Oldenberg's soft sculptures. Some objects have been made quickly and with relative ease, some are mass- produced, and still others require years of training. The ability to render a

representational image has been greatly

valued in Western culture. As a most troublesome and disturbing example, sometimes it is stated that since Pi- casso's early drawings indicate that he really knew how to draw realistically, this validates his later, abstract work.

Material and technical innovations, such as in plastics, holograms, and computer graphics, have resulted in new art forms. Happenings, kinetic sculptures, conceptual art, and so on have reshaped twentieth century artistic boundaries. This thematic category probes attitudes toward accept- able media and technology.

3. AUDIENCE Level I: Description The audience or users of an object may be a culture (past or present), a sub- culture, an ethnic group, a neighbor- hood, a family, or an individual - or all of these. The audience may be those who go to a specific museum, who buy the object, or the loosely associated population that sees the object, such as the people who drive past a freeway mural or billboard. The audience description focuses on the people for whom an object was originally made and on those who use and value it. Level II: Discussion Over time and space, an object's users as well as meanings and evaluations will change. Gans (1974) has described various types of aesthetic taste pre- ference within cultures based on the objects and events that these sub- cultures understand and value. These preferences can be correlated with socioeconomic and educational back- grounds. In the eighteenth century, Kant (1952) proposed that all people "ought to" recognize artistic excel- lence, but realized that not all will do so. In contrast to Gans, Kant implied

that there are universal, objective standards.

The meaning and value of an object may be assumed to reside within the qualities of that object (universalism), within the user's idiosyncratic interpretations (subjectivism), or within meanings negotiated between object and user (transactionalism). Within the last perspective, users of art are considered co-creators of the object inasmuch as they complete its meaning and supply interpretations beyond what is literally present (Hamblen, 1984; Ingarden, 1972; Nadaner, 1984).

Artistic evaluations by particular groups, such as art critics and histor- ians, may influence responses of other groups. Conversely, if an object is available to and appreciated by large numbers of people, as is the case with some mass-produced goods, this may adversely influence responses and evaluations if one is concerned with issues of exclusivity and complexity of meaning. For example, Sontag (1966) fault- ed Op Art for being too easily under- stood and appreciated and too readily adapted to commercial and mass audience uses.

4. CONTEXT Level I: Description There are four general descriptive con- texts for an object. First, an object has a socio-historical locale of origin and use. Second, an object has an environmental context, such as a museum, home, shopping center, garbage can, hope chest, and so on. Third, an object may have a communications environment, such as a photograph in a particular type of magazine, a painting in a museum, or a commercial on tele- vision. Finally, an object has a social context in terms of social interactions




that accompany its use, such as a wed- ding, a shopping expedition, a tea cere- mony, a visit to a museum, and so on. Level II: Discussion The context of an object can determine its use and how it is valued. A Tiffany lamp that becomes a museum item changes in meaning; likewise, a repro- duction of Mona Lisa on a t-shirt re- quires a redefinition of value (Hobbs, 1984). Highly aware of contextual definitions, Dadaists changed mundane items into art by placing them in the museum setting. Artistic environmental signifiers such as processionals, pic- ture frames, pedestals, unexpected si- zes, etc., indicate the power of artistic framing activities and structures (Ham- blen, 1984). According to Dickie's (1971) Institutional Theory of Art, art is simply what a given culture desig- nates as being art. In other words, an object's art status is contextually dependent.

Redfield (1971) distinguishes between an object's perceptually available meanings and its iconographic meanings that are dependent on culture-specific knowledge. Barrett (in press) further differentiates among an object's internal context which consists of its integral characteristics, the exter- nal context which consists of its sur- roundings, and the original context which consists of its creator's intentional meanings and uses.

5. TIME-SPACE Level I: Description The time-space description places the object within its place of origin and subsequent uses, such as when it was made, where, for whom, why, its value then and now, etc. Such descriptions are applicable to historical as well as contemporary objects. Level II: Discussion Numerous objects from different time frames and cultural perspectives have been relabeled as art. Likewise, his- torians' and critics' assessments of artists have changed, and single works of art have received variable reviews over time and space. The storage areas of museums are stacked with works that in previous ages received the highest plaudits. Conversely, everyday objects, from Greek amphora to World War II propaganda posters, have been redefined as objects to be valued, pre- served, and viewed in museum settings. Age and rarity often confer value and

monetary worth. Arguments abound on both sides as

to whether interpretation is tied to the indigenous use of an object or whether meaning transcends time and space (Redfield, 1971). A ritual object may become an art object with knowledge of its original meaning no longer available. Advocates of the Autonomy of Interpretation Theory suggest that meaning is and should be variable, with each generation and culture able to appreciate an object within their own perspective. In contrast, Savile (1982) believes that canonical interpretations are established at an object's genesis and should hold throughout time and space.

The dimensions of time and place have a personal as well as a cultural im- pact on how an object is defined. An object may be personally significant because it was made by a family mem- ber, it was received as a gift for a spe- cial occasion, it has been passed on from generation to generation, and so on. Changes in personal biographies may result in aesthetic preferences highly different from the aesthetic choices of one's family and former social affiliations. The extent to which an object's personal significance trans- lates to aesthetic values is ultimately related to the issue of whether art needs to be socially validated by an art ex- pert.

6. ARTISAN Level I: Description In this category, the creators of objects may be identified by name and described as to whether they are folk artists, designers, sculptors, etc. A brief biography may provide relevant information, although for historic or exotic art, little or nothing may be known of the artisan. For manufactured items, the effort has probably been collaborative. Natural objects are the result of the laws and forces of nature, or their creation may be ultimately attributed to the design of a higher order. Level II: Discussion Artistic intent has been a focal issue in determining the nature of art and responses to it. Some aestheticians have held that the success of a work is dependent on the completeness of the original, internalized intent (Croce, 1958). Others attribute success to the

degree artistic intent is realized in the created form and the extent to which the viewer can understand that intent. Contagion Theory proponents presuppose that the artist is communicating emotional content to the viewer through the medium of the object (Tolstoy, 1960).

Again, as with the cultural-temporal dimension, questions arise as to whether it is necessary to know the original intent and, in this case, whether intent necessarily coincides with results, much less with the viewer's interpretation. In discussing the Intentional Fallacy, Wimsatt and Beardsley (1962) suggest that neither artistic success nor meaning are dependent on artistic intent. The artist's biographic data may be an aid toward understanding, but the object's context and viewer's circumstances determine meaning. Worth (1978) believes that knowledge of the artist as intending to communicate, rather than intending to communicate specific content, is necessary to activate aesthetic expectations. Accordingly, aesthetic intention differentiates art from nonart in that the later is made without intent of aesthetic outcomes.

Knowledge of who made an object may set up expectations that the object is art and has value. Conversely, if certain categories of artisans are considered untrained or that they create objects of lesser value, negative expectations will be activated. As Hobbs (1984) has noted, highly valued works have quickly lost their aesthetic and monetary value and their art status when it has been found that they were forgeries.

7. FIJNCTION Level I: Description Objects have personal and social function that may be practical and de- corative in nature. Objects may also function in terms of their own exis- tence, such as in the case of art created for art's sake. Anthropological studies indicate the broad number of functions art and nonart objects may have (Chal- mers, 1971). Level II: Discussion Within the tenets of Use Theory, the meaning and significance of an object is equated with its functions (Alston, 1972?. Various homilies have developed from this belief, such as "form follows function" and "use determines




meaning." Historically, the completeness of form and the successful reali- zation of function have often been equated with beauty and the aesthetic (Osborne, 1970). Gowans (1971) cites four functions of art (beautification, substitute imagery, persuasion, and il- lustration) and considers these functions as descriptive of today's popular and commercial arts rather than the fine arts, which, he proposes, have abro- gated the true functions of art. In contrast, modern aesthetic theorists pro- pose that the instrumental uses of art distract from its intrinsic and ultimate value. Accordingly, art is defined as that which affords noninstrumental experiences.

Over time and space, objects have been redefined as to their function and, hence, art status. Ancient utensils, clothing, coins, and forms of memora- bilia, when divorced from their functional context, change in meaning and value. Within this paper's contested concepts curriculum model, the stu- dent continually considers issues raised in terms of the nature of art and of responses to art. If an art object originally functioned as a useful object, is knowledge of that use necessary to as- sess the nature of art - why, why not? How does that knowledge or lack of it influence responses and attitudes?

Summary As concepts surface, the teacher needs

to be sensitive and alert to their pos- sibilities, capitalizing on them to pro- mote an examination of values and pre- conceptions. Far from the usual notion of aesthetics as a narrow and ascetic pursuit, aesthetics consists of a complex of contested concepts and issues that intrigue and beguile as they resist easy resolution. As Smith (1984) notes, "If it were to be tried, it would be dis- covered that. . . [aesthetic] teaching involves more than can possibly be ac- complished" (p. 147). U

Karen Hamblen is an Associate Profes- sor of art education at California State University in Long Beach, California.

References Alton, W.P. (1972). Meaning. The encyclo-

pedia of philosophy. Vols. 5 & 6. New York: MacMillan.

Barrett, T. (in press). Photographs and con- texts. Journal of Aesthetic Education.

Chalmers, F.G. (1971). Towards a theory of art and culture as a foundation for art education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 3000A.

Chapman, L.H. (1978). Approaches to art in education. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovano- vich.

Clark, G.A., & Zimmerman, E. (1978). A walk in the right direction: A model for visual arts education. Studies in Art Education, 19 (2), 34-39.

Croce, B. (1958). [Aesthetic], D. Ainslie, Trans. New York: Noonday Press.

Dickie, G. (1971). Aesthetics: An introduction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York:

G.P. Putnam's Sons. Ecker, D. (1973). Analyzing children's talk

about art. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7(1), 58-73.

Gans, H.J. (1974). Popular culture and high culture: An analysis and evaluation of taste. New York: Basic Books.

Gowans, A. (1971). The unchanging arts: New forms for the traditional functions of art in society. New York: J.B. Lippincott.

Hamblen, K. (1984). Artistic perception as a function of learned expectations. Art Education, 37(3), 20-25.

Hobbs, J.A. (1984). Popular art versus fine art. Art Education, 37(3), 11-14.

Ingarden R. (1972). Artistic and aesthetic values. In H. Osborne (Ed.) Aesthetics. London: Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1952). [Critique of judgment], J.C. Meredith, Trans. Oxford: Clarendon. Lanier, V. (1983). Beyond aesthetic education. Art Education, 36 (6), 31-37.

Nadaner, D. (1984). Film and cognition: A critical review of current theories. Studies in Art Education, 25 (2), 121-129.

Osborne, H. (1970). Aesthetics and art theory: An historical introduction. New York: E.P. Dut- ton.

Peckham, M (1967). Man's rage for chaos: Biology, behavior and the arts, New York: Schrocken Books.

Redfield, R. (1971). Art and icon. In C.M. Otten (Ed.), Anthropology and art: Read- ings in cross-cultural aesthetics. Garden City, NY: The Natural History Press.

Savile, A. (1982). The test of time: An essay in philosophical aesthetics. Oxford: Clarendon.

Smith, R. (1984). The aesthetics of Monroe C. Beardsley: Recent work. Studies in Art Edu- cation, 25 (3), 141-150.

Sontag, S. (1966). Non-writing and the art scene. In G. Battcock, (Ed.), The new art: A critical anthology. New York: E.P. Dutton.

Tolstoy, L.N. (1960). [What is art?] A. Maude, Trans. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

Weitz, M. (1962). The role of theory in aesthetics. In J. Margolis, (Ed.), Philosophy looks at the arts: Contemporary readings in aesthetics, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Wimsatt, W.K., Jr., & Beards!ey, M.C. (1962). The intentional fallacy. In J. Margolis, (Ed.), Philosophy looks at the arts: Contemporary readings in aesthetics. New York: Charles Scrib- ner's Sons.

Worth, S. (1978). Man is not a bird. Semio- tica, 23 (1/2), 5-28.




Documents

Developing Aesthetic Literacy through Contested Concepts