The classroom is a mutable framework
in which we conduct learning to achieve greater meaning and relation to the
world in which we exist. The very definition of classroom must be expanded
beyond the literal physical qualities.
The environment I, and these authors, are discussing are experiences and
exposures of students to anything that will drive their artistic and aesthetic
development.
Whether it’s by creating a safe
zone, free from fear and rejection, or creating an environment conducive to
pondering essential questions, the classroom space in which any style or vision
of art education is the enabling element. Curating this environment also
facilitates Judith Burton’s (2001) observation that Viktor Lowenfeld desired to
protect the right of young people “to construct their own meanings and speak in
their own voices” (p. 35) and thereby battling forces of determinism and
essentialism. Burton said, “Artistry is
imbedded in our shared humanness, its outcomes are trans-cultural and
trans-historical and permit public discourse and conversations across national
boundaries and time” (p. 36). Further, development will not occur in any real
sense without a proper supporting environment that supports art creation beyond
simple material exposure (Burton, 2001).
The Study Group for Holistic Approaches in Art
Education affirms safe learning environments where students can cooperate,
support and engage art of utmost importance (Carroll, 2006). Mary Wolfe (2004, p. 38) says, “You are not
here to prove yourself. You are here to improve yourself.”
The activating element of the student’s
environment is the teacher role. London
(2003) discusses the “I-Thou” teacher and student relationship. In this relationship it is made clear to each
student that they have value information to share and the teacher is sincerely
interested in what they have to say.
If the teacher is the activating
element, then we need be concerned with what type of environment they are
activating. What qualities should we look for in a teacher that will create
trust from the student? Attentiveness
without judgment, asking the right questions, sincere eye contact,
self-knowledge, wisdom, capacity to focus on others needs (Carroll, 2006).
Much like Eisner’s (1980) arguments
towards a wider view of cognition, to require an active organism that must
interact with the environment, the environment presented must be filled with
proper opportunities from which to choose.
Art education is marginalized, small time allocations, poor scheduling
and through this children infer art is not a high priority. Thereby making cognitive choices to eliminate
or further marginalize their art education.
(Eisner, 1980)
Reflections Towards
a More Holistic Art Classroom
My experience as an art educator is
limited to a few weeks at College For Kids each summer during my undergraduate
years. I also volunteer as an art docent at my sons school and have volunteered
at Sanctuary Art Center. I have an
architectural background and am a current practicing architect. Admittedly, until now, I have put limited
thought into perspectives on art development and teaching attitudes. But my architectural sensibilities have given
me a heightened awareness of my environment.
Coupled with the art educational environments the authors earlier discussed it is reasonable and important to focus on the
environment surrounding the art student.
My classroom experience as a student
was focused primarily on technical aspects. As an art teacher I don’t want to
focus on only the technical aspects. I
want to teach art in a different way and art
that is different. I like to think
that art and art education, in a sense, is beyond these things. Art should be focused on beauty or creation
and innovation towards a novel and creative approach.
This environment becomes the
activating element for transformative learning and holistic learning. The
youth I experience seems to have a heightened sense of awareness in their world
and culture. They aren’t just passing through onto the next typical phase
of human development, they are really struggling and fighting everyday for some
sign of success and justification for living in their current
circumstances. It is essential to respect youth as equals in our
humanness.
Cizek as Inception
In this vein, I find the work and
attitude of Franz Cizek as core element for an art educator. He began his
children's classes in 1903. From the beginning, all was free and experimental,
the children choosing their own materials, with nothing in the way of a copy or
a model. The classes also included cross grade collaboration as some of the
younger student drawings would be transposed by older students to other
mediums, such as embroidery. While a student himself, Cizek boarded with a
carpenter’s family with many children that visited him in his room, where he
allowed them to use his art supplies and encouraged them to express themselves.
Inspired by this experience, he started the Juvenile Art Class, a two hour
Saturday Program for students ages 5 -14. Cizek approached art making by
creating a child friendly environment where formal instruction was non existent
and the work was based on nurturing the creative tendencies inherent in all
children, allowing them to freely explore their own ideas through a range of
materials. The children were interviewed and selected by Cizek, but not for
their artistic promise or social standing. It was a place where children were
respected as fellow artists. Cizek ushered in a new era of art education for
children. "the age of purest art ... Children have their own laws. What
right have grown-up people
to interfere? They should draw as they feel, and all children have feelings and
something to express! (Gutteridge, 1990, p. 1)"
Additional
Influences
I agree with the philosophies of
allowing the child to freely explore media and focus on creative
self-expression. Using formal
instruction as a genesis to curiosity and not a preordained process to a known
ending. While I hesitate to do so to
avoid rigid structure, including the elements and principles of design into art
curriculum is doable. At it’s heart,
design based thinking is creative problem solving. With heavy roots in the
German Bauhaus movement, students
are trained to work from a known problem or towards a product. Also key, is learning from the capabilities
of a material. And in in my interpretation, aesthetics are a defined goal of
the project, not the goal.
It’s my belief that all these attitudes
and perspectives should be in every art educator’s lexicon. Not just for rhetorical discourse with
stakeholders or other academics, but as valuable methods to implement as the
need arises. If we are to teach to the
individual, we as teachers need to be able to reach that person. Art teachers
have to remain flexible. There are many levels of idealism. We all have our
pure expectations as students, teachers, academics and parents…it’s tough to
remain positive. I theorize that most people that
feel “called” to a profession have a deeply personal experience in their youth,
which created that special connection. The problem inherent in this is
that they are willing to go through much degradation and abuse by others whose
lot in life may have been less clear and more random.
Another problem is art educators
being naïve to the use and implementation of current technology or new
media. New media will have a major
impact on art, how we teach art, and to a lesser extent what we teach. That means new approaches to life and new
approaches to community and greater involvement as art education and art’s
relationship is transformed. We can’t
separate our social and technological advances from one another, as one has an
effect on the other. Accordingly, we
can’t isolate, ignore or eliminate technological things only to focus solely on
“pure” art. We have to think simultaneously on how the social changes and
technological changes affect art and art education. Our advances greatly affect our education and
our social structure. By social structure I don’t mean some abstract concept. I
mean closer to how communication/networks create human, object and art
interactions.
As art educators we have to defend
the classroom environment. We need to
control the conditioning of the space and keep the children safe and free to
explore their own creative impulses. We need to view our classrooms as our masterwork of art.
References
Burton,
J. M. (2001). Lowenfeld, another look. Art Education, 54(6), 33-42.
Carroll,
K. L. (2006). Development and learning in art: Moving in the direction of a holistic paradigm for art education. Visual
Arts Research, 32(1), 16-28.
Clark,
M. C. (1993). Transformational learning, New Directions For Adult And Continuing Education, (57), 47-56.
Gutteridge,
M. (1990). The Classes of Franz Cizek. Davis Publications.
Ivashkevich,
O. (2006). Drawing in children’s lives. In J. Fineberg (Ed.), When we
were young: Perspectives on the art of
the child (pp. 45-59).Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Mezirow,
J (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74,
5-12.
Smith,
P. (March 1985) Franz Cizek: The Patriarch. Art Education, Volume 38 Number 2. pp. 28 - 31
Wilson,
B. (2005). Child art after Modernism: Visual culture and new narratives.
In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in
art education (pp 299-328).
Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Wolfe,
M. (2004). Crating safe environments for troubled youth. In P. London & The
Study for Holistic Art Education
(Eds.) Toward as Holistic Paradigm in Art Education (pp. 36-39). [Center for
Art Education Monograph No.1]. Baltimore: Maryland Institute of College Art.
