Visual Literacy: Implications For Cultural Understanding through Art Education

Visual Literacy: Implications For Cultural Understanding through Art Education D 0 U G B 0 U G H T 0 N Ausrralia

Visual literacy is an expression that has appeared with increasing frequency in art education literature and curriculum materials in recent years. I will argue in this paper that: 1 As a justification for art teaching the notion of visual literacy contains the potential significantly to alter the content and methods of art education. 2 There is, as yet, no single clear meaning of visual literacy. Instead three loosely connected but characteristically different conceptions of it have become apparent in the literature. 3 Curriculum developers, teachers, and teacher educators have important decisions to make regarding their choice of orientation and programme content, if the visual literacy argument is to have any validity for art education. In the field of education, one presumes that curriculum devel-

opers, administrators, and teachers employ rationales to support their proposals for content, and methods of teaching, that are carefully considered and defensible, and that there is, in fact, a connection between reason and action. This has not always been the case in the past. During this century art educators have used various rationales to support the inclusion of art in school curri- cula. Some that are well documented in the literature are these:

Art improves hand and eye co-ordination. Art develops good taste. Art study promotes moral understanding. Art improves society. Art develops understanding of the cultural heritage. Art develops creativity and promotes general intellectual

growth. Art sharpens perceptual skills. Art develops the visual aesthetic response. One of the inescapable truths in all facets of education is the

disjunction between research and practice. Beliefs about the benefits to the child that art education can provide have more to do with political expedience and fashion than with the outcomes of research. Students of the history of art education are quick to point out the relationship between rationales and prevailing social circumstances at any given point in time. It is not surprising for example to discover that the teaching of art (or drawing) was supported in the late 1800s by a rationale that claimed art developed hand and eye co-ordination and design skills to satisfy the tremendous demand from industry for skilled designers and craftspeople.

Journal of Art & Design Education Vol 5, Nos 1 & 2, 1986

125

D O U G B O U G H T O N Visual Literacy

It is equally easy to understand the ready acceptance of the creativity rationale in a post-sputnik western world desperate for creative individuals capable of injecting fresh input into the space race. The assumption that creativity was a generalisable trait that, once developed through art experience, would lead to growth in the child’s overall intellectual abilities provided the basis for most art teaching in western countries in the ’forties and ’fifties. Lowenfeld’s view that art promoted social, emotional, creative and intellectual growth coupled with the prevailing ‘personal development’ social attitudes of the ‘me-generation’ ’sixties propelled the creativity movement as far as the early ’seventies in many western countries.

It seemed unimportant that research findings did not subse- quently support the notion that creativity could be significantly altered in individuals (Alexander 1981), or indeed that it was possible for art education to improve general intelligence (Eisner 1962). Nor did it seem to matter that creativity, as a term, had been adapted for use in so many contexts that its usefulness as a construct for curriculum development had been lost. By the late ’sixties there was no demonstrable connection between the claim that art study improved general creativity and results observable in classrooms. The persistence of the argument for creativity has, in my view, done significant damage to the status of art education in schools.

The significance of visual literacy Today creativity is not widely held as the most significant reason for teaching art in schools. Changing social conditions have caused art educators to reassess their values and to proceed from the basis of different arguments to seek funding and support for the subject in the curriculum. This reassessment is only one part of a total review of educational priorities that has taken place over the last ten years in response to the increasing cultural diversity of school populations, economic constraint and high unemployment. At present ‘developing the child’s creative potential through art’ is, politically, a far less potent argument than ‘increasing the child’s awareness of the cultural values and visual heritage of the multi- various groups of people that comprise our social fabric’.

A more overt response to the current ‘back to the basics’ movement is the Visual Literacy argument. In some interpreta- tions of the concept this rationale embraces the ‘cultural understanding’ argument above. In an educational/political context that clearly values a return to the basics it makes excellent sense, from an art advocacy perspective, to develop the claim that visual education is, in fact, a basic. It does not take a great leap of logic to argue that, like verbal language, visual forms are also coded in a kind of syntax roughly equivalent to the verbal, and that visual language is as important to the child as verbal language.

The logic which supports the notion of visual literacy is persuasive. The key elements of it are:

126

Our culture is increasingly represented and perceived in visual terms. The ratio of printed words to printed images is declining.

Particular visual configurations can be created by humans to convey meaning to others.

Visual language is different from verbal language. Images humans encounter in their visual world can be ‘read’. Visual communication relies upon an innate grammar of images

that is learnable. Technology and the mass media have had enormous impact

upon today’s child. No provision has been made to educate vision in order that the

messages embedded in visual cultural forms can be critically ‘read’. Failure to do this has rendered graduates from our school system powerless to understand the persuasive devices, or ‘rhetoric’ employed in visual communication (Feldman 1976).

Technology has made possible widespread use of image making machinery that can provide motivational benefits in school programmes (Hutton 1977).

Such machinery can also provide a high degree of success in image making which in turn provides significant psychological benefits (Hutton 1977).

At face value the notion of visual literacy appears to be both simple and easily understood, providing it with the potential to become the new catch-phrase of art education. Indeed, any review of recent art education literature would seem to indicate that the idea is working its way into the rhetoric of writers in the field, and is also beginning to appear in curriculum documentation. Edmund Feldman (1 982) in his background discussion of the N A E A Art in the Mainstream statement used the concept of visual literacy as a rationale when he said (p. 4):

The citizenry at large is concerned about work and workmanship. It is concerned about the so called ‘basics’, which usually means literacy (I think visual literacy is as basic as you can get); and it is vely worried about the apparent breakdown in our social fabric.

Feldman’s reference clearly implied that visual literacy can be achieved through art education and will offer a significant contri- bution to the basic education of the child. These comments were made while he was president of the NAEA and were intended to provide background to the official N A E A position. He went on further to say (p. 5):

Art is a language of visual images that everyone must learn to read. In art classes we make visual images and we study visual images. Increasingly these images affect our needs, our daily behaviour, our hopes, our opinions and our ultimate ideals. This is why the individual who cannot understand or read images is incompletely educated. Complete literacy includes the ability to understand, respond to and talk about visual images.


127


The meaning of visual literacy What then does visual literacy really mean for the art educator? It is only in the last fifteen years that the expression has been commonly used. The notion that art is a visual language has, of course, been around much longer. From my reading of the literature, and observation of practice, it appears to me that three conceptions of visual literacy have evolved since the early ‘seventies. Each of these conceptions to some extent is entangled with the others, but each is different from the others in one or more characteristic ways. These conceptions I have called Visual Liter- acy (Communication), Visual (Aesthetic) Literacy, and Visual (Artistic) Literacy (Boughton 1983). None of these conceptions is as yet developed to the point that clear guidance is provided for the practitioner. However, each set of ideas is sufficiently provocative to raise some critical questions for anyone involved in art curriculum development.

T A B L E 1. Summary: visual literacy (communication).

Aims

Assumptions

Skill in communication of information and ideas. Ability to use image making technology. Visual and verbal languages are ‘parallel’. Complexity of visual images can be reduced to enable unambiguous communication All human made visual signs other than written

Industrial and advertising graphics Graphic signs and symbols Charts and figures Maps Plans Blueprints Scientific illustrations (botanical and

anatomical drawings) Conceptual models Computer graphics Typography Body language (gesture, mime, dance) T V and film images Cartoons Fine Arts Applied Arts

Extensive use of new technology, cameras, video and T V systems. Semantics; Linguistics; Philosophy; Psychology; Perception (Psychology and Physiology of); Industrial, Vocational and Graphic Arts; Psycholinguistics; Art; Screen Education; Computer Graphics.

Subject- matter language. Includes:

Methodology

Parent and cognate disciplines

Visual Literacy (communication): see Table 1 This Visual Literacy Movement has its origins, not as one would expect within the ranks of art education, but strangely enough, in

128

Educational Technology. John Debes is most frequently credited with coining the term which came into focus at the first Annual National Conference on Visual Literacy held in Rochester, New York, in March 1969. Debes’ (1969) explanation of his understanding of the construct at that conference, however, was most unclear (p. 25):

I think of visual literacy as a great amoeba-like entity with pseudopods labelled with the names of sources such as semantics, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, the industrial, vocational and graphic arts, psycholinguistics, art and screen education. All of these fields have contributed to our ideas about visual literacy.

Debes and his colleague Roger Fransecky through their various joint and independent publications became the chief advocates of the visual literacy movement. The central concern of these au- thors, and their followers, was to promote improved skills in communication of information, ideas and emotions through the use of technical equipment. Fransecky (1972) put it this way (p. 1):

Very broadly, visual education is concerned with communication, and more specifically about using the tools of visual technology to extend total linguistic and communicative facility.

The view demonstrated by these writers is that visual literacy is a kind of generalisable attribute that can be acquired in part from study in all subject areas, and is made possible through use of image making machinery such as cameras (still and movie), and vidCo systems.

A double theme runs through most of their writing. The first contains a set of implications for teacher education that would enable all teachers to improve their communicative ability by adding visual understanding to their verbal literacy skills. The second (and this one has the most significant implications for art educators) is that visual literacy should be overtly taught in schools, if not through study of a subject called Visual Literacy, then possibly as an integral part of the study of all school subjects. Politically this is a dangerous challenge to art education since art is the traditional vehicle for visual education in the school curriculum.

David Sless (1977) is one advocate of the visual literacy movement who has demanded a breakage of the traditional links between art and visual education. He claimed that no special provision to educate vision has been made in school programmes, and that art, which is the traditional locus of visual learning, has failed to educate vision. Further, he suggests that art does not even provide an understanding of contemporary art for school students. His reasons for suggesting visual education as an alternative to art education illustrate some of the fundamental characteristics of the Visual Literacy (Communication) orientation.


129

DOUG B O U G H T O N Visual Literacy

These are: 1 that art is only one area that uses visual thinking; 2 that misconceptions about art learning have been applied to visual education; 3 that aesthetics should only be a secondary consideration for visual education; 4 that the pre-industrial techniques of visual communication are now obsolete. Although I am sure many art teachers may wish to take issue with Sless regarding his claims about art teaching, I believe his challenge is provocative and worthy of serious consideration.

Some important assumptions underpin the communication orientation. They are:

That visual and verbal language parallel each other in all important ways. The belief is that both visual and verbal language involve deep thought processes which precede speech and writing, and these are called deep structures (Fransecky and Debes, 1972, P. 8).

That the expressed forms of deep structures may be spoken, written or expressed visually. Visual language may be spoken as body language, or the deliberate arrangement of objects to convey meaning. The written form of visual language is recorded on image carriers such as paper, film and videotape (Fransecky and Debes, 1972, p. 8).

That the complexity of visual images may be reduced through deliberate analysis and manipulation to make possible unambiguous communication of ideas or feelings.

That new technologies have enabled visual communication on a scale never before possible. The tools of visual communication are now available to everyone.

The suggested content of Visual Literacy (Communication) is unclear from the literature, but it appears to be irrelevant so long as the student learns to read and communicate something through the use of new technologies. It is not what is communicated that is important but learning how. The subject matter that may be used as the focus for learning could range across industrial and advertising graphics, graphic signs and symbols, charts and figures, maps, plans, blueprints, scientific illustrations (e.g. botanical and anatomical drawings), computer graphics, typology, body language (gesture, mime, dance), T V and film images, cartoons, conceptual models, applied arts, fine arts.

The visually-literate individual, Fransecky and Debes (1 972) claimed, will be able, through creative use of visual competencies, to communicate with others, and to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communication. However, despite the en- thusiasm and commitment of the writers of this orientation, a number of problems of conception exist within it.

First is the notion that visual and verbal languages parallel each other in all important ways. I believe the visual and verbal are fundamentally different in the qualitative meanings it is possible

130

to encode within each. Within visual art we have a history of different styles, each of which reflect different kinds of ‘qualitative syntax’ (Eisner 1971). Elliot Eisner spoke eloquently about this in his address to the first Art and Reading Conference in New York in 1977:

The codes that are used in reading, in the conventional sense of the term ‘reading’, are referred to as syntax. But syntax is not limited to the written word. The arts, for example, possess what might be called ‘qualitative syntax’. Qualitative syntax is the form within which a particular work is created. Abstract expressionism, surrealism, cubism, romanticism, and classicism exemplify the construction of different syntaxes in the arts. We call these syntaxes or codes in the arts ‘style’. Each has its own logic and each logic must be understood if the form is to be meaningfully read. (p. 3)

The need to understand the codes used in the creation of expressive forms is perhaps no better illustrated than in the field of modern art. All of us bring to works of art certain expectations defined by the codes we have learned to use. We encounter modern painting, for example, with a repertoire of such codes and try to use them to understand or experience the work. But quite often the codes we are able to use are not useful for unlocking the meaning embedded in the work.

We sometimes bring to the work an inappropriate set of expectations, we don’t know what the artist was after, we don’t quite understand what to look for and as a result we fail to find meaning in it. As a result, we leave the work with a sense of emptiness, with disappointment. We have been unable to make sense of it.

The reason for our inability to recover meanings from such expressive forms as works of modem art is not because we are unintelligent, but because we are ignorant. We have not learned to read the syntax the artist has used. When this syntax is understood, we are able to put to the work the appropriate questions. We cease expecting the messages of Matisse to be the same as those of Massachio. (p. 5 )

Suzanne Langer (1957) is another who has argued that artistic knowledge is importantly different from written forms of knowledge. She has proposed two major modes of knowing, the discursive characterised by verbal and written symbols, and the non- discursive represented particularly by visual art. Discursive forms of knowledge are systematic, rational and propositional. Ideas are progressively revealed over time and in this sense are temporal. Non-discursive forms of expression, as in visual art, present immediately sensuous forms of feeling.

It seems that, after a decade and a half of research within the Communication orientation, some writers are beginning to recognise these fundamental differences. Cassidy and Knowlton (1983) claimed visual literacy. was a failed metaphor for a number of


131


Advertisement for WORLDESIGN 85/ICSID: USA Graphic symbols of a kind commonly used to communicate meaning in place of verbal statements. Clear and unambiguous communication is achieved through simplification. (Reproduced by permission of Design World)

Persecuted Lovers; by Arthur Boyd (Australian, b.1920) oil and synthetic polymer gouache on masonite; 137 X 183 cm. (Reproduced by permission of the South Australia Art Gallery)

reasons, one of the most significant being their discovery that visual signs or systems are significantly different from linguistic systems.

As we have several times stated, the significance of iconic signs lies not in their similarities to the linguistic system but

mi----

132


Cizhou Ware Jar; China, Yuan Dynasty (1280-1368; 29 cm high. (Reproduced by permission of the South Australia Art Gallery)

in their diflerences from the linguistic system. The connotation of the literacy metaphor is one of reduction, of reducing rich and varied sets of attributes to single attributes perceived as functionally equivalent, ignoring variation within a pictorial category as non-critical for communicating specific information. This schematising approach is, of course, useful for many communication purposes. But it is the richness, complexity, and variation inherent in the visual-iconic sign system that make it unique. (P. 87)

Jerome Bruner’s (1962) writing on the differences between art and written languages reflects Langer’s discursive, non-discursive distinction. He observed that:

The elegant rationality of science and the metaphoric non-rationality of art operate within deeply different grammars; perhaps they even represent a profound complementarity. For, in the experience of art, we connect by a grammar of metaphor, one that defies the rational methods of the linguist and the psychologist (P. 74).

The second problem of conception within the Communication orientation is the notion that visual literacy is a kind of generalisable attribute that may be developed by acquiring a set of ‘principles for reading visual forms’. The idea is very much like the

133


generalisability of creativity argument popular in the ’forties and ’fifties. As Vincent Lanier (1983) pointed out:

Making, or studying art, does not help us to see (everything) more efficiently; it helps us to see art more effectively. Even artists trip over objects (p. 37).

Because visual images can serve a bewildering array of functions it is inappropriate to assume that developing the ability to ‘read’ T v advertising images would enable anyone to interpret the meaning embodied in different art styles, advertising graphics, or to understand the subtleties of typography. In short, a single form of literacy will not do. Multiple visual literacies are necessary to decode the visual forms encountered in our world. It is clear, for example, that the intentions and images which encoded my three photographed illustrations differed enormously, and will require different understanding on the viewer’s part to make sense of each.

A third problem with the Communication orientation is lack of clarity with respect to the relationship of the role of image making hardware to the construct of visual literacy itself. The impetus for the visual literacy movement came, in the initial stages, from the realisation that cameras were now available to the vast majority. It is interesting to note that during the years when John Debes published his most significant articles (1968, 1969) he was Co-ordinator of Educational Projects for Eastman Kodak Corporation in New York. In addition a number of early studies designed to explore the efficacy of visual literacy courses were backed by Eastman Kodak through provision of equipment (Hutton 1977). The obvious difficulties inherent in this kind of corporate interest are evident in much of the early writing. The function of cameras and image making machinery is inextricably linked with the notion of visual literacy itself, which has in turn inhibited development of a clear statement of what visual literacy means relative to the cognitive functioning of an individual. In fifteen years no clear conceptual or operational definitions have been put forward by anyone in the field, a fact that has seriously impaired empirical research. (Cassidy and Knowlton, 1983).

Visual (artistic) literacy: see Table 2 This conception appears to have evolved within art education independently of the previously described orientation. Use of the term was probably borrowed from the Educational Technologists, as I have found little evidence of its use prior to 1970.

The first characteristic of visual (artistic) literacy is that its focus is confined to the study of art, although the literature does not make dear what it is that counts as art. It seems that a broad range of forms derived from popular media, through applied arts and craft to the fine arts may be suitable content for art study.

134

TABLE 2. Summary: visual (artistic) literacy.

Aim

Assumptions

To encode and decode meaning within art forms (emphasis decode). The meaning contained within art is a unique form of knowledge. To read art one must understand ‘qualitative syntax’ (Eisner 1979)

Art forms (vague definition) could include: Fine Art Applied Art Primitive/Tribal/Folk Art Popular Art

Art Criticism, Art Historical Study, Studio Practice as a support to understanding (emphasis criticism). Art History, Critical Theory (Phenomenology,

Subject matter

Methodology

Parent and cognate Hermeneutics), History, Sociology, Cultural disciplines Anthropology, Perception, Psychology, Aesthetics.

Within art education a visual literacy ‘movement’, as such, has not been evident. Use of the term in the art advocacy rhetoric (Gardener 1983, Eisner 1982, Feldman 1982) and increasing reference to ‘art as language’ (Eisner 1979, Richardson 1982, MacGregor 1984) have characterised the emergence of the idea. One writer who has clearly addressed himself directly to the notion is Edmund Feldman who has published one article entitled Visual Literacy (1976), and also delivered a series of lectures on the topic in Australia in 1981.

Feldman’s thesis is quite simple. Individuals who cannot react to visual images with critical understanding should be regarded as passive viewers unable to choose between alternative responses to visual messages. T o be visually illiterate is to be ‘un-free’ in the sense that the individual is a victim of the persuasive devices, or rhetoric of visual communication, particularly through the popular media.

Feldman claims that the way to teach visual literacy is by critical examination of works of art that will enable individuals to learn the ‘innate grammar of images’, and ‘persuasive devices (or rhetoric)’ of visual communication.

A significant difference between Feldman’s (1976) view of literacy and that of the previous conception is that he recognises the complexity and potential ambiguity of images as a communicative medium. This is the second characteristic of the artistic orientation.

Feldman elfemplifies this when he says: More than one valid reading of an image is possible. However there is a family resemblance among the several readings that a single image is capable of supporting. . . . . . the lack of identity in our several visual responses testifies to the complexity of visual sequences that a


135


reasonably interesting image can sustain. But semantic variousness is not necessarily the enemy of comprehension as good art scholarship demonstrates. (p. 198-9)

Unlike the Communication conception of visual literacy the aim is not to reduce visual images to their unambiguous communicative essence, ignoring problematic and contradictory elements as irrele- vancies. Instead the complexity and richness of visual art images are valued for their own sake. It does not matter that readings may be somewhat ‘idiosyncratic’.

In this sense the conceptual framework of this model reflects, in part, the intellectual traditions of phenomenology and hermeneutics. Louis Langford ( 1984) recently proposed a phenomenological methodology for art criticism which he claimed could serve as a constructive culminating phase for those involved in art making, and would also serve in the development of visual literacy. One of the essential characteristics of phenomenological enquiry is to attend to the-things-themselves and to ‘bracket out’ any information that is tangential to the meaning of the object of investigation. The holistic view of the phenomenologist preserves the complexity and idiosyncrasy of visual experience. Repeated episodes of view- ing art in this way are thought to bring about increased sophistica- tion in the viewer and greater ability to derive meaning from art works.

A third characteristic of the Artistic conception of visual literacy is the emphasis upon ‘reading’. It seems that most writers imply that to be able to ‘read’ visual forms is to be literate. The logic of this view is that making visual images is the domain of the artist. There is small demand for graduates from the school system who will become artists, and a very large one for individuals who will be intelligent informed ‘consumers’. Consequently, emphasis should be directed towards developing ‘reading’ skills, and studio activity should be supportive to this role.

This is contrary, in my view, to the practice of art teachers, many of whom would claim expressive studio skills to be equally important with ‘reading’ skills. A fourth characteristic is the lack of emphasis on the use of image making machinery. Acquisition of visual literacy is not seen to be dependent upon use of hardware, although Feldman’s writing implies attention to film and TV.

As with the previous Communication orientation some difficulties exist within the Artistic conception of visual literacy. The first and most significant is with definitions of ‘art’ and ‘literacy’. The one clear claim in this conception is that visual literacy arises through the study of art. But what counts as art? It would seem probable that ‘art’ could include a very wide range of objects indeed. Laura Chapman (1978) pointed out a variety of categories in common use by historians. These are ‘Fine Arts (painting, sculpture, architecture), Applied Arts (craft, drawing, printmak- ing, graphic and product design), Tribal or Folk Arts, and Popular or Mass Arts’ (p. 23). Lanier (1982) has also proposed a similar typology.

136

Together with the lack of specificity regarding the subject for study, there has been no clear statement put forward by anyone that can be regarded as an adequate definition of Visual Literacy. The concept is left relatively undeveloped. The kind of characteristic vagueness that typifies discussion of visual literacy reflects the way in which the term has come into use through rhetoric to serve political ends, rather than as a carefully proposed construct with clear characteristics and guidelines for implementation.

Visual (aesthetic) literacy: see Table 3 This orientation is significantly different from the communication conception, but is more closely aligned to the artistic view of literacy. Within the aesthetic orientation students are directed towards the study of their visual world through the framework of various theories of aesthetics. Aesthetic education will lead the students to an examination of the intellectual constructs created by humans to explain affective response to sensuous visual forms.

Vincent Lanier (1980, 1981, 1983) is the chief spokesman for this view. He has repeatedly argued that aesthetic literacy is a real alternative to current practice in art education which, he suggests, is mistakenly called aesthetic education. His own description of the concept of aesthetic literacy is succinct (Lanier 1980):

Aesthetic literacy,. . . involves the study of the questions and problems of aesthetic theory, to the extent that they can be simplified and made intelligible to the age and grade level of the pupils. Aesthetic literacy would focus primary attention on how we respond to works of art or other aesthetically evocative stimuli, rather than on the character and quality of the objects themselves. (p. 20)

The practice of encouraging children to learn about the ways they think and respond to visual objects has been recurrent in the literature. Parrott (1982, 1984); Clark and Zimmerman (1978); Efland (1979); Berleant (1970); and Rader and Jessup (1976).

T A B L E 3. Summary: visual (aesthetic) literacy.

Aims To be able to adopt a variety of intellectual stances in order to ‘read’ art works.

To understand the ways in which humans respond to aesthetic stimuli.

To understand how aesthetic value is assigned to art objects.

That aesthetic value is domain specific (i.e. cannot be transferred between disciplines).

Theories of art and aesthetic response.

Study of aesthetic theories-application to art works or to (aesthetic) non-art objects.

Aesthetic Philosophy, Perception, Sociology,

Assumption

Subject matter

Methodology

Parent and cognate Cultural Anthropology. disc i p 1 in e s


137


The fundamental difference between Lanier’s aesthetic literacy and the Artistic orientation is in the primary focus of study. The content to be learned is aesthetic theory, or the reasons why humans respond to visual images in particular ways, and how value is assigned to aesthetic objects.

The second difference between aesthetic and artistic literacy is that, in the aesthetic conception, objects of all types can be considered in the analysis of aesthetic response. This includes both art and non-art objects, whereas in the artistic conception study is restricted to art works.

Although the conceptual basis for this orientation is fairly straightforward some significant operational difficulties exist. Much work needs to be done to translate theories of aesthetic philosophy into classroom strategies. There is also the difficult task of content organisation, the question being: what scheme will be most effective to organise theories of aesthetic response?

Part of this work has been done by Lanier in his book The Arts We See (1982). A system for conceptualising a work of art is presented (Table 4) as a series of nine screens between the viewer and the object. The application of some or all of these may be viewed as appropriate in the examination of a given image. The system enables the student to understand the ways in which they can come to respond to a work of art. As Lanier comments, this is only one system that may be used, either by itself, or in conjunction with others.

T A B L E 4. How we look at art (from Lanier, v. (1982) How We Look at Art, p. 71).

Objoct

of art) Vl0W.r A B C D E F G H I (orwork

A What other people say about art and about the particular work

B. The sedting of the art work

C. How we have learned to see D. How much we know about the elements and principles 01 design

E. What we know about the particular symbols used

F. What the art work reminds us of

G. How much’ we know about the hstory ot the work

H. How we judge the work

I . What relationship the work has to our life

138

Implications for Art Education DOUG B O U G H T O N

Visual Literacy as a catch-phrase is an appealing instrument of rhetoric, but is, as yet, insubstantial as a rationale. To return to my first point of this paper-if we as art educators choose to identify a claim for our subject then there had better be a connection between the claim and the outcome. To simply change a rationale, from creativity, or aesthetic response, or general intellectual growth to Visual Literacy, with no change in content or methods, is a transparent action that may well serve negative ends in the long term, if it becomes evident that art teachers are confused about its meaning and have no clear idea about how to achieve it.

I believe Visual Literacy is a potent argument in the current educational climate. If it is promoted as a central or, more to the point, essential concern of our discipline, then some hard decisions have to be taken relative to the curriculum content, teaching methods, and art teacher preparation.

There are, I believe, four important questions that must be addressed if Visual Literacy is to become a viable concept. The first is which orientation, or selected aspects of these orientations, offers the greatest potential for development into a coherent construct of visual literacy? It is evident, given the enormous range of subjects for study, parent and cognate discipline sources, and conflicting aims and methods, together with finite time available in the same curriculum to teach it, that eclecticism will not do.

Second, given lack of specificity in the Artistic orientation about what counts as art study, what should be the balance between Fine Art, Applied Art, Primitive/Folk Art, Popular Art Study? In other words, is there a difference, in the visually educated individual, between being ‘widely’ read and ‘well’ read, and how is this determined?

Third, given that new technologies have played some role in raising the issue of literacy within each orientation, to what extent should new image making technologies replace the traditional ones in any conception of visual literacy?

Fourth, given the clearly dominant emphasis in each of the three conceptions placed upon ‘reading’ images for the achievement of visual literacy, how will the shift in current classroom practice from productive interests to a focus upon ‘decoding’ be achieved? It is clear that the pattern of studio activity is deeply embedded in traditional practice and some fundamental changes in the way in wbich this activity is conceptualised are necessary if the implications of the literature are to be taken seriously.

1 That Visual (Artistic) Literacy is the most appropriate conception, and offers the greatest potential to develop literacy. In my view the Communication orientation does not recognise the complexity or uniqueness of visual experience. The approach is essentially reductionist and depends too heavily upon psychological theory.

My recommendations are these:

Visual Literacy

139


Preoccupation with technology is also dangerous in that it all too easily distracts teaching energy from the purpose of the enterprise and obfuscates conceptual definitions. As well, the range of potential subject matter for attention includes much that is germane to specific disciplines, and is not, in fact, generalisable. The study of anatomical drawings, for instance, will not help a student to understand map symbols.

Visual (Aesthetic) Literacy, on the other hand, does not take sufficient account of the value of studio enterprise. The argument that there is nothing wrong with a more academic approach to the study of art and human visual response is quite sound and I agree with it. The difficulty is that ‘making ’ is what students instinc- tively want to do from the time they are old enough to grasp a crayon. I believe that aesthetic ‘knowing’ in the sense that Lanier has discussed it, is an important component of artistic literacy, but should not be the dominant focus of the art programme. Although studio experience does not automatically result in aesthetic understanding, there is no reason to suppose that it precludes it either. The result depends upon the structure and purpose of the task and the teacher’s methodology. Similarly, in discussion classes it does not necessarily follow that analysis of the theories of aesthetic philosophy will lead to aesthetic understanding of art works. It depends upon student interest, and the way in which the discussion is handled. What is important for teachers to remember is that if systems for understanding art works are newer discussed, they are never likely to be learned either.

The implications for change in this recommendation are, first, that studio activity in art programmes would be directed increasingly towards critical, philosophic, and historical discussion. The point of the studio activities would be to initiate, reinforce, explore issues for discussion, rather than to ‘maximise the child’s creative potential.’

Second, for teacher education, the inclusion of the study of disciplines such as aesthetic philosophy, critical theory, perception (psychology and physiology of), history of art, sociology of art and semiology would be necessary to provide an appropriate background for the classroom practitioner who is ‘literate’.

2 That Visual (Artistic) Literacy includes a wide range of cultural contexts. Literacy, as a notion, generally implies not only the ability to read but the state of having read widely. Literacy is not acquired a-contextually, so it is important for decisions to be made with respect to the range of art objects with which the student will be confronted. Due to the prevailing mix of cultures that com- prises our social fabric, I believe it is imperative that students study a balance of art forms (Fine, Applied, Folk, Popular) derived from a wide range of cultural contexts.

The implication for teachers and teacher education programmes here is for a move away from traditional western mainstream art forms-towards tribal, applied, and popular art of a much wider range of cultures than has previously been studied in ordinary

140

school art programmes. If the dialogue we have experienced at this conference is an accurate barometer of the interest of art educators in improving cultural understanding through art it is clear that visual literacy can only be developed in children through the study of many arts in many cultures.

Bibliography ALEXANDER, R.R. The ghost of creativity in education, Art Education, 34,

No. 4, 1981. BERLEANT, A. The Aesthetic Field. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Tho-

mas, 1970. BOUGHTON, D.G. Australian art education for the eighties: philosophy and

practice. Journal of the Institute of Art Education, 7, No. 2, August 1983.

BRUNER, J. On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1962.

CASSIDY, M.F. & KNOWLTON, J.Q. Visual literacy: a failed metaphor, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 31, No. 2, pp.

CHAPMAN, L.H. Approaches to Art in Education. New York: Harcourt,

CLARK, G.A. & ZIMMERMAN, E. A walk in the right direction: a model for

DEBES, J. Some foundations for visual literacy. Audiovisual Instruction,

DEBES, J . The loom of visual literacy. Audiovisual Instruction, 14, No. 8,

EFLAND, A. Conceptions of teaching in art education. Art Education, 32,

EISNER, E.W. The Development and Use of a Typology of Creative Behaviour in the Visual Arts, Ph.D. University o f Chicago, 1962; Dissertations Abstracts International, x, p. 82, 1962.

EISNER, E.W. Reading and the Creation of Meaning, Address presented at the New York Art and Reading Conference, January 14, 1977, N A E A .

EISNER, E.W. The relationship between theory and practice in art education. Art Education, 38, No. 1, pp. 4-5, 1982.

FELDMAN, E.B. Visual Literacy, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10, 3/4,

FELDMAN, E.B. Art in the mainstream: a statement of value and commit-

FRANSECKY, R.B. Visual literacy. Audiovisual Instruction, 17, No. 5, 1972. FRANSECKY, R.B. & DEBES, J.L. Visual Literacy: A Way to Teach -A Way

to Learn. Washington D.C.: Association for Educational Communi- cations and Technology, 1972.

GARDNER, H. Artistic intelligencies. Art Education, 36, No. 2, pp. 47-49, 1983.

HUTTON, D.W. Development of a Visual Education Curriculum and Production of Instructional Materials for Improving Visual Imagery. Final Report submitted to CDC, September 1977.

LANGER, S.K. Expressiveness, in Problems of Art. (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, pp. 13-26, 1957.

LANGFORD, E.L. A phenomenological methodology for art criticism. Studies in Art Education, 25, No. 3, pp. 151-158, 1984.

LANIER, V. Six items on the agenda for the eighties. Art Education, 33,

LANIER, V. Popularisation without misrepresentation: curriculum content

LAMER, V. The Arts We See: A Simplified Introduction to the Visual Arts.

67-90.

Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. 1978.

visual arts education. Studies in Art Education, 19, No. 2, 1978.

14, NO. 8, pp. 25-27, 1968.

pp. 25-27, 1969.

NO. 4, pp. 21-33, 1979.

pp. 197-200, 1976.

ment, Art Education, 35, No. 2, 1982.

NO. 5, pp. 16-23, 1980.

for aesthetic literacy. Art Education, 34, No. 6, 1981.

New York Teachers College Press, 1982.


141


LANIER, V. Beyond aesthetic education. Art Education, 36, No. 6, 1983. MACGREWR, R.W. Reading the world and its symbols. Journal oj the

PARROTT, J. Aesthetics: a fundamental human experience. Journal of

PARROTT, J. Aesthetics and children. Journal of the Institute of Art

RADER, M. & JESSUP, B. Art and Human Values. Englewood Cliffs,

RICHARDSON, A S . Art means language. Art Education, 35, No. 5 , pp.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Art Craft and Design in Schools: A Curriculum Framework R-12. Publications Branch, Department of Education, Adelaide, South Australia, 1984.

SLESS, D. Visual Thinking in Education, Pivot. A Journal of South Australian Education, 4, No. 2, pp. 4-9, 1977.

SPECK, C. The First National Index of School Art Programmes: Volume 1. Journal of the Institute of Art Education, 8, No. 3, 1984.

Institute of A n Education, 8, No. 2, 1984.

the Institute of Art Education, 6 , No. 1, 1982.

Education, 8, No. 3, pp. 7-18, 1984.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1976.

10-12, 1982.

142

Documents

Visual Literacy: Implications For Cultural Understanding through Art Education