Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Cultural wealth for all : an analysis of the aesthetic values in the Getty's discipline-based art education… Bergland, Donald Lowell 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A2 B47.pdf [ 10.38MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055107.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055107-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055107-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055107-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055107-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055107-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055107-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055107-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055107.ris

Full Text

CULTURAL WEALTH FOR A L L : AN ANALYSIS OF THE AESTHETIC VALUES THE G E T T Y ' S DISCIPLINE-BASED ART EDUCATION PROGRAM by DONALD LOWELL BERGLAND B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1976 M . A . , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FEBRUARY 1989 © DONALD LOWELL BERGLAND, 1989 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f or s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f or f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: FEBRUARY 1989 ABSTRACT The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s has issued a set of documents c o n t a i n i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s of i t s d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education program (DBAE). This program has been c r i t i c i z e d as promoting a set of a e s t h e t i c values based s o l e l y i n the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n , and hence may be i n s e n s i t i v e to the educational needs of a modern democratic p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y . A e s t h e t i c value i n t h i s study r e f e r s to any c r i t e r i a by which one v i s u a l experience i s considered to be of greater import or value than another. Although the documents describingy^these values have been both attacked by c r i t i c s and defended by the Getty, no sustained and in-depth a n a l y s i s has been conducted to determine the nature and l a r g e r context of the a e s t h e t i c values they promote. This study analyzes the body of documents issued by the Getty i n order to discover the nature of the a e s t h e t i c values and t h e i r l a r g e r context and purpose. Content a n a l y s i s was performed on the p u b l i c l y a v a i l a b l e Getty documents and a l l statements c o n t a i n i n g references to the nature, f u n c t i o n , value, a p p r e c i a t i o n , c r i t e r i a , standards, and judgment of a r t were e x t r a c t e d , analyzed and then c l a s s i f i e d and e x p l i c a t e d i n s o f a r as they p e r t a i n e d to the c r i t e r i a f o r determining s u p e r i o r i t y i n a v i s u a l experience. i i Six c r i t e r i a for a e s t h e t i c value were i d e n t i f i e d and c h a r a c t e r i z e d . These c r i t e r i a d efined the standard for s u p e r i o r i t y i n terms of the a r t work, the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n , the v i s u a l code, l i t e r a c y , and i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal values. I t was discovered that these c r i t e r i a were part of a l a r g e r body of values which i s based i n the humanities t r a d i t i o n . A f t e r a d i s c u s s i o n concerning the impact these values have in a modern democracy and the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Canadian a r t education, the study concludes that the kinds of a e s t h e t i c values promoted by the Getty's DBAE program are monocultural i n that they e x a l t and promote only the values of the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n , and hence, may not be appropriate as the sole b a s i s f o r a r t education i n a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y . Curriculum frameworks f o r d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education which allow a more c u l t u r a l l y democratic approach to the treatment of a e s t h e t i c values are a v a i l a b l e and these, rather than the Getty formulations should be u t i l i z e d when designing d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education c u r r i c u l a . TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Acknowledgments v i Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO A PROBLEM 1 The Problem 1 Perspec t i v e .... 6 Method 8 Organization 8 Content A n a l y s i s 10 Design 11 Categories and Units of A n a l y s i s 11 Sample 11 L i m i t a t i o n s 13 Notes 16 Chapter 2 GETTY AND DBAE: DOCUMENTATION 1982 - 1988 20 Contextual Overview 20 D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education 28 General Premises 28 T h e o r e t i c a l Foundations 30 Ae s t h e t i c s 30 Art Production 31 Art H i s t o r y 32 Art C r i t i c i s m 32 Curriculum 33 Notes 34 Chapter 3 FINDING AESTHETIC VALUES IN DBAE 36 A e s t h e t i c Values 36 Value 36 Ae s t h e t i c Value 37 Fi n d i n g A e s t h e t i c Values i n the L i t e r a t u r e 41 Content A n a l y s i s 42 The L i t e r a t u r e ^ 42 Value Statements and Categories 46 Notes 48 Chapter 4 THE AESTHETIC VALUES OF 'DBAE 50 The Work of Art 52 The Fine Art T r a d i t i o n 59 The Code and i t s Functions 73 I n t e l l e c t u a l Value 81 C u l t u r a l Value 88 i v Formal Value 100 Notes 109 Chapter 5 ANTECEDENTS OF THE AESTHETIC VALUES IN DBAE . 111 The Humanities 112 Extended A e s t h e t i c s 123 The Work of Art 126 Fine Art T r a d i t i o n 137 The Code 148 I n t e l l e c t u a l Values ; * 152 C u l t u r a l Values 161 Formal Values 170 Gettys Voices 180 Notes 183 Chapter 6 AESTHETIC VALUES IN A DEMOCRACY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA 185 Aes t h e t i c Values i n a Democracy 185 Democracy and A r t Education 190 Democracy and DBAE 199 I m p l i c a t i o n s for Canada ... 212 Notes 219 Chapter 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 223 Summary 223 Conclusions ••• 227 REFERENCES • 236 Appendix A THE GETTY LITERATURE 273 Appendix B THE DBAE LITERATURE 282 Appendix C THE GETTY TRUST AND THE OPERATING PROGRAMS 286 Appendix D CHRONOLOGY OF GETTY, DBAE, AND THE DOCUMENTS 288 ADpendix E KEY VALUE CONCEPTS 291 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would l i k e to thank the members of my d i s s e r t a t i o n committee for sharing with me t h e i r time, wisdom, and constant reminders concerning my tendency for f o l l y . Without the g i f t of i n s i g h t p a t i e n t l y provided by Graeme Chalmers, I might have forever remained an A b s o l u t i s t . His gentle and kind teachings have moulded the course of my future academic v i s i o n . I w i l l long remember the humorous interchanges and warm guidance o f f e r e d by Jim-Gray, the s p i r i t u a l and moral reassurances shared by Vincent D'Oyley, and the c r i t i c a l awakenings sponsored by Don F i s h e r . I must a l s o acknowledge the foundational presence of Ron MacGregor. I have never met a f i n e r gentleman nor a more exa c t i n g mentor. v i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO A PROBLEM THE PROBLEM I t i s n a t u r a l to assume that human beings seek out and c u l t i v a t e those experiences which provide some kind of b e n e f i t f o r themselves. This endeavour r e l i e s on the assessment of what i s of most worth. The b a s i s of the judgment may be c e r e b r a l , b i o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l , or sensual, but without the b e l i e f that the endeavour i s worthwhile, i t i s u n l i k e l y to be v o l u n t a r i l y s e l e c t e d as an o b j e c t i v e worthy of a t t e n t i o n . The determination of value i s a co n t i n u i n g and dominant human a c t i v i t y and i n probably no other area more pervasive and consuming than i n that of v i s u a l experience. In the act of s e l e c t i n g our c l o t h i n g , buying a new automobile, or responding to the painted images on a w a l l , we are concerned with judging the v i s u a l worth of the encounter. But what are the guides and standards we use for our eva l u a t i o n s ? What makes us s e l e c t one experience and r e j e c t another? C e r t a i n l y i n much of our i n t e r a c t i o n with the v i s u a l world we r e l y on s u b j e c t i v e value preferences. Our personal t a s t e 1 guides our a c t i o n s of choice. We choose one v i s u a l phenomenon because the c o l o r e x c i t e s us, or the content r e l a t e s to a f a v o r i t e a c t i v i t y . On one l e v e l , the problem of worth i s determined by what pleases us, and many people use t h i s s u b j e c t i v e i n d i c a t o r as the sol e guide for determining a e s t h e t i c worth i n t h e i r l i v e s . But i s s u b j e c t i v e preference the only, or even the best way to determine a e s t h e t i c worth? Are there standards or c r i t e r i a that somehow i n d i c a t e what some may f e e l i s a more o b j e c t i v e form of excel Ience i n the various v i s u a l encounters we have with our world or are ae s t h e t i c e v a l u a t i o n s of excellence based on standards r e l a t i v e to time, place and c u l t u r e ? A e s t h e t i c value 1 c o n s i s t s of the means advanced to d i s t i n g u i s h or to determine v i s u a l e x c e l l e n c e . In t h i s study the term i s employed to i d e n t i f y the criteria by which one visual experience is considered to be superior to another. Those c r i t e r i a c o n s t i t u t e a standard for determining worth i n our v i s u a l encounters. Questions concerning the d e f i n i t i o n of standards i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of value i n images have been paramount i n the f i e l d of a r t and i n a r t education, and have c o n s t i t u t e d the basis f o r many reform movements'in the f i e l d . A rt education i n America i s c u r r e n t l y undergoing such a reform. The agent of t h i s reform 2 i s the J . Paul Getty Trust which has e n l i s t e d leading f i g u r e s i n the f i e l d of North American a r t education to design and develop a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d c u r r i c u l u m s t r u c t u r e (DBAE) 3 i n order to r a i s e the s t a t u s and q u a l i t y of a r t education i n the schools. Knowledge of the ideas involved i n t h i s endeavour has been tra n s m i t t e d p r i m a r i l y through a set of p u b l i c documents r e f e r r e d to i n t h i s study as the Getty literature (See Appendix A). These documents s t a t e the fundamental goals, aims, and ideas behind DBAE which attempt to provide a b a s i s whereby a r t education may become a serious study. By making a r t "academic, r i g o r o u s , and s t r u c t u r e d , " the Getty * seeks to give all American students the opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the artistic wealth their culture possesses ( E i s n e r , 1985). The assumed b e n e f i t s of t h i s wealth, however, r a i s e a number of questions concerning the values upon which i t i s based. Since the Getty s t a t e s that the most important d e c i s i o n i n the implementation of i t s program i s i n the s e l e c t i o n of the works of a r t used (Getty Center, 1987a), i t seems e s s e n t i a l to examine the a e s t h e t i c values comprising the c r i t e r i a by which that s e l e c t i o n i s made. Ae s t h e t i c value comprises one standard f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of 4 e x c e l l e n c e , and i n an a r t education program, i t u l t i m a t e l y determines what kind of a r t w i l l be granted s t a t u s . No a r t education program can e x i s t without b e l i e v i n g that some values are b e t t e r than others. I f awareness concerning the standards of excellence employed i n the Getty's D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d Art Education program i s to occur, an understanding must f i r s t be provided concerning the nature, purpose, and l a r g e r context of the a e s t h e t i c values i t promotes. The documents which describe the DBAE program have been c r i t i c i z e d by a number of w r i t e r s on the grounds that the values represented i n them are based s o l e l y i n the Western c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n 5 (Chalmers, 1987a; 1987b; Hamblen, 1987a, 1988b; L a n i e r , 1987; Lederman, 1988; L i d s t o n e , 1988; London, 1988; McFee, 1988). 6 Since they b e l i e v e that a monocultural approach may be det r i m e n t a l to the concept of education i n a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y , they c a l l for a re - e v a l u a t i o n of the c r i t e r i a and standards used for the assessment of worth i n DBAE, and the adoption of an approach more c o n s i s t e n t with the aims and goals of c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m w i t h i n a democracy. The Getty has responded by suggesting that the c r i t i c s have mi si nt erpreted the documents and that i n f a c t , DBAE i s not obsessed with western c u l t u r a l values, but i s open to the use of a v a r i e t y >5 of c u l t u r a l forms (Getty Center, 1988b, 1988c). Since there seems to be some c o n t r a d i c t i o n between the claims of the c r i t i c s and those of the Getty, there i s an obvious need for a concentrated a n a l y s i s of the a e s t h e t i c values promoted in the DBAE program to determine whether the c r i t i c s have a basis i n f a c t f o r t h e i r c l a i m s , or whether the Getty i s c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g that a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the documents has occurred. At present, there are no analyses of the fundamental premises and assumptions of i t s a e s t h e t i c values, and programs based s o l e l y on i t s viewpoint are now being implemented i n American schools (Getty Center, 1987a). To provide a needed a n a l y s i s of the a e s t h e t i c values underlying the Getty reform, t h i s study seeks a r e s o l u t i o n for the f o l l o w i n g questions: 1. What i s the nature of the a e s t h e t i c values being promoted by the Getty o r g a n i z a t i o n through i t s p u b l i c documents? 2. What i s the l a r g e r context and purpose of these values? The f i r s t question s p e c i f i c a l l y analyzes the documents i n order to i d e n t i f y and c h a r a c t e r i z e the kind of a e s t h e t i c values found t h e r e i n , while the second expands the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the i d e n t i f i e d values to include t h e i r antecedents and p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e i n the educational arena Answers to these two questions w i l l provide d e s c r i p t i o n s concerning the kinds of a e s t h e t i c values promoted through the Getty documents, and a r e s o l u t i o n to the current debate between the Getty and i t s c r i t i c s . The focus of t h i s study w i l l be on pr o v i d i n g answers to what and who questions, i . e . , what are the values, what i s t h e i r c ontext, and who i promoting them. Questions concerning how and why these values have come to be dominant w i t h i n the Getty are f o c i for f u r t h e r research, although c e r t a i n f a c t o r s to do with the l a t t e r cannot be e n t i r e l y e l i m i n a t e d from t h i s study. PERSPECTIVE A problem e x i s t s i n the confusion surrounding the p r e c i s e nature of the a e s t h e t i c values i n DBAE. At the heart of the controversy i s the question concerning the most adequate method of i n t r o d u c i n g a e s t h e t i c values i n a c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e s o c i e t y . This study w i l l proceed on the assumption that a e s t h e t i c values are p r i m a r i l y s o c i a l l y determined and that the c r i t e r i a and standards of judgment governing a e s t h e t i c worth are v a l i d only i n s o f a r as they are regarded i n t h e i r c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l c o ntexts. 7 Also assumed are c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s concerning human s o c i e t y and c u l t u r e . A s o c i e t y l i k e the United States i s seen by some to be p l u r a l i s t i c i n that i t contains many cohesive groups which have t h e i r "own system of accounting for values and b e l i e f s that r e l a t e s to the world as they experience i t " (McFee & Degge, 1977, p. 291). 7 Each of these groups can be considered a subculture i n terms of ethnic or c l a s s i n t e r e s t s (or both). Although there are exchanges and in f l u e n c e s between subc u l t u r e s , each b a s i c a l l y creates i t s own modes of a r t i s t i c c r e a t i o n and i t s own standards of e v a l u a t i o n . "Each of the a r t s develops a value system which d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i t i n some degree from the o t h e r s . i n terms of purposes, a e s t h e t i c values and c r i t e r i a f or c r i t i c i s m " (McFee, 1988, p. 106). In t h i s sense there e x i s t d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s of v i s u a l phenomena. 8 The standards that each subculture develops may apply only to the subculture that . uses them and may not always be used to evaluate a e s t h e t i c objects of another c u l t u r e " f o r members of d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s react d i f f e r e n t l y to the same ob j e c t " (Chalmers, 1981 ) . 9 By adopting the assumptions that a r t knowledge i s s o c i a l l y created and that o b j e c t i v i t y and value n e u t r a l i t y are u n a t t a i n a b l e , t h i s study takes a d e f i n i t e value stance, namely that i f a r t i s a s o c i a l l y determined a f f a i r , then 8 a t t e n t i o n must be d i r e c t e d to i t s educational r o l e i n a so c i e t y perceived by some to be p l u r a l i s t i c i n nature. I t w i l l be t h i s point of view that w i l l guide the i n q u i r y surrounding e x p l i c a t i o n of the argument, i . e . , that the Getty documents o u t l i n e a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d program which promotes s p e c i f i c a e s t h e t i c values. These p a r t i c u l a r a e s t h e t i c values, i t w i l l be demonstrated, are deriv e d from a l a r g e r body of c l a s s i c a l thought which c o n s t i t u t e s what i s known as the Western fine art tradi t i on. As such, c e r t a i n aspects of these values may not be e n t i r e l y conducive to a p l u r a l i s t i c viewpoint w i t h i n the f i e l d of education i n North America. METHOD Organization This study i s s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned with an a n a l y s i s of the a e s t h e t i c values c o n s t i t u t i n g Getty's ideal c u r r i c u l u m and t h e i r l a r g e r context and purpose i n the f i e l d of a r t education. The study i n v o l v e s an a n a l y s i s of the p u b l i c l y a v a i l a b l e documents which i l l u s t r a t e DBAE's a e s t h e t i c values, so as to c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e i r nature, place them i n a la r g e r context, and determine t h e i r purpose. Chapter 2 i s p r i m a r i l y e x p o s i t o r y , s e t t i n g i n context a 9 b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l and d e s c r i p t i v e overview of the development of the main tenets of the DBAE program. Chapter 3 e x p l a i n s the use of terminology, d e f i n i t i o n s , .analytic c a t e g o r i e s , and the research design of the study. Chapter 4 c o n s t i t u t e s a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s of the content a n a l y s i s performed on the Getty l i t e r a t u r e . Six c r i t e r i a for a e s t h e t i c value are i d e n t i f i e d and discussed. Chapter 5 places the i d e n t i f i e d values i n t h e i r l a r g e r context through a survey of the a r t education l i t e r a t u r e . I t does t h i s by (1) t r a c i n g the antecedent h i s t o r y and development of the i d e n t i f i e d c r i t e r i a w i t h i n the f i e l d Of ar t education and (2) touches b r i e f l y on the Getty w r i t e r s who u t i l i z e t h i s t r a d i t i o n i n the e x p o s i t i o n of a e s t h e t i c values i n DBAE documents. Chapter 6 - extends the context by p l a c i n g the i d e n t i f i e d values i n the midst of the controversy concerning the r o l e of education and values i n a m u l t i c u l t u r a l and democratic s o c i e t y . I m p l i c a t i o n s for Canada of adopting the values i n t h i s program are discussed. Chapter 7 summarizes the main f i n d i n g s and comments on the 10 implementation of programs i n a e s t h e t i c value i n contemporary democracies. I m p l i c a t i o n s for f u r t h e r research are discussed. Content A n a l y s i s Content a n a l y s i s i s an e f f e c t i v e technique f o r making inferences by o b j e c t i v e l y and s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a n a l y z i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of w r i t t e n documents. I t i s both a method of c o l l e c t i n g data and of ana l y z i n g i t (Manheim, 1977). I t asks s p e c i f i c questions of the w r i t t e n messages produced by people and employs a c e r t a i n method i n v o l v i n g o b j e c t i v i t y , system, and g e n e r a l i t y (Budd, Thorp, & Donohew, 1967; H o l s t i , 1969). In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study, content a n a l y s i s serves as the c e n t r a l method whereby a e s t h e t i c values are i d e n t i f i e d i n the Getty l i t e r a t u r e . Recognizing that i n t e r p r e t i v e judgments concerning the analyses are perhaps more meaningful than mere enumeration of t h e i r frequency, the approach taken i n the content a n a l y s i s emphasizes a q u a l i t a t i v e rather than a q u a n t i t a t i v e methodology (Williamson, Karp, Dalphin, & Gray, 1982). Content a n a l y s i s i s a supplement t o , and not a s u b s t i t u t e f o r , the s u b j e c t i v e examination of the documents i n t h i s study ( H o l s t i , 1969). Because the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of content a n a l y s i s for d e f i n i n g 11 the values expressed i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l w r i t i n g s has been documented (Rokeach, 1979), i t can provide the means for t e s t i n g the v a l i d i t y of the argument that DBAE promotes a s p e c i f i c set of a e s t h e t i c values which have t h e i r b a s i s i n the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . Design Categories and Uni t s of A n a l y s i s The category of a n a l y s i s i n t o which the content u n i t s are c l a s s i f i e d i s " a e s t h e t i c value." The study seeks to determine what a e s t h e t i c values are revealed i n the body of documents examined. For the purpose of t h i s study, a e s t h e t i c value means any criteria by which one visual experience is considered to be superior to another. 1 0 The s i z e of the uni t studied w i l l c o n s i s t of the theme, or the smallest s y n t a c t i c a l u n i t needed to c h a r a c t e r i z e an a e s t h e t i c value. I t i s the i n d i v i d u a l statement about a s p e c i f i c value that i s the u n i t analyzed. Sample The data used to support the argument come from p u b l i c l y a v a i l a b l e documents c o n s i s t i n g of jo u r n a l a r t i c l e s , research r e p o r t s , conference papers, b i b l i o g r a p h i e s , c u r r i c u l u m guides, seminar r e p o r t s , p o l i c y statements, and books. One 12 basic set of documents c a l l e d the Getty l i t e r a t u r e i s analyzed. The Getty Literature - This r e f e r s to documents d i s c u s s i n g the Getty o r g a n i z a t i o n and DBAE which are produced and/or sanctioned by the Getty Trust (See Appendix A). These documents support the a e s t h e t i c value system i n DBAE and are the main source of information for a n a l y s i s of the a e s t h e t i c values. Although the number of w r i t e r s working for the Getty i s l a r g e and t h e i r personal views and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s v a r i e d and d i v e r s e , there i s enough common agreement concerning the c r i t e r i a for a e s t h e t i c value to di s c u s s i t c o l l e c t i v e l y . Where i n d i v i d u a l w r i t e r s diverge conspicuously from the common viewpoint, t h e i r ideas w i l l be discussed s e p a r a t e l y . Since the complete body of l i t e r a t u r e produced by the Getty concerning DBAE i s a v a i l a b l e and f a i r l y s m a l l , a n a l y s i s w i l l be performed on i t s e n t i r e corpus. This body of l i t e r a t u r e represents secondary sources. The primary l i t e r a t u r e , i . e . , i n t e r n a l memoranda and documents concerning p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s , have not been p u b l i c l y d ispersed, and hence do not c o n s t i t u t e any part of the consciousness forming the documentation. The concept of documentation i s important for t h i s study. Dorothy Smith (1974) says that our knowledge of contemporary 13 s o c i e t y r a r e l y takes place w i t h i n the context of immediate experience. Our knowledge of i t i s mediated by documents of various kinds. Our primary mode of a c t i o n w i t h i n educational research depends upon a reality constituted in documentary form. This study bases i t s j u s t i f i c a t i o n for a n a l y z i n g only the p u b l i c documents on the f a c t that knowledge of DBAE has been p r i m a r i l y mediated to the p u b l i c by Getty documents. I t i s t h i s documentation that c o n s t i t u t e s our understanding of what DBAE means, and i s a l s o what c o n s t i t u t e s the present controversy i n that i t i s the focus of both the c r i t i c s ' a t t a c k s and the Getty's defense. Although the Getty documents chosen f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s are f i x e d , the documentation coming from the Getty i s c o n t i n u a l l y being developed. The i n t e n t i o n of t h i s study i s to examine and analyze the f i x e d documentation i n order to determine whether i t s c r i t i c s are j u s t i f i e d i n t h e i r assessments and whether Getty i s c o r r e c t i n suggesting that i t has been m i s i n t e r p r e t e d . To the extent that t h i s study i s s u c c e s s f u l , c u r r i c u l u m developers and p o t e n t i a l c u r r i c u l u m implementors derive values u s e f u l i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l r o l e s . L i m i t a t i o n s F a i r n e s s i n the gathering and a n a l y s i s of all documents and statements was a p r i n c i p l e s t r i c t l y adhered t o . A search was conducted to uncover not only statements which supported the u c r i t i c s ' c l a i m s , but a l s o statements which r e f u t e d t h e i r p e rceptions. This does not mean, however, that c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s i n the study may not i n f l u e n c e i t s f i n a l form. One l i m i t a t i o n may be evident i n the f a c t that the perspecti v e adopted by t h i s study presupposes a c e r t a i n value stance. This perspective assumes that knowledge has a strong s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l determinant and that o b j e c t i v i t y and value n e u t r a l i t y are unobtainable (Cronbach, 1980). These assumptions, however, are balanced i n the a c t u a l content a n a l y s i s by c l o s e regard to the f a c t o r s of a n a l y s i s o b j e c t i v i t y , system, and g e n e r a l i t y ( H o l s t i , 1969). The value stance, unavoidable i n any research (Hesse, 1980; Lather, 1985), merely provides a framework o f ^ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s . Another l i m i t a t i o n concerns access to the primary Getty l i t e r a t u r e . Since the Getty o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a p r i v a t e operating foundation, i t n e i t h e r has p u b l i c a r c h i v e s , nor i s i t r e q u ired to make any of i t s i n t e r n a l documents p u b l i c . The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s i s a l s o not considered to be a p h y s i c a l e n t i t y (Duke, 1983; Getty Center, 1985; Getty T r u s t , 1985). This means that the focus of t h i s study centers on the a n a l y s i s of those documents and w r i t i n g s that the Getty o r g a n i z a t i o n has chosen to make 15 p u b l i c . A suggestion concerning the r a t i o n a l e for a n a l y z i n g only the p u b l i c documents has been touched on and w i l l be e x p l i c a t e d i n more d e t a i l i n Chapter 3. Another l i m i t a t i o n concerns the sole use of content a n a l y s i s t o discover the values promoted by Getty. A n a l y s i s of the a e s t h e t i c values contained i n the Getty l i t e r a t u r e may r e f l e c t the personal values of the authors as w e l l as those of the i n s t i t u t i o n . The l i t e r a t u r e i t s e l f may be s e l e c t i v e in d e s c r i b i n g only the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s most important values, or may even omit mentioning c e r t a i n values because they are taken for granted (Rokeach, 1979). In response to t h i s l i m i t a t i o n , i t may be argued that the Getty o r g a n i z a t i o n both understands and b e l i e v e s i n the values i t promotes. I t s p u b l i c a t i o n s are produced with care and i n s i g h t and are f a i r l y c l e a r and accurate proclamations of i t s v i s i o n . Although i t i s beyond the scope of t h i s study to do so, other methods of a n a l y z i n g the authors' own personal values may be considered i n other s t u d i e s whose research aim i s to discover the mechanisms whereby these values have come to be adopted by the Getty. A l i m i t a t i o n which may be on-going concerns the t o p i c a l i t y of t h i s study and the e v o l u t i o n of the Getty's concept of DBAE. Pressure i s being put on the Getty by c r i t i c s and 16 other concerned a r t educators to account for i t s supposed focus on western exemplars and values. The Getty i s already aware of the problem and i s attempting to pl a c a t e those who accuse i t of c u l t u r a l narrowness. 1 1 Although i t s p o s i t i o n i s s t i l l extremely vague concerning t h i s i s s u e , i t seems that c e r t a i n events (The Issues seminar) are f o r c i n g the Getty i n t o a p o s i t i o n where i t may have to take a d e f i n i t e stand and announce i t s p o s i t i o n more c l e a r l y . This may mean that the Getty w i l l e i t h e r a l t e r or defend the value p o s i t i o n e x p l i c a t e d i n t h i s study. With respect f o r these l i m i t a t i o n s , an attempt i s made to i l l u m i n a t e the c r i t i c s ' c l a i m that DBAE a r t i c u l a t e s a set of ae s t h e t i c values which are based f i r m l y i n the Western European f i n e a r t standards f o r the s e l e c t i o n of superior v i s u a l images. NOTES 1 For now, a e s t h e t i c value means any c r i t e r i a by which one v i s u a l experience i s considered to be superior to another. An a d d i t i o n w i l l be made to t h i s d e f i n i t i o n l a t e r . 2 The concept of reform needs some e x p l a i n i n g . Although the Getty i s using t h e o r i e s and ideas which have been extant for more than twenty years, i t i n s i s t s on r e f e r r i n g to i t s e l f as a reform movement. In essence, i t i s s t r u c t u r i n g an a r t education program on structure of the disciplines t h e o r i e s and ideas, and implementing them as a reform f o r the n o n - d i s c i p l i n a r y ideas which now pervade the f i e l d . D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education (DBAE) i s an a r t education c u r r i c u l u m program that bases i t s a c t i v i t i e s on the content found i n the four d i s c i p l i n e s of: 1. A e s t h e t i c s 2. Production 3. A r t H i s t o r y 4. Art C r i t i c i s m Students are to l e a r n and p r a c t i s e the s k i l l s , a b i l i t i e s , and knowledge used by adult p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n each of these d i s c i p l i n e s . The main i n t e n t of DBAE i s to teach the student to understand the meaning t r a n s m i t t e d by c e r t a i n a r t exemplars (Getty Center, 1985, 1987a). The term the Getty r e f e r s to the e n t i r e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e sponsored and supported by the Getty T r u s t . This includes the Getty Trust, the Board of Trustees, a l l the operating programs and a c t i v i t i e s , and a l l the i n d i v i d u a l s who work for or are sponsored by the Trust (See Appendix C). The documents analyzed i n t h i s study come p r i m a r i l y from the operating program c a l l e d the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . I t i s s t r e s s e d that the Center i s not to be considered a p h y s i c a l e n t i t y , but rather a locus f o r c o o r d i n a t i n g programs and c u r r i c u l a (Duke, 1983; Getty Center, 1985; Getty T r u s t , 1985). By Western c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n i s meant a body of customary, approved ways of t h i n k i n g and a c t i n g based on Western European values. The l i t e r a t u r e i n v o l v i n g documents hot sponsored or supported by the Getty i s not l a r g e (See Appendix B). Many d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of p l u r a l i s m and m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m e x i s t . Perhaps the c l e a r e s t i s given by Mcintosh (1978) who stat e s that p l u r a l i s m i s the concept of c r e a t i n g and preserving boundaries between c u l t u r a l subgroups whereas m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m encourages i n t e r a c t i o n between groups. This p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n between the terms however, does not r e f l e c t t h e i r common usage i n the general l i t e r a t u r e . The terms are often used interchangeably, but many times with a s l i g h t d i s t i n c t i o n . This study w i l l r e f l e c t that common d i s t i n c t i o n by d e f i n i n g p l u r a l i s m as a c o n d i t i o n of so c i e t y i n which members of di v e r s e r e l i g i o u s , r a c i a l , . s o c i a l , i n t e r e s t , and ethnic groups maintain an involvement i n t h e i r own c u l t u r e or s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t (Gove, 1966). M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m , as i t i s most commonly used, seems to be a narrower concept, r e f e r r i n g only to c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d with ethnic groups 18 ( C r i t t e n d e n , 1982). This concept of d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s of v i s u a l phenomena w i l l l a t e r provide the b a s i s for the expansion of the d e f i n i t i o n of a e s t h e t i c value. In a sense, t h i s appears to be a viewpoint supporting the concept of r e l a t i v i s m . R e l a t i v i s t s assume that each form of l i f e i s a c l o s e d system, and that the normative questions of t r u t h , v a l i d i t y , and r a t i o n a l i t y cannot be s e t t l e d except by reference to standards that are p a r t i c u l a r to each system. On t h e i r view, i f there can be any c r i t i c i s m of the standards, i t must a l s o be wholly w i t h i n the system i t s e l f ( C r i t t e n d e n , 1982, p. 40). A purely r e l a t i v i s t viewpoint, however, cannot be the bas i s for p l u r a l i s m since i f holders of t h i s viewpoint are s t r i c t l y c o n s i s t e n t they cannot s e r i o u s l y argue with anyone outside t h e i r own group, nor can they c l a i m that everyone should acknowledge the v a l i d i t y of t h e i r p o s i t i o n (or adopt a n o n - r e l a t i v i s t p r i n c i p l e of t o l e r a t i o n towards the b e l i e f s of other groups) (1982). The problem of r e l a t i v i s m i s complex and i t i s not w i t h i n the scope of t h i s study to engage i n i t s e x p l i c a t i o n . Various viewpoints have been schematized as occupying a continuum between a b s o l u t i s t and r e l a t i v i s t p o s i t i o n s . Most p l u r a l i s t s , however, argue not a r e l a t i v i s t p o s i t i o n , but rather a modified or intermediary approach. This approach recognizes that there are some u n i v e r s a l agreements about t r u t h and r a t i o n a l i t y and that there are some b e l i e f s and values that are supposed to be (or should) be true for the s o c i e t y as a whole. What i s advocated, however, i s that t r u t h , r a t i o n a l i t y , and f a c t , d i f f e r from meaning and value. A e s t h e t i c values are p r i m a r i l y c u l t u r a l l y determined and i t i s the meaning a t t r i b u t e d to f a c t that i s more complex than a b s o l u t i s t viewpoints can encompass. I t i s value and meaning that i n a sense may be more r e l a t i v e to the groups in v o l v e d . The holders of t h i s viewpoint suggest that the b e l i e f s that d i v e r s e groups use to a t t r i b u t e value to the meanings of the a e s t h e t i c must be respected i n a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y . This can best be done by acknowledging the uniqueness of the group's a e s t h e t i c viewpoint. 19 Because t h i s study wishes to employ d e f i n i t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t with the Getty l i t e r a t u r e , t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of a e s t h e t i c value w i l l be used. As w i l l be shown l a t e r , a broader d e f i n i t i o n of a e s t h e t i c value should be used by the Getty. The Getty held the Issues seminar (Getty Center, 1988a) where they i n v i t e d 37 p a r t i c i p a n t s to a i r t h e i r concerns about the main issues surrounding DBAE. I t responded to these concerns by i s s u i n g two explanations (Getty Center, 1988b, 1988c). CHAPTER 2 GETTY AND DBAE: DOCUMENTATION 1982 - 1988 CONTEXTUAL OVERVIEW One of the most s i g n i f i c a n t a r t education movements i n contemporary h i s t o r y i s the d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education concept (DBAE) developed by the Getty o r g a n i z a t i o n . This o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n s i s t s of the J . Paul Getty Trust and the various operating e n t i t i e s i t has created (See Appendix C ) . Knowledge of t h i s movement i n a r t education has come p r i m a r i l y through published documents from the Getty (Muth, 1988). These documents, u s u a l l y l a v i s h l y i l l u s t r a t e d and p r o f e s s i o n a l l y produced, have created an i n t e r e s t i n g p i c t u r e concerning the development of the DBAE program. I t i s the r e a l i t y produced by these documents that has created a c e r t a i n controversy i n the f i e l d . At the present time, the Getty i s defending the w r i t i n g s i n these documents against c r i t i c s who have i n t e r p r e t e d them i n a negative way. The documentation which comprises DBAE can be seen as a s o c i o - h i s t o r i c a l phenomenon growing out of current educational reform t h e o r i e s and the Getty's d e s i r e to enter the educational arena. I t i s i n the coincidence of the Getty's a e s t h e t i c mission with the prevalent development of 20 21 a humanities approach w i t h i n a e s t h e t i c s and a r t education that the DBAE program was conceived and born. In order to understand the philosophy and theory behind t h i s program, i t may be h e l p f u l to understand something of the h i s t o r y whereby the program and i t s documents came i n t o being. (See Appendix D). The DBAE program i s sponsored by the J . Paul Getty Trust. This Trust c o n s i s t s of a f i n a n c i a l and v i s i o n a r y legacy l e f t by J . Paul Getty 1 for the maintenance and transmission of the a e s t h e t i c wealth embodied i n h i s f i n e a r t museum c o l l e c t i o n . The Trust has the mandate to promote Paul Getty's v i s i o n f o r the development of an educated, a p p r e c i a t i v e , and informed American a r t p u b l i c (Getty T r u s t , 1985). A f t e r Paul Getty's death i n 1976, the Trustees decided that h i s wishes could b e t t e r be met by expanding the a c t i v i t i e s of the Trust beyond the narrow scope served by the museum alone. In preparation f o r t h i s work, the Trust conducted i n v e s t i g a t i o n s during 1981 and 1982 i n order to i d e n t i f y and assess the needs and important issues r e l a t e d to the v i s u a l a r t s (Duke, 1983; Getty Center, 1985). The Trust's president and c h i e f executive o f f i c e r , Harold W i l l i a m s , a s s i s t e d by a small program s t a f f , 2 met with hundreds of i n d i v i d u a l s to 22 i d e n t i f y important issues r e l a t e d to the v i s u a l a r t s . These i n d i v i d u a l s c o n s i s t e d of "groups of p r o f e s s i o n a l s from the f i e l d s of a r t h i s t o r y and s c h o l a r s h i p , museums, and a r t s education" (Duke, 1983, p. 5). Their f i n d i n g s revealed that most a d u l t s receive l i t t l e or no exposure to the v i s u a l a r t s during t h e i r school years. In grade school, i f a r t education e x i s t s at a l l , i t u s u a l l y takes the form of production a c t i v i t i e s such as p a i n t i n g at an easel or shaping lumps of c l a y . Art programs, as g e n e r a l l y taught, do not have the substance or require the i n t e l l e c t u a l r i g o r that would make them part of the standard c u r r i c u l u m . . . As a r e s u l t , large numbers of students never develop an appreciation and understanding of art ( i t a l i c s added). (Getty Trust, 1985, p. 31). In a sense, these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were c r u c i a l . I t was here that the d e c i s i o n s were made concerning how to enlarge the Trust's a c t i v i t i e s while remaining true to Paul Getty's v i s i o n . As a r e s u l t of these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , c e r t a i n themes were i d e n t i f i e d and t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a set of programs designed to deal with c r i t i c a l needs i n the v i s u a l a r t s . These programs took the form of seven operating a c t i v i t i e s (expanded to eight i n 1984) d e a l i n g with museums, a r t h i s t o r y , conservation, and education (See Appendix C). 3 23 The a c t i v i t y that most concerns t h i s study i s the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s , created i n 1982. "The Center for Education i n the A r t s i s not envisioned as a p h y s i c a l e n t i t y , but rather as a locus for c o o r d i n a t i n g a c t i v i t i e s i n other places and drawing widely on the e x p e r t i s e of cons u l t a n t s and experienced p r a c t i t i o n e r s " (Duke, 1983, p.5). From the beginning the Center adopted d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education (DBAE) as the best approach for ensuring a serious place for a r t i n the p u b l i c schools (Duke, 1988), convinced that the sta t u s and q u a l i t y of a r t education could best be r a i s e d by systematic and seq u e n t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n through the d i s c i p l i n e s of a e s t h e t i c s , c r i t i c i s m , h i s t o r y , and production. The concept of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education i s the v e h i c l e f o r the Getty's mission and purpose. The Center has created s e v e r a l programs to help i n the r e a l i z a t i o n of t h i s v i s i o n . The f i r s t of the Center's programs, conducted i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with the Rand Corporation, focused on a research p r o j e c t designed to i d e n t i f y and study a s e r i e s of ar t education programs i n the United States that provided regular i n s t r u c t i o n i n a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d approach (Duke, 1983, 1984; Getty Center, 1985). The r e s u l t s were reported in the Getty's f i r s t p u b l i c r e p o r t , Beyond creating: The place for art in America's schools. * This study attempted .24 to i d e n t i f y and c h a r a c t e r i z e the components necessary for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education i n the schools. The r e s u l t s of the study were followed by four r e g i o n a l roundtable d i s c u s s i o n s held i n l a t e 1985 and e a r l y 1986 i n Boston, S e a t t l e , New Orleans, and Chicago. The i n t e n t i o n of these roundtable d i s c u s s i o n s was to monitor opinions and comments from a r t education s p e c i a l i s t s concerning the recommendations proposed i n Beyond • creati ng (Duke, 1988). The second of the Center's programs involved the establishment of The I n s t i t u t e f or Educators on the V i s u a l A r t s , designed "to provide teachers, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and school p o l i c y makers with the information and s k i l l s necessary to develop and implement a v i s u a l a r t s program i n t h e i r d i s t r i c t s " (Duke, 1983, p. 6). The I n s t i t u t e c o n s i s t s of three i n t e r r e l a t e d components, a four week program f o r elementary school teachers and p r i n c i p a l s , a seminar for superintendents, and a seminar for school board members (Duke, 1983). I n s t i t u t e s have been held i n 1983 and 1984 i n Los Angeles. The I n s t i t u t e i s engaged i n a f i v e - y e a r p i l o t program f o r the implementation of DBAE programs i n the elementary grades i n nine Los Angeles school d i s t r i c t s . The Center's a c t i v i t y increased during 1987. In January i t 25 h o s t e d a N a t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e i n L o s A n g e l e s c a l l e d " D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t e d u c a t i o n : W h a t f o r m s w i l l i t t a k e ? " T h i s c o n f e r e n c e b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r o v e r f o u r - h u n d r e d a r t e d u c a t o r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , a n d a r t i s t s , t o d i s c u s s t h e m a n y c o m p l e x i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n D B A E . T h e f o c u s o f t h e c o n f e r e n c e w a s t h e f o r m s D B A E w o u l d t a k e i n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1 9 8 7 a ) . D u r i n g t h e s u m m e r , t h e Journal of Aesthetic Education d e v o t e d i t s e n t i r e i s s u e t o t e n p a p e r s c o m m i s s i o n e d b y t h e G e t t y C e n t e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e a n t e c e d e n t s o f t h e d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d c o n c e p t . T h e s e s o - c a l l e d antecedent p a p e r s r e p r e s e n t s o l i d d o c u m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l w h i c h e x p l i c a t e s t h e a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s u p o n w h i c h D B A E r e s t s . T h e s e t e n d o c u m e n t s p r o v i d e d t h e b a s i s f o r t h e G e t t y ' s f i r s t v e n t u r e i n t o v o l u n t a r y p u b l i c c r i t i c i s m . I n M a y , 1 9 8 7 , 3 7 p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e i n v i t e d t o a C e n t e r - s p o n s o r e d s e m i n a r e n t i t l e d " I s s u e s i n d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t e d u c a t i o n : S t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e s t a n c e , e x t e n d i n g t h e h o r i z o n s , " h e l d i n C i n c i n n a t i , O h i o . P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e e x p e c t e d t o f a m i l i a r i z e t h e m s e l v e s w i t h t h e t e n a n t e c e d e n t s p a p e r s a n d t h e n r e s p o n d t o k e y n o t e t a l k s a d d r e s s i n g f o u r c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e s . i n D B A E . T h e G e t t y ' s r o l e w a s t o s i t b a c k a n d l i s t e n t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e i s s u e s . A t t h i s s e m i n a r , t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e G e t t y ' s e m p h a s i s o n w e s t e r n c u l t u r a l v a l u e s w a s a d d r e s s e d ( M c F e e , 26 1988) and the seminar respondents documented t h e i r concern that the Getty be more d t a i l e d i n e x p l a i n i n g the c r i t e r i a they use for s e l e c t i n g a r t exemplars i n the program (Getty Center, 1988a). In the l a t e summer of 1987, the Center hosted a seminar c a l l e d , "The p r e s e r v i c e challenge: D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education and recent reports on higher education," i n Snowbird, Utah, for f a c u l t y teams from 15 American u n i v e r s i t i e s . This seminar explored how t e a c h e r - t r a i n i n g programs might include the p r i n c i p l e s of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education (Duke, 1988; Getty Center, 1987b). Perhaps i n response to the recommendations made by the p a r t i c i p a n t s at the Issues seminar, the Getty has responded with two p u b l i c a t i o n s i n 1988, both of which have as t h e i r theme, the p u b l i c misperception of DBAE 5. (Getty Center, 1988b, 1988c). They say that the perception of the Getty's a e s t h e t i c values as Western-oriented i s not t r u e . The DBAE approach can encompass a r t from a l l c u l t u r e s and pe r i o d s , i n c l u d i n g f o l k , i n d u s t r i a l or a p p l i e d a r t s (Getty Center, 1988c). These two p u b l i c a t i o n s attempt to c l e a r up what the Getty b e l i e v e s are a s e r i e s of misconceptions about the DBAE program. 27 The impact that the Getty's DBAE has had on the f i e l d of a r t education i s phenomenal. The Center and I n s t i t u t e boast a f a c u l t y and group of consultants that include some of the most prominent a r t educators i n the U.S. 6 and the f i e l d ' s major p u b l i c a t i o n s have given over e n t i r e issues to the d i s c u s s i o n of DBAE. 7 The Getty i s confident that the DBAE program i s experiencing success. Today, we b e l i e v e i t i s demonstrably evident that the d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d approach i s becoming accepted nationwide as the new standard for a r t education. Support has come from p r e s t i g i o u s n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g The College Board, C o u n c i l of Chief State School O f f i c e r s , N a t i o n a l Endowment for the A r t s , N a t i o n a l Art Education A s s o c i a t i o n , N a t i o n a l School Boards A s s o c i a t i o n , and U.S. Department of Education. State departments of education, a r t education s c h o l a r s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s , teachers, school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , school boards, and parents have become e n t h u s i a s t i c p a r t i s a n s of DBAE. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the goals of the Center f o r DBAE are v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l to the aims stated by the Na t i o n a l A r t Education A s s o c i a t i o n for ach i e v i n g " Q u a l i t y Art Education" (Duke, 1988, p. 12). The r o l e of t h i s study w i l l be to analyze the body of ideas, b e l i e f s , and values which c o n s t i t u t e that s o - c a l l e d quality i n DBAE. But f i r s t , i t i s necessary to become acquainted with the t h e o r e t i c a l concepts which comprise DBAE. DISCIPLINE-BASED ART EDUCATION The Getty has expended much e f f o r t i n determining the antecedents of the d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d concept (C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987; E f l a n d , 1987; Kern, 1987; Smith, 1987), and be l i e v e s i t i s merely r e s u r r e c t i n g an idea which has long been cherished by leading a r t educators. The r u l i n g metaphor of DBAE i s that of the r e s t o r a t i o n of an a r t r e a l i t y that has become fragmented. DBAE seeks to un i t e the strands that have become u n r a v e l l e d . The d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d concept, i n v o l v i n g the i n t e g r a t i o n of the four a r t d i s c i p l i n e s of a e s t h e t i c s , production, h i s t o r y , and c r i t i c i s m , i s f e l t to provide t h i s r e s t o r a t i v e process. General Premises The Getty holds as i t s c e n t r a l v i s i o n the idea that a r t i s one of the primary r e p o s i t o r i e s of human c u l t u r e and that the study of a r t i s a p r i n c i p a l means of understanding human experience and t r a n s m i t t i n g c u l t u r a l values. "Art education enhances our a b i l i t y to f u l l y experience a r t and beauty, while deepening our understanding of c u l t u r e and h i s t o r y " 29 (Getty Center, 1985, p. 4). The focus of t h i s v i s i o n r esides i n the importance of a r t as cultural wealth. A strong c e n t r a l concern i n DBAE i s to produce l i t e r a t e consumers of that wealth, and to help students acquire s k i l l s that w i l l give them access to c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l ( E i s n e r , 1987a). In order to b r i n g about the kind of v i s u a l l i t e r a c y that the Getty d e s i r e s , a seriou s and academically o r i e n t e d program of education i s necessary. Since a r t education has nearly always been t r e a t e d as an unimportant and p e r i p h e r a l school study, the Getty has adopted a concept based on "substantive content and i n t e l l e c t u a l r i g o r " (Duke, 1984). I t has r e v i t a l i z e d an approach to a r t education u t i l i z i n g s t r u c t u r e of the d i s c i p l i n e concepts and c a l l e d i t d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education (DBAE). This model has synthesized and extended the d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d concepts that had been l a t e n t i n the f i e l d s i nce the 1960's (Lovano-Kerr, 1985). DBAE then, f u l f i l l s two basic needs. F i r s t , i t supports the idea that a rigorous education i s necessary for the understanding of a r t , and secondly, because of t h i s , i t i s able to elevate the s t a t u s of a r t education i n the schools. T h e o r e t i c a l Foundations The content of DBAE i s drawn from the four d i s c i p l i n e s of a e s t h e t i c s , a r t production, a r t h i s t o r y , and a r t c r i t i c i s m ( E i s n e r , 1987a; Greer, 1984). The concept of understanding, so important i n DBAE, i s be l i e v e d to be enhanced by the use of t h i s d i s c i p l i n a r y approach. We increase our.understanding of the meaning of an artwork i f we have worked with m a t e r i a l s and processes that a r t i s t s use to create a r t . We a l s o broaden our understanding i f we know when and where a work was made, something about i t s c r e a t o r , the fun c t i o n i t served i n s o c i e t y , and what a r t experts have s a i d about i t (Getty Center, 1985, p. 13). I t i s e s s e n t i a l that one examine and understand the ideas and b e l i e f s that c o n s t i t u t e these four parent disciplines. Aesthet i c s A e s t h e t i c s i s that branch of philosophy that i s concerned with "understanding what q u a l i t i e s i n a r t c o n t r i b u t e to a e s t h e t i c responses (Getty Center, 1985, p. 19). A e s t h e t i c i a n s are those p r o f e s s i o n a l s who possess a s o p h i s t i c a t i o n concerning the bases for making judgments about a r t and about questions d e a l i n g with i t s status as a form of knowledge ( E i s n e r , 1987a). They are concerned with 31 questions about what a r t i s , on what b a s i s judgments about the q u a l i t y of a r t works can be made, and whether there are c e r t a i n standards that a l l good works of a r t must meet (Eis n e r , 1987a). The Getty's s t a t e d i n t e r e s t i s not i n produ c i n g . p r o f e s s i o n a l a e s t h e t i c i a n s , but i n encouraging students to engage i n conversation and dialogue about the meaning of a r t . "By t a l k i n g about and reading what a e s t h e t i c i a n s have w r i t t e n about a r t and a e s t h e t i c responses to i t , students can l e a r n d i f f e r e n t ways to appreciate and value a r t " (Getty Center, 1985, p. 19). Art Production The producers of a r t are those who use v i s u a l symbols to embody important human meanings (Greer, 1984). The d i s c i p l i n e of a r t production i s viewed by Getty as a co g n i t i v e and not p r i m a r i l y as an expressive act ( D i B l a s i o , 1985; E i s n e r , 1987a). The main reason students involve themselves i n production a c t i v i t i e s i s so that by working with a r t m a t e r i a l s and processes, they may increase t h e i r understanding of a r t (Getty Center, 1985). C h i l d r e n ' s own c r e a t i v e symbol-making a c t i v i t i e s are to be subordinated to the examination of s o p h i s t i c a t e d exemplars that embody adult understandings of a r t (Greer, 1984). Art H i s t o r y Art h i s t o r y r e q u i r e s the kind of understanding that r e s u l t s from p l a c i n g a r t works i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l circumstances (Greer, 1984). Art h i s t o r i a n s understand the place of a r t i n time and c u l t u r e ( E i s n e r , 1987a). Art h i s t o r y helps students to understand a r t works by g i v i n g them the knowledge concerning who created the works, what purposes they served, and the contexts i n which they were created and how they changed (Getty Center, 1985). Art C r i t i c i s m Art c r i t i c i s m i n v o l v e s e x p l a i n i n g an a r t work and judging i t . C r i t i c s know how to perceive a r t works and to describe and i n t e r p r e t t h e i r features ( E i s n e r , 1987a). By studying c r i t i c i s m , students acquire a b a s i s for making t h e i r own judgments about a r t . They come to understand that i n order to obtain meaning from a r t , knowledge and o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a are necessary (Getty Center, 1985). These are the four d i s c i p l i n e s from which the content of DBAE i s drawn. In order to be s u c c e s s f u l they are to be in t e g r a t e d i n t o a c u r r i c u l a r whole and i n t e r p e n e t r a t e " f o r mutual reinforcement i n the course of adult a r t i s t i c endeavour" ( D i B l a s i o , 1985b, p. 203). 33 Curriculum The idea of a st r u c t u r e d c u r r i c u l u m i s paramount i n DBAE. Without a systematic and s e q u e n t i a l l y s t r u c t u r e d c u r r i c u l u m , there i s no access to the understanding of a r t ( E i s n e r , 1987a). The a c t i v i t i e s must be ordered i n such a way so as to move from a naive to a s o p h i s t i c a t e d understanding (Greer, 1984; D i B l a s i o , 1985b). Learner outcomes are s p e c i f i e d ( D i B l a s i o , 1985b), and student progress i s to be assessed (McFee, 1984). Student l e a r n i n g must c o n s t a n t l y be guided towards achieving the kind of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n represented i n adult exemplars. A t t e n t i o n i s to be given to the developmental l e v e l of students and the pre s e n t a t i o n of mat e r i a l s and s k i l l s i s to be ordered from simple to complex (Greer, 1984). In summary then, the t h e o r e t i c a l concepts which comprise DBAE are concerned f i r s t with the e x t r a c t i o n of meaning from a r t works. P a r t i c i p a n t s i n i t s program must come to understand and not merely appreciate a r t . The Getty b e l i e v e s that t h i s can best occur by studying the four d i s c i p l i n e s i n v o l v i n g a e s t h e t i c s , production, h i s t o r y , and c r i t i c i s m . Students must come to understand a r t according to the way p r o f e s s i o n a l and s o p h i s t i c a t e d a d u l t s . i n those d i s c i p l i n e s have determined. Because d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education i s concerned with meaning and understanding i t can q u a l i f y as 34 an academic concern and hence be accorded more stat u s i n the p u b l i c school system. NOTES 1 John Paul Getty was an American businessman who amassed an enormous fortune i n the o i l business. During the 1950s he was reputed to be one of the r i c h e s t men i n the world. His primary avocation was c o l l e c t i n g a r t and i n 1954 he created a t r u s t c a l l e d the J . Paul Getty Museum to administer and maintain h i s a r t c o l l e c t i o n . A f t e r h i s death i n 1976, the t r u s t changed i t s name to the J . Paul Getty Trust (Getty, 1964, 1976; Getty Museum, 1986). Following a precedent set i n the l i t e r a t u r e , J . Paul Getty w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d to simply as Paul Getty. 2 The two persons who a s s i s t e d Harold W i l l i a m s were L e i l a n i L a t t i n Duke and Nancy Englander. Both had held executive p o s i t i o n s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s that supported a humanities approach to a r t and a r t education (Getty Trust, 1985). 3 What i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note i s the preponderance of museum and f i n e a r t a c t i v i t y . Out of 8 operating programs, 5 are concerned d i r e c t l y with the f i n e a r t museum c u l t u r e . * The respect that the Getty would pay to the v i s u a l aspect of i t s documentary r e a l i t y was evident from i t s f i r s t p u b l i c a t i o n . The published report i s handsome! I t ' s w e l l designed; the q u a l i t y of the p r i n t i n g i s exemplary. I t ' s e a s i l y among the most impressive l o o k i n g p u b l i c a t i o n advocating serious a t t e n t i o n to the teaching of a r t i n our schools. I t ' s the kind of report that would be q u i t e at home with e l e g a n t l y designed e f f o r t s that adorn the t a b l e s of corporate board rooms. By i t s appearance, i t t e s t i f i e s to the importance being given to i t s content (Hausman, 1985, p. 52). This high regard for the aesthetic q u a l i t y of t h e i r documents has been maintained. 35 A p p a r e n t l y t h e w o r k i n g d r a f t f o r t h e 1 9 8 8 b p u b l i c a t i o n b e g a n b y c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g t h e m i s p e r c e p t i o n a s a myth, t h e n c h a n g e d t h e w o r d t o misperception, t h e n f i n a l l y t o perception. T h e I n s t i t u t e f a c u l t y , c o n s u l t a n t s a n d a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e h a v e i n c l u d e d : W a r r e n A n d e r s o n , H a r r y B r o u d y , L a u r a C h a p m a n , G i l b e r t C l a r k , H o w a r d C o n a n t , M i c h a e l D a y , M a r g a r e t D i B l a s i o , P h i l l i p D u n n , E l l i o t E i s n e r , M a r y E r i c k s o n , H e r m i n e F e i n s t e i n , E d m u n d F e l d m a n , G r a c e H a m p t o n , L e e H e r l i h y , M a d e l i n e H u n t e r , V i n c e n t L a n i e r , J e s s i e L o v a n o - K e r r , B r u c e a n d K a r e n N e w l i n , B e c k y N o v y , J o h n O u t t e n b r i d g e , J e a n R u s h , P a m e l a S h a r p , R a l p h S m i t h , H a r v e y S t a h l , M a r y - A n n S t a n k i e w i c z , a n d J o y c e W r i g h t , T h e s e p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e : Studies in Art Education, 2 5 ( 4 ) , 1 9 8 4 . Studies in Art Education, 2 5 ( 4 ) , 1 9 8 7 . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7 9 ( 2 ) , 1 9 8 5 . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 1 9 8 7 . Art Education, 40(b), 1 9 8 7 . Art Education, 41(2), 1 9 8 8 . CHAPTER 3 FINDING AESTHETIC VALUES IN DBAE AESTHETIC VALUES The determination of what comprises a e s t h e t i c value depends on how a e s t h e t i c value i s de f i n e d . For the purpose of t h i s study, a e s t h e t i c value w i l l r e f e r only to experiences which are v i s u a l . D e f i n i t i o n s used w i l l employ concepts from a e s t h e t i c and value theory supported by statements from the Getty l i t e r a t u r e which are c o n s i s t e n t with DBAE's expressed viewpoints. Value The term "value" has been used i n many ways. I t has been used to r e f e r to i n t e r e s t s , preferences, l i k e s , goals, d e s i r e s , and a t t r a c t i o n s ( W i l l i a m s , 1979). The common fea t u r e , however, i s that i t represents a d e s i r a b l e s t a t e . Value t h e o r i s t s , i n attempting to e l i m i n a t e much of the ambiguity of the term, have i d e n t i f i e d the core phenomenon of value as c r i t e r i a or standards of preference 1 (Pepper, 1958; W i l l i a m s , 1968; 1970; 1979). Values serve as standards that we l e a r n to employ tr a n s c e n d e n t a l l y across subjects and s i t u a t i o n s i n 36 • 37 various ways: to guide a c t i o n ; to guide us to the p o s i t i o n s that we take on various s o c i a l , i d e o l o g i c a l , p o l i t i c a l , and r e l i g i o u s i s s u e s . . . We employ values as standards, moreover, to decide what i s worth and not worth arguing about, worth and not worth persuading and i n f l u e n c i n g others to b e l i e v e in and to do (Rokeach, 1979, p. 48). This basic d e f i n i t i o n i s supported by the Getty l i t e r a t u r e which says that values are i d e a l s or standards against which choices are measured (Broudy, 1987). Values then, r e f e r to the c r i t e r i a by which preference f o r one t h i n g over another i s determined. But values are u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with some domain of human a c t i v i t y . This union r e s u l t s i n various value domains such as economic value, p o l i t i c a l value, r e l i g i o u s value, and others, each of which possess i t s own unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Broudy, 1987). We w i l l t r y to e s t a b l i s h that the way worth or value i s bestowed on v i s u a l experience represents the domain of a e s t h e t i c value. A e s t h e t i c Value The Getty s t a t e s that a e s t h e t i c s concerns i t s e l f with judgments about the q u a l i t y , value, s t a t u s , and s i g n i f i c a n c e of a r t ( E i s n e r , 1987a, 1987b; Crawford, 1987; Greer, 1987; 38 Smith, 1987). One of i t s c e n t r a l concerns i s i n e l u c i d a t i n g the c r i t e r i a or standards used i n the process ( D i B l a s i o , 1985b). Questions involved i n t h i s endeavour ask whether there are o b j e c t i v e standards or c r i t e r i a f o r determining i f an a r t work i s good (Crawford, 1987), which works of a r t are judged b e t t e r than others and how we decide (Greer, 1987), whether judgments can be backed by o b j e c t i v e standards or c r i t e r i a (Getty Center, 1987a), and whether there are c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a that a l l good works of a r t must meet (Ei s n e r , 1987b). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between a e s t h e t i c s and value i s extremely c l o s e (Broudy, 1972; E f l a n d , 1987). The concern of t h i s study i s to take the aspect of a e s t h e t i c s as inquiry into the criteria for attribution of value and use i t as a category for determining the a e s t h e t i c values employed i n DBAE. But our understanding of the term aesthetic value i s s t i l l incomplete. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the aesthetic r e f e r r e d to a p a r t i c u l a r involvement with an object that was described as i n t r i n s i c , i . e . , the involvement r e f e r r e d to nothing beyond the formal p r o p e r t i e s and q u a l i t i e s of the work i t s e l f . 2 Anything instrumental or e x t r i n s i c to t h i s kind of involvement was c a l l e d e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c . Many c r i t i c i z e DBAE because they f e e l i t focuses on t h i s formal a e s t h e t i c model (Chalmers, 1987a, 1987b) and hence, i t devalues or excludes concerns 39 w h i c h a r e e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c ( B e r s s o n , 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e i r c o n c e r n i s t h a t a e s t h e t i c s i n D B A E i s l i m i t e d t o f o r m a l a n d s t u c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s o n l y . T h e s e c r i t i c s , h o w e v e r , a p p e a r t o b e m i s t a k e n i n a t t r i b u t i n g a p u r e l y f o r m a l c o n c e r n t o t h e G e t t y . T h e r e i s a n i n d i c a t i o n i n D B A E t h a t t h e t e r m aesthetic i n v o l v e s i n s t r u m e n t a l o r e x t r i n s i c f a c t o r s a s w e l l a s i n t r i n s i c o n e s . T h e r e i s a w i d e s p r e a d r e j e c t i o n o f t h e i d e a t h a t w o r t h o r v a l u e c a n only b e a t t r i b u t e d o n f o r m a l g r o u n d s . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f o r m a l p r o p e r t i e s , a e s t h e t i c r e s p o n s e i n c l u d e s " u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e w o r k ' s h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t , t h e a b i l i t y t o a p p r e h e n d i m a g i n a t i v e l y w h a t t h e a r t i s t e x p r e s s e d , . a n d t h e a b i l i t y t o e s t i m a t e t h e v a l u e o f t h e w o r k u s i n g c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a " ( E f l a n d , 1 9 8 7 , p . 8 3 ) . D B A E t h e o r i s t s q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a e s t h e t i c j u d g m e n t s h o u l d b e c o n f i n e d t o f o r m a l e x c e l l e n c e o r w h e t h e r o t h e r f a c t o r s s h o u l d n o t a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d ( G r e e r , 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e l i t e r a t u r e r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r v a l u e i s d u e t o t h e f o r m a l e x p e r i e n c e o f i n t r i n s i c g r a t i f i c a t i o n o r f o r t h e w a y s i t c o n t r i b u t e s t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o r b o t h ( S m i t h , 1 9 8 7 b ) . I t i s s t a t e d t h a t o t h e r a r e a s s u c h a s t h e c u l t u r a l , i n t e r a c t t o e n l a r g e t h e s c o p e a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f a e s t h e t i c i n q u i r y ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1 9 8 7 a ) . S i n c e a f o c u s o n t h e f o r m a l c o n c e p t s a l o n e .40 l o s e s s i g h t of the l a r g e r meanings i m p a r t e d by the work, i t i s suggested t h a t DBAE s h o u l d t r e a t o t h e r g o a l s as w e l l ( E f l a n d , 1987). A c c o r d i n g t o the con c e r n s e x p r e s s e d i n the G e t t y l i t e r a t u r e , the meaning of aesthetic can be extended t o embrace elements o t h e r than the t r a d i t i o n a l one of f o r m a l i n t r i n s i c i n v o l v e m e n t . The term aestheti c t h e n , w i l l r e f e r t o any i n t r i n s i c or e x t r i n s i c f a c t o r used i n a t t r i b u t i n g worth t o v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t a t t h i s p o i n t t o b u i l d a l i n k a g e between the terms v a l u e and a e s t h e t i c s and p r o v i d e a w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n f o r aesthetic value. S i n c e the p r i m a r y purpose of t h i s s tudy i s t o d i s c o v e r what a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s a re b e i n g a r t i c u l a t e d by DBAE, the c e n t r a l c a t e g o r y of a n a l y s i s w i l l be a e s t h e t i c v a l u e . I t s n a t u r e i s i n t i m a t e l y bound up w i t h those v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e s wherein t h i n g s a r e reg a r d e d as c o r r e c t or i n c o r r e c t , good or bad, b e a u t i f u l or u g l y . In making c h o i c e s about a r t , some k i n d s of t h i n g s a r e g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r r e d over o t h e r s . Out of a range of many a e s t h e t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a t t e n t i o n i s bestowed on one k i n d of v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e r a t h e r than a n o t h e r . T h i s p r e f e r e n c e i n p u r s u i n g one s e l e c t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n over another c o n s t i t u t e s the making of a v a l u e judgment. A e s t h e t i c v a l u e s , however d e f i n e d , s e r v e as c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n , judgment, c h o i c e and p r e f e r e n c e i n a c t i o n . For the purposes of t h i s s t u d y , the term 41 a e s t h e t i c value w i l l mean any criteria by which one visual experience is considered to be preferable or superior to another . FINDING AESTHETIC VALUES IN THE LITERATURE I t might be objected that the d e f i n i t i o n s given so f a r apply to i n d i v i d u a l values rather than to t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o u nterparts. The a e s t h e t i c values embodied i n the Getty documents are c e r t a i n l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of i n s t i t u t i o n a l -rather than i n d i v i d u a l expressions of value. M i l t o n Rokeach (1979) however, claims i t i s p o s s i b l e to study i n s t i t u t i o n a l values using d e f i n i t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l values. He assumes that i n s t i t u t i o n a l values are b a s i c a l l y the same as those manifested at the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l and that i n s t i t u t i o n a l values are major determinants of i n d i v i d u a l values. Related to t h i s , Rokeach s t a t e s that since s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s leave value " t r a c e s , " i t i s p o s s i b l e to study them i n a methodical way. The idea of value trace i s perhaps most s i m i l a r to the t r a c e s l e f t by an ancient c i v i l i z a t i o n -a r t i f a c t s from which a r c h a e o l o g i s t s reconstruct or i n f e r what l i f e must have been l i k e i n an ancient c i v i l i z a t i o n . Analogously, s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s can be imagined to leave traces of t h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e value p a t t e r n i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents (Rokeach, 1979, p. 53). One of the methods Rokeach suggests to recover these i n s t i t u t i o n a l value traces i s content a n a l y s i s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents. Content Analysis In t h i s study, content a n a l y s i s of documents serves as the primary method whereby a e s t h e t i c values are i d e n t i f i e d . The a n a l y s i s i s meant to support the s u b j e c t i v e examination of the documents. Since the nature of the documents and the questions asked are such that enumeration of the frequency of answers serves l i t t l e purpose, a more q u a l i t a t i v e approach to content a n a l y s i s i s s t r e s s e d . The L i t e r a t u r e The sources used to discover the values c o n s i s t of the documents r e f e r r e d to as the Getty l i t e r a t u r e (See Appendix A). This body of work i s produced by the Getty or by w r i t e r s working f o r the Getty. This d i s t i n c t i o n must be made c l e a r . Rokeach (1979) mentions s e v e r a l sources wherein values can be i d e n t i f i e d . The f i r s t i s the i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents or p u b l i c a t i o n s which exhort c e r t a i n values. In t h i s study, t h i s r e f e r s to the o f f i c i a l documents a c t u a l l y published by the Getty Trust and which can be seen to represent the 43 o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n of the G e t t y o r g a n i z a t i o n i t s e l f . The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r c o n c e n t r a t i n g o n l y on the documentary e v i d e n c e has a l r e a d y been mentioned i n Chapter 1. The knowledge of DBAE f o r most a r t e d u c a t o r s i s a documentary knowledge. Muth (1988) speaks f o r many when she says "what I have come t o u n d e r s t a n d about DBAE i s based p r i m a r i l y on what has been made a v a i l a b l e i n secondary s o u r c e s , m o s t l y w r i t t e n r e p o r t s from the G e t t y . I imagine t h i s i s t r u e of the m a j o r i t y of Art Education r e a d e r s " (p. 19). Most of the c r i t i c a l c o n t r o v e r s i e s s u r r o u n d i n g DBAE a r i s e i n r e l a t i o n t o a n a l y s e s of the G e t t y documents. 3 Dorothy Smith (1974) has expanded the concept of documentation and i t s s o c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Our knowledge of contemporary s o c i e t y i s t o a l a r g e e x t e n t mediated t o us by documents of v a r i o u s k i n d s . Very l i t t l e of our knowledge of p e o p l e , e v e n t s , s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s and powers a r i s e s d i r e c t l y i n our immediate e x p e r i e n c e . F a c t u a l s t a t e m e n t s i n documentary form, whether as news, d a t a , i n f o r m a t i o n or t h e l i k e , s t a n d i n f o r an a c t u a l i t y which i s not d i r e c t l y a c c e s s i b l e . S o c i a l l y o r g a n i z e d p r a c t i c e s of r e p o r t i n g and r e c o r d i n g work upon what a c t u a l l y happens or has happened t o c r e a t e a r e a l i t y i n 44 documentary form, and though they are d e c i s i v e to i t s c h a r a c t e r , t h e i r t r aces are not v i s i b l e i n i t (p. 257). This study bases i t s j u s t i f i c a t i o n for a n a l y z i n g the documents on the fa c t t h a t : 1. the knowledge of DBAE has been p r i m a r i l y mediated to the p u b l i c by Getty documents, 2. DBAE i s i d e n t i f i e d by the m a j o r i t y of a r t educators as i d e n t i c a l to t h i s documentation. 3. i t i s t h i s documentation that has been the target for c r i t i c s and which has been described as representing a viewpoint i n c o n s i s t e n t with c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m . 4. i t i s t h i s documentation that Getty claims has been m i s i n t e r p r e t e d and i s now defending. 5. i t i s t h i s documentation which e x i s t s as a body of knowledge most l i k e l y to i n f l u e n c e a r t education c u r r i c u l u m designers and planners. Although there i s a d e f i n i t e need f o r ethnographic and i n v e s t i g a t i v e work to expand knowledge concerning the mechanism whereby the values represented i n the documents have come i n t o being, t h i s study focuses on the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the a e s t h e t i c values contained i n the e x i s t i n g body of documentary knowledge. Another method of recovering i n s t i t u t i o n a l value traces c o n s i s t s of an a n a l y s i s of the statements made by the advocates of an i n s t i t u t i o n . Advocates here r e f e r to people employed by Getty and who through t h e i r own w r i t t e n statements advocate and support Getty's v i s i o n f or educational reform through DBAE. Their values are expressed through t h e i r w r i t i n g s but not published by the Trust i t s e l f . This study w i l l consider the second set of documents as being f a i r l y r e l i a b l e guides to Getty p o l i c y since the advocates' values are l i k e l y to r e f l e c t those of the i n s t i t u t i o n for whom they work (Rokeach, 1979). The Getty l i t e r a t u r e then, has two aspects. The f i r s t i n v o l v e s documents a c t u a l l y published by the Getty, and the second i n v o l v e s documents published by the advocates. Both aspects of the l i t e r a t u r e are i n agreement concerning t h e i r support for DBAE programs and the values embodied i n them. Although there are minor procedural d i f f e r e n c e s expressed i n terms of t r a n s l a t i n g theory i n t o p r a c t i s e , there i s no apparent disagreement concerning the c e n t r a l i t y of a c e r t a i n v i s u a l experience and the viewpoint concerning the standard f o r the assessment of i t s e x c e l l e n c e . As was s t a t e d before, l i t t l e b e n e f i t r e s u l t s from by enumerating exact counts of the occurrences of a reference 46 to a p a r t i c u l a r a e s t h e t i c value. The Getty w r i t i n g s are broad and di s c u s s many concerns and problems e x i s t i n g i n DBAE. Some give no mention of a e s t h e t i c value, while others focus on i t as t h e i r main t o p i c . What was sought from the l i t e r a t u r e were statements which revealed the kinds of a e s t h e t i c values thought important for the assessment of the superior a r t work i n DBAE. Value Statements and Categories In order to discover the c r i t e r i a f or a e s t h e t i c value i n DBAE, the l i t e r a t u r e was analyzed and a l l value statements were e x t r a c t e d . The f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a were used to detect relevant value statements (C l a r k , 1975). 1. Statements i n the l i t e r a t u r e which d i s c u s s the nature and f u n c t i o n of a r t . . F o r example, the author may s t a t e " a r t i s . . . " or " a r t does..." 2. Statements i n the l i t e r a t u r e which r e f e r to the value of a r t and i t s a p p r e c i a t i o n . For example, the author may st a t e "the value of a r t i s . . . " 3. Statements i n the l i t e r a t u r e which r e f e r to c r i t e r i a or standards for judging works of a r t . For example, the author may st a t e " t h i s work i s deemed superior because..." The l i t e r a t u r e was read and 438 statements (comprising 105 47 pages) were e x t r a c t e d . These statements were then analyzed and c l a s s i f i e d according to 17 key value concepts (See Appendix E). The key concepts were c l a s s i f i e d under s i x c a t e g o r i e s and e x p l i c a t e d i n s o f a r as they p e r t a i n e d to the c r i t e r i a for determining s u p e r i o r i t y i n a v i s u a l experience. The s i x c a t e g o r i e s included: 1. The a r t work 2. The f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n 3. The code 4. I n t e l l e c t u a l value 5. C u l t u r a l value 6. Formal value These c a t e g o r i e s should not be considered e x c l u s i v e since they are mutually interdependent, each tending to support and i n f l u e n c e the other. Their i s o l a t i o n as part of a schema i s to a s s i s t i n understanding rather than to suggest that they e x i s t as separate e n t i t i e s . The c a t e g o r i e s were expanded i n t o c r i t e r i a which are based on the enlarged concept of a e s t h e t i c worth i n v i s u a l experience found i n the Getty's c l a i m that formal c r i t e r i a are no longer the sole means for i d e n t i f y i n g a work's s u p e r i o r i t y . This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a e s t h e t i c value i s both appropriate and supportive of Getty's broader conception of a r t i s t i c e x c e l l e n c e . 48 T h e i d e n t i f i e d c r i t e r i a m o v e b e y o n d f o r m a l c r i t e r i a t o i n c l u d e t w o g e n e r a l c r i t e r i a ( a r t w o r k a n d t h e f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n ) w h i c h p l a c e t h e s u p e r i o r v i s u a l i m a g e i n a c o n t e x t , a n d f o u r v i s u a l c r i t e r i a ( t h e c o d e a n d i t s i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , a n d f o r m a l v a l u e s ) b a s e d o n t h e s y m b o l i c c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e s u p e r i o r v i s u a l i m a g e i t s e l f . T h e f u s i o n o f t h e s e c r i t e r i a c o n s t i t u t e s t h e b a s i s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g m e r i t i n a n a r t w o r k . I n o r d e r t o q u a l i f y f o r s u p e r i o r s t a t u s i n D B A E , a n e x p e r i e n c e s h o u l d p o s s e s s , i n s o m e d e g r e e , a l l o f t h e s e c o m p o n e n t v a l u e s . N O T E S 1 A l t h o u g h t h e r e m a y b e a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t e r m s c r i t e r i a a n d standards, n o r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n s e e m s t o b e o b s e r v e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . T h e w a y t h e y seem t o b e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i s t h a t c r i t e r i a r e f e r t o t h e c o m p o n e n t s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e a s t a n d a r d . I n o t h e r w o r d s , a s t a n d a r d i s a f i n i s h e d a n d c o m p l e t e d m o d e l ( e x e m p l a r ) c o n s t r u c t e d b y m e a n s o f t h e c r i t e r i a . T h e s t a n d a r d i s m o r e t h a n t h e s u m o f i t s p a r t s , f o r c r i t e r i a b y t h e m s e l v e s d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e a s t a n d a r d . 2 T h e t e r m s formal a n d formalism r e f e r t o t h e t h e o r y t h a t a p p r e c i a t i o n i s t o b e d i r e c t e d o n l y t o t h e e l e m e n t s ( l i n e s , c o l o r s , s h a p e s , a n d f o r m s ) a n d p r i n c i p l e s ( b a l a n c e , h a r m o n y , a n d u n i t y ) w h i c h c o m p r i s e a v i s u a l i m a g e . T h e s e formal q u a l i t i e s a r e t h e o n l y q u a l i t i e s r e l e v a n t t o a e s t h e t i c v a l u e ( C a r l s o n , 1 9 7 9 ) . 3 T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e c o n c e p t o f d o c u m e n t a t i o n a s a n i n d i c a t o r o f i n t e r e s t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d b y t h e G e t t y . A r u n n i n g t a l l y o n t h e n u m b e r o f c o p i e s o f i t s f i r s t p u b l i c d o c u m e n t , Beyond cr eat i ng: The place for art in America's schools ( 1 9 8 5 ) , h a s b e e n c a r e f u l l y k e p t a n d r e p o r t e d . I n 1 9 8 7 , t h e G e t t y r e p o r t e d t h a t " 5 5 , 0 0 0 c o p i e s o f t h e p u b l i c a t i o n h a v e b e e n d i s s e m i n a t e d , p r o v i d i n g o n e i n d i c a t i o n t h a t D B A E h a s s t r u c k a r e c e p t i v e c h o r d a m o n g e d u c a t o r s a n d o t h e r s " ( G e t t y Center, 1987a, p. 2). In 1988 i t was reported that "more than 60,000 copies the report have been d i s t r i b u t e d , and a d d i t i o n a l requests a r r i v e almost d a i l y " (Duke, 1988, p. 445). CHAPTER 4 THE AESTHETIC VALUES OF DBAE T h e a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s t h a t t h e G e t t y s e e m s t o h a v e a c o n s i s t e n t p r o g r a m o f a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s i t w i s h e s t o e n c o u r a g e . T h i s s t u d y ' s a s s u m p t i o n i s t h a t a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s a r e t h e most i m p o r t a n t f a c e t o f a n a r t e d u c a t i o n c u r r i c u l u m p r o g r a m . A e s t h e t i c v a l u e h a s b e e n d e f i n e d a s any c r i t e r i a b y w h i c h o n e v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e i s j u d g e d t o b e s u p e r i o r t o a n o t h e r . I t h a s a l r e a d y b e e n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c r i t e r i a c a n i n v o l v e i n t r i n s i c a s w e l l a s e x t r i n s i c c o n c e r n s , a n d t h i s i s d e m o n s t r a t e d i n t h e s i x f u n d a m e n t a l c r i t e r i a w h i c h w e r e r e v e a l e d a f t e r a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e G e t t y l i t e r a t u r e . T h e f i r s t t w o c r i t e r i a , w h i c h w i l l b e c a l l e d g e n e r a l c r i t e r i a , i d e n t i f y s u p e r i o r i t y a s p a r t o f a s p e c i f i c c o n t e x t , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e work of art w i t h i n t h e fine art t r a d i t i o n . T h e t w o c r i t e r i a c a n b e e x p r e s s e d a s f o l l o w s : 1. t h e v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e e m b o d i e d i n a n art work c r e a t e d b y a n a r t i s t i s b e t t e r t h a n t h e v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h i s n o t . 2. T h e a r t w o r k w h i c h c a n c l a i m m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e fine art t r a d i t i o n i s b e t t e r t h a n t h e a r t w o r k w h i c h c a n n o t . T h e n e x t s e t o f c r i t e r i a , i d e n t i f i e d a s visual c r i t e r i a , a r e 5 0 51 based on an assessment of the symbolic components of the v i s u a l image i t s e l f . In a sense, the values which comprise the v i s u a l c r i t e r i a d i r e c t l y sponsor the general ones. Very simply, an a r t object contains v i s u a l symbols which comprise a code. The concept of code here merely means an aggregation of v i s u a l elements r e q u i r i n g a c e r t a i n l i t e r a c y f or i t s understanding. The viewer 1 should have c e r t a i n knowledge i n order to decipher t h i s code. The code and i t s forms of l i t e r a c y must embody c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d values i n order to be assessed as superior by DBAE standards. These c r i t e r i a can be expressed as f o l l o w s : 1. The a r t work which embodies a s o p h i s t i c a t e d and complex code demanding literacy for i t s decipherment i s bet t e r than the a r t work which does not. 2. The code which contains c e r t a i n intellectual values a c c e s s i b l e through an intellectual l i t e r a c y i s bet t e r than the code which does not. 3. The code which contains c e r t a i n cultural values r e q u i r i n g a s o p h i s t i c a t e d cul t ural l i t e r a c y to decipher i t i s superior to the code which does not. 4. The code which contains c e r t a i n formal values r e q u i r i n g a s p e c i a l formal l i t e r a c y to decipher i t i s bet t e r than the code which does not. 52 THE WORK OF ART Aesthetic Criterion No. 1 - The visual experience which is embodied in an art work created by an artist is better than the visual experience which is not . Many kinds of human v i s u a l experiences have been e x a l t e d as v e h i c l e s f o r a e s t h e t i c value. C i r c u s sideshows, breath t a k i n g sunsets, rock videos, p r a i r i e storms, and works of ar t created both by f r i n g e and recognized a r t i s t s a l l compete for t h i s r o l e . The Getty does acknowledge that a l l these forms may be acceptable objects for the a t t r i b u t i o n of value. The l i t e r a t u r e broadly describes a r t as those "images and events whose,structural p r o p e r t i e s e l i c i t a e s t h e t i c forms of f e e l i n g " ( E i s n e r , 1987a), and i n se v e r a l places mentions that a l l v i s u a l forms, i . e . , the v i s u a l world as we l l as created a r t , are important (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987; E i s n e r , 1987b; Rush, 1987). Although the l i t e r a t u r e does acknowledge that alI v i s u a l experiences are worthy of a t t e n t i o n , i t i s unanimous i n i d e n t i f y i n g one superior form of v i s u a l experience as the primary focus of DBAE. This superior form i s the work of art created by an artist. By a r t work i n t h i s sense i s meant a v i s u a l image created by humans f o r the s p e c i f i c purpose of e l i c i t i n g an i n t e n t i o n a l l y meaningful experience. 53 A e s t h e t i c e x p e r i e n c e s can be had through p e r c e p t i o n of the n a t u r a l w o r l d as w e l l the w o r l d of c r e a t e d o b j e c t s . I t i s t o the a r t s , however, t h a t we t u r n when we w i s h t o be a s s u r e d of a e s t h e t i c e x p e r i e n c e . In l a r g e numbers we pay money f o r e n t r y t o c o n c e r t s , p l a y s , movies, p a g e a n t s , and f e s t i v a l s because we have l e a r n e d t h a t t h r o u g h the a r t s we a r e most l i k e l y t o g a i n s i g n i f i c a n c e , even p r o f o u n d a e s t h e t i c e x p e r i e n c e s . T h i s i s because a r t o b j e c t s a r e c r e a t e d w i t h the e x p r e s s purpose of p r o v i d i n g v i v i d , i n t e n s e e x p e r i e n c e s u n c l u t t e r e d by the c o n t i n g e n c i e s of d a i l y c o n c e r n s ( C l a r k , Day, & G r e e r , 1987, p. 140). The G e t t y i n d i c a t e s t h a t the s u p e r i o r form of v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e r e s i d e s i n t h e body of p h y s i c a l a r t works c r e a t e d by human a r t i s t s . At the h e a r t of the DBAE e x p e r i e n c e i s the a r t work i t s e l f . A l t h o u g h many k i n d s of e v e n t s and o b j e c t s a t t r a c t us, we a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t e d t o works of a r t (G r e e r , 1987). Works c r e a t e d by a r t i s t s rightfulI y h o l d our a t t e n t i o n ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1987a). Works of a r t a r e s a t i s f y i n g and f o r some a r e the p r i m a r y r e ason f o r the e x i s t e n c e of a r t (C r a w f o r d , 1987). S i n c e works of a r t a r e " c e n t r a l t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n of c u r r i c u l a and t o the i n t e g r a t i o n of c o n t e n t from the d i s c i p l i n e s " ( C l a r k , Day, & G r e e r , 1987, p. 169), s t u d e n t s must study a r t u s i n g a c t u a l works of a r t i n the 54 c l a s s r o o m , museums, and elsew h e r e ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1987a). What i s t o be l e a r n e d from and about a r t must employ s p e c i f i c created works ( K l e i n b a u e r , 1987). S t u d e n t s must form t h e i r i d e a s c o n c e r n i n g what i s or i s not a r t from t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h c o n c r e t e examples ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1987a). One of the main reasons g i v e n f o r t h i s f o c u s on the a r t work i s t h a t the s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s deemed i m p o r t a n t i n DBAE are b e s t brought about when s t u d y i n g s p e c i f i c works of a r t which can embody them ( G r e e r , 1984; E i s n e r , 1985; G e t t y C e n t e r , 1985; K l e i n b a u e r , 1987). Another reason i s t h a t the c r e a t e d work of a r t embodies human i d e a s and achievements not a v a i l a b l e i n o t h e r k i n d s of v i s u a l e v e n t s . Works of a r t are examples of the b e l i e f s and i d e a s t h a t human b e i n g s v a l u e ( B e n n e t t , 1987). Not o n l y a r e v a l u e and s i g n i f i c a n c e embodied i n c r e a t e d works of a r t ( C r a w f o r d , 1987), but they r e p r e s e n t "a c o n f l u e n c e of h i g h human a b i l i t i e s . Nowhere e l s e can the b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r of c r a f t , t e c h n i q u e , meaning, and v i s i o n , be a t t a i n e d " ( S p r a t t , 1987, p. 201). The work of a r t t h e n , c r e a t e d by the a r t i s t , s t a n d s as the s u p e r i o r example of a e s t h e t i c v a l u e i n DBAE. Even the b r i e f e s t e x a m i n a t i o n of the G e t t y l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s the importance t h a t the work of a r t h o l d s both f o r the G e t t y and i t s DBAE program. The fundamental r e p o s i t o r y of a e s t h e t i c 55 value and the primary sensory r e f e r e n t f o r worth i n DBAE then, i s the humanly created work of a r t . Although t h i s c e r t a i n l y narrows down the huge f i e l d of v i s u a l experience in our search for the superior object, i t i s s t i l l extremely l a r g e . Since the range of humanly created a r t objects i s vas t , one cannot c e r t a i n l y a t t r i b u t e s u p e r i o r i t y to them a l l . What i s the method whereby DBAE narrows the search for the superior work of a r t ? The judgment of worth which occurs w i t h i n the body of humanly created a r t works i s i n accordance with a s t andar d. The work must possess c e r t a i n s e l e c t c r i t e r i a and be judged superior according to an o b j e c t i v e standard of excellence (H o d s o l l , 1987). The concept of a standard i s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n the DBAE program and i s used to sort a r t works i n t o those which are superior and those which are i n f e r i o r . The f i r s t expression of a standard of merit i s i n d i c a t e d i n that students must be given a " s t i p u l a t e d and approximate d e f i n i t i o n of a r t " ( D i B l a s i o , 1985b, p. 200). The foundations of a standard determine a rough approximation of what i s to be considered a r t and what i s not. From the time of f i r s t exposure to a r t , student l e a r n i n g needs to be guided by at l e a s t an 56 approximation that w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be replaced by a reasoned determination of the parameters of a r t as the student approaches adult s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . As students move from general a e s t h e t i c p e r c e p t i o n . . . they w i l l have formed a template or perceptual lens that w i l l guide t h e i r e x p l o r a t i o n for years to come. According to t h i s admittedly rough template, a broad range of objects i s recognized m a n i f e s t l y as non-art ( D i B l a s i o , 1985b, p. 199). The standard by which some objects may be sorted i n t o a r t and non-art, of course, i s only the beginning. Students should l e a r n how to judge the importance of p a r t i c u l a r works (Greer, 1984). By using the standard, these works can be placed on a scale "from the t r i v i a l to the important or great" (Greer, 1987, p. 230), and can be rated as more or l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t or important as students l e a r n to use the c r i t e r i a f o r the a t t r i b u t i o n of worth (Greer, 1987). Works must be evaluated against a c l e a r standard (Rush, 1987) which i s common and o b j e c t i v e (Bennett, 1987). This standard determines e x c e l l e n c e , s i g n i f i c a n c e , and meaning i n p a r t i c u l a r works, and what works are worthy of p u r s u i t (Crawford, 1987). Students who l e a r n to perceive a l l aspects of an a r t 57 object begin to gain access to the powerful meanings in works of a r t . Art experts understand very subtle d i s t i n c t i o n s w i t h i n a work of a r t and can d i s t i n g u i s h the f i n e s t example of a r t . On the basi s of h i g h l y developed d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a r t i s t s , c r i t i c s , h i s t o r i a n s , and a e s t h e t i c i a n s make d i s t i n c t i o n s that determine standards of exc e l l e n c e (C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987, p. 144). The standard seems to be determined by the kinds of d i s t i n c t i o n s made by p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n the areas of a e s t h e t i c s , production, h i s t o r y , and c r i t i c i s m , those d i s c i p l i n e s recognized as important i n DBAE. The a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s standard allows i t s users "to d i s c r i m i n a t e between s i m p l i s t i c or i n s i n c e r e manifestations of the v i s u a l a r t s and those that are c r e d i t e d with high standards, p u r s u i t of p e r f e c t i o n , and l a s t i n g value" ( C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987, p. 182). The standard i s used to separate work which i s considered superior from that which i s i n f e r i o r . The former i s considered to represent "the apotheosis of human achievement" ( E i s n e r , 1985, p. 65). Many w r i t e r s s t a t e that the standard f o r s u p e r i o r i t y embodies a e s t h e t i c values representing humankind's highest achievements (Getty Center, 1985; Bennett, 1987; C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987; E i s n e r , 1985). A r t works based on t h i s 58 standard express i n e x p r e s s i b l e thoughts, i n s p i r e e x a l t e d i n s p i r a t i o n (Getty Center, 1985), and are the best that western c i v i l i z a t i o n has to o f f e r (Bennett, 1987) . The existence of t h i s standard seems c e n t r a l i n DBAE. With i t s use, one can determine what i s to be considered a r t , and what i s to be considered non-art ( D i B l a s i o , 1985b). Within those things designated as a r t , c e r t a i n works deserve to be admired and to be designated as masterpieces according to t h i s o b j e c t i v e standard (Greer, 1987). Within the c l a s s of objects defined as human a r t works then, there appears to be a d e f i n i t e h i e r a r c h y wherein some work i s superior to others. The standard by which t h i s s u p e r i o r i t y i s assessed i s supposed to be o b j e c t i v e and i s used by DBAE for the s e l e c t i o n of classroom exemplars. The works judged by t h i s standard are s a i d to represent the highest achievements of human endeavour, and provide the b a s i s for the s e l e c t i o n of classroom exemplars. The most c r i t i c a l d e c i s i o n i n the implementation of a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d program i s the s e l e c t i o n of the works of a r t we w i l l use. Once teachers of a r t choose to study a work because of the important ideas i t c o n t a i n s , then they are i n a p o s i t i o n to make a r t education t r u l y important (Getty Center, 1987a, p. 75). •59 DBAE s t a t e s t h a t the work of a r t c r e a t e d by the a r t i s t i s s u p e r i o r t o o t h e r t h i n g s i n v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e and t h a t a c l e a r s t a n d a r d of judgment must be a p p l i e d t o those works so as t o s e p a r a t e the more worthy from the l e s s worthy work. THE FINE ART TRADITION Aesthetic Criterion No. 2 - t he art work which can claim member s hi p in the fine art tradition is better than the art work which cannot. The p a r t i c u l a r work of a r t judged t o be s u p e r i o r i n DBAE r e s i d e s i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n c a l l e d f i n e a r t . The t r a d i t i o n i t s e l f may not be c o n s i d e r e d a v a l u e so much as a means of a r t i c u l a t i n g v a l u e . I t may seem premature t o t a l k about t h i s t r a d i t i o n b e f o r e f i r s t i s o l a t i n g the v a l u e s which comprise i t , but i t s importance t o the u n d e r s t a n d i n g and e x p l i c a t i o n of the subsequent v a l u e s and c r i t e r i a i s such t h a t i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n a t t h i s t ime i s paramount. The importance of t h i s s e l e c t body of work t o the a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s of DBAE cannot be overemphasized. That i s why, a l t h o u g h i t s e x p l i c a t i o n p r o p e r l y b e l o n g s l a t e r , i t s d e t a i l s must be i n t r o d u c e d now. I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o examine f i r s t what i s meant by t h e f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n , and then e x p l i c a t e the a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s embodied i n i t . 60 Fine a r t s a re th o s e a r t s which have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been thought of as h a v i n g a p u r e l y n o n - p r a c t i c a l p urpose. The f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n r e f e r s t o a body of work c o n s i d e r e d t o be s u p e r i o r i n t h a t i t has been judged by c e r t a i n e x p e r t s t o p o s s e s s a g r e a t e r degree of a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y than o t h e r k i n d s of a r t work. I t r e p r e s e n t s a body of customary approved ways of t h i n k i n g based on v a l u e s u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the Western European c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n . The work m a i n t a i n s the c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e and p r e s e r v e s v a l u e s of the p a s t . Works of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n a re t h o s e u s u a l l y found i n a r t museums and g a l l e r i e s (Hobbs, 1984). The f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n f i n d s i t s e a s i e s t d e f i n i t i o n when compared w i t h i t s o p p o s i t e , p o p u l a r a r t , which i s u s u a l l y def i n e d as Mass-produced, mass d i s t r i b u t e d , and mass consumed a r t i f a c t s ; t y p i c a l l y i n v o l v i n g c o n t e n t t h a t i s r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r and s i m p l e ; and produced by a s m a l l group of p r o f e s s i o n a l s f o r the consumption of o t h e r s . U s u a l l y , p o p u l a r c u l t u r e p r e s e n t s a s a f e and s e c u r e w o r l d of c o n v e n t i o n a l . i d e a s , f e e l i n g s , and a t t i t u d e s , though the v e h i c l e i s o f t e n e s c a p i s t . D a l l a s i s a paradigm, as a r e comic books, t e e n magazines, c u t e a n i m a l p o s t e r s , and b r e a k f a s t c e r e a l c a r d s (Duncum, 1987, p. 6 ) . .61 The Getty's support of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n can be discerned through i t s r e j e c t i o n of the popular a r t s . Although i t i s s t a t e d that "content for study i s d e r i v e d from a broad range of the v i s u a l a r t s , i n c l u d i n g f o l k , a p p l i e d , and f i n e a r t s from Western and non-Western c u l t u r e s " ( C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987, p. 135), there are c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n s made about the worth and value of those other a r t s (Broudy, 1987). The popular a r t s comprise a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of those others. They are recognized by the Getty as one of the most potent forms of a r t that p r e s e n t l y shape students' values. The popular a r t s present models of heroes, v i l l a i n s , and l i f e s t y l e s . Since education shapes students' values, the source of those values must be i d e n t i f i e d . "Because these l i f e s t y l e s are e a s i l y stereotyped and repeated, they become potent value models. They i n f l u e n c e value commitments on a massive s c a l e by a f f e c t i n g the a e s t h e t i c experience of large p o r t i o n s of the population almost simultaneously" (Broudy, 1987, p. 40). The pervasiveness and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the popular a r t s i s acknowledged, but t h e i r educational i n f l u e n c e i s considered i n f e r i o r to those of the f i n e a r t s . The popular a r t s are r e f e r r e d to as the uneducated or untutored a r t s (Broudy, 1987). 62 DBAE w r i t e r s speak about the lack of depth and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n the popular a r t s and a t t r i b u t e t h i s to the s i m p l i c i t y of t h e i r forms. The popular a r t s require no education f o r t h e i r understanding and the r e f o r e do not embody the most s o p h i s t i c a t e d expressions of human import and emotion. The a r t s which appear on T.V., magazines, and the r adio are dismissed as mediocre (Bennett, 1987). The popular a r t s portray ideas and values of the day and there f o r e do not require any form of education (Broudy, 1987). T e l e v i s i o n i s dismissed as p r o v i d i n g experience of l i t t l e consequence ( E i s n e r , 1985). There must be more to l i f e than the pleasures of "Miami V i c e " or "Loveboat." C h i l d r e n r e q u i r e no as s i s t a n c e gaining access to the programs on t e l e v i s i o n ... These programs are designed to capture and hold our c h i l d r e n ' s a t t e n t i o n for as long as p o s s i b l e . They succeed remarkably w e l l . These programs make few demands our c h i l d r e n cannot meet and o f f e r l i t t l e they do not already have. Their i n t e l l e c t u a l substance i s t h i n and t h e i r s t i m u l a t i o n high... But there are a l t e r n a t i v e s , c h a l l e n g i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s that provide s a t i s f a c t i o n s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from those secured through the mass media, pop c u l t u r e , and the one-eyed monsters we have i n our homes. The a r t s provide such 63 a l t e r n a t i v e s ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 3 5 ) . By the arts h e r e , of c o u r s e , a r e meant those a r t s d e f i n e d by s t a n d a r d s of e x c e l l e n c e which r e s i d e i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n , images which a r e thought t o be s u p e r i o r exemplars of s k i l l and human achievement. The images i n p o p u l a r a r t however, a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be i n f e r i o r and i n need of improvement. The p o p u l a r and f o l k a r t s which c o n s i s t of music, dance, motion p i c t u r e s , b i r t h d a y c a r d p o e t r y , c a r t o o n s , d e c o r a t i o n s of b u i l d i n g s , the d e s i g n of c l o t h i n g a r e common, eve r y d a y , u n t u t o r e d a r t e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t need t o be r e f i n e d (Broudy, 1987). Comparisons a re c o n s t a n t l y made i n the l i t e r a t u r e which e x t o l l t he v i r t u e s of the f i n e a r t e x p e r i e n c e as compared w i t h other a r t e x p e r i e n c e s . The museum and the amusement pa r k , f o r example, a r e bo t h d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g i n the b u s i n e s s of p r o v i d i n g s t i m u l a t i o n f o r p e o p l e . The G e t t y s t a t e s , however, t h a t the museums u t i l i z e a s u p e r i o r s e t of s t i m u l i ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1987a). G e t t y w r i t e r s g e n e r a l l y seem a p p a l l e d t h a t the p l e a s u r e s r e s u l t i n g from an involv e m e n t w i t h s u p e r i o r works c o u l d be forg o n e f o r t h a t of the p o p u l a r e x p e r i e n c e . " S i x t y - o n e p e r c e n t of a d u l t Americans i n 1982 f a i l e d t o ... v i s i t a s i n g l e a r t museum or g a l l e r y . T h i s means t h a t f o r a m a j o r i t y 64 of our people, a r t i s p r i n c i p a l l y that of the popular c u l t u r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y that of t e l e v i s i o n " ( H o d s o l l , 1987, p. 106). The p a r t i c u l a r requirements demanded by DBAE's standards of excellence e l i m i n a t e s the popular a r t s as a candidate f o r serious study. The assumption that the popular a r t s employ uneducated and untutored images (Broudy, 1987), r e q u i r i n g no education f o r t h e i r understanding i s the keystone i n i t s r e j e c t i o n of t h i s t r a d i t i o n . I f the purpose of DBAE i s to make a r t i n the schools more rigorous and s t r u c t u r e d (Getty Center, 1985, 1987a; H o d s o l l , 1987), then the popular a r t s d e f a u l t through t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to provide the proper educational experience. There i s a place where DBAE's s o p h i s t i c a t e d demands can be met. A focus on the created a r t work and the o b j e c t i v e standards whereby these a r t works can be evaluated, must r e s u l t i n a c o l l e c t i o n of a r t works which are considered s u p e r i o r . This body of work has been v a r i o u s l y r e f e r r e d to as Fine A r t , High A r t , The Great Masters, Good A r t , and the C l a s s i c s . Here, " p r o p e r t i e s can be found that evoke a e s t h e t i c experience i n i t s purest form" ( C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987, p. 140). Although the Getty supports t h i s t r a d i t i o n as having been s e l e c t e d by experts and as having stood the t e s t of time, i t 65 i s e x t r e m e l y vague on the ex a c t c r i t e r i a by which d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r e n t r y i n t o t h i s t r a d i t i o n i s t o t a k e p l a c e . The G e t t y w r i t e r s i l l u s t r a t e i t s e x p a n s i v e , but u n c l e a r , powers of i n f l u e n c e . The body of g r e a t works " e x e m p l i f y the s p i r i t of an age, i t s g r e a t t r i u m p h s and d e f e a t s . They i n t e g r a t e and v i v i d l y e x p r e s s the mood and c h a r a c t e r of s u c c e s s i v e epochs i n h i s t o r y . These exemplars have been r e f e r r e d t o as classics, not o n l y f o r the p r e s t i g e they e n j o y but a l s o f o r t h e i r r o l e as models" (Broudy, 1987, p. 3 9 ) . These g r e a t works e x i s t as an h i s t o r i c a l e n t i t y and are d i r e c t l y t i e d t o our c u l t u r e , f o r m i n g a r e c o r d of our pa s t and r e f l e c t i n g our c i v i l i z a t i o n and i t s achievements ( B e n n e t t , 1987). They a r e "among the f i n e s t e x p r e s s i o n s of the v a l u e s we c h e r i s h as a p e o p l e " ( B e n n e t t , 1987, p. 37). In h e l p i n g us see what we may have so o f t e n m i s s e d , "they c a p t u r e a s l i c e of the w o r l d , s t a b i l i z e i t , and p r e s e n t i t t o us f o r our c o n t e m p l a t i o n and r e f l e c t i o n " ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 35). A l t h o u g h DBAE i s not c l e a r i n c l a s s i f y i n g and c a t e g o r i z i n g the p r e c i s e v a l u e s which t h i s t r a d i t i o n embodies, some n o t i o n of t h e i r i d e n t i t y can be g l e a n e d from s t a t e m e n t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e . O r d e r , harmony, compassion, f o r g i v e n e s s , power of e x p r e s s i o n , and s a c r e d n e s s of freedom a r e some of the v a l u e s found w i t h i n i t . 66 In the l i n e s of the Parthenon we f i n d a respect for order and harmony. We l e a r n something about a love for knowledge and r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y i n Holbein's Erasmus of Rotterdam, about compassion and forgiveness i n Rembrandt's Return of the P r o d i g a l Son. We lea r n something about the power of expression i n a Pi c a s s o , a Van Gogh, or i n Beethoven's music. And we l e a r n about the sacredness of our freedom i n the Statue of L i b e r t y (Bennett, 1987, p. 37). The power of l i g h t , r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f , s o c i a l concern i n urban a f f a i r s and c o r r u p t i o n , are other values communicated by t h i s t r a d i t i o n . Who has shown the v i s u a l world of l i g h t more v i v i d l y than the i m p r e s s i o n i s t s ? Who has informed us about the character of r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f more movingly than the great I t a l i a n p a i n t e r s of the 14th century? Who has helped us see the teeming character of the urban landscape more a c u t e l y than the l i k e s of a John Sloan, a Paul Cadmus, and a Raphael Soyer? Who has penetrated the c o r r u p t i o n of the German bourgeois more c o n v i n c i n g l y than George Grosz? ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 35). 67 DBAE e x t o l l s c e r t a i n v i r t u e s and values which w i l l be analyzed more c l o s e l y l a t e r i n t h i s chapter. But w i t h i n the program i t s e l f , there i s no e f f o r t made to question the assumptions underlying the acceptance of these p a r t i c u l a r values (Hamblen, 1988b). The f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n i s a body of work that i s considered superior because i t embodies c e r t a i n values culturally determined to be worthwhile. Although some c r i t i c s make the c l a i m that the values of order, compassion, freedom, r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f , and s o c i a l concern, can be more v i v i d l y and r e l e v a n t l y discovered i n the popular a r t s , the Getty seems convinced that the values most worthy of a t t e n t i o n are communicated best by the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . A somewhat c i r c u l a r process of j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s created by a s s e r t i n g that the standard of assessment c o n s i s t s of the values r e s i d e n t i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n and that t h i s t r a d i t i o n i s valuable because the values i t embodies represents standards of e x c e l l e n c e . But i t w i l l be seen that the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n becomes the primary r e f e r e n t for most a e s t h e t i c values i n DBAE. Instead of l i s t i n g the c r i t e r i a which determine e x c e l l e n c e , t h e i r embodiment i n c e r t a i n works and a r t i s t s i s explained. The Getty l i t e r a t u r e provides a l i s t of some of the works considered s u p e r i o r : P r a x i t e l e s , Michelangelo, Velasquez, and Georgia O'Keefe (H o d s o l l , 1987), The B i r t h of Venus, 68 American Gothic, Mona L i s a , The Last Supper, the Pyramids, the E i f f e l Tower, the Washington monument, Matisse, Alexander Calder, P i c a s s o , Frank Lloyd Wright, Rembrandt, Andrew Wyeth (Bennett, 1987). The best place to see the exemplars themselves, or at l e a s t a f a i r sample of the t r a d i t i o n , i s i n museums. Getty's p o s i t i o n then, seems to support the western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n as embodying a superior form of v i s u a l experience. The focus on the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n i n DBAE has been a f a i r l y frequent item of c r i t i c i s m (Chalmers, 1987a, 1987b; Hamblen, 1987a, 1988b; L a n i e r , 1987; Lederman, 1988; Lidstone, 1988; London, 1988; McFee, 1988). At the l a t e s t Center seminar c a l l e d "Issues i n D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education: Strengthening the Stance, Extending the Horizons," held in C i n c i n a t t i , Ohio, a recommendation of the seminar p a r t i c i p a n t s was for c l a r i f i c a t i o n of Getty's approach and a t t i t u d e towards popular and other c u l t u r a l exemplars. "On the question of what kinds of a r t to include i n a DBAE c u r r i c u l u m , the group agreed that the examples should not be r e s t r i c t e d to museum-quality works from the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n " (Getty Center, 1988a, p. 33). Getty's response to t h i s c r i t i c i s m has been to admit that a study of popular and ethnic a r t s i s b e n e f i c i a l and that the 69 framework of DBAE can a l l o w f o r t h e i r study ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1988b, 1988c). T h i s s t a t e m e n t , however, seems t o be based on two vague c o n d i t i o n s . F i r s t , the study of o t h e r a r t s w i l l o c c u r i n a framework which emphasizes the contrast between f i n e and p o p u l a r a r t , and which r e v e a l s the d e f i c i e n c i e s i n p o p u l a r and the e x c e l l e n c e i n f i n e ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1988a). S e c o n d l y , the s t u d y of p o p u l a r a r t w i l l employ the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a of the f i n e a r t s as a p p l i e d t o the p o p u l a r a r t s . T h i s approach has been termed liberal humanism (Duncum, 1987), and b a s i c a l l y a l l o w s the s t u d y of p o p u l a r a r t o n l y as a means of r e v e a l i n g i t s s h a l l o w n e s s . L i b e r a l humanists who draw on the h i g h c u l t u r e c r i t i q u e argue i n f a v o r of s t u d y i n g p o p u l a r c u l t u r e as p a r t of a moral agenda i n the cause of humanist s o c i a l r e f o r m . C u l t u r e i s viewed as an e s p e c i a l l y r e f i n e d s e n s i b i l i t y and the works of such s e n s i b i l i t y . C u l t u r e i s a moral f o r c e and a r a l l y i n g c r y a g a i n s t a s o c i e t y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p o p u l a r i s t i m p u l s e s and mass r e p r o d u c t i o n . D e s i r a b l e s o c i a l change i s h e l d t o be p o s s i b l e o n l y by r e c o g n i z i n g the a l l e g e d i n d i s p u t a b l y human q u a l i t i e s o f f e r e d by h i g h c u l t u r e ( W i l l i a m s , 1958). S t u d y i n g p o p u l a r c u l t u r e i s a way of d e m o n s t r a t i n g what i s wrong w i t h p o p u l a r c u l t u r e (Duncum, 1987, p. 7 ) . •70 Edmund Feldman argues t h a t the o n l y way t o " r e s i s t the n o x i o u s , h a t e f u l and r e p e l l a n t f e a t u r e s of our c u l t u r e i s t o s t u d y t h e i r a r t i s t i c m a n i f e s t a t i o n s s e r i o u s l y and t o encounter models of e x c e l l e n c e " (Duncum, 1987, p. 7 ) . L i b e r a l humanists ask "what can s e r v e as an e d u c a t i o n a l p r o p h y l a c t i c , a defense a g a i n s t the c o r r u p t i o n s of mind and d i s t o r t i o n s of f e e l i n g t h a t i n e v i t a b l y c r e e p i n t o contemporary c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n " (Feldman, 1982, p. 4 3 ) . The answer, which the G e t t y s u p p o r t s , i s an a r t e d u c a t i o n which employs h i g h a e s t h e t i c exemplars drawn from the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . Howard R i s a t t i , a f r e q u e n t spokesman of G e t t y , s p e a k i n g a t the 1987 Issues seminar, a d m i t t e d t h a t i t makes sense t o study a wide range of c u l t u r a l s o u r c e s . The reason f o r s t u d y i n g p o p u l a r a r t , however, i s because exposure t o k i t s c h can p r o v i d e t o o l s w i t h which t o d i s t i n g u i s h fake from a u t h e n t i c a r t . S t u d e n t s s h o u l d be t a u g h t t o d i s c e r n the v a l u e s promoted by t h e i r v i s u a l environment, so t h a t they can both a p p r e c i a t e the h i g h e s t form of v i s u a l communication - a r t - and u n d e r s t a n d the messages of lower forms ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1988, p. 2 9 ) . The G e t t y t h e n , seems w i l l i n g t o i n c l u d e the study of 71 popular a r t , but only as a means lea d i n g to the a p p r e c i a t i o n and apprehension of the f i n e a r t s . Another approach implied i n the DBAE documents i s the use of judgmental c r i t e r i a developed w i t h i n the f i n e a r t s to assess the value of popular a r t . The popular a r t s , however, serve d i f f e r e n t purposes and f u n c t i o n s from those of the f i n e a r t s and i t may not be f a i r to use the same e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a f o r both. Popular a r t has i t s own c r i t e r i a of judgment which should not be confused with the c r i t e r i a used by f i n e a r t . A s i m i l a r approach i s used concerning the issue of ethnic a r t from other c u l t u r e s . Getty has acknowledged that a r t from other c u l t u r e s i s acceptable, but what i s being s e l e c t e d and given value i s the fine art t r a d i t i o n from these c u l t u r e s . Within the western c u l t u r e , two broad worlds of a r t are u s u a l l y recognized, the f i n e and the popular (Ulanov, 1965). But t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l s o holds true for other c u l t u r e s , which a l s o have a popular as w e l l as a high t r a d i t i o n . Getty's s e l e c t choices for ethnic a r t seem to f a l l on the high t r a d i t i o n of other c u l t u r e s which bears a s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y to the formal elements i n western a r t (Dufrenne, 1979). 2 I t has been st a t e d that a modern p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y 72 c o n s i s t s of a number of subcul t u r e s , each of which possesses i t s own standards and c r i t e r i a f o r the determination of a e s t h e t i c value (McFee & Degge, 1977). Although these subcultures e s s e n t i a l l y represent d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s of v i s u a l phenomena, the Getty seems not to take account of t h i s i n i t s DBAE program. The Getty seems to be d e f i n i n g a e s t h e t i c value as any criteria by which one visual experience is considered to be superior to another, as i f one set of c r i t e r i a can be used to judge all forms of a r t . Although t h i s issue i s extremely complex, the Getty l i t e r a t u r e gives the impression that i t i s not. A re c o g n i t i o n that d i f f e r e n t forms of a r t req u i r e d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i o n would expand the - d e f i n i t i o n of a e s t h e t i c value to read, any c r i t e r i a by which one v i s u a l experience i s considered to be superior to another according to classes of visual phenomena. These issues surrounding the f i n e and popular a r t s are of immediate importance to the Getty and i t s observers. The r e s o l u t i o n of the question concerning the sole use of western high a r t as exemplars i n the DBAE program w i l l determine whether i t s approach w i l l accommodate p l u r a l i s t i c concerns. This important issue w i l l be e x p l i c a t e d more f u l l y i n Chapter 6, but for now i t can be s a i d that as the present documentary r e a l i t y stands, the western f i n e a r t exemplars are accorded a status superior to those forms of a r t i n e l i g i b l e for membership. I t now remains to analyze the l i t e r a t u r e f u r t h e r to see i f a determination can be made about the c o n s t i t u e n t values and c r i t e r i a of the images w i t h i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n . THE CODE AND ITS FUNCTIONS Ae s t he t i c Criterion No. 3 - The art work whi ch embodies a sophisticated and complex code demanding literacy for its decipherment is better than the one which does not . Conditions imposed on an a r t work by the canons of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n concern the p r o f u n d i t y , s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , and complexity of the image (Getty Center, 1985, 1987a), and the demand that i t s comprehension r e q u i r e s a s p e c i a l i z e d education (Broudy, 1987; E i s n e r , 1985, 1987a; Getty Center, 1985; Greer & Rush, 1985; Kleinbauer, 1987; Smith, 1987; Sp r a t t , 1987). This educational requirement i s what some be l i e v e keeps the f i n e a r t s d i s t i n c t from the popular a r t s . This i s extremely important, for i t focuses our a t t e n t i o n on both the nature and q u a l i t y of the content of the image i t s e l f and the nature of the knowledge brought to the ev a l u a t i v e process by the viewer. The q u a l i t i e s r e sident i n the a r t work's image and the a b i l i t i e s of the viewer, i l l u s t r a t e the nature of the c r i t e r i a necessary for the 74 a t t r i b u t i o n of value. But i n order to progress i n the e x p l i c a t i o n of the a e s t h e t i c values promoted i n DBAE, acknowledgment must be given to (1) the importance of the ar t work, i . e . , the c r i t e r i a by which p r o f u n d i t y , complexity, and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n are a t t r i b u t e d to the image, and (2) the importance of the viewer, i . e . , the kind of knowledge required to i n t e r p r e t i t s meaning. The Getty l i t e r a t u r e describes a scheme whereby the elements of a r t work and viewer are given prime importance i n the assessment of worth. The work of a r t embodies a meaning which the viewer must t r y to understand. The meaning embodied i n a work of a r t w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as i t s code, whereas the a b i l i t y necessary f o r i t s understanding w i l l be c a l l e d literacy. I t i s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the code and the understanding achieved through l i t e r a c y that the c r i t e r i a f o r a e s t h e t i c value are revealed. The a r t work c o n s i s t s of a c e r t a i n content which i s composed of v i s u a l symbols and t h e i r r e f e r e n t s . This content ^ s i g n i f i e s meaning and i s that which i s judged superior or i n f e r i o r according to the standard. This content and meaning w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as the v i s u a l code. A code i s a "system of r u l e s which make c e r t a i n e n t i t i e s (sounds, designs, etc.) count as, that i s , mean something (Kjorup, 1977, p. 38). I t 75 i s any system of v i s u a l symbols used for the expression of meaning. The dynamics governing the c r e a t i n g and deciphering of v i s u a l codes have been explored by t h e o r i s t s such as Bourdieu (1968) and Goodman (1968) and r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to DBAE's c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of understanding i n a r t as the decipherment of a coded message. The concept of a code emphasizes that the a r t involvement i s a perceptual a c t , that perception i s c o g n i t i v e , that the c o d i f i e d content i s a body of knowledge, and that understanding r e q u i r e s s k i l l s of decipherment (Bourdieu, 1968). Contemporary t h e o r i s t s i n the sociology of a r t are f i n d i n g the concept of code u s e f u l i n t h e i r attempt to study the forms i n which the a r t s reproduce ideology (Wolff, 1983). By employing the schema suggested by the term, the impact s p e c i f i c codes have on human c u l t u r e s i s more r e a d i l y conceptualized ( W i l l i a m s , 1977, 1981). The concept of c o d i f i c a t i o n discussed above seems to be supported i n the Getty l i t e r a t u r e . I t i s a dominant b e l i e f i n DBAE that a r t works convey meaning (Getty Center, 1985; Boyer, 1987; C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987; Crawford, 1987; Getty Center, 1987a; E i s n e r , 1987a, 1987b; Greer, 1987; Kleinbauer, 1987; R i s a t t i , 1987; Rush, 1987; S p r a t t , 1987), which i s put i n t o the a r t work by the a r t i s t (Getty Center, 1985). The i n t e r n a l components of the concept mean/ng are complex and involve many c r i t e r i a '76 which w i l l be discussed l a t e r . But for now i t i s important to understand that the q u a l i t y of t h i s meaning i s a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of worth i n a r t . Although meaning e x i s t s i n a l l works of a r t , the best meaning i s embodied i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . Meaning i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n i s complex and s o p h i s t i c a t e d . The adult p r o f e s s i o n a l i n the four d i s c i p l i n e s i s the r o l e model for the concept of meaning which has to r e f l e c t a dult standards and "understanding at the l e v e l of the a r t i s t i c a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d a d u l t " ( D i B l a s i o , 1985b, p. 199). Meaning can be understood only with a s o p h i s t i c a t e d and educated adult approach ( C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987; Greer, 1987; Rush, 1987). I t i s noteworthy that i t i s only adult a r t work which i s considered worthy of study ( C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987). The works used must have been created by " s o p h i s t i c a t e d adult p r o f e s s i o n a l s " ( C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987; D i B l a s i o , 1985b; E f l a n d , 1987; Greer, 1984; Rush, 1987). What i s important to understand, however, i s that the meaning of a superior adult exemplar i s not a v a i l a b l e to one who does not possess the method to "read" i t . "The messages in these works are not there simply for the t a k i n g . They must, so to speak, be recovered. They must be read. Art works themselves must be "unwrapped to be experienced" 77 (Ei s n e r , 1985, p. 65). Although a l l a r t i s t i c works, from the Great Masters to comic books, embody t h e i r meaning i n a code (DiMaggio & Useem, 1980), there are d i f f e r e n t approaches to the v a l u a t i o n of the codes. DBAE a s s e r t s that i t s standards i d e n t i f y superior codes, and hence, r e s u l t i n superior v i s u a l experiences and exemplars. A major concern then, i s to determine the q u a l i t i e s embodied i n the code that grant i t s u perior s t a t u s . A metaphor used by DBAE to conceptualize the dynamics of c o d i f i c a t i o n i s that of a r t as a language. The meaning i n a superior work c o n s i s t s of a language complex enough to require the viewer to decode i t s message. I t i s "comparable to reading a text where the tex t i s an image or a set of images" (Broudy, 1987, p. 49). When the viewer i s unable to read the language, the content cannot be known (Getty Center, 1985; Kleinbauer, 1987; R i s a t t i , 1987; S p r a t t , 1987). The a b i l i t y to read these works re q u i r e s formal i n s t r u c t i o n (Rush, Greer, & F e i n s t e i n , 1986). The a b i l i t y to decode the meaning present i n an a r t work i s sometimes c a l l e d a e s t h e t i c or v i s u a l l i t e r a c y (Boyer, 1985; Broudy, 1987; Getty Center, 1987a; Rush, Greer, & F e i n s t e i n , 1986; Smith, 1987; S p r a t t , 1987). L i t e r a c y then, i s the key to unlock meaning i n works 78 of a r t . I l l i t e r a c y , or lack of knowledge and understanding, means that the meaning of an a r t work w i l l forever remain hidden to the viewer (Getty Center, 1987a; R i s a t t i , 1987). Another very important concern then, i s to determine what c r i t e r i a must be evident i n the viewer's knowledge i n order that he or she may i d e n t i f y s u p e r i o r i t y i n the code. A t t e n t i o n so f a r has been focused on the a c t u a l work of a r t i t s e l f . But t h i s i s not enough, for the code i t s e l f r equires decipherment i n order to acquire meaning. The complementary aspect to the work of a r t i s the viewer since the knowledge the viewer brings to the image determines the meaning obtained. The grasp of meaning i s understanding. The meaning in an a r t work i s t r a n s m i t t e d , communicated, or conveyed to the viewer (Boyer, 1985, 1987; Bennett, 1987; (Getty Center, 1987a; E i s n e r , 1987a; R i s a t t i , 1987; S p r a t t , 1987). This comprises the act of making a r t p u b l i c , and without the viewer's a b i l i t y to decipher, the meaning i s s i l e n t . I f what we create i n our mental l i f e i s to be made s o c i a l , we must f i n d some means to make i t p u b l i c . I t i s i n t h i s realm, the realm through which the p r i v a t e i s made p u b l i c , that we come to the v i s i b l e and sharable products of our c u l t u r e . These products are made p u b l i c i n the forms through which we represent what we have conceived ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 79 4 ) . The viewer must t r y to understand t h i s meaning, the q u a l i t y of which determines the q u a l i t y of the a r t work i t s e l f . Perhaps the most emphasized general value of DBAE concerns the concept "understanding" i n a r t experience. (Getty Center, 1985; C l a r k , Day & Greer, 1987; E i s n e r , 1987a; Greer, 1987; Kleinbauer, 1987; R i s a t t i , 1987; Rush, 1987; Smith, 1987). A p p r e c i a t i o n i s only one component of that understanding and not i t s sole b a s i s . Therefore, the best works of a r t are not those that produce an a p p r e c i a t i v e response alone, but which produce the opportunity for growth i n understanding. A unanimously shared b e l i e f i n the l i t e r a t u r e , i s that an a r t work conveys meaning which the viewer must t r y to understand. I t i s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between meaning and understanding that the c e n t r a l a e s t h e t i c values of DBAE emerge, for both meaning and understanding are c o n d i t i o n a l on s k i l l and a b i l i t y , which i s r e f e r r e d to as I i t er acy 3 i n DBAE. The judgment of merit i n an a r t work i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n depends on two f a c t o r s , the object and i t s viewer. Q u a l i f i c a t i o n of the viewer to understand the a r t work depends on the concept of l i t e r a c y . In other words, the c r i t e r i a f o r s u p e r i o r i t y i n an a r t work depend on the degree 80 to which the viewer needs a set of s k i l l s to understand i t . This set of s k i l l s i s c a l l e d l i t e r a c y . In order to understand the importance of t h i s value concept i n DBAE, the dynamic i n t e r a c t i o n between the concepts meaning, and understanding needs to be de a l t w i t h . The most widely discussed and prevalent value expressed i n DBAE i s that of literacy, "the a b i l i t y to secure meaning from the various c u l t u r a l forms [ i n which a r t ] i s expressed" ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 35). An important f u n c t i o n of a r t i n DBAE i s to convey meaning which i s embodied i n a s o p h i s t i c a t e d and complex code. This code can best be understood by a viewer who has had s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g to decipher i t . Meaning, s i g n i f i c a n c e , worth, and merit, are a t t r i b u t e d to a r t works i n accordance with an a n a l y s i s of the symbolic code i n which meaning i s embodied. I f the code of the work matches the code (or deciphering a b i l i t i e s ) of the viewer, i t can be understood. The kind of meaning provided by the v i s u a l code determines the c r i t e r i a of merit. I f the work of a r t provides, through i t s code, the a b i l i t y to experience a s o p h i s t i c a t e d and complex meaning, then the c o n d i t i o n s wherein e x c e l l e n c e can be a t t r i b u t e d to the work of a r t are i n pla c e . Various kinds of meaning, both i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c are considered 81 necessary for understanding the i d e a l code i n DBAE. These various kinds of meaning involve d i f f e r e n t symbolic components i n the code and d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a c i e s to i n t e r p r e t them. Within the code advocated as superior by DBAE are three i n t e r n a l and h i g h l y i n t e r r e l a t e d values that can be c a l l e d (a) the i n t e l l e c t u a l (b) the c u l t u r a l , and (c) the formal. " A e s t h e t i c value then, comprises the i n t e g r a t i o n of the i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal values. These values . can e x i s t i n any degree i n any work of a r t , but the Getty would ass i g n the highest value to the one which combined and int e g r a t e d a l l three. INTELLECTUAL VALUE Aesthetic Criterion No. 4 - The code which contains certain intellectual v a I ue s ac c e s s i bl e t hr ough an intellectual literacy is superior to the one which does not . The Getty s t a t e s that DBAE i s an academic e n t e r p r i s e . I t s aim i s to make a r t education i n t e l l e c t u a l l y r i g o r o u s , s t r u c t u r e d , and s c h o l a r l y and thereby elevate i t s s t a t u s i n the p u b l i c schools. I t seems l o g i c a l , t h e r e f o r e , that i n DBAE, most i n t e r a c t i o n s with a r t as w e l l as the component c r i t e r i a for a e s t h e t i c value, are thought of as c o g n i t i v e l y or i n t e l l e c t u a l l y based. 5 The act of judgment i t s e l f , i . e . , the determination of worth and meaning i n a r t works, i s an 82 i n t e l l e c t u a l e x e r c i s e . The idea of a code which embodies meaning demanding a form of l i t e r a c y to decipher i s i t s e l f an i n t e l l e c t u a l or c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . The f i r s t and c e n t r a l aspect of the code then, i s an i n t e l l e c t u a l one, and a l l the other values and components d i r e c t l y r e l a t e to i t . An a r t work, to be s u p e r i o r , must communicate c e r t a i n i n t e l l e c t u a l values to the viewer, and, conversely, the viewer must possess i n t e l l e c t u a l l i t e r a c y i n order to apprehend or decipher these values. But what i s meant by intellectual or cognitive value i n DBAE? DBAE subscribes to a broadened view of i n t e l l i g e n c e , one which b e l i e v e s that the making and responding to v i s u a l images i s a matter of mind, "a matter that r e q u i r e s i n v e n t i v e problem-solving c a p a c i t i e s , a n a l y t i c and s y n t h e t i c forms of t h i n k i n g , and the e x e r c i s e of judgment" ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 11). Some educational a n a l y s t s (notably E i s n e r ) argued f o r c e f u l l y that no hard and f a s t d i s t i n c t i o n could be made between knowing and f e e l i n g , between what i s c o g n i t i v e and what i s a f f e c t i v e . A l l of our a f f e c t i v e a c t i v i t y i n v olves c o g n i t i o n because when we have f e e l i n g s , we know that we are having them... Cognition and a f f e c t r e a d i l y fuse to form a simple r e a l i t y i n our experience, and nowhere i s t h i s 83 f u s i o n more evident than i n the a r t s ( D i B l a s i o , 1985a, p. 30). This theme i s elaborated by one of Getty's c h i e f spokesmen, E l l i o t E i s n e r . He r e j e c t s the idea that there i s an i n t e l l e c t u a l h i e r a r c h y with the a b s t r a c t a b i l i t i e s at the top and the expressive and sensory at the bottom, that emotion and f e e l i n g are somehow a n t i t h e t i c a l to true knowing ( E i s n e r , 1985b). DBAE b e l i e v e s that f e e l i n g and emotion are s p e c i a l forms of human i n t e l l i g e n c e , c o g n i t i v e i n nature, and as important as the a b s t r a c t forms. In order to understand a r t , i n t e l l i g e n c e s of many kinds are a c t i v e l y used. So the b a s i s whereby meaning i s e x t r a c t e d from v i s u a l codes becomes an i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y . I t has been e s t a b l i s h e d that the concept of a code involves a body of knowledge (content) and s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s ( l i t e r a c y ) . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that these two ideas -knowledge, and s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s - c o n s t i t u t e the two areas of the c o g n i t i v e domain i n Bloom's Taxonomy (Wheeler, 1970). Although the body of knowledge or the content of the code must contain c e r t a i n i n t e l l e c t u a l values that represent c r i t e r i a for the assessment of s u p e r i o r i t y i n the image, these values are not d i r e c t l y a c c e s s i b l e . In other words, the Getty does not d i r e c t l y i s o l a t e and i d e n t i f y them. Rather, i t r e l a t e s them to the l i t e r a c y r e q uired for t h e i r decipherment. I n t e l l e c t u a l values are processes more than end-states. They are p a r t i c u l a r c o g n i t i v e processes c a l l e d i n t o being when the viewer i s faced with a code complex and s o p h i s t i c a t e d enough to allow t h e i r e x e r c i s e . I n t e l l e c t u a l values have no content of t h e i r own, but must r e l y on the c u l t u r a l and formal values to supply e n t i t i e s upon which the c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s can be a p p l i e d . A work whose code allows the f u l l range of these s k i l l s to be ex e r c i s e d w i l l be considered superior to the one which does not. I t may be e a s i e r to describe the form of l i t e r a c y required to read the code, and from t h i s create a composite of the i n t e l l e c t u a l values which must be embodied i n the code i t s e l f . When one comes i n t o contact with a work of a r t , the kind of l i t e r a c y r e q u i r e d i n order to e x t r a c t i n t e l l e c t u a l meaning from i t s code involves a c r i t i c a l f i r s t step. Broudy (1987) says that the viewer must be able to make the d i s t i n c t i o n between the s i g n a l and i t s r e f e r e n t . Once t h i s i s done, "the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o g n i t i o n i s born. The r e l a t i o n of s i g n a l s , symbols, and signs to t h e i r r e f e r e n t s and t h e i r s e p a r a b i l i t y from them are the subject matters of t h i n k i n g and judging" (p. 17). When t h i s f i r s t c o g n i t i v e act occurs, one can then 85 engage i n the i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s of observation, d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , comparison, and c o n t r a s t , a l l of which allow meaning to be derived from a r t (Getty Center, 1985). The superior image makes some severe demands on the viewer who must possess the i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y to cope with ambiguity, to experience nuance, and to determine the kinds of t r a d e o f f s that have taken place between a l t e r n a t i v e courses of a c t i o n ( E i s n e r , 1985). I t requires the understanding that images req u i r e i n v e n t i v e problem-solving c a p a c i t i e s , a n a l y t i c and s y n t h e t i c forms of t h i n k i n g and the e x e r c i s e of judgment ( E i s n e r , 1987b). I t needs the kind of t h i n k i n g "required to see what i s subtle and complex, to l e a r n how to attend to forms so that t h e i r expressive s t r u c t u r e engages our emotion and imagination, to t o l e r a t e , indeed pursue the enigmatic ambiguities of a r t " ( E i s n e r , 1987a, p. 21). The superior image demands innovative t h i n k i n g and problem-solving s k i l l s not only f o r i t s c r e a t i o n , but a l s o f o r i t s understanding (Getty Center, 1985). In order for r e a l comprehension to occur, the viewer must be able to analyze and i n t e r p r e t (Kleinbauer, 1987), make inf e r e n c e s , e n v i s i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and explore a l t e r n a t e courses of a c t i o n ( E i s n e r , 1987b), and be able to r e f l e c t , 86 c o n t e m p l a t e , and s p e c u l a t e (Rush, G r e e r , & F e i n s t e i n , 1986). "To be a b l e t o t h i n k v i s u a l l y , t o t o l e r a t e a m b i g u i t y , t o e x e r c i s e our i m a g i n a t i o n , t o n o t i c e nuance, t o p e r c e i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p a r t and whole, t o e x p e r i e n c e the e x p r e s s i v e n e s s of form a r e required mental s k i l l s " ( i t a l i c s added) ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 36 ) . The G e t t y has made no attempt t o e l u c i d a t e or c l a s s i f y the many i n t e l l e c t u a l or c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s r e q u i r e d , but the k i n d s of i n t e l l e c t u a l demands r e q u i r e d of the s u p e r i o r image a r e e a s i l y d i s c e r n e d . As f a r as can be g a t h e r e d from the l i t e r a t u r e t h e n , the a b i l i t i e s needed f o r i n t e l l e c t u a l l i t e r a c y c o n s i s t of o b s e r v a t i o n , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , c o m p a r i s o n , c o n t r a s t , a n a l y s i s , s y n t h e s i s , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , r e f l e c t i o n , c o n t e m p l a t i o n , and s p e c u l a t i o n s k i l l s . I t a l s o r e q u i r e s the a b i l i t y t o d i s t i n g u i s h s i g n a l from r e f e r e n t , t o r e c o g n i z e i n n o v a t i v e t h i n k i n g and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g , t o draw f a c t s and i n f e r e n c e s , t o pursue r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t o e n v i s i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and t o e x p l o r e a l t e r n a t e c o u r s e s of a c t i o n . The a b i l i t y t o use thes e s k i l l s t o e x t r a c t meaning from a work of a r t i s c a l l e d i n t e l l e c t u a l l i t e r a c y . To the degree the s k i l l s a r e used, the work q u a l i f i e s as p o s s e s s i n g i n t e l l e c t u a l m e r i t . The c i r c u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n between the work and v i e w e r , the code and l i t e r a c y , i s emphasized i n 87 that the v i s u a l code must embody content i n t e l l e c t u a l l y complex enough i n i t s symbolism to require a c e r t a i n i n t e l l e c t u a l l i t e r a c y to decipher i t . The code i t s e l f cannot possess these i n t e l l e c t u a l values, but only a content seri o u s enough to allow the i n t e l l e c t u a l values i m p l i e d i n these s k i l l s to be e x e r c i s e d . By suggesting that the image must embody i n t e l l e c t u a l content, the Getty means that i t must allow for a vigorous e x e r c i s e of the i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s . The image whose symbolism permits these s k i l l s to be used w i l l be considered superior to the one which does not. The superior image seems to i n v o l v e a complexity that requires the appropriate degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l l i t e r a c y i n order to decipher i t (Getty Center, 1985, 1987a). Although t h i s complexity i s d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to the c u l t u r a l and formal values, i t s form of l i t e r a c y i s uniquely fundamental to the others. This i n t e l l e c t u a l complexity r e q u i r e s education, and t h i s i s one of the major points used by the Getty f o r the advocacy of the f i n e a r t s , which i t i d e n t i f i e s as embodying a subtle and s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n t e l l e c t u a l complexity, and i t s r e j e c t i o n of the popular a r t s , whose symbols, i t b e l i e v e s , are simple and e a s i l y read. A work i s judged superior to the degree i t i s able to accomplish t h i s . The i n t e l l e c t u a l component or value i s foundational to the -88 e n t i r e e n t e r p r i s e of DBAE. Not only does i t provide the basis f o r the determination of a e s t h e t i c value, but a l s o every other form of value, from pedagogical to p o l i t i c a l . DBAE i s a s t r u c t u r e designed to r a i s e the st a t u s of a r t education by p u t t i n g i t on par with other academic subjects (Getty Center, 1985, 1987a). I t b e l i e v e s i t can do t h i s by s t r e s s i n g i t s i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t y , and has adopted a c o g n i t i v e theory which d i s s o l v e s the dichotomy between i n t e l l e c t and a f f e c t , between mind and emotion ( E i s n e r , 1987b; D i B l a s i o , 1985a). As was mentioned e a r l i e r , the i n t e l l e c t u a l values have no content of t h e i r own, but r e l y on other areas to provide forms f o r t h e i r e x e r c i s e . The f i r s t of these content areas has been i d e n t i f i e d as cultural value. CULTURAL VALUE Aesthetic Criterion No. 5 - The code which contains certain cultural values needing a sophisticated cultural literacy to decipher it is superior to t he one which does not. I t may be arguable whether any work can ever be created independently of c u l t u r a l values, but i t seems apparent that c u l t u r a l values d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from one c u l t u r a l context to another. 6 By c u l t u r a l i s included the s o c i a l , .89 h i s t o r i c a l , and t r a d i t i o n a l forces that operate on and w i t h i n a c u l t u r e . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , these have been c a l l e d the e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c functions of a work of a r t , but i n DBAE's expanded concept of a e s t h e t i c s , they are necessary f o r understanding. The Getty l i t e r a t u r e supports the concept that c u l t u r a l values are embodied i n works of a r t . The importance of a r t to c u l t u r e and c u l t u r e to a r t i s one of the most commonly repeated themes. The documents emphasize that the a r t s are one of the highest forms of human achievement i n our c u l t u r e (Bennett, 1987; Getty Center, 1985; C l a r k , Day, & Greer, 1987; E i s n e r , 1985a; H o d s o l l , 1987). As a c u l t u r e we regard the a r t s as among the highest of human achievements: we b u i l d palaces we c a l l museums to d i s p l a y the f r u i t s of a r t i s t i c i n q u i r y and construct concert h a l l s to experience the heights we can reach through music. In e f f e c t , we recognize as a c u l t u r e that the a r t s represent the apotheosis of human achievement ( E i s n e r , 1985a, p. 65). A r t i s seen as a r e p o s i t o r y of c u l t u r e and the p r i n c i p a l means of t r a n s m i t t i n g c u l t u r a l values (Getty Center, 1985; Boyer, 1987; Broudy, 1987; Duke, 1983, 1984b; R i s a t t i , 90 1987). In i t s c u l t u r a l aspect, a r t i s r e f e r r e d to as wealth, jewels, c a p i t a l , and r i c h e s (Broudy, 1987; E i s n e r , 1987b). This value i s not regarded l i g h t l y i n DBAE. I t i s st a t e d that unless c h i l d r e n are educated i n the a r t s they w i l l be denied t h e i r c u l t u r a l legacy ( E i s n e r , 1985a) and, as a r e s u l t , w i l l lose t h e i r c u l t u r e and c i v i l i t y as w e l l as t h e i r humanity (Boyer, 1987). The Getty l i t e r a t u r e supports the idea of a r t as a re p o s i t o r y and t r a n s m i t t e r of c u l t u r a l value. In terms of t h i s study i t suggests that the c r i t e r i o n f or excellence depends to some degree on the a r t work's embodiment of c e r t a i n c u l t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s . The superior work's code then, must embody c u l t u r a l value and must be a t t a i n a b l e through c u l t u r a l l i t e r a c y . The Getty l i t e r a t u r e , although e n t h u s i a s t i c about the c u l t u r a l aspect, i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r about the p r e c i s e c u l t u r a l values which should be embodied i n the code of a work. I t can be discerned, however, that the image i s a r e p o s i t o r y of c u l t u r e and a l s o a means of t r a n s m i t t i n g i t . This means that the image content must (1) contain a symbolism which embodies cherished values (what the Getty c a l l s the s o c i a l a s p e c t ) , and (2) be an a c t i v e part of the h i s t o r i c a l development of the c u l t u r e (what i s c a l l e d the 91 h i s t o r i c a l a s p e c t ) . The superior image not only embodies c e r t a i n c u l t u r a l values, but i s part of an h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n w i t h i n the c u l t u r e ( H o d s o l l , 1987). C u l t u r a l value then, has a s o c i a l and an h i s t o r i c a l aspect. The f i r s t aspect involves imagery which employs symbolism d e p i c t i n g those values thought to be important to the s o c i e t y . Symbolism which d e p i c t s order and harmony, a love fo r knowledge and r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y , compassion and forgiveness, and the sacredness of freedom i s thought to promote the proper c u l t u r a l values (Bennett, 1987). Symbolism which d e p i c t s the character of r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f and the import of c o r r u p t i o n i n a s o c i e t y are a l s o important ( E i s n e r , 1987b). Above a l l , symbolism which d e p i c t s the s t r i v i n g f or human excellence i s to be valued ( E i s n e r , 1985; Getty Center, 1985; Smith, 1987). These s o c i a l values "empower us to understand c i v i c o b l i g a t i o n and human f u l f i l l m e n t and s o c i a l redemption" (Getty Center, 1987a, p. 53) . But these values are not found i n i s o l a t i o n . They are part of the broader h i s t o r i c a l development of a s o c i e t y , and the v i s u a l image which embodies t h i s aspect acquires an a d d i t i o n a l value. Art does not emerge i n the p r o v e r b i a l vacuum. A l l 92 a r t i s part of a c u l t u r e . A l l c u l t u r e s give d i r e c t i o n to a r t , sometimes by r e j e c t i n g what a r t i s t s have made and at other times by rewarding them for i t . To understand c u l t u r e , one needs to understand i t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n s i n a r t , and to understand a r t , one needs to understand how c u l t u r e i s expressed through i t s content and forms ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 20). This i s the importance of the h i s t o r i c a l aspect of the a r t work. When c h i l d r e n have the opportunity to study artworks from the past and the present, they begin to understand how a r t r e f l e c t s the values of a s o c i e t y ; how a r t has been i n f l u e n c e d by s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and economic b e l i e f s of a s o c i e t y ; and how a r t has made d i s t i n c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s to that s o c i e t y . Such understanding gives c h i l d r e n a greater a p p r e c i a t i o n of how c u l t u r e s have communicated through v i s u a l forms and helps c h i l d r e n gain i n s i g h t s i n t o r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the past and the present (Getty Center, 1985, p. 16). There i s a v i v i d r e l a t i o n s h i p of a r t to the development of the h i s t o r y of a c u l t u r e and the image can reveal the 93 i n t e r a c t i o n between the "technology and ideology of a period and the form that a r t i s t s c r e a t e " ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 16). Artworks r e f l e c t the times and c u l t u r e s of the people who produced them. Because they are a record of how people, p l a c e s , and things looked, artworks help b r i n g us more immediately and v i v i d l y i n t o contact with past c i v i l i z a t i o n s as w e l l as with present s o c i e t i e s (Getty Center, 1985, p. 16). This h i s t o r i c a l aspect of c u l t u r a l value places some d e f i n i t e r e s t r i c t i o n s on what s u p e r i o r i t y can i n c l u d e . Broudy (1987), i n d i s c u s s i n g the h i s t o r i c a l aspect of c u l t u r a l values says that exemplary images must (1) portray the values of a p a r t i c u l a r p e r i o d with unusual c l a r i t y , (2) mark a t r a n s i t i o n between peri o d s , or (3) presage developments of a future p e r i o d . These features give an exemplar great educational leverage, which j u s t i f i e s the considerable time required for i t s understanding and a p p r e c i a t i o n (p. 41). This h i s t o r i c a l aspect i s necessary for understanding. Those who created the masterpieces always used the forms which c o n s t i t u t e d t h e i r c u l t u r e . 94 However f r e s h and o r i g i n a l the v i s i o n of the o l d masters, they never e n t i r e l y broke free from t h e i r own age. Their works were not conceived ex n i h i l o , the masters extended and transformed v i s u a l models, they i n h e r i t e d from the past ... These p a i n t e r s saw s i g n i f i c a n t form i n what they copied; they copied t h e i r sources with emphasis - not by measure but by the s e l e c t i v e , i n t e r p r e t i v e power of t h e i r t r a i n e d eyes and i n s i g h t ... For i n these masterpieces, students r e a l i z e how one great a r t i s t can u t i l i z e the work of another great a r t i s t or even adapt from a photograph, b i l l b o a r d or soup can, i n order to create a new masteirwork s i g n i f i c a n t i n i t s own r i g h t (Kleinbauer, 1987, p. 208). According to the Getty, one of the most important ways works of a r t convey meaning i s through the "adaption of and departure from a r t - h i s t o r i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d forms" ( R i s a t t i , 1987, p. 224). The content of a code c o n s i s t s of a body of knowledge s y m b o l i c a l l y represented. The content that i s important i n terms of c u l t u r a l values c o n s i s t s of a s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l aspect which i s represented i n a t r a d i t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of a c o l l e c t e d body of works r e f l e c t i n g these values, c a l l e d the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . This t r a d i t i o n b a s i c a l l y supports one 95 set of c u l t u r a l values. The f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n , a c c u r a t e l y speaking, i s not so much a value as a means of a r t i c u l a t i n g value. This p a r t i c u l a r t r a d i t i o n expresses the c u l t u r a l values deemed to be most important. The f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n c o n s i s t s of c l a s s i c exemplars (Broudy, 1987) which provide the best examples of c u l t u r a l value. The kinds of work that c o n s t i t u t e t h i s t r a d i t i o n have already been discussed. Within DBAE, however, i s the b e l i e f that t h i s t r a d i t i o n and what i t contains represents the common American c u l t u r e . By common c u l t u r e i s meant "the values, achievements, h i s t o r i c a l events, customs, p r i n c i p l e s , and b e l i e f s that a l l Americans share that make us one people despite our a d v e r s i t y " (Bennett, 1987, p. 36). The content of a r t s education must s t a r t with the core of American c u l t u r e . That core belongs to a l l of us - whether we are white or black or Cuban Americans or Mexican Americans or Asian Americans or I t a l i a n Americans or P o l i s h Americans or anything American. We must know what the core i s and how i t came to be before we can understand how i t i s changing or can be changed. We need to make the core a part of the knowledge and experience of a l l Americans before a l l Americans, i n an age of t e l e v i s i o n , can have a sense of t h e i r place c a l l e d 96 America - e p l u r i b u s unum ( H o d s o l l , 1987, p. 110). The values inherent i n t h i s s o - c a l l e d common c u l t u r e are to be experienced by alI American students. I t i s expressed that "socioeconomic background does not determine one's a b i l i t y to understand, a p p r e c i a t e , and love the great works of our c u l t u r e (Bennett, 1987, p. 39). I t i s a l s o s t a t e d that the great exemplars of western c u l t u r e should be made a c c e s s i b l e to all students ( E i s n e r , 1985, 1987b; H o d s o l l , 1987). Entry to the enjoyment of values i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n i s not "barred by race, creed, c o l o r , or economic s t a t u s . Such bars, when they e x i s t , are not erected.by s c h o l a r s h i p but rather by those who l i m i t access to the s c h o l a r s h i p " (Broudy, 1987, p. 39). DBAE defends i t s support of t h i s t r a d i t i o n by s t a t i n g that i t s wealth i s a v a i l a b l e to everybody, the advantaged plus the disadvantged. Some w i l l say that teaching disadvantaged c h i l d r e n Michelangelo and Beethoven i s , at best, i d e a l i s t i c and, at worst, f o r c i n g middle and upper c l a s s values on poor m i n o r i t y students. My response i s t h i s : these works do not belong to any one race or c l a s s . They are simply the best that we have, the best western c i v i l i z a t i o n has to o f f e r , and everyone should get a shot at them (Bennett, 1987, p. 39). 97 I t may now be i n t e r e s t i n g to determine the form of l i t e r a c y r e q u ired by all American students i n order to be able to decipher these c u l t u r a l values symbolized i n the superior work's code. In DBAE the primary aim of a r t involvement i s to achieve an understanding of the work's meaning. This understanding cannot come about without a c e r t a i n c u l t u r a l l i t e r a c y . By c u l t u r a l l i t e r a c y , the Getty means a f a m i l i a r i t y with the common c u l t u r e , i . e . , the values and b e l i e f s that a l l Americans are b e l i e v e d to share (Bennett, 1987). Presumably, f a m i l i a r i t y with t h i s body of s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge w i l l a llow one to "read" the c u l t u r a l elements embodied i n an a r t work's code. The f i r s t step i n l i t e r a c y then, i s to acquire t h i s knowledge. Broudy (1987) r e f e r s to the images necessary to give meaning to a r t as the allusionary base. Among educated readers one would expect the a l l u s i o n a r y store to include some Greek and Roman mythology... When attending to discourse that includes references ( e x p l i c i t or i m p l i c i t ) to these concepts and images, the reader or l i s t e n e r r a i d s the a l l u s i o n a r y base f o r relev a n t words, f a c t s , and images. I f the a l l u s i o n a r y base i s meager and dis o r g a n i z e d , the reader or l i s t e n e r has to l e t much of what i s heard and read go by as j u s t so many words (Broudy, 1987, p. 18). The a c q u i s i t i o n of an a l l u s i o n a r y base that i s r i c h and organized and r e l a t e s to the t r a d i t i o n and c u l t u r e of the viewer i s necessary. In t h i s way, the student w i l l be able to i d e n t i f y elements that lead to meaning. This a l l u s i o n a r y base i s p r i m a r i l y h i s t o r i c a l . I t demands h i s t o r i c a l knowledge and s k i l l s from viewers, i n order to understand c e r t a i n symbolic meanings which e x i s t i n h i s t o r i c a l works. "To look at many p a i n t i n g s of the Madonna without knowing that c o l o r s l i k e the blue of her robe or symbols l i k e the l i l y have p a r t i c u l a r meanings i s to have a l i m i t e d h i s t o r i c a l understanding of the works" (Greer, 1984, p. 215). C u l t u r a l l i t e r a c y then, i s the a c q u i s i t i o n of a body of c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l , and h i s t o r i c a l knowledge necessary to be able to "read" the work and thus gain an understanding of i t s meaning. The knowledge must include the values of a p e r i o d , the a l l u s i o n a r y base, and the a b i l i t y to recognize purposeful achievement The c u l t u r a l values i n DBAE are many. There i s the b e l i e f that students must le a r n the past i n order to understand the present (Kleinbauer, 1987; R i s a t t i , 1987). There i s the b e l i e f that a r t d e r i v e s meaning from s o c i e t y ' s values and should communicate them (Getty Center, 1985, 1987a). There i s a l s o the b e l i e f that c u l t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s e s t a b l i s h the standard for e v a l u a t i o n . (Crawford, 1987; Getty Center, 1987a). This however, leads to a minor c o n f l i c t i n the l i t e r a t u r e . I f what i s considered a r t i s c u l t u r a l l y determined, then there can be no u n i v e r s a l standards. This c o n f l i c t s with some DBAE w r i t e r s who b e l i e v e a r t i s u n i v e r s a l (Boyer, 1985, 1 987). 7. There i s a l s o the b e l i e f that the best of the c u l t u r e should be shared with a l l people (Bennett, 1987). In t h i s sense, a r e l a t i v i s t hypothesis i s r e j e c t e d . 8 I t i s sometimes d i f f i c u l t to separate c u l t u r a l values from i n t e l l e c t u a l values. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c u l t u r a l aspects i n a code n e c e s s i t a t e s the use of the i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s d iscussed e a r l i e r . In a sense then, the i n t e l l e c t u a l and c u l t u r a l components are h i g h l y i n t e r r e l a t e d . The i n t e l l e c t u a l values that must be r e a l i z e d w i t h i n the superior work cannot be e x e r c i s e d without the body of content c a l l e d c u l t u r a l knowledge and conversely, the requirements for assessing and determining the c u l t u r a l content of a work cannot come about without e x e r c i s e of the i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s . But there i s one more area to consider i n t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p and that i s the area of formal value. 1 0 0 FORMAL VALUE Ae s t he t i c Criterion No. 6 ~ The code which contains certain formal values requiring a special literacy to decipher it is better t han t he one whi ch does ' not . Formal value comprises the area t r a d i t i o n a l l y thought of as being r e s p o n s i b l e for a e s t h e t i c experience. Concentration on formal value, or formalism, holds that a t t e n t i o n i s to be di r e c t e d towards the elements of l i n e , c o l o r , shape, and form which c o n s t i t u t e the form of the image. The formal q u a l i t i e s are to be the only q u a l i t i e s used i n the assessment of a e s t h e t i c value. A work i s judged good i n v i r t u e of possessing formal values such as u n i t y , balance, and harmony, and judged poor f o r not possessing them (Carlson, 1979). This i s the true a e s t h e t i c or s o - c a l l e d i n t r i n s i c experience. But i t has been shown that DBAE emphasizes a more h o l i s t i c understanding of a r t , rather than j u s t s o - c a l l e d a e s t h e t i c or, as we w i l l henceforth r e f e r to i t , formal experience. Based on the a t t r i b u t i o n of value, the formal i s now only one component of that understanding, but i t s t i l l e x i s t s as an area i n which c e r t a i n values must e x i s t i n order f o r a work to be c l a s s i f i e d as s u p e r i o r . The formal elements of the code involve i n t r i n s i c f a c t o r s (Kleinbauer, 1987), which include the s o - c a l l e d elements and 101 p r i n c i p l e s of design and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In DBAE, these are r e f e r r e d to as sensory and formal p r o p e r t i e s (Rush, 1987, p. 207). In essence, i t concerns those s t r i c t l y formal matters d e a l i n g with the v i s u a l composition and o r g a n i z a t i o n of works of a r t . The formal elements are described i n DBAE as c o n s i s t i n g of c o l o r , space, l i n e , s c a l e , shape, surface, tex t u r e (Rush, 1987; Getty Center, 1985, 1987a). These elements must be present i n order for a v i s u a l image to e x i s t , but what determines formal value i n an a r t work, i s the manner i n which these elements are arranged. These elements are combined by means of the formal p r i n c i p l e s recognized by DBAE, balance, rhythm, c o n t r a s t , emphasis, composition, and other compositional devices (Rush, 1987; Getty Center, 1985; Kleinbauer, 1987). Studying these elements i s v i t a l for understanding a r t "and though we may tend to t r e a t each of these elements s e p a r a t e l y , t h e i r perception and use i s h i g h l y c o n d i t i o n e d by t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (Getty Center, 1987a, p. 23). What i s important here for the determination of value, i s that these elements and p r i n c i p l e s d i s p l a y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . These r e l a t i o n s h i p s may c o n s i s t of the q u a l i t y of l i n e and how l i n e d e f i nes length and width and d e l i n e a t e s shape or form and movement; of shapes or forms i n two or three dimensions - hence how shapes 102 come to possess volume or mass; of l i g h t and how the d i f f u s i o n of l i g h t can create or d i s s o l v e forms; of co l o r and how c o l o r c o n t r i b u t e s t o , or d e t r a c t s from, q u a l i t i e s of l i n e , form, l i g h t , and even e f f e c t s of emotion; of space and how i t encourages l i m i t s , or d i r e c t s existence or motion; of surface and i t s s a l i e n t p r o p e r t i e s , such as m a t e r i a l and t e x t u r e ; the various combinations of these elements to form p a t t e r n ; and f i n a l l y the s e l e c t i o n or i n t e r l o c k i n g of some or a l l of these elements to . create compositions (Kleinbauer, 1987, p. 207). The formal elements of v i s u a l a r t and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s are l i k e n e d i n DBAE "to the use of words and phrases i n language or the elements and s t r u c t u r e of music" ( S p r a t t , 1987, p. 200). The formal elements are r e f e r r e d to as a vocabulary and the r u l e s governing the r e l a t i o n s h i p s to a s t r u c t u r a l syntax (Kleinbauer, 1987, p. 209). The work of a r t should d i s p l a y formal r e l a t i o n s h i p s which rev e a l coherent s t r u c t u r e on the purely v i s u a l l e v e l or, that r e v e a l a c e r t a i n u n i t y i n that the image i s "held together and ordered by the use of s i m i l a r shapes, forms, and c o l o r s " ( R i s a t t i , 1987, p. 221). The manner i n which the r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i s p l a y u n i t y , harmony, and balance w i l l determine the value of the work. 103 Although the i n t e r p l a y ' of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the elements and p r i n c i p l e s of design are complex, and only the very best r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e s u l t i n superior works of a r t , DBAE says that a set of ru l e s cannot be used i n determining what the r e l a t i o n s h i p s should be. "The o r g a n i z a t i o n of the forms must work i n accordance w i t h the standards the c h i l d holds for h i m s e l f , a l l without formulas or r u l e s " ( E i s n e r , 1987b, p. 17). Although the choices made i n determining the best r e l a t i o n s h i p s are not to be subjected to a set of r u l e s , the choice i s not l e f t to chance. In c r e a t i n g each work of a r t , a r t i s t s make an amazing number of choices: they consider what m a t e r i a l s . . . best convey t h e i r ideas: what v i s u a l elements - l i n e , c o l o r s , shapes - best d e p i c t t h e i r s u b j e c t s ; what v i s u a l p r i n c i p l e s - composition, balance, c o n t r a s t - best communicate t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s . The choices and thought processes a r t i s t s use to make d e c i s i o n s may be f l e x i b l e , but they are not c a p r i c i o u s . They are d e l i b e r a t e , q u a l i t a t i v e d e c i s i o n s based on the a r t i s t ' s knowledge, p r a c t i s e , and c a p a b i l i t i e s (Getty Center, 1985, p. 15). Part of the formal l i t e r a c y i s not only to be able to i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p s which e x i s t i n the formal 1 04 p r o p e r t i e s , but a l s o to be able to i d e n t i f y t e c h n i c a l p r o p e r t i e s . T e c h n i c a l p r o p e r t i e s are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of m a t e r i a l (such as c l a y , watercolor, chalk, paper) and t o o l s (such as brushes, p e n c i l s , b u r i n s , p o t t e r ' s wheels) and ways i n which the a r t i s t has used them to produce the artwork (such as c a r v i n g , p r i n t i n g , p a i n t i n g , drawing), things that are often c a l l e d a r t media and techniques (Hewett & Rush, 1987, p. 41-42). The t e c h n i c a l aspect of formal value concerns how the m a t e r i a l i s used i n the c r e a t i o n of a r t works. Technical knowledge i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the technique which r e s u l t s i n "well-made and b e a u t i f u l o b j e c t s " (Greer, 1987, p. 232). Work which i s di s p l a y e d i n museums i s u s u a l l y w e l l made and b e a u t i f u l , r e v e a l i n g a b i l i t i e s of conception and execution, "imagination and s k i l l , a r t and a r t i s a n r y , mastery of c r a f t , p r o f i c i e n c y with m a t e r i a l s and t o o l s " ( S p r a t t , 1987, p. 202). DBAE mentions that some of the f i n e s t of c r a f t e d objects are to be found i n museums. One need only look c l o s e l y at the works d i s p l a y e d i n a r t museums everywhere to r e a l i z e there i s a s p e c i a l kind of i n t e l l i g e n c e i n the s e n s i t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n of t o o l to m a t e r i a l i n the production of well-made and 105 b e a u t i f u l o b j e c t s . . . These objects of a r t represent a confluence of high human a b i l i t i e s : conception and execution, imagination and s k i l l , a r t and a r t i s a n r y . They bespeak a mastery of c r a f t i n i t s f i n e s t sense. When the work reveals both the character of i t s maker and the m a t e r i a l s and t r a d i t i o n from which i t d e r i v e s , i t transcends mere f u n c t i o n a l i t y and moves us with the s i l e n t power we term a e s t h e t i c ( S p r a t t , 1987, p. 201). Although the elements of the formal dimension are s p e l l e d out ( c o l o r , space, l i n e , s c a l e , shape, surfac e , form, movement, volume, mass, balance, emphasis, f o c a l p o i n t , composition, c o n t r a s t , t e x t u r e , rhythm - i n f a c t the t r a d i t i o n a l elements and p r i n c i p l e s of design) and i t i s made c l e a r that the best work r e s u l t s from the s o p h i s t i c a t e d use of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of these elements, no r e a l c r i t e r i a f o r the assessment of worth i s given. How are s o p h i s t i c a t e d or s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , s u b t l e l y divergent q u a l i t i e s , i n f l e c t i o n of execution, or an ordered use of the elements i d e n t i f i e d ? How i s e x c e l l e n c e i n the use of technique and c r a f t i d e n t i f i e d ? I t i s s t a t e d that there are no r u l e s ( E i s n e r , 1987b), and yet a l s o s t a t e d that the use of the p r i n c i p l e s i s not c a p r i c i o u s (Getty Center, 1987a). What are the formal c r i t e r i a by which we can i d e n t i f y the superior 106 work? Although the l i t e r a t u r e i s s i l e n t on t h i s most important q u e s t i o n , a s o l i d clue i s given. L i n e , shape, l i g h t , and surface cannot be described merely through v e r b a l d i s c o u r s e , without reference to s p e c i f i c works of the v i s u a l a r t s . They must be demonstrated v i s u a l l y . Art i n s t r u c t o r s can a c t u a l l y t r y to create these elements before the c l a s s , or they can re s o r t to the a r t of the past through the p h y s i c a l presence of a c t u a l works of a r t i n the classroom or museum or through s l i d e s or other reproductions of them. Even i f an a r t i n s t r u c t o r i s a g i f t e d a r t i s t , the f u l l range of p o t e n t i a l i t i e s of a l l the basic elements can't be demonstrated (Kleinbauer, 1987, p. 207). In order to provide students with examples about the appropriate ordering of the elements w i t h i n an image, works i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n are c i t e d . Within these works are the best use of the elements and p r i n c i p l e s . Works of the past must be employed, and to avoid naivete and e r r o r , they must be understood i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l complexity. This connects the formal sphere f i r m l y with the c u l t u r a l one. The f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n not only a r t i c u l a t e s the i n t e l l e c t u a l and 107 c u l t u r a l v a l u e s , i t a l s o a r t i c u l a t e s a n a p p r o v e d u s a g e o f t h e f o r m a l v a l u e s . T h e f i n e a r t e x e m p l a r s r e v e a l t h e a c c e p t e d u s e o f t h e f o r m a l p r o p e r t i e s . I t i s t h r o u g h i m m e r s i o n i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n t h a t s t u d e n t s " a b s o r b " t h e t e c h n i q u e s a n d p r a c t i c e s c o n s i d e r e d effective. T h e f o r m a l a r e a a l s o h a s a n i n t i m a t e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a r e a . T h e s k i l l s n e e d e d f o r i n t e l l i g e n t r e c o g n i t i o n a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e t h o s e w h i c h a r e v a l u e d i n t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l r e a l m : d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a n a l y s i s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a n d o t h e r s . T h e f o r m a l j u d g m e n t i s t r u l y a c o g n i t i v e a c t . T h i s i s b e s t o b s e r v e d i n t h e s t r u c t u r a l m e t h o d d e v i s e d i n D B A E f o r t h e d i s c o v e r y a n d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f f o r m a l v a l u e s . T h a t w h i c h i s u s e d t o f i n d f o r m a l v a l u e s i n D B A E i s a s y s t e m a d o p t e d f r o m H a r r y B r o u d y ( 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 8 1 b ) . D B A E t e a c h e r s u s e B r o u d y ' s s y s t e m o f aesthetic scanning i n o r d e r t o i d e n t i f y t h e f o r m a l e l e m e n t s ( D i B l a s i ' O , 1 9 8 5 b ; r G r e e r , 1 9 8 4 ; R u s h , 1 9 8 7 ) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , a e s t h e t i c s c a n n i n g i s t h e m e t h o d o f f o r m a l l i t e r a c y . I t i s a m e t h o d w h e r e b y a v i e w e r i d e n t i f i e s t h e a e s t h e t i c p r o p e r t i e s a n d v a l u e s i n a w o r k o f a r t . " S c a n n i n g i s a c l a s s r o o m a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p e r c e p t u a l a c t i v i t y t h a t a r t i s t s u s e w h e n m a k i n g a r t , a n d t h a t c o n n o i s s e u r s u s e w h e n c o n t e m p l a t i n g i t " ( H e w e t t & R u s h , 108 1987, p. 41). Using the c u r r i c u l u m designer's s e l e c t e d images, the teacher i s to d i r e c t student a e s t h e t i c perception experiences through scanning methods, i n order to increase student's s e n s i t i v i t y to perception of the sensory, formal, e x p r e s s i v e , and t e c h n i c a l p r o p e r t i e s , and the e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c f u n c t i o n of works of a r t (Zimmerman, 1982, p. 42). This p a r t i c u l a r method, however, merely allows students to develop t h e i r a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y the formal elements. I t does not give the c r i t e r i a f or formal value, but, as has been i n d i c a t e d , the formal values are best d i s p l a y e d i n the work which comprises the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . This t r a d i t i o n comprises the teaching t o o l for the great values of e x c e l l e n c e , and i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal values. The c r i t e r i a by which work i s judged superior c o n s i s t s of i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal components. But one can wonder whether these values were s e l e c t e d because the great a r t t r a d i t i o n embodies and reveals them, or the great a r t t r a d i t i o n was s e l e c t e d because i t supports the v a l u e s . C u l t u r a l wealth for a l l c o n s i s t s of the understanding of meaning resident i n the western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . A l l Getty's a e s t h e t i c values point to t h i s body 109 of work as the r e f e r e n c e f o r v a l u e . N O T E S 1 The term viewer i s used i n r e f e r e n c e t o one who i s engaged i n p e r c e i v i n g the image c o n s t i t u t i n g the a r t work. T h i s r e f e r s t o the a r t i s t as w e l l as t o an o b s e r v e r . 2 Dufrenne (1979) d i s c u s s e s r e s e a r c h which shows t h a t the fo r m a l v a l u e s i n the high a r t t r a d i t i o n s i n many w o r l d c u l t u r e s a r e e x t r e m e l y s i m i l a r . 3 The G e t t y d e f i n e s l i t e r a c y as the a b i l i t y t o secur e meaning from v a r i o u s forms i n which a r t i s e x p r e s s e d ( E i s n e r , 1987b). T h i s a b i l i t y r e l i e s on (1) knowledge and (2) s k i l l s . T h i s b a s i c framework seems t o be the same f o r i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and f o r m a l l i t e r a c y d i s c u s s e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . 4 These a r e o b v i o u s l y the t h r e e c r i t e r i a used i n the s e l e c t i o n of work f o r museum p u r p o s e s . In t h e l i t e r a t u r e , museum e x c e l l e n c e i s noted o f t e n . 5 I t i s h a r d t o d i s c e r n i n the G e t t y l i t e r a t u r e t h a t any d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between the terms c o g n i t i v e and i n t e l l e c t u a l . The terms seem t o be used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y . 6 Roger C a r d i n a l (1972) examines a form of p r i m i t i v e a r t he b e l i e v e s has no c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e . He examines a r t i s t s he b e l i e v e s have t u r n e d away from h a b i t u a l c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n s t o which they have been t r a i n e d t o respond. He b e l i e v e s a u t h e n t i c a r t i s t h a t which has broken t o t a l l y from t r a d i t i o n and c u l t u r a l c o n d i t i o n i n g . For the f u n c t i o n of a r t when i t i s g e n u i n e l y e f f e c t i v e , i s t o g i v e us a chance t o break w i t h o l d h a b i t s , and l o o s e the s h a c k l e s of r e a s o n a b l e s o c i a l b e h a v i o r , the b e t t e r t o r e t r e a t down dark passageways and r e j o i n t h a t p a r t of o u r s e l v e s which moves towards us w i t h a savage l a u g h (p. 11). N e e d l e s s t o say, t h i s r a t h e r i r r a t i o n a l approach i s not a c o n c e p t i o n of a r t t h a t would be s u p p o r t e d by G e t t y . 11 The idea of u n i v e r s a l i t y i n a r t i s being questioned by many w r i t e r s . High c u l t u r e i s a l s o becoming l e s s i n f l u e n t i a l because of the d e c l i n i n g c r e d i b i l i t y of i t s c l a i m that i t s c u l t u r a l standards are u n i v e r s a l . Today's upper middle and other p u b l i c s do not stand i n q u i t e the same awe of high c u l t u r e as d i d e a r l i e r generations. Nor do they seem to seek the kind of p r e s t i g e that high c u l t u r e can o f f e r , or could o f f e r i n the past (Gans, 1985, p. 50). The r e l a t i v i s t p o s i t i o n i s opposed to the a b s o l u t i s t one. The r e l a t i v i s t hypothesis i s , however, r e j e c t e d by adherents of high c u l t u r e , who argue that t h e i r c u l t u r e i s i n h e r e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from a l l others. They b e l i e v e that high c u l t u r e ' s a e s t h e t i c standards are u n i v e r s a l , and must be met by everyone. Resembling i n many ways the p r a c t i t i o n e r s of orthodox r e l i g i o n s , they conclude therefore that a l l other t a s t e c u l t u r e s and standards are a e s t h e t i c a l l y and otherwise i n v a l i d , harmful to both i n d i v i d u a l s and s o c i e t y (Gans, 1985, p. 42) CHAPTER 5 ANTECEDENTS OF THE AESTHETIC VALUES IN DBAE The second question t h i s study seeks to answer in v o l v e s the p l a c i n g of the i d e n t i f i e d values i n a l a r g e r context. The a e s t h e t i c values present i n DBAE are only one narrow s e l e c t i o n out of the vast p o s s i b l e range of values which could have been s e l e c t e d . In order to place the values i n some sort of meaningful context, i t i s necessary to extend the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the c r i t e r i a and portray the t r a d i t i o n from which they have come. This w i l l w i l l be done by (1) t r a c i n g the antecedent h i s t o r y and development of the c r i t e r i a w i t h i n the f i e l d of a r t education, and (2) i d e n t i f y i n g the i n d i v i d u a l w r i t e r s who have used t h i s t r a d i t i o n i n e x p l i c a t i n g the Getty's DBAE program. The a e s t h e t i c values that have been i d e n t i f i e d d i d not come i n t o existence with the formulation of DBAE. Their o r i g i n and development have a very long and sometimes stormy h i s t o r y . The value of understanding the antecedent t r a d i t i o n s and thoughts that sponsor DBAE theory has been recognized by the Getty. I t sponsored a s e r i e s of reports which de s c r i b e the antecedents of the d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d concept ( E f l a n d , 1987; Kern, 1987; Smith, 1987). These i n v e s t i g a t i o n s are e x c e l l e n t d e s c r i p t i o n s of the t h e o r e t i c a l 111 1 12 and p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n t e c e d e n t s of the d i s c i p l i n a r y approach and they p r o v i d e a p e d i g r e e of l e g i t i m a c y f o r the b a s i c c u r r i c u l u m s t r u c t u r e s used by G e t t y . While the theoretical s t r u c t u r e s of the r e f o r m were e x p l i c a t e d a d m i r a b l y , they f a i l t o account f o r the o r i g i n of the a e s t h e t i c v a l u e and b e l i e f system which u n d e r l i e s t h e i r t h e o r y of e v a l u a t i o n and judgment. T h i s b e l i e f and v a l u e system i s e s s e n t i a l l y a r e f l e c t i o n of the humanities approach t o v i s u a l a r t . I t s m o t i v a t i n g spark and subsequent growth c o n s i s t s of an i n t e r p l a y between the h i s t o r i c a l movements r e p r e s e n t e d by the h u m a n i t i e s and the s o - c a l l e d p o p u l i s t s . DBAE's e s s e n t i a l v a l u e b e l i e f s s p r i n g from and r e p r e s e n t a p o s i t i o n s u p p o r t i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l h u m a n i t i e s approach t o e d u c a t i o n ( S m i t h , 1987a). THE HUMANITIES I t i s w e l l r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the meaning of the terms humanities and humanism a r e i n c r e d i b l y d i v e r s e (Hadas, 1968; K h a t c h a d o u r i a n , 1980; Shuman, 1980; Smith, 1969). In a d d i t i o n t o the v a r i o u s meanings a t t r i b u t e d t o the terms, t h e r e a r e some p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s between terms such as h u m a n i t i e s and humanism. W i t h i n the a r t e d u c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , however, the terms seem t o be used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y . T h i s study w i l l use the terms i n the 1 13 f o l l o w i n g way: 1. Humanism - i s the b e l i e f and value system which emphasizes i n t e l l e c t u a l and academic r i g o r through the study of the Western c u l t u r a l and c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n (Broudy, 1973). 2. The Humanities - i s the study of that c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n , i . e . , the study of humanism. 3. A Humanist - i s one who supports the above sense of humanism and the humanities (Flexner, 1987). Within the d i v e r s i t y of meanings surrounding the terms, there appears to be a c e n t r a l core of consensus around the s o - c a l l e d traditional conception of the humanities. These shared b e l i e f s are concerned with the i n t e l l e c t u a l experience of c l a s s i c a l a n t i q u i t y , i d e a l s of e x c e l l e n c e , s u p e r i o r i t y , i n d i v i d u a l i t y , s t y l e i n expression and l i f e (Hadas, 1968), and a concern with the expression of c e r t a i n human values w i t h i n our c u l t u r a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l h e r i t a g e (Anderson, 1971; Hoffa, 1971; Smith, 1969). I t has been best summarized by Harry Broudy (1973) who says that t r a d i t i o n a l humanism i n education seeks to induct students i n t o the i n t e l l e c t u a l , moral, and a e s t h e t i c heritage i n order that the emotions and impulses can be c o n t r o l l e d by reason. The l i f e of f e e l i n g and a c t i o n , to q u a l i f y as human, 1 1 4 had to be ordered by thought. Through the power of the i n t e l l e c t man could d i s c e r n the order of the universe and of the moral l i f e that could make l i f e i t s e l f o r d e r l y and i n t e l l i g i b l e ... The goal of humanistic education, was to d i s c i p l i n e the mind and f e e l i n g s by study of the best that had been thought and wrought (Broudy, 1973, p. 70). The consensus of b e l i e f about the humanities t r a d i t i o n then, i s that i t c o n s i s t s of an a t t i t u d e towards a body of t r a d i t i o n a l ( u s u a l l y c l a s s i c a l ) knowledge which can enhance the i d e a l s of e x c e l l e n c e , i n t e l l i g e n c e , and r a t i o n a l i t y i n human l i f e . The primary agreement c o n s i s t s of the b e l i e f i n forms of i n t e l l i g e n c e and r a t i o n a l i t y that w i l l r e s u l t from the study of the c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n . Regardless of time and circumstances, the schools at a l l l e v e l s can induct the young i n t o t h i s consensus with the confidence that i t i s about as near as we can get to an a b i d i n g , i f not absolute, t r u t h about the good l i f e (Broudy, 1981a, p. 142). The humanities have always had an impact i n Western education ( L e v i , 1983), but i t was i n the 1960s when the l i n k between the humanities and a r t began to be s t r e s s e d . In the past, a r t had been excluded from the humanities because 1 15 i t was b e l i e v e d t h a t the making of a r t was a technical r a t h e r than a l i b e r a l s u b j e c t ( L a n s i n g , 1978). Where a r t was i n c l u d e d i n departments of h u m a n i t i e s , i t d e a l t o n l y w i t h the h i s t o r y and t h e o r y of a r t , not i t s p r a c t i s e . "The h i s t o r y , c r i t i c i s m , and t h e o r y of a r t f a l l w i t h i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the h u m a n i t i e s whereas t h e i r p r a c t i s e does not" ( L e v i , 1983). In the l a t e 1960's, however, t h e r e was a major swing i n a r t e d u c a t i o n t h e o r y away from a s t u d i o or c r e a t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n t o a d i s c i p l i n e - c e n t e r e d approach s t r e s s i n g h i s t o r y , c r i t i c i s m , and a e s t h e t i c s ( E f l a n d , 1971; Forman, 1968a). T h i s a l l o w e d the concept of a r t t o be i n c l u d e d under the a e g i s of the h u m a n i t i e s . In 1964, the same year as Barkan's p l e a t o expand the concept of a r t e d u c a t i o n t o i n c l u d e more than p r o d u c t i o n , a Commission on the H u m a n i t i e s met t o d i s c u s s the i s s u e of the A r t s and the H u m a n i t i e s . I t recommended the c r e a t i o n of two N a t i o n a l Endowments, the N a t i o n a l Endowment f o r the H u m a n i t i e s (NEH), and the N a t i o n a l Endowment f o r the A r t s (NEA) (Commission on the H u m a n i t i e s , 1980). Between 1964 and 1967, the A r t s and H u m a n i t i e s Program of t h e U.S.O.E. sponsored 17 d e v e l o p m e n t a l seminars and c o n f e r e n c e s i n a r t e d u c a t i o n (Rush & Conant, 1979). In 1968 1 16 the NAEA issued i t s f i r s t o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n statement i n 19 years s t a t i n g that a r t i s a body of knowledge ( E f l a n d , 1971). This i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a r t content as knowledge was necessary for i t s development as an educational form acceptable to the humanities. By 1969, i t was acknowledged that the t o p i c of the humanities and a r t was generating considerable enthusiasm. Both educators and students were apparently demanding that more a t t e n t i o n be paid to the humanities (Smith, 1969). During t h i s year, the Journal of Aesthetic Education sponsored a s p e c i a l e d i t i o n d e a l i n g with the humanities. In t h i s i s s u e , Ralph Smith (1969), expressing concern that there were so many d i v e r s e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the term humanities, decided to provide a d e f i n i t i o n f o r i t s use i n ar t education. He stated that a e s t h e t i c education i s a subdomain of the humanities and that a humanities approach i n a r t education s t r e s s e s an i n q u i r i n g mind, a method and set of procedures, and an object so cons t ruct ed that procedural probing can extract facts and values from i t . This l a t t e r statement i s d i r e c t l y relevant to the method of ar t judgment that has been e x p l i c a t e d as a feature of DBAE. The humanities approach i s d i r e c t e d toward c u l t u r a l o b j e c t s with high value p o t e n t i a l (Smith, 1969). In other words, t h i s approach helps determine what objects contain the • 1 1 7 highest a e s t h e t i c values and upon what exemplars one should concentrate. Smith's statement was more than j u s t a d e f i n i t i o n . I t was a l s o an i n d i c a t i o n of the defensive r o l e that would be assumed by humanities-oriented a r t educators throughout the next decade. Smith's d e f i n i t i o n was a response to the co u n t e r - c u l t u r e movement that was o c c u r r i n g at t h i s time. This s o - c a l l e d c o u n t e r - c u l t u r e severely c r i t i c i z e d the western i n t e l l e c t u a l and c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n , and, as a r e s u l t , the humanities became p o l i t i c a l l y suspect (Mulcahy, 1983). Smith's r a l l y i n g c a l l to the banner of the humanities was meant to res t o r e "the s a n i t y which p r e v a i l i n g fads are d e s t r o y i n g , and i n order to a s s e r t c o u n t e r v a i l i n g power against present trends, we should return to t r a d i t i o n " (Smith, 1969). This b a t t l e between the advocates and the c r i t i c s of the humanities t r a d i t i o n continues to the present day. In 1971, the NAEA held i t s 11th B i e n n i a l conference where the theme was Art and Humanism. I t was based on the premise that a humanities approach to a r t could " o f f e r the only v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to a r t education's current single-minded p u r s u i t of the studio i d e a l " (Hoffa, 1971, p. 8). The conference recognized that the concept of the a r t s and the 1 18 humanities was one of the top p r i o r i t i e s i n the 1970's (Anderson, 1971). New York State Education Commissioner, Ewald B. Nyquist stated that h i s primary goal was to make the educational e n t e r p r i s e of New York more humanities-oriented, while the New York State Board of Regents designated the A r t s and Humanities as a Department p r i o r i t y (Anderson, 1971). One of the major o b j e c t i v e s of the new Higher Education D i v i s i o n of NAEA was to introduce the humanities i n t o higher education (Heussenstamm, 1971). There was a d e f i n i t e f e e l i n g of optimism about the humanities d i r e c t i o n that a r t education was ta k i n g (Anderson, 1972). During t h i s time, there were many d i f f e r e n t approaches to the concept of the humanities i n a r t education. Some educators were i n t e r p r e t i n g the humanities approach to mean a kind of openness, the focus on humane values, and an acceptance of the new and r a d i c a l a r t forms of the 1970's (Beymer, 1971; Cassidy, 1971; Stewart, 1971, 1972). This p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r e j e c t e d a focus on past c u l t u r a l exemplars and instead concentrated on the new a r t forms of the present. I t was the r i s e and p r o l i f e r a t i o n of these n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the humanities that l e d Broudy (1973) to draw a d i s t i n c t i o n between (1) new humani sm, which meant an emphasis on emotional h e a l t h , 119 s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and a diminution of s t r e s s on formal study of academic d i s c i p l i n e s , and (2) traditional humani sm, which emphasized i n t e l l e c t u a l and academic r i g o r through study of the western c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n (Broudy, 1973). This study w i l l assume a reference to Broudy's traditional humanism when employing the term humanities or humanism. By the mid 1970's there was a b e l i e f that a r t was a s o l i d part of the humanities t r a d i t i o n (Mutchler, 1975), and that i t functioned best as an adjunct of humanism ( L e v i , 1974). In 1976, the NYU Seminar on Education i n the V i s u a l A r t s recommended that a humanities approach be adopted i n a r t education (Rush & Conant, 1979), and a year l a t e r the NAEA formed a commission which issued a report which supported the kind of t r a d i t i o n a l humanism defined by Broudy and Smith and i n d i c a t e d that t h i s concept was the best approach to a r t education ( L a n i e r , 1979). The 1980's have seen a revived and powerful move towards a humanities approach to a r t education, beginning with the R o c k e f e l l e r Report and ending with the f i r m e x p o s i t i o n of the humanities p o s i t i o n which occurs i n the Getty's DBAE program. In 1980, the Commission on the Humanities published a report e n t i t l e d The humanities in American life. This r e p o r t , sponsored by the R o c k e f e l l e r Foundation, proposed 120 that the humanities comprised the proper education f o r the American c i t i z e n . I t st r e s s e d the idea of a common educational experience based on the high c u l t u r e of the western t r a d i t i o n and the values represented t h e r e i n (Smith, 1982). 11-.emphasized the p r e s e r v a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r a l resources and the ideas of t r a d i t i o n , c o n t i n u i t y , judgment, and competence (Mulcahy, 1983; Smith, 1982). This theme was picked up in the report of the P r e s i d e n t i a l Commission on Excellence i n Education, A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform (1983). This report expressed concern about what i t bel i e v e d was a trend to mediocrity and c a l l e d f o r more academic r i g o r i n the schools. Emphasis was to be given to more academic and i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s based on a s o l i d grounding i n the t r a d i t i o n a l h e r i t a g e . I t s zealous demand f o r human achievement was c a r r i e d over i n t o a s p e c i a l issue of Art Education, 57(4), (1984), which used as i t s theme one of the highest of humanities i d e a l s , excellence. In 1984, the Secretary of Education, W i l l i a m Bennett, 1 former chairman of the NEH, wrote a book, To reclaim a legacy (1984), which attacked American education for i t s deplorable approach to the humanities. The legacy that Bennett says needs r e c l a i m i n g , of course, i s nothing l e s s 121 than the i n t e l l e c t u a l t r a d i t i o n which represents the i d e a l s and p r a c t i s e s of the Western c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e . In order to avoid d i s a s t e r , American education must return to a humanities approach to education (Mulcahy, 1986). These t r a d i t i o n a l ideas, s t r e s s i n g humanly achieved e x c e l l e n c e through involvement i n the c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n , were beginning to be s e r i o u s l y considered by leading a r t educators. Ralph Smith, a vigorous supporter of the humanities, designed an a e s t h e t i c education program that r e l i e d h e a v i l y on a humanities approach (Smith, 1984b). But nowhere was t h i s approach being more s e r i o u s l y considered than by the Getty Trust. In the e a r l y 1980's the Trust was c o n s i d e r i n g i t s extension i n t o the f i e l d of education. As has been shown, the humanities ideas were dominant at t h i s time. In determining i t s e d u cational approach, the Trust began an i n t e n s i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the d i r e c t i o n s i t could move i n the f i e l d of a r t education. In order to determine t h i s d i r e c t i o n , Harold W i l l i a m s , president and c h i e f executive o f f i c e r of the T r u s t , h i r e d L e i l a n i L a t t i n Duke and Nancy Englander to conduct the research. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that Duke was the former program d i r e c t o r f o r the N a t i o n a l Endowment for the A r t s , a humanities o r g a n i z a t i o n , while Englander was 1 22 former d i r e c t o r of museum programs at the N a t i o n a l Endowment for the Humanities (Getty Trust,' 1985). I t was with a planning team whose roots were based i n the humanities t r a d i t i o n that DBAE began. I t i s through the w r i t e r s who create the Getty l i t e r a t u r e , however, w r i t e r s who s t r o n g l y support the humanities t r a d i t i o n , that the basic p h i l o s o p h i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l t h r u s t behind DBAE can be seen. Getty w r i t e r s themselves have observed t h i s humanities focus. Art education i s beginning to look more and more l i k e one of the humanities. Consider, f o r example, that DBAE i n e f f e c t asks students to walk proudly with t h e i r c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e , to appreciate the s p e c i a l character of a e s t h e t i c communication, and to r e f l e c t c r i t i c a l l y about the r o l e of a r t i n personal and s o c i a l l i f e . These are a l l t r a d i t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s of humanistic education. I t f o l l o w s that teacher preparation programs w i l l have to require s u b s t a n t i a l l y more work i n the humanities than they do now (Smith, 1987a, p. x v i i i ) . More p e r t i n e n t to the theme of t h i s study i s the f a c t that the a e s t h e t i c values which dominate DBAE are the same as those which dominate the humanities t r a d i t i o n . 1 2 3 EXTENDED AESTHETICS As we have seen, the humanities approach to a r t education broadens i t s concerns from the s t r i c t l y productive to the h i s t o r i c a l , c r i t i c a l , and a e s t h e t i c areas. Sole conc e n t r a t i o n on the productive aspects of a r t and a l l that i m p l i e s cannot t h e o r e t i c a l l y be considered a t r a d i t i o n a l concern of the humanities. But with the extension of the domain of a r t , new and broader parameters of a e s t h e t i c value must be determined. The f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n s of the g r a p p l i n g with t h i s idea can be detected i n the s t r u g g l e to define the concept of a e s t h e t i c s and i t s r i g h t f u l boundaries. I t has been shown that DBAE w r i t e r s g e n e r a l l y employ an expanded conception of a e s t h e t i c s i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of value, i . e . , one which sees a e s t h e t i c value as comprising i n t r i n s i c as w e l l as e x t r i n s i c f a c t o r s (Crawford, 1987; E f l a n d , 1987; Getty Center, 1987a; Greer, 1987; Smith, 1987). This i s an expansion of the long-held idea that a e s t h e t i c value can be determined only by i n t r i n s i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . According to t h i s l a t t e r view, worth, m e r i t , and e x c e l l e n c e are only a t t r i b u t e d for i n t r i n s i c f a c t o r s (Smith, 1983a; Kern, 1970). This concept of i n t r i n s i c value, however, i s of r e l a t i v e l y recent o r i g i n . Before the 19th century, e x t r i n s i c and instrumental value were both accepted as v a l i d i n d i c a t o r s of a e s t h e t i c value (Redfern, 1986). I t 1 24 was only with the 19th century r o m a n t i c - i d e a l i s t conception of a r t according to which i t was considered to be non-functional and n o n - u t i l i t a r i a n , that the c r i t e r i a for worth was l i m i t e d only to i n t r i n s i c concerns (Feldman, 1982). The idea of a e s t h e t i c value being s o l e l y r esident -in the work i t s e l f , a f o r m a l i s t i c concern, however, i s d i f f i c u l t to maintain i n l i g h t of the concerns of a humanities approach which seeks to emphasize meaning, understanding and human values rather than j u s t a p p r e c i a t i o n , and which needs to broaden a r t knowledge to include more than mere a r t production. Although the dominant a e s t h e t i c p o s i t i o n since the 19th century has emphasized formal and i n t r i n s i c value, there has been a tendency, with the development of a humanities approach to a r t education, for a e s t h e t i c i a n s and t h e o r i s t s to seek to expand t h i s concept. In a sense, t h i s i s not so much a broadening of the concept as i t i s a return to i t s o r i g i n s . In comparing a r t to a t e x t , the humanist Rabkin (1978) says that We can d i v i d e our ways of knowing i n t o two great camps: those that r e l y on i n t r a - t e x t u a l examination and those that r e l y on e x t r a - t e x t u a l examination. Of course, no text can be r e a l l y c l o s e d and a l s o perceived, so i n t r a - t e x t u a l examination i s an 125 a n a l y t i c i d e a l ; no text i s the mere r e f l e x of the co n d i t i o n s surrounding i t s production, since i t l i v e s only in the current perceptions of an audience, so e x t r a - t e x t u a l examination i s an a n a l y t i c i d e a l (Rabkin, 1978, p. 105). In p r a c t i s e , t h e r e f o r e , the humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c i a n w i l l "move i n and out of h i s t e x t s " (p. 105). The humanities approach to a r t then embraces the idea that i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c concerns are of equal value. Within the f i e l d of a r t education there has been a slow tendency to admit t h i s expanded approach. "The issue of whether the a r t s are the c a r r i e r s of e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c meanings ... has been much debated" ( S e r a f i n e , 1979, p. 9). Broudy (1976) r e l u c t a n t l y concedes and permits the broadened approach. Pedagogically, one might defend s e l e c t i n g works of a r t for study that have great e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c import as w e l l as a r t i s t i c m e r i t , but I doubt that we would wish to exclude from study those works that do not have such obvious e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c import nor would we wish the a e s t h e t i c response to be judged s o l e l y i n terms of e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c e f f e c t s (Broudy, 1976, p. 35) . 126 In e f f e c t , t h i s v a l i d a t e s the humanities conception s t a t e d by Rabkin. "Broudy f u r t h e r remarks that the degree of i n t e r e s t occasioned by works of a r t w i l l be a f u n c t i o n not only of t h e i r formal complexity, but a l s o of the nerves of l i f e they touch (Smith, 1981b, p. 15). Ralph Smith agreed with Broudy when he too admitted that worth and value could c o n s i s t of i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c features (Smith, 1981b). I t i s w i t h i n the programs that s t r e s s a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d approach that the expanded concepts of a e s t h e t i c value f i n d t h e i r best expression. I f the d i s c i p l i n e of a r t admits to the s u b - d i s c i p l i n e s of a e s t h e t i c s , c r i t i c i s m , h i s t o r y , as w e l l as production, then each must o f f e r a s p e c i a l value concern ( u l t i m a t e l y a l l values must u n i t e i n a l a r g e r v a l u e ) . I t i s only w i t h i n t h i s expanded concept of a e s t h e t i c value that the d i s c u s s i o n concerning the c r i t e r i a for merit i n DBAE can be extended. THE WORK OF ART The idea of an expanded concept of a e s t h e t i c value which embraces e x t r i n s i c as w e l l as i n t r i n s i c c r i t e r i a opens the act of e v a l u a t i o n to a multitude of new concerns. I f the act of e v a l u a t i o n , i . e . , the a t t r i b u t i o n of value, i s to be managable, a narrowing of those concerns to s e l e c t and i d e n t i f i a b l e c r i t e r i a i s r e q u i r e d . The c r i t e r i a for worth 1.27 w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y be l a r g e r than those of the formal but s t i l l f i x e d and f i n i t e . The f i r s t of the concerns deals with what i s to be the object of a t t e n t i o n i n e v a l u a t i o n . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , worth can be a t t r i b u t e d to any v i s u a l experience, from a patch of weeds to s o - c a l l e d museum masterpieces. During the expansionist and Ii berati onist a t t i t u d e s of the 1960's and 1970's (Smith, 1985), many t h e o r i s t s began a s s e r t i n g that n a t u r a l and environmental objects as w e l l as created works of a r t could be the focus of a e s t h e t i c a t t e n t i o n (Hepburn, 1968; S h i e l d s , 1973; Smith & Smith, 1970b). Although the ideas expressed by these w r i t e r s have made t r a d i t i o n a l a e s t h e t i c i a n s more accountable for t h e i r viewpoints, the t r a d i t i o n a l humanities approach has remained f i r m . Works of a r t created by humans are more worthy than objects not created by humans. This of course, i s a d i r e c t extension of the humanities a t t i t u d e and embraces two p o i n t s : (1) The proper study f o r humans i s that which i s human, and (2) human values cannot be i n t e n t i o n a l l y b u i l t i n t o n a t u r a l o b j e c t s . I t has always been a primary tenet of the humanities that the focus of a t t e n t i o n i s on things human. V i s u a l products or events created by humans are t h e r e f o r e more important as humanities subjects than are nat uralIy created v i s u a l experiences. The l o g i c of t h i s i s evident. Since both the humanities and a e s t h e t i c s are a 12.8 study of human values, a humanities approach to a e s t h e t i c s i n a r t must elevate those objects which contain the highest concentration of human values. It.has been stated that the three primary c r i t e r i a f o r value in v i s u a l experience i n DBAE are i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal values. I t i s obvious that unless an object or experience i s created by a human i t i s not l i k e l y to possess a high concentration of i n t e l l e c t u a l and c u l t u r a l value. Proponents of non-humanly created v i s u a l experiences have attempted to d i s p l a y the formal p r o p e r t i e s evident i n the n a t u r a l environment, but, as i t has been c l e v e r l y argued, the n a t u r a l environment or n a t u r a l objects only possess formal q u a l i t i e s when an a r b i t r a r y frame i s imposed on them by a human viewer who i s then responsible f o r the r e s u l t i n g image. In such a case, i t i s the humanly framed view which has the q u a l i t i e s , not the object i t s e l f (Carlson, 1979). As some w r i t e r s have shown, n a t u r a l environments and objects cannot possess i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal q u a l i t i e s , but must be valued and appreciated according to a d i f f e r e n t set of c r i t e r i a (Carlson, 1979). Monroe Beardsley, a champion i n the cause of a l i g n i n g the humanities with a e s t h e t i c s says that "there are c e r t a i n kinds of things we can know about works of a r t that are not 1 29 there to be known i n the case of rocks and stones and t r e e s " (Beardsley, 1971, p. 74). Without i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , or formal values, a v i s u a l experience cannot be a t t r i b u t e d a high degree of a e s t h e t i c worth i n the humanities approach. I t i s the r e f o r e to the humanly created object that humanities-oriented a r t educators t u r n . Since the e a r l y 1970's, these educators have been c a r e f u l to i n d i c a t e that although the f u l l range of v i s u a l experience can be appreciated a e s t h e t i c a l l y , i t i s the humanly created work of a r t that i s the proper object of study. Nature can be regarded a e s t h e t i c a l l y but " i t i s i n the f i n e a r t s that we u s u a l l y f i n d the greatest concentration of a e s t h e t i c values" (Smith, 1973b, p. 17). The humanities t r a d i t i o n does admit that n a t u r a l events can occasion a e s t h e t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n and hence, have some a e s t h e t i c value, but they have h i s t o r i c a l l y refused to y i e l d t h e i r b e l i e f that humanly created a r t works are the proper and highest r e p o s i t o r y of a e s t h e t i c value. As e a r l y as 1968, t h e o r i s t s were d i s c o v e r i n g the need to have to account for d e f i n i t i o n s and d i s t i n c t i o n s that u l t i m a t e l y gave support f o r t h i s viewpoint. Ralph Smith (1968) presented a humanities d i s t i n c t i o n when he d i v i d e d the v i s u a l world i n t o two c l a s s e s , a e s t h e t i c objects and 1 3 0 works of a r t . A e s t h e t i c objects c o n s i s t e d of any ob j e c t , n a t u r a l or man-made, which were p e r c e p t u a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g . Works of a r t , on the other hand, were " a r t i f a c t s " s p e c i a l l y designed to serve only as a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t s . As i s often the case i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the e n t i t i e s of human experience the d i f f e r e n c e between an a e s t h e t i c object and a work of a r t may not always be obvious, cannot be measured, and while there are c l e a r - c u t there are a l s o b o r d e r - l i n e cases. Let i t s u f f i c e to say that i f a s e a s h e l l , f o r example, i s i n t e r e s t i n g to percepti o n , then i t i s an a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t . Hamlet, The Rites of Spring, and Guernica, however, are a e s t h e t i c objects which are a l s o works of a r t since they have a f a r greater c a p a c i t y to reward perce p t i o n . Another way of p u t t i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n i s to say that a (good) work of a r t i s a s p e c i a l l y designed high-grade a e s t h e t i c object (Smith, 1968, p. 16). The assumption that works of a r t had a s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e not possessed by a e s t h e t i c objects was a vigorous point of debate i n the 1960's ( A r n s t i n e , 1966), but e s s e n t i a l l y , the humanists j u s t i f i e d t h e i r e l e v a t i o n of the work of a r t on the grounds that i t was an i n t e n t i o n a l gathering of the human i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal values. T r a d i t i o n a l 131 a e s t h e t i c i a n s developed the idea of a continuum whereon v i s u a l experiences could be l o c a t e d and hence evaluated. In a s s e r t i n g that works of a r t have the c a p a c i t y to induce b e t t e r , r i c h e r , more sustained a e s t h e t i c experience than anything e l s e , i t i s not being denied that a e s t h e t i c experience of some dur a t i o n and magnitude can be occasioned by other o b j e c t s , a c t i o n s and events. Thus to gain a c l e a r e r conception of the nature of a e s t h e t i c experience, a continuum may be imagined with the perception of the simple and f l e e t i n g q u a l i t i e s of things at one end and at the other the perception of works of a r t i n v o l v i n g prolonged and intense concentration (Smith, 1981b, p. 1.2) . The a e s t h e t i c value ranges from zero t o " u t t e r absorption" such as i s l i k e l y to occur only i n the presence of great works of a r t (Beardsley, 1973, p. 49). "The degree of value depends on the human f a c t o r and the determined i n t e n t i o n of the a r t i s t who purposely decides to transform the object i n t o an a r t work" (Beardsley, 1973). The greatest proponents of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r viewpoint are members of the humanities t r a d i t i o n : Monroe Beardsley, Harry Broudy, E l l i o t E i s n e r , Edmund Feldman, and Ralph Smith, who 132 are a l s o prominent members of the Getty I n s t i t u t e f a c u l t y . The kind of viewpoint they advocate received o f f i c i a l sanction i n the 1977 NAEA Commission Report. Although such experiences can be secured i n some degree i n v i r t u a l l y every form of int e r c o u r s e humans have with the world, i t i s i n t e r c o u r s e with those forms, events, o b j e c t s , and ideas t y p i c a l l y regarded as a r t that has the c a p a c i t y to provide such experience i n i t s deepest, most moving form (p. 36). The t r a d i t i o n a l humanities approach then, from which DBAE has drawn i t s viewpoint concerning the object of a e s t h e t i c a t t e n t i o n , recognizes that the greatest value i s res i d e n t i n the a r t work which i s defined as humanly created to i n t e n t i o n a l l y e l i c i t an a e s t h e t i c response. Although t h i s primary d i s t i n c t i o n i s h e l p f u l i n c l a r i f y i n g the c l a s s of objects (works Of a r t ) worthy of c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i t does not help i n determining how to assign v a r i o u s degrees of worth to that c l a s s (or those o b j e c t s ) . The process of as s i g n i n g degrees of worth to a r t works i s c a l l e d evaluation. "An ev a l u a t i o n i s a judgment about the presence or the q u a n t i t y of value of any sort i n an object (Pepper, 1958, p.272). I t i s an " i n t e l l e c t u a l weighing and measuring of p a r t i c u l a r things brought under a common d e s c r i p t i v e 1 33 c l a s s and by means of a common standard" (Osborne, 1971, p. 23). E v a l u a t i o n and judgment t h e r e f o r e , are the means whereby good works of a r t are d i s t i n g u i s h e d from poor ones (Machotka, 1970, p. 117). In order for judgment to occur, a set of c r i t e r i a or standards must be appealed t o . The humanities t r a d i t i o n i s very secure i n i t s b e l i e f concerning the importance of the " r i g h t " standards by which to judge the worth of an a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t . The concept of e v a l u a t i o n or judgment and standards are i r r e t r i e v a b l y i n t e r t w i n e d . In Western a e s t h e t i c s the importance of standards of excellence was emphasized with the d i v i s i o n of a r t i n t o f i n e and popular a r t s which took place i n the 17th century. American a r t i s t i c standards for exc e l l e n c e were derived from the European a r i s t o c r a t i c models (Forman, 1968a), and the idea of the importance of standards of excellence i n a r t and a r t education began to be emphasized. In the 1960s humanities-oriented a r t educators began advocating d i s c i p l i n e d c a p a c i t i e s f o r making a e s t h e t i c value judgments (Smith 1966, 1968). This came about i n response to a perceived movement away from t r a d i t i o n a l l y conceived standards i n a r t education. What was o c c u r r i n g at t h i s time was that a viewpoint opposed to the t r a d i t i o n a l one was c a l l i n g i n t o question the idea of o b j e c t i v e standards and 1 3 4 t h e i r v a l i d i t y i n t h e f i e l d o f a r t e d u c a t i o n . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e d e b a t e w a s b e t w e e n t h e f i x e d o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d , a n d t h e c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e . F o r m u c h o f i t s h i s t o r y , t h e f i e l d o f a e s t h e t i c s h a s b e e n t r o u b l e d b y t h e p r o b l e m r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e a p p a r e n t d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n o b j e c t i v i t y i n a e s t h e t i c j u d g m e n t a n d p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e o r t a s t e ( O s b o r n e , 1 9 7 1 ) . T r a d i t i o n a l h u m a n i t i e s - o r i e n t e d a r t e d u c a t o r s h a v e a c c e p t e d K a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e o b j e c t i v i t y o f a e s t h e t i c j u d g m e n t s . I n t h e f i e l d o f a r t e d u c a t i o n a t a c i t a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a e s t h e t i c j u d g m e n t s a r e o b j e c t i v e l y r i g h t o r w r o n g u n d e r l i e s a n d b o l s t e r s a l l t h e s o c i a l a p p a r a t u s o f a r t e d u c a t i o n , a m e l i o r a t i o n o f p u b l i c t a s t e , s e l e c t i o n o f o b j e c t s f o r p u b l i c p u r c h a s e a n d d i s p l a y i n m u s e u m s a n d g a l l e r i e s , a n d i s t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r c r i t i c i s m a s i t i s p r a c t i s e d ( O s b o r n e , 1 9 7 1 , p . 1 3 ) . B e f o r e standards c a n e i t h e r b e j u s t i f i e d o r a p p e a l e d t o , a n a c c o u n t i n g h a s t o b e m a d e b e t w e e n o b j e c t i v i t y a n d s u b j e c t i v i t y i n e v a l u a t i o n . T h e s u b j e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s t a t e s t h a t j u d g m e n t s a r e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t a s t e o r p r e f e r e n c e ( G e a h i g a n , 1 9 7 5 ) . P r e f e r e n c e s a r e l i k e s , v a l u e s , o r a t t i t u d e s w h i c h a r e a t t r i b u t e d t o a w o r k ( S h a r e r , • 1 . 9 8 0 ) . 135 They i n v o l v e s u b j e c t i v e l i k i n g s and d i s l i k i n g s which are u s u a l l y beyond the agent's c o n t r o l . No p r a c t i s e or p a r t i c u l a r t r a i n i n g i s considered necessary i f one i s simply going to express one's s u b j e c t i v e preferences or l i k i n g s . "The u n i n i t i a t e d i n t h i s respect can f u n c t i o n as w e l l as the expert" (Geahigan, 1975, p. 32). Taste i s r e l a t i v e and r e l i e s on a wide v a r i e t y of di v e r s e and s u b j e c t i v e standards (Mann, 1979). The opposing p o s i t i o n , held by humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c i a n s , a f f i r m s the o b j e c t i v i t y of standards i n e v a l u a t i o n . The determination of value i s " e s s e n t i a l l y the matching of the a e s t h e t i c object to predetermined c r i t e r i a or standards" (Geahigan, 1975, p. 31). There are o b j e c t i v e techniques f o r determining the worth and value of a r t ob j e c t s . ' Some works of a r t are undoubtedly superior to others. In s p i t e of a l l s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s , these works endure and achieve the sta t u s of exemplars and f u n c t i o n as standards against which other works are judged (Mann, 1979). With the movement towards d i s c i p l i n e - c e n t e r e d o r i e n t a t i o n s i n a r t education i n the 1960s ( E f l a n d , 1971), much more emphasis was placed on o b j e c t i v e standards and the d e n i a l of 136 personal preference or r e l a t i v e standards as a means of i d e n t i f y i n g value i n a r t . Ralph Smith (1968) says that there was confusion because s o c i e t y was not p r o v i d i n g the young with f i x e d and s t a b l e standards for judgment. The r e s u l t of t h i s confusion was a move by the youth towards the p r i n c i p l e of personal preference and t a s t e (Smith, 1968). Throughout the 1970's and the 1980's the humanists have maintained a b e l i e f i n the existence of o b j e c t i v e standards and have been r e l u c t a n t to admit the p r i n c i p l e of r e l a t i v i t y or t a s t e as a method of i d e n t i f y i n g value i n the work of a r t . Again, Beardsley (1970) s t a t e s the humanities viewpoint regarding standards. One i s . t h e way of the love of beauty which i s l i m i t e d i n i t s range of enjoyment, but i s r e f o r m i s t by i m p l i c a t i o n , since i t seeks a world that conforms to i t s i d e a l . The other i s the way of a e s t h e t i c i z i n g everything - of t a k i n g the a e s t h e t i c point of view wherever p o s s i b l e - and t h i s widens enjoyment, but i t i s d e f e a t i s t , since instead of e l i m i n a t i n g the junkyard and the slum i t t r i e s to see them as expressive and symbolic (Beardsley, 1970, p. 234). S u b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a seem to be r e j e c t e d by most humanists since t h i s form of c r i t e r i a needs no education. The 1 37 humanities-oriented a r t educator g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e s there are o b j e c t i v e standards by which to measure the a e s t h e t i c value of any work of a r t . But before the c r i t e r i a of those standards can be determined, i t i s necessary to examine the t r a d i t i o n which embodies them. FINE ART TRADITION Before d i s c u s s i n g the exact c r i t e r i a which determine a good work of a r t from a bad work of a r t , i t i s u s e f u l to e x p l a i n the context w i t h i n which the standards are found. The work of a r t which i s considered superior i n the t r a d i t i o n a l humanities i s that which has been admitted i n t o the ranks of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . Acquaintance with t h i s t r a d i t i o n w i l l provide a s o l i d reference point when d i s c u s s i n g the p a r t i c u l a r s which comprise i t . The term fine arts r e f e r s to a f i n i t e t r a d i t i o n a l body of ar t works which are considered superior or more worthy of study than other works of a r t (Mann, 1979) i n that they are capable of y i e l d i n g the l a r g e s t amounts of higher order a e s t h e t i c value (Smith, 1973b, 1984b, 1981b). This body of work, of " i n d i s p u t a b l e a e s t h e t i c merit" has gained i t s st a t u s through " c e r t i f i c a t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l experts who s e l e c t them from the body of works comprising our a e s t h e t i c h e r i t a g e " (Geahigan, 1985). "They have repeatedly been 138 j u d g e d t o p o s s e s s a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y t h a n o t h e r a r t w o r k s a n d o b j e c t s - i n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e i r a r t i s t i c m e r i t h a s b e e n c e r t i f i e d " ( S m i t h , 1 9 8 1 a ) . T h i s b o d y o f w o r k h a s b e e n h i s t o r i c a l l y v a l i d a t e d a s s u p e r i o r a n d i t s c o r p u s c a n b e i d e n t i f i e d t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f a n y s t a n d a r d h i s t o r y o f w e s t e r n a r t . T h e m o s t v i a b l e w a y o f l o c a t i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f f i n e a r t i s t o l o o k a t t h i n g s r e c o g n i z e d a s s u c h b y a u t h o r i t i e s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i t i s w h a t y o u s e e i n a r t m u s e u m s o r a r t g a l l e r i e s o r w h a t y o u r e a d a b o u t a n d s e e p i c t u r e d i n a r t b o o k s , m a g a z i n e s , a n d m o n o g r a p h s ( H o b b s , 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e s e w o r k s a r e c o n s t a n t l y r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e best t h a t h a v e b e e n a c h i e v e d b y h u m a n b e i n g s ( P a r r o t t , 1 9 8 6 ) , a n d a r e s a i d t o b e v a l u a b l e b e c a u s e t h e y c o n v e y d r a m a t i c i m a g e s a b o u t t h e i m p o r t o f h u m a n l i f e , m a i n t a i n t h e a e s t h e t i c t r a d i t i o n , r e v e a l e x e m p l a r s f o r h u m a n b e h a v i o r , a n d p r e s e r v e t h e v a l u e s o f t h e p a s t . I n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e p r e s e n t , s a y s t h e h u m a n i s t , we m u s t k n o w t h e p a s t . T h e f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n c a r r i e s t h e s e v a l u e s a d m i r a b l y ( S m i t h , 1 9 7 0 ) . T h i s b o d y o f w o r k c o m b i n e s a r t i s t i c v a l u e w i t h h u m a n s i g n i f i c a n c e . 139 The works we choose should c e r t a i n l y include images of how persons i n other times and places perceived the human c o n d i t i o n , but above a l l they should exemplify a e s t h e t i c excellence and challenge the mind as w e l l as s t r e t c h the imagination s u f f i c i e n t l y to a i d a student's progress toward self-knowledge (Smith, 1985, p. 171). This l a t t e r point i s c r u c i a l . This body of work educates, and as such, needs education for i t s understanding. For the f u l l a p p r e c i a t i o n and understanding of f i n e a r t , a c e r t a i n knowledge, s e n s i t i v i t y , and formal schooling are needed (Smith, 1981a). This body of a r t work, c a l l e d f i n e a r t , i s s a i d to be the "best that has been thought and s a i d on a l l the matters that concern us and the best that has been created" (Smith, 1981a). These s o - c a l l e d c l a s s i c s "continue to move, d e l i g h t , and i n s t r u c t generation a f t e r generation" (Smith, 1985, p. 172). Because these works remain secure i n t h e i r r e p u t a t i o n s , they can be used with confidence i n a r t education programs. In f a c t , according to the humanities t r a d i t i o n , "the proper goal of a e s t h e t i c education i s to get students i n t o a study of these 'great' masterpieces" ( K e l l y , 1983). 140 The idea of the f i n e a r t s cannot e x i s t without the d i s t i n c t i o n of things which are not f i n e a r t s . The concept of the f i n e a r t s emerged i n the l a t e 17th century (Evans, 1973). That from which the f i n e a r t s were separated were those a r t s which were merely u s e f u l , u t i l i t a r i a n , or decorative (Aiken, 1968). With the b i r t h of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n arose advocates for the v a l i d i t y of each of the separated p o i n t s of view. With the advent of the 20th century, came a great i n t e r e s t i n the f i n e a r t masterpiece as a school s u b j e c t . The name given t o t h i s subject was picture study (Jones, 1974). The p i c t u r e study movement l a s t e d from the l a t e 1890's to the 1920's and g e n e r a l l y sought to develop a p p r e c i a t i o n of the masterpieces of f i n e a r t amongst students (Stankiewicz, 1984). But even then there were advocates f o r both kinds of a r t . There were those w i t h i n the p i c t u r e study movement who advocated great art such as Godkin (1870), and Poore (1903), while others l i k e Parton (1869) argued that popular a r t should be used. S u p r i s i n g l y enough, the issue of popular and f i n e a r t s was subdued throughout the decades f o l l o w i n g the 1920's even though the emphasis on the c r e a t i v e aspect of a r t forbade teachers to "show c h i l d r e n works of a r t by ad u l t masters for 14 1 fear that t h e i r c r e a t i v i t y would be jeopardized" ( E f l a n d , 1971, p. 18). During the mid 1950's however, because of the r i s e of modern media, the issue gained new prominence as the battle of the brows. There was a fear amongst humanities advocates that "lowbrow t a s t e s catered to by mass-media would overthrow the t r a d i t i o n of high c u l t u r e " ( C a w e l t i , 1976). Except for the i n j u n c t i o n of the p r o g r e s s i v i s t s , the idea of the f i n e a r t s i n the c u r r i c u l u m remained r e l a t i v e l y unchallenged, but during the 1960's, a provocative p o s i t i o n was pr e s c r i b e d by Vincent Lanier recommending that the popular a r t s be accepted as part of the c u r r i c u l u m i n a r t education (Rosenblum, 1981). This challenge, of course, forced humanities-oriented a r t educators to defend the use of f i n e a r t as the sole exemplars i n education. Macdonald (1963) argued from the point of view of Gresham's Law of c u l t u r a l p o l l u t i o n , according to which, i n f e r i o r popular a r t would e l i m i n a t e f i n e a r t and leave only v i s u a l t r a s h and k i t s c h i n i t s place (Rosenblum, 1981). Ianni (1968) s t a t e d that the popular a r t s lack proper understanding of the fundamental c u l t u r e that produced them. Art must somehow re-create the concept of l i f e . Only the f i n e a r t s have the c a p a b i l i t y of doing t h i s (Rosenblum, 1 4 2 1981). Smith (1968) v i g o r o u s l y supported the concept of f i n e a r t , s t a t i n g that s t a b l e and d e f e n s i b l e models were needed which could be emulated and a l s o serve as standards against which behavior could be unambiguously judged. He attacked the popular a r t movement. The forms of human behavior presented i n the movies and on t e l e v i s i o n are gross d i s t o r t i o n s , u s u a l l y o v e r - s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s , of a c t u a l i t y , and thus may be i n j u r i o u s to growth. Serious a r t , on the other hand, i s s a i d to portray things more as they are, or to present convincing and sometimes r a d i c a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s (Smith, 1968, p. 15). Smith was to remain one of the most a r t i c u l a t e advocates for the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n and he i n i t i a t e d many attack s against the i n c u r s i o n of popular a r t i n t o the f i e l d of a r t education. His phrase a right to the best would be challenged by many p o p u l i s t s (Hobbs, 1985) and would r e s u l t i n a s e r i e s of debates on f i n e and popular a r t s (Geahigan, 1985; Hobbs, 1985; Smith, 1985). The idea that popular a r t could not meet the complex challenge posed by f i n e a r t was a con t i n u i n g one. I t was argued by humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c i a n s that "the p i c t u r e of l i f e one encounters i n popular f i l m s and dramas 143 i s i n many cases i d e a l i z e d , i n t e n s i f i e d , and d i s t o r t e d so as to appeal to the p r e j u d i c e s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs of audiences" ( K e l l y , 1983). I t was b e l i e v e d necessary to maintain the d i s t i n c t i o n s and h i e r a r c h i e s w i t h i n a r t . To d i s t i n g u i s h the cheap from the f i n e , the s o p h i s t i c a t e d from the commonplace, the vulgar from the e x c e l l e n t ... Such d i s t i n c t i o n s are c r u c i a l for the p r e s e r v a t i o n of excellence i n t a s t e and a e s t h e t i c judgment, and any c r i t i c i s m which f l a t t e n s t h e i r d i a l e c t i c or a b o l i s h e s t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n a l character i s an e x e r c i s e i n p h i l i s t i n i s m and v u l g a r i t y ( L e v i , 1974, p. 22). The idea of lowbrow c u l t u r e and popular a r t was s a i d to include such items as comic books, mud-slinging, pie-throwing comedies, zany movie a n t i c s , Keystone Cops, penny arcades, boardwalk shows and entertainment, s e n s a t i o n a l s t u n t s , burlesque and g i r l i e shows, b e e r - h a l l and basement-tavern entertainment, h i l l b i l l y music, hootenany melodies, the pulps, rock and r o l l , and t e l e v i s i o n teenage dances (Winthrop, 1974). In 1975, Abraham Kaplan wrote an essay on the a e s t h e t i c s of popular c u l t u r e i n which he argued against the v a l i d i t y of popular a r t as an a r t form. He claimed that popular a r t was 1.44 the r e s u l t of the p u b l i c ' s i n a b i l i t y to understand f i n e a r t (Rosenblum,.1981). Popular a r t was thought to be an immature form of f i n e a r t created for those unable to understand the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of great a r t and who wanted the same values i n an undeveloped and l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d form ( C a w e l t i , 1976). Humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c i a n s at t h i s time were not only defending the p r i n c i p l e s of f i n e a r t against those of popular a r t , but a l s o attempting to discourage the i n c u r s i o n of avant garde and modern a r t . Popular and avant garde a r t was thought to represent "chaos and ab s u r d i t y of the worst kind. "Whim and fashion form no l e g i t i m a t e s u b s t i t u t e f o r r a t i o n a l a e s t h e t i c judgment" ( L e v i , 1974). Whoever views the p o r t r a i t s of Franz Hals or the landscapes of Hobbema or Van Goyen at once f e e l s himself i n the presence of a friendly a r t , expressive of the cheerfulness and good humor, indeed, the e s s e n t i a l h o s p i t a l i t y of man and nature. But whoever concerns himself with the landscapes or p o r t r a i t s of Maurice de Vlaminck or Chaim Soutine senses a repressed resentment t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the angry images of n a t u r a l and human h o s t i l i t y and aggression. I t i s the elementary d i s t i n c t i o n between an a r t of a f f i r m a t i o n , acceptance and high c u l t u r e "145 and one of o p p o s i t i o n , p r o t e s t and co u n t e r c u l t u r e ( L e v i , 1974). A l l t h i s occurred i n support of a body of a r t works which apparently embodied the values advocated by humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c i a n s . In 1977 two major reports gave sanction to the l e g i t i m a c y of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n w i t h i n a r t education. The NAEA Commission Report (1977) st a t e d that the greatest a e s t h e t i c experience i s brought about by involvement with f i n e a r t . Fine a r t was worthy of educational support because i t s codes were s o p h i s t i c a t e d and complex. "Unlike the messages of the mass media whose codes are e a s i l y decipherable - " A l l i n The Family," "Maude," or Jaws, a f t e r a l l require no s p e c i a l t u i t i o n - the messages of works of a r t are not as e a s i l y read" (NAEA, 1977, p. 36). The report s t r e s s e d a r i g i d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the f i n e a r t s on one hand, and the vernacular a r t s which c o n s i s t of f o l k , popular, and mass a r t s . Also h i g h l y s t r e s s e d was the f a c t that the understanding of f i n e a r t i s contingent upon education. This theme was d u p l i c a t e d i n the report Coming To Our Senses (1977), where a b e l i e f i n the value of the f i n e a r t s was f i r m l y s t a t e d . The report equated a e s t h e t i c value with the a r t s found i n museums and g a l l e r i e s , where the superior 146 works were those i n h e r i t e d from the 18th and 19th century European a r i s t o c r a c y (Johnson & Ciganko, 1978). The debate concerning the v a l i d i t y of f i n e a r t over popular a r t continued during the l a t e 1970's. A sense of the b i t t e r n e s s of t h i s argument can be f e l t i n Conant's (1977) review of Jack Hobbs book, Art in Context, where he c r i t i c i z e d i t s use of popular a r t . Conant exclaims, I am a r o y a l i s t , an e l i t i s t , an a r t i s t , one who refuses to cheapen a r t ' s magnificent and supreme exc e l l e n c e by comparing i t to ... comic s t r i p s and other e s s e n t i a l l y vulgar commodities ... How dare you d i g n i f y John Wayne and M i l t o n C a n i f f by even mentioning t h e i r i n c r e d i b l y mundane works i n a chapter devoted to the hero theme i n Greek and Renaissance a r t (Conant, 1977, p. 352). The leaders i n the f i e l d , Broudy, Feldman, E i s n e r , and Smith, a l l emphasized the use of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n for exemplars i n the classroom and claimed that the experiences provided by the popular a r t s were t r i v i a l (Broudy, 1970; Feldman, 1978). By 1984, t h i s issue was revived and c a l l e d "heated and d i v i s i v e " by Hobbs (1984). " I t has to do with the choice of a r t exemplars to use i n the classroom, s p e c i f i c a l l y , whether 147 they should be r e s t r i c t e d to recognized works of f i n e a r t or allowed to include popular, f o l k , and vernacular a r t " (p. 11). He says that the issue has been mostly l a t e n t u n t i l now because the p r a c t i s e s of a r t education have not forced the i s s u e . " I f classrooms around the country, however, should adopt programs i n a e s t h e t i c education, teachers would have to consider the obvious question: what kind of a r t s h a l l we use?" (p. 11). This i s e x a c t l y the question of importance i n the Getty DBAE program when i t i s s t a t e d that "the most c r i t i c a l d e c i s i o n i n the implementation of a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d program i s the s e l e c t i o n of the works of a r t we w i l l use" (Getty Center, 1987a, p. 75). The designers of the program however, seem to answer the question by showing that the a r t that should be used i s that of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . I t i s t h i s a r t that "transforms our expectations and standards, and enables us to take the f i r s t steps toward connoisseurship" (Broudy, 1978). I t i s now necessary to examine the antecedents of the s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a by which a work of a r t i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n can be i d e n t i f i e d . 148 THE CODE The humanities t r a d i t i o n b e l i e v e s that the work of a r t embodies a meaning that the viewer must t r y to understand. This viewpoint i s i d e n t i c a l to the one used i n the DBAE program. The content of a work of a r t has been r e f e r r e d to as the code, an aggregate of v i s u a l symbols which possess features capable of p r o v i d i n g knowledge which (1) e x e r c i s e s c e r t a i n s k i l l s , i . e . , demands a s p e c i a l i z e d l i t e r a c y for i t s decipherment and (2) v a l i d a t e s c e r t a i n cherished values. C o n c e p t u a l i z i n g a r t i n t h i s way brings i t i n t o alignment with a humanities approach. Since the humanities are an academic e n t e r p r i s e , t r a d i t i o n a l l y affective a c t i v i t i e s such as the a r t s need to be able to redefine themselves i n academic terms. One of the most fundamental ways to give v i s u a l a r t t h i s kind of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y i s to remove i t from the stu d i o or manual fu n c t i o n and to s t r e s s i t s academic nature. This has most e f f e c t i v e l y been done by c l a i m i n g i t s st a t u s as a language. When a r t i s s a i d to be a language, i t means that i t s symbolism has to be encoded and decoded. This means that i t s meaning and i t s understanding i s achieved through i n t e l l e c t u a l and s c h o l a r l y f u n c t i o n s . Although there are e a r l y references to a r t as a language, i t s r e a l advocacy came as a response to the counter c u l t u r e p o s i t i o n of the 1 49 e a r l y 1970's. I f a r t could be considered a language, with the concomitant a c c e s s o r i e s of syntax, decipherment, and forms of l i t e r a c y , then the apparent lawlessness of the new adversary movements i n a r t education might be countered and overcome. Although e a r l i e r w r i t e r s mention a r t as a language, i t was Eisner who f i r s t began to s p e c i f i c a l l y elaborate the concept. In an a r t i c l e (1971), he sketches out a theory which was to receive much a r t i c u l a t i o n i n l a t e r years. The a r t i s t , says E i s n e r , transforms ideas, images, and f e e l i n g s and encodes them i n symbols. A work of a r t i s a r e p o s i t o r y of these symbols. In order to understand the language represented by a r t , one must have the a b i l i t y to read or decode the symbols. This process of encoding v i s u a l symbols, Eisner b e l i e v e s , has p a r a l l e l s to other language forms. According to t h i s theory then, a work of a r t contains a code which c o n s i s t s of v i s u a l symbols which need a s p e c i a l form of l i t e r a c y i n order to be deciphered. This concept was f u r t h e r elaborated by Martin Feldman (1976), who r e s t a t e d E i s n e r ' s idea that a r t i s a language and that knowledge ( l i t e r a c y ) i s needed i n order to understand v i s u a l codes. I t i s employed much as v e r b a l language was before there were d i c t i o n a r i e s with r u l e s of 150. orthography and grammar (Feldman, 1976). Feldman admits that reading images c o r r e c t l y provides sensuous, c o g n i t i v e , and formal knowledge (p. 198). Due to the i n f l u e n c e of t h i s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the a r t process, the term literacy began to be used f r e q u e n t l y i n the mid 1970's (Broudy, 1976; Holden, 1978). In 1978, the back-to-basics movement invaded American education (Feldman, 1978; Holden, 1978) and with i t , a need for a r t educators to t r y and provide some so r t of r a t i o n a l e for the n e c e s s i t y of a r t education. Humanities-oriented a r t educators responded by t r y i n g to a l l y a r t education with the humanities, and the best way to do t h i s , i t was f e l t , was to s t r e s s the language c a p a c i t y of a r t w i t h i n general education. General educational needs are addressed by what we c a l l the humanities. Art education has to r e c o n s t i t u t e i t s e l f as one of the humanities ... I t i s not enough for a r t educators to knock at the door of the humanities and ask f o r admission. We have to demonstrate genuinely humanistic concerns and competencies. I b e l i e v e we can do t h i s when we c l a i m - and i t i s c e r t a i n l y a t r u t h f u l c l a i m - that a r t i s , among other t h i n g s , a very important language. Today the idea of studying a r t as a language i s 151 r e c e i v i n g increased support from those concerned with the r e v i v a l of general education (Feldman, 1978, p. 11). The connection between the a r t s and l i t e r a c y received o f f i c i a l support i n the 1977 NAEA Commission r e p o r t , which sta t e d that "works of a r t are complex s t r u c t u r e s whose c o n t r i b u t i o n s to experience are secured only i f one brings to them some form of i n t e l l i g e n t p e rception" (p. 36). The report s t r e s s e d the c o g n i t i v e and i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n of t h i s conception and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to f i n e a r t by saying that works of a r t possess complex codes which, i n the best examples, are more d i f f i c u l t to decipher than i n poor examples (NAEA, 1977). This understanding of complex codes requires a form of t u i t i o n and education which i s academic and s c h o l a r l y . This academic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a r t was contrasted to the c r e a t i v e or productive approach. Feldman (1978) says " i f a r t education i s p r e s e n t l y experiencing d i f f i c u l t i e s , i t may be due to our over-emphasis on the values of s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n and our r e l a t i v e i n d i f f e r e n c e to a r t as a v i s u a l - s y m b o l i c system that can be s t u d i e d l i k e any other language (1978, p. 11). The e a r l y 1980's saw the term a e s t h e t i c l i t e r a c y i n wide currency ( L a n i e r , 1980), along with the idea that the v i s u a l 1 52 a r t s were a language i n v o l v i n g a decoding process f o r the r e t r i e v a l of meaning (Douglas, Schwartz, & T a y l o r , 1981; F e i n s t e i n , 1982, 1983). I t can be seen that the idea of a r t as a language w i t h i t s accompanying concepts of code and l i t e r a c y were given encouragement because of h i s t o r i c a l concerns to root a r t education i n a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d approach and to a l l y i t s e l f w ith the humanities movement. For the purposes of determining a e s t h e t i c value, however, i t i s important to r e a l i z e what t h i s means. If the a r t work i s a code c o n s i s t i n g of symbols which demand l i t e r a c y to read them, the c r i t e r i a for worth w i l l be based on the nature of the code. The superior code must possess i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal values which r e s i d e i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . Although the o r i g i n and development of ideas concerning these values i n a e s t h e t i c judgment have a d i v e r s e h i s t o r y , they are brought together i n the humanities t r a d i t i o n and united i n Getty's DBAE program. INTELLECTUAL VALUES The humanities are f i r s t and foremost an i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y . The bas i s of t h e i r a c t i v i t y i s l o c a t e d i n academic s c h o l a r s h i p and i n the kinds of c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s needed for 153 i t s p r e c i s e execution. In order for t r a d i t i o n a l l y conceived affective a c t i v i t i e s , such as a r t , to f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n academic areas, i t i s necessary for them to be able to j u s t i f y t h e i r existence as c o g n i t i v e or i n t e l l e c t u a l e n t e r p r i s e s . In a sense, the p r o v i s i o n of a c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e allows entry i n t o the humanities and i n doing so al s o provides a more acceptable r a t i o n a l e f or i t s acceptance as a school subject. I t has been determined that the humanities approach c o n c e p t u a l i z e s a r t as a language with i t s meaning symbolized i n a code. This code communicates knowledge to the viewer. The q u a l i t y of t h i s knowledge i s i n f l u e n t i a l i n determining the object's a e s t h e t i c worth (Smith, 1968). In order to acquire meaning from symbolic codes, c e r t a i n l i t e r a c i e s corresponding to the type of symbolism used i n the work are necessary. The manipulation of the form of l i t e r a c y i s an act of i n t e l l e c t ( E i s n e r , 1971). Cognition ... i s a generic term encompassing the range of means by which human beings understand and r e l a t e to the world ... The generic nature of co g n i t i o n may be conceived as a c o g n i t i v e umbrella that subsumes various modes of knowing - conceptual, p e r c e p t u a l , a f f e c t i v e , metaphoric, i n t u i t i v e , and k i n e s t h e t i c (Hamblen, 1983, p. 177). 154 Art educators have been vague when t a l k i n g about c o g n i t i o n . A more d e t a i l e d explanation that t r i e s to i n d i c a t e p r e c i s e l y what c o g n i t i o n i n a r t means was provided by Wheeler (1970) when he used Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) to e x p l a i n the c o g n i t i v e r o l e of a r t . According to t h i s view, the c o g n i t i v e domain i s d i v i d e d i n t o two areas: knowledge, and a b i l i t i e s and s k i l l s . Knowledge or information i s concerned with bodies of remembered phenomena, whereas i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s deal with comprehension, a p p l i c a t i o n , a n a l y s i s , s y n t h e s i s , and e v a l u a t i o n . This taxonomy of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s shows that the act of c r e a t i n g and responding to a r t can be thought of as a c o g n i t i v e a c t . This view of c o g n i t i o n has been c a l l e d i n t e l l e c t u a l and i s i d e n t i f i e d f o r use i n a r t education (Wheeler, 1970; Winthrop, 1972). The use of i n t e l l e c t u a l values f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s u p e r i o r i t y i n a r t work i s an immediate consequence of a r t ' s a l l i a n c e with the humanities and can best be seen as a development of a r a t i o n a l e for the understanding of a r t as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . Within the f i e l d of a r t , there has been an accepted body of b e l i e f which conceptualizes a dichotomy between i n t e l l e c t and f e e l i n g s , c o g n i t i o n and a f f e c t . Art has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been conceived of as an a f f e c t i v e area and so beyond or outside of the area of i n t e l l e c t or c o g n i t i o n . 1 5 5 O n e o f t h e m o s t a r d e n t c r i t i c s o f t h i s v i e w h a s b e e n E l l i o t E i s n e r w h o h a s r e p e a t e d l y e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e r e i s n o s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h o u g h t a n d f e e l i n g . T h e f a u l t y d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o g n i t i v e a n d t h e a f f e c t i v e h a s c a u s e d m u c h m i s c h i e f i n b o t h e d u c a t i o n a n d p s y c h o l o g y . T h e i d e a t h a t s o - c a l l e d a f f e c t i v e s u b j e c t s a r e n o n c o g n i t i v e r e f l e c t s t h e s a m e b i a s h e l d b y t h o s e w h o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e a r t s a r e n o n i n t e l l e c t u a l ( E i s n e r , 1 9 8 2 , p . 7 4 ) . T h i s a s s u m e d d i v i s i o n h a s r e s u l t e d i n a n e d u c a t i o n a l w o r l d v i e w w h i c h i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d a b s t r a c t k n o w l e d g e a r e g i v e n t h e h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y ( H a m b l e n , 1 9 8 3 , p . 1 7 8 ) . T h e h i s t o r y o f t h e c o n c e p t o f c o g n i t i o n i n a r t e d u c a t i o n s e e m s t o b e t h a t o f a t t e m p t i n g t o b r i n g t h i s d i c h o t o m y t o g e t h e r . I n a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g a l e g i t i m a t e s t a t u s f o r a r t e d u c a t i o n , a c o g n i t i v e s t a n c e e m b r a c e s a n e x p a n d e d s e n s e o f a e s t h e t i c s , f o r w h e n a e s t h e t i c v a l u e i s a d m i t t e d a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y , i . e . , k n o w l e d g e about t h e a r t s , u n d e r s t a n d i n g s c a n n o t b e m e r e l y r e s t r i c t e d t o f o r m a l c o n c e r n s ( E f l a n d , 1 9 7 1 ) . D u r i n g t h e e a r l y 1 9 5 0 ' s a n d t h r o u g h t h e e a r l y 1 9 6 0 ' s , a r t e d u c a t i o n w a s c o m m i t t e d t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f h u m a n 156 c r e a t i v i t y . This commitment d i d not apprehend nor u t i l i z e the value of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g a r t i n i t s c o g n i t i v e aspect. Since the 1960's, the v a l i d i t y of the c r e a t i v e and productive aspect of a r t has been questioned and some a r t educators, i n f l u e n c e d by the d i s c i p l i n e - o r i e n t e d approach, began to emphasize the b e n e f i t s of conceiving a r t as c o g n i t i o n ( E i s n e r , 1976). In 1965, I r v i n C h i l d s t a t e d that good e s t h e t i c judgment i s i n lar g e measure an outcome of a general c o g n i t i v e approach to the world, an approach i n v o l v i n g search for complex and novel experience which i s then understood and evaluated through r e l a t i v e l y autonomous i n t e r a c t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l with objects p r o v i d i n g such experience ( C h i l d , 1965, p. 510). C h i l d conducted research p r o j e c t s which showed that c e r t a i n r e f i n e d c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s such as independence of judgment and tolerance of complexity meant that research subjects scored high i n a e s t h e t i c s e n s i t i v i t y . His work revealed the c o r r e l a t i o n between a e s t h e t i c judgment and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y (Anderson, 1971; C h i l d , 1965), Barkan's work i n the 1960s c a r r i e d over i n t o the development of the CEMREL A e s t h e t i c Education Program. Here, the primary way a e s t h e t i c experiences are r e a l i z e d i s through the 157 c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s : a n a l y s i s , a p p r a i s a l , apprehension, argumentation, c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , d i s c o v e r y , and e v a l u a t i o n ( E f l a n d , 1971), a l i s t which seems s i m i l a r to Bloom's Taxonomy. In the CEMREL program, "one f i n d s that the preponderant a c t i v i t y p e r t a i n s to a c o g n i t i v e understanding of a e s t h e t i c phenomena as d i s t i n c t from a focus on the f e e l i n g s " ( E f l a n d , 1971). E l l i o t E i s n e r has been a champion of the c o g n i t i v e aspects of a r t . He st a t e s (1971) that a r t i s t i c expression i s a consequence of i n t e l l i g e n c e . "Expression requires the transformation of idea, image or f e e l i n g i n t o a m a t e r i a l that w i l l give i t p u b l i c form" (p. 5). I n t e l l i g e n c e i s a major force i n achieving expression. Eisner was one of the f i r s t a r t educators to u t i l i z e the b r a i n research which was oc c u r r i n g i n the mid 1970's. The basis of t h i s research was that the human b r a i n c o n s i s t e d of two hemispheres. The r i g h t one made c o n t r i b u t i o n s to s p a t i a l a n a l o g i c a l , h o l i s t i c and sy n t h e t i c thought while the l e f t one was concerned with l o g i c a l , l i n e a r , temporal, and s e q u e n t i a l thought ( E i s n e r , 1976). Although the discovery of the two hemispheres was made e a r l y i n the 1950's, i t began to be u t i l i z e d by a r t educators i n the 1970's as a r a t i o n a l e f o r j u s t i f y i n g the place of a r t i n education. This new model of mind allowed a r t to be thought of as an i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y and .1 58 j u s t i f i e d a r t ' s place i n the c u r r i c u l u m as a way of balancing the whole brain's a c t i v i t i e s ( E i s n e r , 1976; F o s t e r , 1977; Gainer & Gainer, 1977). The R o c k e f e l l e r r e p o r t , Coming to our Senses (1977), s t a t e d that the a r t s are to be conceived as e s s e n t i a l l y c o g n i t i v e , but i t does not elaborate much on the concept. The report i s c r i t i c i z e d by Smith (1978a) as being t y p i c a l of the current rage for b a s i c s and as e x p l o i t i n g t h i s movement by t r y i n g to construe a r t as c o g n i t i v e (Smith, 1978a). The NAEA Commission Report (1977) however, i s much more d e t a i l e d . I t s t a t e s that "works of a r t are t y p i c a l l y complex s t r u c t u r e s whose c o n t r i b u t i o n s to experience are secured only i f one brings to them some form of i n t e l l i g e n t p e r ception" (NAEA, 1977, p. 36). Some forms have greater complexity and are valuable i n so f a r as they act on or reorganize our i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s (p. 37) The concept of the i n t e l l e c t u a l value i n i d e n t i f y i n g s u p e r i o r i t y i n a work can be d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to t h i s idea. The degree to which a code's complexity allows the viewer to e x e r c i s e c e r t a i n i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s , i s the degree to which s u p e r i o r i t y can be claimed. Various a r t educators through the l a t e 1970's and e a r l y 159 1980's continued to push for the acceptance of a c o g n i t i v e view of a r t (Acuff, 1978; Douglas, Schwartz, & Tay l o r , 1981; Rush, 1979; Stroh, 1974). F e i n s t e i n (1982) r e i t e r a t e s the idea that the a b i l i t y to decipher a e s t h e t i c values i s a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y that r e q u i r e s both knowledge and s k i l l s . The idea of knowledge and s k i l l s as the b a s i s of c o g n i t i o n i s discussed i n the s o - c a l l e d Green Book, Academic Preparation for College (APC) prepared by the College Board (1983). This study recognizes the a r t s as an area of academic study and st a t e s that students w i l l need the f o l l o w i n g knowledge and s k i l l s : 1. The a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y and describe v a r i o u s v i s u a l a r t forms from d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d s . 2. The a b i l i t y to analyze the s t r u c t u r e s of a work of a r t . 3. The a b i l i t y to evaluate a work of v i s u a l a r t . 4. To know how to express themselves i n one or more of the v i s u a l a r t forms This report introduces the idea of academic competencies i n t o a r t education (Dorn, 1984b). In 1983, the NAEA devoted the whole of t h e i r March 1983 issue of Art Education to the theme "Art and Mind" while the Report A Nation at Risk (1983) recommended the adoption of more rigorous academic standards, s t r e s s on subject matter content, and greater emphasis on higher order t h i n k i n g . The 1 6 0 r e p o r t s t a t e s t h a t a r t s c u r r i c u l a s h o u l d e m p h a s i z e c o g n i t i v e l e a r n i n g ( Z e l l e r , 1 9 8 4 ) . N e l s o n G o o d m a n ( 1 9 8 3 ) s t a t e d t h a t D e v e l o p i n g s e n s o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s a s c o g n i t i v e a s i n v e n t i n g c o m p l e x n u m e r i c a l c o n c e p t s o r p r o v i n g t h e o r e m s . C o m i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d a p a i n t i n g o r a s y m p h o n y i n a n u n f a m i l i a r s t y l e , t o r e c o g n i z e t h e w o r k o f a n a r t i s t o r s c h o o l , t o s e e o r h e a r i n n e w w a y s , i s a s c o g n i t i v e a n a c h i e v e m e n t a s l e a r n i n g t o r e a d o r w r i t e ( p , 3 4 ) . D u r i n g t h e e a r l y p a r t o f t h e 1 9 8 0 ' s t h e n , w h e n G e t t y w a s b e g i n n i n g t o f o r m u l a t e i t s D B A E p r o g r a m , t h e a i r w a s c h a r g e d w i t h i d e a s s u p p o r t i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f c o g n i t i o n a n d a r t . A l t h o u g h n o m e n t i o n c a n b e f o u n d c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r e c i s e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f i n t e l l e c t u a l v a l u e t o v i s u a l s u p e r i o r i t y , i t i s s t a t e d t h a t i n t h e p r o c e s s o f understandi ng a r t , i n t e l l e c t u a l r i g o r m u s t b e e x e r c i s e d . B u t i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s n e e d b o d i e s o f c o n t e n t u p o n w h i c h t o a c t . I n t h e e l u c i d a t i o n o f t h e c u l t u r a l a n d f o r m a l v a l u e s , t h e e x a c t w o r k i n g o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s w i l l b e s e e n . A s s t a t e d b e f o r e , t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a s p e c t , k n o w l e d g e a n d s k i l l s u n d e r l i e t h e o t h e r t w o v a l u e c r i t e r i a , c u l t u r a l a n d f o r m a l . 161 CULTURAL VALUES One of the most important aspects of the a r t s to the humanities i s i t s a b i l i t y to embody and communicate meaning and e s p e c i a l l y the aspect of the meaning which d e r i v e s from the c u l t u r a l h eritage (Gluck, 1984; L a n i e r , 1979). The c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e or t r a d i t i o n , known i n i t s reference to a r t as the a e s t h e t i c h e r i t a g e , includes a s o - c a l l e d "myth system which u n i f i e s a c u l t u r e ' s b e l i e f s and gives i t shape and d i r e c t i o n " (Ihde, 1972, p. 194). A l l of us members of c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t i e s are, i n d i v i d u a l l y and c o l l e c t i v e l y , the legatees of a vast and complex c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e i n which a great , v a r i e t y of strands - s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n o l o g i c a l , r e l i g i o u s , moral, p o l i t i c a l , a r t i s t i c , and so on -are interwoven. A c e n t r a l component of t h i s c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e i s a great body of customary, approved ways of t h i n k i n g and a c t i n g ... This body we commonly c a l l " t r a d i t i o n . " The customary ways Qf thought and a c t i o n comprising i t operate as norms or standards for these a c t i v i t i e s , which, having been r e c e i v e d , followed, preserved, and a l t e r e d i n varying degrees by each generation, are passed on more or l e s s s u c c e s s f u l l y to succeeding ones ( W i l l , 1983, p. 91-92). 1 62 This body of thought then, i s considered as having begun at the beginning of our c i v i l i z a t i o n and to have been passed down and added to from generation to generation. In the context of t h i s study, t h i s body of thought has some p a r t i c u l a r and s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t i s based on the s o - c a l l e d western t r a d i t i o n which promotes a r t and ideas p r i m a r i l y from the Greco-Roman and western European c u l t u r e s (Mcintosh, 1978; S e r a f i n e , 1979). The humanities d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s t r a d i t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e s i t as the kind of l i b e r a l humanism found in "the t r a d i t i o n of Erasmus and Montaigne, of Lessing and John Locke, of J e f f e r s o n and John Stuart M i l l - as t h i s arose i n the l a t e Renaissance and reached i t s apogee i n the mid-nineteenth century" ( L e v i , 1-973, p. 28). The superior code then, should d e r i v e i t s symbolism from t h i s t r a d i t i o n and express the c u l t u r a l values which give the t r a d i t i o n meaning. Although humanities-oriented a r t educators e x t o l l the v i r t u e s of the c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n , they are negligent i n f i r m l y i s o l a t i n g the c u l t u r a l values considered important i n the assessment of worth. The primary values honored are those of order and r a t i o n a l i t y . Human seriousness and value are inseparably wedded to order; that the object of a proper s o c i e t y i s to 163 i n s t r u c t i t s members how to transform i n s t i n c t i v e needs i n t o a e s t h e t i c experiences; and that the commandment of decorum and a code of manners i s not an empty gesture but the instrument for i n s t i l l i n g something better than the s t u p i d i t i e s of the merely a p p e t i t i v e or a c q u i s i t i v e l i f e ( L e v i , 1973, p. 24). Among c u l t u r a l values considered d e s i r a b l e are t o l e r a n c e , o r d e r l i n e s s , r a t i o n a l i t y , meritocracy of a b i l i t y and accomplishment, e x c e l l e n c e , s o b r i e t y , r e s ponsible c r e a t i o n , d i s c i p l i n e , order i n a r t , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , l o y a l t y and commitment, the claims of past and f u t u r e , care, concern, r a t i o n a l judgment ( B e l l , 1972; L e v i , 1973), long-range l i f e g o als, postponed s a t i s f a c t i o n , hope, organized i n s t i t u t i o n s , bureaucracy, h i e r a r c h y , c o n t r o l l e d a c t s , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e t h i c , r a t i o n a l l i n e a r consciousness, d i s t i n c t i o n s , and l o g i c i s m (Ihde, 1972). The Western c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n i m p l i e s "commitment to human freedom, b e l i e f i n the i n d e f i n i t e p e r f e c t i b i l i t y of man, and i d e a l of o b j e c t i v e understanding, and a r a t i o n a l and gradual (rather than r e v o l u t i o n a r y ) approach to i n s t i t u t i o n a l reform (Smith, 1985). The supporters of t h i s t r a d i t i o n say that the works " o f f e r content that s t r e s s e s the good, the noble, and the d i g n i f i e d achievements of mankind" (Lansing, 1978, p. 26), the good, the noble, and the d i g n i f i e d , being 164 expressions of the aforementioned values. V i s u a l codes which contain a symbolism which expresses these b e l i e f s and values w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y be superior to those which do not. Humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c i a n s , who n a t u r a l l y support t h i s c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n , b e l i e v e that i t i s the common American h e r i t a g e c o n t a i n i n g the best knowledge, ideas, and values, and that all Americans should come to know and experience i t (Commission on the Humanities, 1980; R o c k e f e l l e r , 1977; Smith, 1982). The western a r t i s t i c h e r i t a g e then, c o n s i s t s of works whose v i s u a l symbols embody and transmit c e r t a i n c u l t u r a l b e l i e f s and values. The p r e c i s e nature of these expressed values are extremely vague and open to many d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i f they are not grounded i n a l i v e d - o u t experience c a l l e d " t r a d i t i o n . " I t i s i n reference to t h i s body of past happenings that these values can be given a more concrete and i d e n t i f i a b l e form. Proponents of the c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n found themselves having t o defend i t s value i n the 1970s against the s o - c a l l e d counter c u l t u r e , which i n word and a c t i o n attacked and attempted to overthrow t r a d i t i o n a l forms of c u l t u r e . The counter or adversary c u l t u r e , while r e j e c t i n g Western c u l t u r a l values such as r a t i o n a l i t y and l i n e a r t h i n k i n g 1 6 5 (Ihde, 1972), found i t s e l f sharply c r i t i c i z e d by humanities t h i n k e r s . They are made to support the new economics of consuming against the older i d e a l s of res p o n s i b l e making; the f a i t h i n abundance against the f a c t s of s c a r c i t y ; u l t r a - p e r m i s s i v e n e s s against d i s c i p l i n e ; formlessness against order i n a r t , s e x u a l i t y , and general l i f e - s t y l e ; pleasure against l o y a l t y and commitment; an e t e r n a l present against the claims of past and f u t u r e ; and f i n a l l y , drugs, Dionysian sidepaths, mysticism, and i n t u i t i o n against care, concern, and r a t i o n a l judgment ( L e v i , 1973, p. 20). The t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s f e l t that s o c i e t y was i n the process of breaking down and that s a n i t y could only be re s t o r e d through a rediscovery of the values i n the t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e (Broudy, 1981a). Barzun (1974) f e l t that modern forms of a r t were r e v o l u t i o n a r y and c o n s i s t e d of a form of s o c i a l c r i t i c i s m that expressed anger, h o s t i l i t y , and s o c i e t a l condemnation that had u n s e t t l i n g r e s u l t s . The humanists b e l i e v e d that modern man s u f f e r e d so much because he was cut o f f from h i s c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e (Burke, 1983). They f e l t that an involvement w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l h e r i t a g e would re s t o r e order and that f i n e a r t "would counter the growing trend toward the stereotype, the v i o l e n t , the 166 obvious, and the vulgar" (Holden, 1978, p. 25). The values of the past were thought to be b e t t e r than those of the present, and the values communicated by works i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n were b e t t e r than contemporary ones (Smith, 1976). The humanists c a l l e d for the c r e a t i o n of a c u l t u r e whose a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y was more seriou s and s a t i s f y i n g and b u i l t on values more e t e r n a l and l a s t i n g than the ones expressed i n the present. I t was b e l i e v e d that the great works of a r t were s t a r t i n g places for the r e - c r e a t i o n of order i n s o c i e t y ( L a n i e r , 1979). No compromise was p o s s i b l e . "There are no other refuges, no other agencies of s u r v i v a l , than the l i b e r a l and humanistic values that have animated Western c i v i l i z a t i o n since the Renaissance" ( L e v i , 1973, p. 33). The works of a r t which are to be assessed as v a l u a b l e , must employ a code which transmits a s p e c i f i c c u l t u r a l knowledge and values through i t s symbolism. The essence of t h i s knowledge and value i s found i n the t r a d i t i o n a l body of b e l i e f s passed on through the western h e r i t a g e . But t h i s c u l t u r a l knowledge i s not a v a i l a b l e without t u i t i o n . The h e r i t a g e i s coded and c u l t u r a l l i t e r a c y i s required f o r i t s decipherment. The c u l t u r a l importance of the work of a r t i s (1) that i t transmits knowledge of the past and (2) 167 r e i n f o r c e s and re-creates i d e a l value b e l i e f s i n the r e c i p i e n t . The method whereby the f i r s t of these requirements may be met i s through the study of the h i s t o r y of western c i v i l i z a t i o n . One cannot understand much of the symbolism contained i n the a e s t h e t i c h e r i t a g e without understanding i t s h i s t o r i c a l context. To grasp f u l l y the i c o n o l o g i c a l meaning of a : p a i n t i n g , the student may have to study s o c i a l and r e l i g i o u s h i s t o r y ... to grasp the richness and complexity of some works of a r t , he w i l l have to lear n the symbol systems ... involved i n t h e i r r e f e r e n t i a l dimension or i n t h e i r production (Beardsley, 1973, p. 59). Understanding of the c u l t u r a l values i n an a r t work may not occur unless one possesses a c e r t a i n h i s t o r i c a l knowledge (Mutchler, 1976). One must understand the genesis and development of Western c i v i l i z a t i o n and i t s expression through a r t as i t has been recorded i n the a e s t h e t i c h e r i t a g e . The humanists b e l i e v e that one cannot f u n c t i o n i n a c i v i l i z e d and productive way without f u l l knowledge of the 168 c u l t u r a l values inherent i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n (Smith, 1970). New p a i n t i n g and a r t forms are u n i n t e l l i g i b l e without knowledge of the t r a d i t i o n . One cannot, for example, appreciate the temper of modernity, i n c l u d i n g the major t h r u s t s of a great deal of contemporary p a i n t i n g and s c u l p t u r e , without a knowledge of the a e s t h e t i c h e r i t a g e or of the t r a d i t i o n s and a e s t h e t i c values that moderns are r e a c t i n g against or t r y i n g to transcend (Smith, 1970). Eisner b e l i e v e s we should help students understand the a r t s as a primary part of human c u l t u r e . He b e l i e v e s we should possess an awareness of both the ways i n which the c u l t u r e w i t h i n which an a r t i s t works a f f e c t s h i s production, and the i n f l u e n c e h i s works have upon the c u l t u r e (Mutchler, 1976). But the c u l t u r a l values are s i l e n t to one who i s i l l i t e r a t e . They can be understood only i f one has the c o r r e c t knowledge with which to unlock the code. Because v i s u a l a r t i s t s are products of t h e i r c u l t u r e , they w i l l i n e v i t a b l y imbue t h e i r work with the values of t h e i r c u l t u r e . And t h e i r work u s u a l l y w i l l r e i n f o r c e the d i r e c t i v e s represented i n a c u l t u r e ' s power s t r u c t u r e s . A r t h i s t o r y t e x t s bear 169 witness to t h i s . The values i n v i s u a l forms often appear as a r t i c l e s of f a i t h which both v e i l and support the status quo. Although Jacques Louis David l i v e d i n the 18th century, h i s p a i n t i n g , The oath of the Horatii, a scene from the ancient world, e x e m p l i f i e s a r t i c l e s of f a i t h that only r e c e n t l y have been challenged ... In the PotatoEaters, Van Gogh shows us the poverty of peasants, a r e s u l t of the abuse of p o l i t i c a l and economic power. S i m i l a r abuse i s condemned i n man of the work of R i v e r a , Orozco, and S i q u e i r o . The abuse of p o l i t i c a l and economic power r e s u l t i n g i n.the agony and d e s t r u c t i o n of war i s powerfully depicted i n Picasso's Guernica. The c o r r u p t i o n of power r e s u l t i n g i n the inhuman treatment of emotionally d i s t u r b e d p a t i e n t s i s v i v i d l y portrayed in" Kenholtz's The State Hospital ( F e i n s t e i n , 1982, p. 14). A work of a r t then, that possesses a code whose symbolism embodies the b e l i e f s and values r e s i d e n t i n the Western c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n and whose meaning can be deciphered only through . h i s t o r i c a l knowledge of that t r a d i t i o n , has been the c e n t r a l focus of the humanities t r a d i t i o n since the Renaissance. I t s e x p o s i t i o n i n Getty's DBAE program i s simply a c o n t i n u a t i o n of that t r a d i t i o n . 1 7 0 FORMAL VALUES I n o r d e r f o r t h e w o r k o f a r t t o b e c o n s i d e r e d s u p e r i o r , i t s c o d e m u s t e m b o d y v i s u a l s y m b o l s w h i c h c o m m u n i c a t e c e r t a i n f o r m a l v a l u e s t h r o u g h t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s a s s u m e s t h a t t h e c o d e w i l l p o s s e s s c e r t a i n f o r m a l v a l u e s a n d t h a t t h e v i e w e r w i l l p o s s e s s t h e a b i l i t y t o i d e n t i f y a n d e v a l u a t e t h e m . T h e c o m p o n e n t p a r t s o f t h e f o r m a l a r e a c o n s i s t o f elements a n d principles o f d e s i g n . T h e e l e m e n t s o f d e s i g n , s o m e t i m e s c a l l e d t h e s e n s u o u s p r o p e r t i e s ( C a r l s o n , 1 9 7 9 ) , o r t h e g r a m m a r ( F e l d m a n , 1 9 8 1 ) , a r e v a r i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d a s c o l o r , l i n e , m a s s , v o l u m e ( P e p p e r , 1 9 4 9 ) , l i n e , s h a p e , l i g h t a n d d a r k , c o l o r , t e x t u r e ( F e l d m a n , 1 9 8 1 ) . H o w e v e r c l a s s i f i e d , t h e y a r e t h e v i s u a l l y a p p a r e n t s e n s o r y q u a l i t i e s i n a v i s u a l i m a g e w i t h o u t w h o s e p r e s e n c e t h e i m a g e w o u l d n o t e x i s t . W h a t g i v e s t h a t e x i s t e n c e w o r t h , h o w e v e r , i s t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e e l e m e n t s a r e o r g a n i z e d a n d a r r a n g e d . I t i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e e l e m e n t s t h a t p r o v i d e f o r m a l e x c e l l e n c e . T h e r u l e s d e s c r i b i n g t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e c a l l e d p r i n c i p l e s o f d e s i g n o r f o r m a l q u a l i t i e s a n d , l i k e t h e e l e m e n t s , h a v e b e e n c l a s s i f i e d i n m a n y w a y s : u n i t y , b a l a n c e , r h y t h m a n d p r o p o r t i o n ( F e l d m a n , 1 9 8 1 ) , u n i t y c o m p l e x i t y , a n d i n t e n s i t y ( B e a r d s l e y , 1 9 6 8 ) , u n i t y , b a l a n c e , h a r m o n y 171 (Carlson, 1979). The l a b e l s f o r these elements and p r i n c i p l e s tend to vary according to the user, but what they r e f e r to i s f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t . " I t does not matter g r e a t l y i f one a u t h o r i t y uses "form" another "contour," and a t h i r d "shape." What i s important i s that the viewer understand the p r o p e r t i e s of a r t which the words designate" (Feldman, 1981). W r i t e r s i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l a e s t h e t i c s have i d e n t i f i e d and c l a s s i f i e d the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s of objects i n vari o u s ways. Two groupings of q u a l i t i e s about which there i s some agreement, however, are sensory or sensuous q u a l i t i e s and formal or design q u a l i t i e s . The former are q u a l i t i e s of t e x t u r e s , c o l o r s , and l i n e s of obj e c t s ... Sensory q u a l i t i e s are worth noting here i n that t h e i r s p e c i f i c a t i o n a i d s i n the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of formal q u a l i t i e s . This i s so i n part because t e x t u r e s , l i n e s , and c o l o r s combine i n r e l a t i o n s to create the shapes, p a t t e r n s , and designs which c o n s t i t u t e the perceived form of an obj e c t . I t i s the q u a l i t i e s of such forms, such as t h e i r being u n i f i e d or c h a o t i c , balanced or unbalanced, harmonious or confused, which I w i l l c a l l formal q u a l i t i e s . I t f o l l o w s that formal q u a l i t i e s are q u a l i t i e s which objects or combinations of objects have i n v i r t u e of that which 1 72 c o n s t i t u t e s t h e i r form. This includes not only t h e i r shapes, p a t t e r n s , and designs, but a l s o t h e i r t e x t u r e s , l i n e s and c o l o r s (Carlson, 1979, p. 99). The a b i l i t y to decipher the formal aspects of a work of a r t req u i r e s the a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y and evaluate the basic concepts used i n the v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of m a t e r i a l s ( F e i n s t e i n , 1982). Although one must recognize the elements, i t i s the nature of the p r i n c i p l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n which determine s u p e r i o r i t y . The point of view which holds that the e v a l u a t i o n of worth based on the presence and c o r r e c t use of formal p r o p e r t i e s i s paramount, i s c a l l e d , formalism. Formalism holds that such a p p r e c i a t i o n i s to be d i r e c t e d toward those aspects - t e x t u r e s , l i n e s , c o l o r s , and r e s u l t a n t shapes, p a t t e r n s , and designs - which c o n s t i t u t e the form of the ob j e c t . In regard to the a e s t h e t i c value, formalism holds that the formal q u a l i t i e s of an o b j e c t , which i t has i n v i r t u e of these aspects, are the only q u a l i t i e s r e l e v a n t to the a e s t h e t i c value of that o b j e c t . An object i s a e s t h e t i c a l l y good i n v i r t u e of having formal q u a l i t i e s such as u n i t y and balance - or more s o p h i s t i c a t e d v a r i a t i o n s such as "organic u n i t y " or 173 " v a r i e t y i n u n i t y " - and a e s t h e t i c a l l y bad i n v i r t u e of h a v i n g f o r m a l q u a l i t i e s such as disharmony or l a c k of i n t e g r a t i o n ( C a r l s o n , 1979, p. 100). One of the g r e a t a d v o c a t e s of f o r m a l i s m f o r a r t e d u c a t i o n has been Feldman (1970, 1981). He i n d i c a t e s the way the f o r m a l i s t d e t e r m i n e s v a l u e and e x c e l l e n c e i n works of a r t . F o r m a l i s m , says Feldman, " l o c a t e s e x c e l l e n c e i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n - i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the v i s u a l elements of the work, independent of l a b e l s , a s s o c i a t i o n s , or c o n v e n t i o n a l meanings t h e s e elements may have i n l i f e (1981, p. 462). S u c c e s s f u l r e l a t i o n s h i p s come about through c o n s c i o u s p l a n n i n g by the a r t i s t . A l t h o u g h the f o r m a l i s t may f i n d some v a l u e i n o t h e r n o n - f o r m a l a s p e c t s of an image, "he i s w i l l i n g t o judge a work e x c e l l e n t o n l y i n s o f a r as i t s form', i t s u n d e r l y i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n , i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s p e r c e p t i o n of meaning or sensuous q u a l i t y (p. 462). The f o r m a l i s t has a t h e o r y of communication which u n d e r l i e s h i s i d e a of e x c e l l e n c e . T h i s t h e o r y i s P l a t o n i c i n t h a t he b e l i e v e s " t h e r e i s an i d e a l or p e r f e c t embodiment of a l l t h i n g s , and t h a t a r t , when i t i s s u c c e s s f u l , r e v e a l s , r e p r e s e n t s , or communicates t h a t i d e a l (Feldman, 1981, p. 464). F o r m a l i s m t h e n , a t t r i b u t e s v a l u e i n acco r d a n c e w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the v i s u a l elements of the work -174 u n i t y , balance, rhythm, p r o p o r t i o n , and others. The most i n t e r e s t i n g aspect of formalism f o r our study i s the s h i f t i n i t s importance as the sole means of determining e x c e l l e n c e . At one time, i t was b e l i e v e d that e x c e l l e n c e was determined on f o r m a l i s t and i n t r i n s i c grounds only. But, as we have seen, there has been a growing tendency to enlarge t h i s concept so that now i n DBAE, the formal assessment i s only one of s e v e r a l ways of assessing worth. I t must be that the superior work i n DBAE i s that one which possesses a high degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and formal knowledge. Formalism has occupied an i n t e r e s t i n g place i n the h i s t o r y of a r t and has had to meet and face i n t e r e s t i n g c h a l l e n g e s . From i t s beginning, the notion of the f i n e a r t s was l i n k e d to t r a d i t i o n a l conceptions of beauty, such as "harmony and symmetry, order and decorum, which are the p r i n c i p l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n " (Aiken, 1968). "Formalism as a theory of a r t and a r t c r i t i c i s m was promoted e a r l y i n t h i s century by C l i v e B e l l , Roger Fry and other c r i t i c s " (Carlson, 1979, p. 102). I t was Roger Fry's i n t r o d u c t i o n of the f o r m a l i s t vocabulary that helped a r t i s t s , c r i t i c s , and the general p u b l i c f i r s t begin to understand and then appreciate modern a r t (Blocker, 1975). The concept was o r i g i n a l l y subjected to great c r i t i c i s m by a e s t h e t i c i a n s and c r i t i c s but survived to 175 exert an i n f l u e n c e on the development of a b s t r a c t forms of a r t . Formalism i n f l u e n c e d both c r i t i c s and the p u b l i c and i n time was accepted as a v a l i d way of responding to a r t (Carlson, 1979). In d i s c u s s i o n s of e v a l u a t i o n determined by p r i n c i p l e s of formal o r g a n i z a t i o n , v a r i o u s w r i t e r s give d i f f e r e n t emphases to d i f f e r e n t formal p r o p e r t i e s . Beardsley (1968), s t a t e s that the three primary c r i t e r i a of formal judgment are u n i t y , complexity, and i n t e n s i t y of r e g i o n a l q u a l i t y . A e s t h e t i c value depends on the degree of a e s t h e t i c experience e l i c i t e d by these p r i n c i p l e s . Smith (1984a) summarizes Beardsley: A e s t h e t i c capacity r e s i d e s i n a work's elements, r e l a t i o n s , q u a l i t i e s and meanings ... and i n the p e c u l i a r u n i t y , complexity, and i n t e n s i t y that manifolds of such components p r o j e c t . In general, the greater the u n i t y , complexity, and i n t e n s i t y of the work, the greater the u n i t y , complexity, and i n t e n s i t y of a e s t h e t i c experience (p. 142). Beardsley b e l i e v e s that of a l l the p r i n c i p l e s , u n i t y i s the most important. A work of a r t possesses u n i t y i f a l l the elements "hang together." I t i s based on a g e s t a l t p e r c e p t i o n , or the a b i l i t y of the viewer to take i n the 176 r e g i o n a l q u a l i t i e s and dominant p a t t e r n of the whole image. Unity i s o b j e c t i v e l y determined and can be checked by a n a l y z i n g the parts of the work and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with one another (Beardsley, 1968). Unity i s an i n t r i n s i c concern and i n v o l v e s the work of a r t i t s e l f . In e x p l a i n i n g why excessive d e t a i l and over-decoration are o b j e c t i o n a b l e , the c r i t i c appeals to other features of the work i t s e l f which these features e i t h e r increase or d i m i n i s h . But what makes u n i t y d e s i r a b l e i s not what i t does to other features of the work; thus as f a r as the work i t s e l f i s concerned, u n i t y i s a basic c r i t e r i o n . The f i n e a r t s c r i t i c could reasonably say that a p a r t i c u l a r group of shapes and c o l o r s i n a p a i n t i n g i s good because i t creates a very s u b t l e balance, and he could a l s o say that balance i s good because i t i s one way of u n i f y i n g the p a i n t i n g ; but he could not say that u n i t y i n a p a i n t i n g i s a good t h i n g because i t makes the p a i n t i n g contain these p a r t i c u l a r shapes and c o l o r s (Beardsley, 1968, p. 58). Feldman (1981) agrees with Beardsley when he says that "perhaps u n i t y i s the only p r i n c i p l e of v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and the others merely d i f f e r e n t ways of a c h i e v i n g i t " (p. 252). 177 Beardsley's ideas have had an enormous impact on f o r m a l i s t a r t educators. Edmund Feldman and Harry Broudy c o n s t a n t l y rev e a l t h e i r debt to h i s ideas. But Beardsley's ideas have permeated a r t education p r i m a r i l y through the w r i t i n g s of Ralph Smith. Art educators and t r a d i t i o n a l a e s t h e t i c i a n s were compelled to promote and defend f o r m a l i s t p r i n c i p l e s during the 1970's when they f e l t they were being most challenged ( L e v i , 1974). There was a b e l i e f among humanities-oriented a r t educators at t h i s time that adversary or counter c u l t u r e a r t attempted to destroy reason, congruence, i n t e g r i t y , and c o n t i n u i t y . F o r m a l i s t s , l i k e Smith, promoted a humanities return to the c u l t u r a l " h e r i t a g e as a place wherein one could f i n d the best e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n of formal values and p r i n c i p l e s ( L e v i , 1974). In advocating the f o r m a l i s t approach for education, there must be not only a p r o v i s i o n f o r the c a t e g o r i e s , p r i n c i p l e s , and c r i t e r i a which govern e x c e l l e n c e , but a l s o a s t r u c t u r a l sequence whereby one can apply and i d e n t i f y the c a t e g o r i e s , p r i n c i p l e s and c r i t e r i a i n e v a l u a t i o n (Johansen, 1979). This has r e s u l t e d in=a p l e t h o r a of c r i t i c a l models which provide the means whereby formal q u a l i t i e s can be i d e n t i f i e d and assessed. Again, the prototype f o r the c r i t i c a l model was developed by Beardsley (1958) who stated that " d e s c r i p t i o n , " 1 78 " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , " and " e v a l u a t i o n " were the most adequate b a s i s for developing a method of c r i t i c i s m (Johansen, 1979). Feldman (1981) expands the e v a l u a t i v e or c r i t i c a l process i n t o four stages: d e s c r i p t i o n , formal a n a l y s i s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and e v a l u a t i o n . What i s important i n t h i s sequence are those stages which deal with the observation and e v a l u a t i o n of formal q u a l i t i e s . The d e s c r i p t i v e stage i n v o l v e s the process of observing and d e s c r i b i n g the surface d e t a i l s , u s u a l l y a d e s c r i p t i o n of the sensory v i s u a l elements. The a n a l y t i c a l stage u s u a l l y i n v o l v e s an a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s and o r g a n i z a t i o n of the elements. The i n t e r p r e t i v e stage determines the meaning of the former and the e v a l u a t i v e assesses i t s success. This model i s b e l i e v e d to be the most e f f e c t i v e for the f o r m a l i s t i n that i t provides a way to observe, d e s c r i b e , r e l a t e , and evaluate success i n the use of the formal elements and p r i n c i p l e s . Ralph Smith developed a model based on Feldman's (Smith, 1968; 1973c), and s i m i l a r models have appeared (Johanson, 1979; Z e l l e r , 1983). This four-stage model was r e f i n e d by Harry Broudy (1981b; 1982), renamed a e s t h e t i c scanning, and i s the device used i n Getty's DBAE program to evaluate and assess formal p r i n c i p l e s i n works of a r t . 1 79 Although the f o r m a l i s t b e l i e v e s that h i s p r i n c i p l e s of assessment are o b j e c t i v e and u n i v e r s a l (Meyer, 1967), the e n t i r e f o r m a l i s t approach i s rather vague. There i s some degree of d i f f i c u l t y i n e s t a b l i s h i n g j u s t what i t s idea of excellence i s , that i s , how do we know which formal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are p l e a s i n g or s i g n i f i c a n t ? (Feldman, 1981 p. 462). The f o r m a l i s t c r i t i c s Roger Fry and C l i v e B e l l apparently never succeeded i n d e f i n i n g the c r i t e r i a of formal e x c e l l e n c e , but rather merely a s s o c i a t e d i t with the cap a c i t y to generate d i s i n t e r e s t e d , a e s t h e t i c emotion (Feldman, 1981). "How do we know that each part has been p e r f e c t l y adjusted to every other p a r t ? " (Geahigan, 1975). The d i f f i c u l t y i n d e s c r i b i n g the way the r e l a t i o n s h i p s should f u n c t i o n i s solved through reference to v i s u a l exemplars. The Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n stands as the r e p o s i t o r y of standards of excellence i n the proper use of formal p r i n c i p l e s . Once again a kind of c i r c u l a r reasoning leads to those works which make up our s o - c a l l e d c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e . I t i s here that the work which best d i s p l a y s the c r i t e r i a necessary f o r the superior image can be found. 180 GETTYS VOICES I t has been shown that there are some s p e c i f i c a e s t h e t i c values being promoted i n the DBAE program which appear to have t h e i r o r i g i n and development i n the humanities t r a d i t i o n . But the s i m i l a r i t y of the values i n DBAE and those expressed i n the humanities t r a d i t i o n can be l o g i c a l l y deduced since those who have a c t i v e l y supported and promoted the humanities approach and values i n the years p r i o r to the formation of the Getty Center, are the same i n d i v i d u a l s who are pre-eminent advocates for the DBAE program today. Although t h i s study does not address the issue concerning how these values came to be part of the Getty's mandate, i t i s i l l u m i n a t i n g to i l l u s t r a t e the c l o s e connection that e x i s t s between the humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c t r a d i t i o n and the present DBAE w r i t e r s . Several a r t educators are acknowledged to be the primary advocates of the Getty's DBAE program. They are Harry Broudy, E l l i o t E i s n e r , and more i n d i r e c t l y , Ralph Smith. Harry Broudy has been acknowledged as the grandfather of the a e s t h e t i c ideas i n DBAE ( D i B l a s i o , 1985b; Greer, 1984; La n i e r , 1987; Zimmerman, 1988). He i s a f i r m b e l i e v e r i n the ideas and i d e a l s of the t r a d i t i o n a l humanities approach and has w r i t t e n voluminously on the idea of humanities-based a r t 181 education. His w r i t i n g s are c l e a r and a r t i c u l a t e proclamations of the value w i t h i n the Western c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n and h i s f i r m b e l i e f i s that the c l a s s i c a l exemplars which e x i s t i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n c o n t ain the standards of excellence towards which a l l a r t education must move. Broudy has been employed by the Getty Center as a member of the Getty I n s t i t u t e ' s f a c u l t y since i t s beginning and has w r i t t e n an e n t i r e work under the sponsorship of the Getty (Broudy, 1987b). E l l i o t E i s n e r has been i d e n t i f i e d as the leading spokesperson 2 for DBAE (Brigham, 1988; Ewens, 1988). His w r i t i n g s have been dominant throughout t h i s study. His concepts of coding, symbolism, and c o g n i t i o n are c l e a r e x p o s i t i o n s of humanities p r i n c i p l e s and he has done much to place humanities ideas i n contemporary contexts. Throughout h i s academic career he has maintained a b e l i e f i n and an a l l e g i a n c e to the standards of excellence as embodied i n the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . He has d e l i v e r e d important keynote addresses at Getty Center seminars (1985; 1987a), has w r i t t e n a report for the Getty Center (1987b), and has worked on the f a c u l t y of the Getty I n s t i t u t e . Ralph Smith, although acknowledged as a f i g u r e whose a e s t h e t i c ideas have i n f l u e n c e d DBAE theory (Greer, 1984), 182 has had a more i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e . Smith c o n t r o l s the h i g h l y i n f l u e n t i a l and humanities-oriented Journal of Aesthetic Education which has produced two e n t i r e theme issues sponsored by the Getty. 3 Smith has perhaps been one of the most p r o l i f i c w r i t e r s i n support of a humanities-based a r t education (see the reference s e c t i o n of t h i s s t u dy!). He acknowledges the fact that he has been h i g h l y i n f l u e n c e d by the humanities t h e o r i e s of Monroe Beardsley, and does not di s g u i s e the f a c t i n h i s own promotion of Beardsley's ideas (Smith, 1984a). Smith i s a staunch and unabashed supporter of the western values and standards which comprise the Getty's DBAE. He b e l i e v e s that the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n contains the best examples of a r t that humans have achieved and that all Americans should be exposed to them. He too has worked on the f a c u l t y of the Getty I n s t i t u t e and has w r i t t e n one of the antecedent papers sponsored by the Getty (Smith, 1987). He has been one of the greatest a r t i c u l a t o r s of the humanities values i n the f i e l d of a r t education. Broudy, E i s n e r , and Smith have been acknowledged as the primary formulators of the t r a d i t i o n a l humanities approach i n a r t education (Beyer, 1979), as w e l l as the primary forces behind the Getty's DBAE documents (Brigham, 1988; D i B l a s i o , 1985b; Ewens, 1988; Greer, 1984; L a n i e r , 1987; 183 Zimmerman, 1988). T h i s has been o b s e r v e d and c r i t i c i z e d by some who q u e s t i o n the c a t h o l i c i t y and f a i r n e s s of the G e t t y i n q u i r y . I t s C e n t e r f o r E d u c a t i o n i n the A r t s , f o r example, does not r e p r e s e n t a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of the b e s t t h i n k i n g i n a r t s e d u c a t i o n . I t s members c o n s t i t u t e an a l m o s t c l o i s t e r e d group of l i k e - t h i n k e r s who go about what they t h i n k i s r e f o r m i n g a r t s e d u c a t i o n i n a t r u e z e a l o t f a s h i o n - w i t h b l i n k e r s on ( L i d s t o n e , 1988, p. 140). I t may be d i f f i c u l t t o b e l i e v e t h a t w i t h t h i s c e n t r a l c o r e of p e o p l e d e f i n i n g DBAE a e s t h e t i c v a l u e t h e o r y , much change can o c c u r . O b v i o u s l y t h e r e a r e o t h e r s who work f o r t he G e t t y , but a g a i n , most of those p r o d u c i n g documents have i n d i c a t e d s u pport f o r the h u m a n i t i e s approach i n t h e i r w r i t i n g s . * NOTES 1 Bennett has c o n t r i b u t e d t o the documents c o m p r i s i n g the G e t t y l i t e r a t u r e . He d e l i v e r e d a keynote speech a t a G e t t y C e n t e r Conference on A r t E d u c a t i o n which l a t e r became p a r t of the documentary r e a l i t y (See B e n n e t t , 1987). 2 By spokesperson i s meant an employee of the G e t t y who has been o f f i c i a l l y d e s i g n a t e d t o speak on i t s b e h a l f . 3 See Journal of Aesthetic Education (1985), 1 9 ( 2 ) , " A r t museums and e d u c a t i o n , and Journal of Aesthetic Education (1987), 2 1 ( 2 ) , " D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t 184 education." There are a r t educators who have been employed by the Getty I n s t i t u t e (Mary E r i c k s o n and Laura Chapman), who have i n t h e i r personal w r i t i n g s i n d i c a t e d a leaning toward m u l t i c u l t u r a l concerns, but have not made any impact on the Getty documents at a l l . CHAPTER 6 AESTHETIC VALUES IN A DEMOCRACY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA The questions motivating t h i s study concern the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of DBAE's a e s t h e t i c values, as w e l l as t h e i r placement i n a l a r g e r context. Although the i d e n t i f i e d a e s t h e t i c values have been c h a r a c t e r i z e d and placed i n a l a r g e r humanities t r a d i t i o n , t h e i r immediate connection with contemporary issues has only been suggested. This r e l a t e s to the concern expressed i n Chapter 1, that one of the reasons for a n a l y z i n g the a e s t h e t i c values was to "detect t h e i r scope for embracing the concept of educational f a i r n e s s w i t h i n a democratic s e t t i n g . " As a conclusion both to the second research question and the adopted perspe c t i v e of the study, t h i s chapter extends the contextual i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n order to i d e n t i f y the p o t e n t i a l impact these humanities-oriented values may have on a modern p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y . AESTHETIC VALUES IN A DEMOCRACY I t has been demonstrated that the c r i t e r i a for the determination of a e s t h e t i c s u p e r i o r i t y i n DBAE are f a i r l y s p e c i f i c and take place w i t h i n the c u l t u r a l context of the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . The i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and 185 186 f o r m a l v a l u e s which must be embodied i n the a r t work's code are a l l s p e c i f i c t o the western European model of c u l t u r e . The i m p o r t a n t a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s i n DBAE, i . e . . i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , a n d - f o r m a l , as e x p r e s s e d i n the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n , f i n d t h e i r r a t i o n a l e and development w i t h i n the western h u m a n i t i e s t r a d i t i o n . T h i s t r a d i t i o n or approach b e l i e v e s t h a t 1. i t has a c c e s s t o and has p r e s e r v e d the best produced by humans. In the f i e l d of a r t , the best i s c o n t a i n e d i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . 2. i t i s the s t a n d a r d f o r excellence i n a l l i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , and f o r m a l judgments i n western s o c i e t i e s , 3. i t c o n t a i n s v a l u e s common t o American l i f e and c u l t u r e and alI Americans s h o u l d be exposed t o them. These a s s u m p t i o n s , r a t h e r than the v a l u e s t h e m s e l v e s , s h o u l d be the b a s i s f o r the c r i t i c i s m of t h i s t r a d i t i o n . In the p a s t , the h u m a n i t i e s approach t o the i m p o s i t i o n of common v a l u e s may have been more e a s i l y a c c o m p l i s h e d i n terms of American c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , whose p r i m a r y g o a l was t o a s s i m i l a t e or abs o r b a l l new c u l t u r a l groups i n t o a melting pot. The m e l t i n g p o t , or a s s i m i l a t i v e a p p r o a c h , has been l i k e n e d t o a l a r g e pot wherein p e o p l e of d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l backgrounds melt and form a new c u l t u r a l type c a l l e d t he 187 Ameri can. This i s saying that the various d i f f e r e n t groups a l l come together and dispense t h e i r own uniqueness throughout the mass, adding t h e i r own c o l o r to the mass. The various groups amalgamate i n t o something e n t i r e l y new which i s uniquely American and always changing as new groups or i n d i v i d u a l s enter the pool (Mcintosh, 1978, p. 17). The melting pot idea was thought to be an expression of democracy and freedom i n the United States i n that each ethni c type had a chance to c o n t r i b u t e i t s character to the whole. 1 In p r a c t i s e , however, the incoming groups were expected to mold themselves a f t e r a c e r t a i n c u l t u r a l i d e a l and p a t t e r n . The "melting pot" was a grand i l l u s i o n . Those Americans who came from I r e l a n d and from eastern and southern Europe d i d not f i n d a place where a l l "races and na t i o n s " could c o n t r i b u t e ways of f e e l i n g , b e l i e v i n g , and behaving to a new, e c l e c t i c c u l t u r e . The new land was not a melting pot, i t was a mold - a bed of Procrustes b u i l t by the Northern Europeans who preceded the Southerners to t h i s country, who held i t s power, who demanded that 188 newcomers succumb to t h e i r mold, and who, i n the end, had t h e i r way (Exoo & Draper, 1987, p. 190). The concept of a molding pot replaced that of a melting pot when i t was r e a l i z e d that there was one p a r t i c u l a r set of b e l i e f s and values that best c h a r a c t e r i z e d what i t was to be an American. When the s e l e c t i o n , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and nourishment of one ideal c u l t u r a l type occurs, the concept of a melting pot disappears. The set of values c o n s t i t u t i n g the template to be imposed on American e t h n i c groups was that of the dominant "upper c l a s s Anglo-Saxon Protestant c u l t u r e " (Exoo & Draper, 1987; Mcintosh 1978). These values were based i n the western European and c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n . They c o n s t i t u t e d a standard by which the i d e a l American could be judged and i t was used by the Americanization movement to e l i m i n a t e ethnic groups and c u l t u r a l ways not i n conformity with t h i s standard. The Americanization movement was a massive marshaling of the "means of i n t e l l e c t u a l production" on behalf of one unabashed, o f t s t a t e d g o a l : [the foreign-born] must be induced to give up the languages, customs and methods of l i f e which they have brought with them across the ocean, and adopt 189 instead the language, h a b i t s , and customs of t h i s country ... the standards and ways of American l i v i n g (National Americanization Committee pamphlet, i n Gordon, 1964, p. 101 - i n Exoo & Draper, 1987, p. 197). Recent s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d that the work of Americanization i s s t i l l an ongoing concern i n the schools (Bowles & G i n t i s , 1976). During the 1970's, there was much t a l k about the end of e t h n i c i t y i n America and many st u d i e s were w r i t t e n to show that d i f f e r e n c e s between c u l t u r a l groups were d e c l i n i n g . I t was claimed that there was a d i s t i n c t d i m i n i s h i n g of d i f f e r e n c e s between Pr o t e s t a n t s and C a t h o l i c s (Holloway & George, 1979; McCready & Greeley, 1972), and that I t a l i a n s and Poles possessed p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s that were not much d i f f e r e n t from E n g l i s h , German, and Scandinavian a t t i t u d e s (Glazer, 1984). These kinds of claims obviously aroused concern i n those who b e l i e v e d that c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s should be preserved i n the U.S. These same concerns were a l s o f e l t i n the f i e l d of a r t education, since h u m a n i s t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d a r t educators were r i g o r o u s l y promoting a r t exemplars, t h e o r i e s , values, and b e l i e f s based on the Western high a r t c u l t u r e . The l a t e 190 1960's and 1970's were an i n c r e d i b l y f e r t i l e p e r i o d i n which c r i t i c i s m of c u l t u r a l value i m p o s i t i o n r e s u l t e d i n questions as to whether governments could be j u s t i f i e d i n going against the gr a i n of l i f e as i t i s p l a i n l y l i v e d by the ma j o r i t y of t h e i r c i t i z e n s , or i n promoting one set of values rather than others which were p e r f e c t l y l e g i t i m a t e ; and as to what hope of success there could be for c u l t u r a l democratization i f p o l i c i e s and programmes d i d not take account of the intimate connection between a man's forms of c u l t u r a l expression and a c t i v i t y , and h i s socio-economic s i t u a t i o n , h i s r o l e and scope i n h i s community at home and i n the f a c t o r y , and, of course, the kind of educational background with which he was equipped for l i f e and the extent to which he continued to have educational needs and o p p o r t u n i t i e s (Simpson, 1976, p. 21). Democracy and Art Education Since 1968, questions have been t r o u b l i n g a r t educators who perceived that there was a c u l t u r a l monopoly i n the f i e l d (Forman, 1968a). The s p e c i f i c c r i t i c i s m s l e v e l l e d at a r t education programs which supported t r a d i t i o n a l humanistic values, concerned t h e i r attempt to impose one common set of Western a e s t h e t i c values on a c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e p o p u l a t i o n . 191 2 C r i t i c s recognized that the American nation was a m u l t i - r a c i a l , m u l t i - e t h n i c s o c i e t y made up of a mixture of peoples,, not only newly a r r i v e d , but a l s o those Americans whose c u l t u r a l and a e s t h e t i c backgrounds v a r i e d widely (Feldman, 1980). The c r i t i c s were quick to condemn both the melting pot theory and the idea that i t had worked to e l i m i n a t e c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . The d e s c r i p t i o n of America as a melting pot s o c i e t y has proven over the past twenty years to be q u i t e i n a c c u r a t e . While the slow and often arduous trek from E l l i s I s l a n d to suburbia d i l u t e d s p e c i f i c ethnic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and customs, i t d i d not erase them. America has remained a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y and, i n f a c t , has become more so with the increase in e t h n i c pride and, the i n t e r e s t in family background (Mann, 1979, p. 15). There was a sense of optimism i n the new b e l i e f that democracy could become r e a l enough so that the i n d i v i d u a l wishes and d e s i r e s of every American would be respected. The c r i t i c s f e l t there was no room f o r educational p o l i c i e s which focused on only a small f r a c t i o n of the population (Simpson, 1976). The r e j e c t i o n of educational t h e o r i e s which were designed to 1 92 i l l u s t r a t e only one c u l t u r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the a r t s r e s u l t e d i n the development of p l u r a l i s t i c approaches to a r t education. The concept of p l u r a l i s m most a c c u r a t e l y describes a s t a t e i n s o c i e t y where subgroups create and preserve boundaries between c u l t u r a l subgroups. " P l u r a l i s m sees the various subgroups as being complete unto themselves with t h e i r own defined boundaries with no ov e r l a p , at l e a s t c o n c e p t u a l l y , but a l l of the groups together composing the American c u l t u r e " (Mcintosh, 1978, p. 18). M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m , on the other hand, has been described as d i f f e r i n g from p l u r a l i s m i n that "more i n t e r a c t i o n i s encouraged among d i f f e r e n t groups" (p. 18). This d i s t i n c t i o n , however, does not r e f l e c t the way the terms are commonly used i n the l i t e r a t u r e . The use most often encountered ( i n the l i t e r a t u r e regarding t h i s study) e i t h e r equates p l u r a l i s m with m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m or d i f f e r e n t i a t e s them i n terms of t h e i r content. P l u r a l i s m concerns i t s e l f w ith r e l i g i o u s , r a c i a l , c l a s s , s o c i a l , i n t e r e s t , and ethnic d i v e r s i t y i n s o c i e t y , whereas m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m seems to be concerned p r i m a r i l y with ethnic d i v e r s i t y . C u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m embraces more than the c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d with ethnic groups. I t i n c l u d e s , for example, d i v e r s e pedagogies or world views (which need not i n v o l v e a c l e a r l y defined group i d e n t i t y or i n s t i t u t i o n a l form), and the 1 93 d i f f e r e n c e i n values by which urban and r u r a l communities or the various s o c i a l c l a s s e s may be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . Among ethnic c u l t u r e s the r o l e that d i f f e r e n t elements of c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y (such as language, n a t i o n a l i t y , r e l i g i o n , moral b e l i e f s ) play v a r i e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y . Of course, ethnic or r a c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s do not n e c e s s a r i l y involve c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . The word " m u l t i c u l t u r a l " i s now commonly used i n d e s c r i b i n g a s o c i e t y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d with ethnic groups... I t fo l l o w s that even when the word " p l u r a l i s t " r e f e r s to c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n a s o c i e t y , i t includes a broader range than " m u l t i c u l t u r a l " , and that the degree to which a so c i e t y i s m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s not simply a f u n c t i o n of i t s e t h n i c d i v e r s i t y ( C r i t t e n d e n , 1982, p. 11). I t i s t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between p l u r a l i s m and m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m that w i l l be employed i n t h i s study. The humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c approaches based t h e i r premises on the idea that there was a common American c u l t u r e , that t h i s common c u l t u r e was based i n the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n , and that a l l Americans should be exposed to i t . The p l u r a l i s t i c approach on the other hand, st a t e d that s o c i e t y was made up of many c u l t u r a l groups based on 194 e t h n i c i t y , race, r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y , language, gender, and income, and that each group's c u l t u r a l values and standards should be respected. Our democratic i d e a l s are based on a m u l t i c u l t u r a l concept, i n c l u s i v e of a l l peoples, the m i n o r i t y and the m a j o r i t y . Unfortunately, these democratic i d e a l s have been v i o l a t e d for many people. Ethnic and c u l t u r a l values and backgrounds of subcultures have been ignored i n favor of a monocultural, e t h n o c e n t r i c system of values. (Lovano-Kerr & Zimmerman, 1977, p. 34). In a d i v e r s i f i e d s o c i e t y , a e s t h e t i c p l u r a l i s m rather than a e s t h e t i c monism should be t y p i c a l since " i n a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y , no one group can c l a i m to have t a s t e s that are 'better' than any other group" (Mann, 1979, p. 17). 3 For the p l u r a l i s t s , s o c i e t y was perceived to c o n s i s t of many subcult u r e s , each with i t s own a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t s , standards, and purposes. These objects expressed or f u l f i l l e d the emotional and p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs of the subcultures they served ( C a w e l t i , 1976). Although each i n f l u e n c e s and i s in f l u e n c e d by others, f a i r l y d i s t i n c t c r i t e r i a of exc e l l e n c e are developed w i t h i n each subculture. The standards of one subculture t h e r e f o r e , may not be appropriate i n judging the 195 products of another. The consensus at t h i s time was that the major problem f a c i n g education i n the 1970's concerned the handling of c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the schools. The a r t education community p o l a r i z e d i n t o those who supported a common c u l t u r e , represented by advocates f o r the f i n e a r t s , and those who advocated a p l u r a l i s t i c c u l t u r e , represented by supporters of the popular and ethnic a r t s . Mcintosh (1978) represented the c o n d i t i o n s of the time by showing how the d i f f e r e n t approaches to the problem could be i l l u s t r a t e d . She developed a continuum with the p o l a r i t i e s represented by tw.o major thoughts (1) the discourage d i f f e r e n c e s approach, of which the humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c approach was the primary r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , and (2) the encourage d i f f e r e n c e s approach, represented by the "new e g a l i t a r i a n s , " or the c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s t s . * ' The p l u r a l i s t s accused the humanities-oriented a r t educators of being c u l t u r a l m i s s i o n a r i e s (Taylor, 1975) who, in using terms l i k e culturally deprived and disadvantaged, seemed to i n d i c a t e that "the r e f e r e n t s were l a c k i n g a proper a p p r e c i a t i o n of the a e s t h e t i c values of the dominant middle c l a s s " (Forman, 1968a). Ianni (1968) s t a t e d that there were not many programs i n the a r t s 196 which do not attempt to take the best of what "we" have to o f f e r in order to help "them" f i t b e t t e r i n t o our world. The motivation here i s commendable, but i t i s the same o l d story of the c o l o n i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ... At i t s best t h i s means an attempt to reproduce the a r t forms of mi d d l e - c l a s s , white America i n a form that i s both acceptable and comprehensible to i n d i v i d u a l s who are not a part of t h i s c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e . At i t s worst i t means a p a t r o n i z i n g attempt to u p l i f t the a r t consciousness of a people who are again, " c u l t u r a l l y disadvantaged" (p. 18). 5 By c o n t r a s t , the p l u r a l i s t s suggested the concept of c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m which s t r e s s e d the uniqueness that each s u b c u l t u r a l group had to o f f e r to s o c i e t y (Lovano-Kerr & Zimmerman, 1977). Every work of a r t emanating from these subcultures (popular, f o l k , e t h n i c , and vernacular) has meaning because " i t i s a product of a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r e and i t i s only i n that context that i t s r e l a t i o n a l meaning can be discovered and understood" (Glaeser, 1973, p. 35). The ' l i t e r a t u r e of t h i s time i s f i l l e d with the records of debate between these two viewpoints. In March, 1972, the NAEA sponsored the P a c i f i c Regional Conference where the theme was "The C e l e b r a t i o n of Peoples" 1 9 7 w h i c h d e a l t m a i n l y w i t h t h e i s s u e o f s u b c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y i n t h e U . S . A . I n N o v e m b e r 1 9 7 3 , t h e N A E A h e l d a m i n i c o n f e r e n c e i n T a o s , New M e x i c o o n c u l t u r e a n d a r t e d u c a t i o n ( T a y l o r , 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e c o n f e r e n c e p o i n t e d o u t t h e n e e d f o r a r t e d u c a t o r s t o b e a w a r e o f t h e v a r i a b i l i t i e s o f a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y . " I t i s u s e l e s s t o k e e p p u s h i n g C o l u m b u s a n d t h e P i l g r i m s i n a n a r e a t h a t h a d b e e n l o n g a n d r i c h l y e s t a b l i s h e d m i l l e n i u m s b e f o r e C o l u m b u s s e t f o o t i n A m e r i c a " ( T a y l o r , 1 9 7 5 , p . 9 ) . T o w a r d t h e e n d o f t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s , t h e d e b a t e s u b s i d e d s o m e w h a t , a n d t h e q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g h o w c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e U . S . A . w o u l d b e h a n d l e d w a s l e f t u n r e s o l v e d . N o c e n t r a l a g r e e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d o n w h e t h e r u s e w o u l d b e m a d e o f v a r i o u s c u l t u r a l m o t i f s i n t h e l i v e s o f all p e o p l e o r w h e t h e r a r t e d u c a t o r s , c o n v i n c e d t h e y k n e w t h e s t a n d a r d s f o r t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f e x c e l l e n c e , w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o a s s e r t a c u l t u r a l d o m i n a n c e ( I a n n i , 1 9 6 8 ) . O f c o u r s e , d u r i n g t h i s d e b a t e , t h e h u m a n i t i e s - o r i e n t e d a r t e d u c a t o r s w e r e f a r f r o m s i l e n t . T h e y a r g u e d t h e i r p o i n t s p r e c i s e l y a n d d o g g e d l y . I n f a c t , t h e y s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e i r m e t h o d o f i n c u l c a t i n g v a l u e w a s e n t i r e l y i n h a r m o n y w i t h d e m o c r a t i c i d e a l s s i n c e w h a t t h e y w e r e d o i n g w a s m a k i n g t h e best h u m a n v a l u e s a v a i l a b l e i n s t e a d o f k e e p i n g t h e m o n l y t o 198 themselves. This argument in v o l v e s a subtle d i s t i n c t i o n between the concepts of democrati zat i on of culture and cultural democracy. Democratization [of c u l t u r e ] i m p l i e s that i n t e l l e c t u a l values are the property or p r i v i l e g e of a m i n o r i t y ... to be t r a n s f e r r e d - i n a p a t r o n i z i n g manner - to the m a j o r i t y , who ... are uneducated and ignorant. By c o n t r a s t , c u l t u r a l democracy expresses the p r i n c i p l e that there i s no mi n o r i t y and ma j o r i t y ... that everybody i s part of the p u b l i c ... that everybody has an equal r i g h t to the values of c u l t u r e ... o l d and new ... to the c l a s s i c s and to the experimental values, to the e a s i l y d i g e s t i b l e o f f e r i n g s of a r t as much as to more condensed mental nutriment (Cultural Policy, 1975, p. 15). The humanities-oriented a r t educators, of course, were involved i n the democratization of c u l t u r e , that s p e c i f i c form of Western high c u l t u r e considered to be the appropriate one for a l l Americans. The question concerning what would be the i d e a l form of a r t education f o r modern America i s d i f f i c u l t to res o l v e (Forman, 1968a). Some educators b e l i e v e there i s a common h i s t o r i c a l c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e , while others do not. For the 199 p l u r a l i s t s , any such imposition of a l a r g e - s c a l e p o l i c y that employs monocultural values would " c o n s t i t u t e a c u l t u r a l i m p e r i a l i s m threatening various m i n o r i t y subcultures" (Mulcahy, 1980, p. 52). Democracy and DBAE The year 1984 saw the Getty's DBAE program, a l a r g e - s c a l e c u r r i c u l u m p r o j e c t promoting common Western a e s t h e t i c and c u l t u r a l values, come i n t o being. In view of the kinds of rigorous c r i t i c i s m of c u l t u r a l values done i n the 1970's, i t i s rather s u r p r i s i n g that there does not e x i s t one lengthy sustained c r i t i c i s m of DBAE's c u l t u r a l monism. There do e x i s t s c a t t e r e d accounts here and there i n the l i t e r a t u r e and some c r i t i c s do r a i s e p e n e t r a t i n g questions. Karen Hamblen (1987a), for example, has r a i s e d the kinds of questions that educators i n a democracy should c e r t a i n l y be asking. In answer to the question concerning "whose a e s t h e t i c values are being given v a l i d i t y " i n DBAE (p.68), she r e p l i e d that i t i s those who value the dominant western world view of c u l t u r e and a r t (p. 72). DBAE could be preparing students to be p r i m a r i l y museum-goers, to be able to appreciate a c e r t a i n type of a r t i n a c e r t a i n way, and, i n essence, to be ap p r e c i a t o r s of upper middle-class values. Although these might be considered l e g i t i m a t e g o a l s , such a ,200 focus needs to be assessed as to whether i t should be accorded nationwide a p p l i c a t i o n i n a m u l t i c u l t u r a l s o c i e t y i n which there i s a sta t e d respect f o r divergent views (Hamblen, 1987a, p. 72). In another p l a c e , Hamblen c r i t i c i z e s DBAE for i t s r e f u s a l to analyze the assumptions upon which i t s monocultural view i s b u i l t . In a DBAE cu r r i c u l u m , a s e l e c t e d t r a d i t i o n of western a r t and f i n e a r t exemplars i s presented as value n e u t r a l inasmuch as the human authorship of such c u r r i c u l a r choices i s not made e x p l i c i t or examined w i t h i n the cu r r i c u l u m i t s e l f ... students are not examining the assumptions of the program they are studying (Hamblen, 1988b, p. 33). Chalmers (1987a) i d e n t i f i e s DBAE with a Western h i s t o r i c a l b ias and questions i t s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the values of the dominant a r t world. Contemporary a r t i s t s , a r t h i s t o r i a n s , p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i e n t e d a e s t h e t i c i a n s , museum c u r a t o r s , and d i r e c t o r s of a r t g a l l e r i e s define those c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t s which q u a l i f y as "work of a r t . " Why do photographs i n Getty Center p u b l i c a t i o n s only show I n s t i t u t e p a r t i c i p a n t s 201 d i s c u s s i n g a r t i n gallery and museum s e t t i n g s or contemplating fine art reproductions? Surely there are other a r t worlds a l s o worthy of c o n s i d e r a t i o n (p. 60). Chalmers c a r r i e s t h i s theme i n t o a paper (1987b) which appears i n a book by Blandy & Congdon (1987) e n t i t l e d Art in a democracy. Although only a few references to the Getty and DBAE appear i n t h i s book, i t s general statements and arguments are d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e to any educational movement involved i n accounting for c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y i n a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y . A work of c o l l e c t e d c r i t i c a l a r t i c l e s against DBAE c a l l e d Beyond DBAE: The case for multiple visions of art education (1988) i s d i s a p p o i n t i n g i n that most of the c r i t i c i s m deals with issues apart from a e s t h e t i c value. A few of the w r i t e r s , however, do mention the problem as i t i s perceived to e x i s t i n DBAE. London (1988) c r i t i c i z e s the s e l e c t i o n of exemplars that appear i n Getty p u b l i c a t i o n s as having been created by male, white, Europeans, who s t r i v e f or picturesque beauty. These choices as exemplars re v e a l Getty's i n d i f f e r e n c e to the s o c i a l content of a r t . Lederman (1988) i s a c r i t i c who a c t u a l l y discusses some of the a e s t h e t i c values i n DBAE i n some d e t a i l . She i s c r i t i c a l of what she c a l l s a masterpiece approach. This kind of approach 202 denies that we cross m u l t i p l e c u l t u r e s d a i l y . With a m u l t i c u l t u r a l s o c i e t y as a given, an approach to a r t that focuses only on the l a s t four hundred years of humankind's a r t i s t i c . p r o d u c t i o n , and w i t h i n that looks only at a small part of the Western world for i t s a r t i s t i c paradigms, and w i t h i n that s e l e c t s only that a r t made for a small s t r a t a ( s i c ) of i n t e l l e c t u a l s and wealthy connoisseurs, i s to make a r t and a r t education i r r e l e v a n t to the great m a j o r i t y i n our s o c i e t y and p a r t i c u l a r l y to the young (Lederman, 1988, p. 80). Another i s o l a t e d c r i t i c i s m by Lidstone (1988) again p o i n t s to the problem, but o f f e r s no exhaustive d i r e c t i o n . He c a l l s DBAE a b l u e p r i n t f o r a r t education that appears to have more i n common with the salon a r t of another century and the a e s t h e t i c s of past c u l t u r e s than the educational needs of today's c h i l d r e n and youth. I t takes an enormous s t r e t c h of the imagination to r e l a t e the "rigorous academic study" of 17th century Dutch landscape p a i n t i n g to the image world of a nine-year o l d latchkey c h i l d who spends hour a f t e r hour alone with a t e l e v i s i o n set as h i s only 203 companion (Lidstone, 1988, p. 141). I t would be q u i t e misleading to suggest that the c r i t i c s are always f a i r , o b j e c t i v e , or even c o r r e c t i n t h e i r assessments of the values underlying DBAE. As has been suggested before, the c r i t i c s have not based t h e i r claims on any sustained or in-depth a n a l y s i s of the DBAE program. Many c r i t i c s seem to focus on the Getty's primary use of the Western c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n and seem to imply that t h i s t r a d i t i o n i s somehow detri m e n t a l to education. The c r i t i c s may be ove r l y r i g i d i n assuming that the Western t r a d i t i o n has not absorbed values and b e l i e f s from other sources. The t r a d i t i o n they c r i t i c i z e i s not mo n o l i t h i c and e x c l u s i v e . But the most misleading impression i s that the values of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n should somehow be dispensed w i t h . Some c r i t i c s do object to i t s values as representing a r i s t o c r a t i c and p a t r i c i a n a t t i t u d e s and as maintaining an unjust status quo. The perspecti v e of t h i s study, however, does not suggest that the values i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n are somehow worthless. These values, i t has been suggested, e x i s t as one set of values out of many i n our s o c i e t y . What must be questioned in an educational sense, however, i s not the values, but rather s e v e r a l assumptions held by advocates of t h i s t r a d i t i o n . The two major assumptions questioned concern the b e l i e f that the t r a d i t i o n ' s values 1. represent the best, and 204 2. are the common values of s o c i e t y and should be given to a l l students. These two assumptions prevent an equal or shared involvement with the a r t s of other groups i n s o c i e t y and n a t u r a l l y set up a hie r a r c h y wherein a r t s other than the f i n e a r t s are considered to be of l e s s e r value. The c r i t i c s are not always c l e a r about t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s to the Western t r a d i t i o n . The minor c r i t i c a l a t t a c k s a t t a c k s on DBAE's a e s t h e t i c values have not gone unnoticed by the Getty. To t h e i r c r e d i t they sponsored an i n v i t a t i o n a l Seminar in May of 1987 i n C i n c i n n a t i , Ohio, c a l l e d "Issues i n D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education: Strengthening the Stance, Extending the Horizons," where they i n v i t e d 37 p a r t i c i p a n t s to l i s t e n and respond to four major issues surrounding the DBAE program. The Getty's supposed r o l e i n t h i s was i n v i s i b l e . 6 I t would i n v i t e the a r t educators to t a l k about the problems and i t would merely l i s t e n . Although there were p o i n t s of d i s c u s s i o n concerning a e s t h e t i c values throughout a l l d i s c u s s i o n s , the second i s s u e , Art and Society, c r i t i c i z e d the Getty f o r i t s e x c l u s i v e use of Western a e s t h e t i c values i n a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y . This p o s i t i o n was e x p l i c a t e d by June King McFee and was o f f e r e d as a d i r e c t challenge to i t s stance regarding 205 Western a e s t h e t i c values i n a democracy. To date, t h i s seems to be the most comprehensive sustained c r i t i c i s m of the a e s t h e t i c values held by the Getty. In t h i s challenge, McFee stat e d that the study of the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n i s not i n c l u s i v e enough for students i n a m u l t i c u l t u r a l democracy. 7 The way that DBAE has s t r u c t u r e d the d i s c i p l i n e s reveals t h e i r culture-boundness and that "they have not addressed a l l the a r t s w i t h i n western c u l t u r e nor are they adequate for studying the a r t of other c u l t u r e s " (p. 104). She c r i t i c i z e s DBAE for t h e i r b e l i e f that "the melting pot i d e a l has worked and i s s t i l l working, and that the t r a d i t i o n a l hierarchy of a r t with s t u d i o - f i n e a r t s at the top s t i l l meets with the needs of a r t l e a r n i n g f o r a l l students i n our s o c i e t y " (p. 104). McFee's assumptions about ar t a l l have a s o c i o - c u l t u r a l b a s i s 8 and she reminds the Getty that the notion that a r t i s a f f e c t e d by i t s own time in a given c u l t u r a l context i s important when c o n s i d e r i n g our r o l e i n a m u l t i c u l t u r a l s o c i e t y . A m u l t i c u l t u r a l s o c i e t y , she says, c o n s i s t s of a number of subcultures each of which has i t s own a r t world. Each of the a r t s develops a value system which d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i t i n some degree from the others i n terms of purposes, a e s t h e t i c values, and c r i t e r i a for c r i t i c i s m . Each has a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y . For example, p o t t e r s , weavers, q u i l t e r s , j e w e l e r s , and f i n e , f o l k , and ethnic a r t i s t s a l l belong to d i f f e r e n t subcultures w i t h i n the broad category of a r t (p. 106). Although i t has happened that one p a r t i c u l a r form of a r t , Western f i n e a r t , has r i s e n to the top of the hierarch y and dominates the e v a l u a t i v e process, the r o l e that other forms of a r t play i n our s o c i e t y must be recognized. We can no longer say with c e r t a i n t y that the common c u l t u r e i s based on the Western European value system. P r e s e n t l y i n our s o c i e t y , there i s a developing consciousness of concern for "e t h n i c , r a c i a l , and gender i d e n t i t y " (p. 107). There a l s o appears to be a d e c l i n e i n the s i z e of the middle c l a s s around which "the melting pot i d e a l and our educational system was developed" (p. 108). In l i g h t of these f a c t s , McFee seems to suggest that DBAE must reconsider i t s p o s i t i o n i n regards to the dominant form of a e s t h e t i c values i t seems to be committed to supporting and promoting. McFee o f f e r s some d i r e c t challenges to the way a e s t h e t i c value has been defined i n the Getty's DBAE program. Since t h i s i s an issue that touches d i r e c t l y on the Getty's support and maintenance of a huge museum program, the responses to McFee from DBAE supporters were extremely t e n t a t i v e . 207 Stephen Dobbs (1988b) agreed that DBAE focuses on Western c u l t u r a l exemplars and that perhaps there i s room for the study of other forms of a r t . His response, however, focused on the forms of the media rather than on the value context of the media. "What conceivable grounds are there f o r excluding such a r t c a t e g o r i e s , from d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education, as t e l e v i s i o n , video, f i l m , a d v e r t i s i n g , computer a r t , product design, c r a f t s , and f o l k a r t ? " (Dobbs, 1988, p. 114). Art forms here are given v a l i d i t y i n terms of t h e i r media, but what about the v a l i d i t y of the values they may communicate? A l l media may be acceptable to the Getty as long as they transmit the proper values. But what about r e v o l u t i o n a r y or anti-Western values that may subvert the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n ? A f t e r a l l , DBAE can and has condemned work done i n traditional media that do not embody the correct values. What i s at question here i s not the form of the media, but the values expressed i n and through the form. Dobbs seems to avoid the issue by saying that DBAE can accept other forms of a r t . But embracing forms does not i n d i c a t e a p o s i t i o n towards the values the forms can be permitted to express. He becomes a l i t t l e c l e a r e r when he mentions q u a l i t i e s . The s e l e c t i o n ought not to depend upon the d e s i g n a t i o n of one object as f i n e a r t and another as 208 popular c u l t u r e , but upon which object presents f o r perception and a e s t h e t i c attending the q u a l i t i e s which i t i s our purpose to help students n o t i c e (Dobbs, 1988, p. 115). But t h i s i m p l i e s ?g that i t i s acceptable to study popular or f i n e a r t s as long as the objects i n i t meet the c r i t e r i a f o r q u a l i t y that has been e s t a b l i s h e d by DBAE. Dobbs seems to a l l u d e to t h i s . The u l t i m a t e a r b i t e r of s e l e c t i o n i n both instances - sources i n " f i n e a r t " and sources i n "popular c u l t u r e " - must b e . q u a l i t y . We are not endorsing "anything goes." Curriculum developers and teachers must s e l e c t to high standards, whether they choose to use a p a i n t i n g , a ceramic, a household o b j e c t , or a media advertisment (p. 116). Howard R i s a t t i , another frequent Getty spokesman, a l s o responded to McFee's statement. He addressed the value content a l i t t l e more thoroughly and suggested that i t i s not inaccurate to view the DBAE d i s c i p l i n e s as bounded w i t h i n the Western c u l t u r e . He agreed with Dobbs and McFee that there should be a broadened concept of a e s t h e t i c value, and that i t should not j u s t be focused on the formal aspect of an image. 9 He sta t e d that DBAE can encompass a l l the 2 0 9 f o r m s t h a t M c F e e t a l k s a b o u t b u t , a n d h e r e i s t h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t , t h e h i e r a r c h y m u s t r e m a i n . O t h e r c u l t u r a l f o r m s c a n b e a d m i t t e d b u t t h e y m u s t b e a r r a n g e d i n a h i e r a r c h y s o t h a t f i n e a r t r e t a i n s t h e t o p r u n g . I t m a k e s s e n s e . . . t o i n c l u d e t h e w i d e s t r a n g e p o s s i b l e o f i m a g e s , m e d i a , a n d c u l t u r a l s o u r c e s i n t h e s t u d y o f v i s u a l a r t , n o t l e a s t b e c a u s e e x p o s u r e t o k i t s c h c a n p r o v i d e t h e c r i t i c a l t o o l s w i t h w h i c h t o d i s t i n g u i s h f a k e f r o m a u t h e n t i c a r t . S t u d e n t s s h o u l d b e t a u g h t t o d i s c e r n t h e v a l u e s p r o m o t e d b y t h e i r v i s u a l e n v i r o n m e n t , s o t h a t t h e y c a n b o t h a p p r e c i a t e t h e h i g h e s t f o r m o f v i s u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n - a r t - a n d u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e s s a g e s o f l e s s e r f o r m s ( G e t t y C e n t e r , 1 9 8 8 a , p . 2 9 ) . O f c o u r s e , f o r R i s a t t i , t h e h i g h e s t f o r m o f v i s u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n r e s i d e s i n t h e f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . T h i s p a r t i c u l a r a p p r o a c h t a k e n b y D B A E w a s d i s c u s s e d m o r e f u l l y i n C h a p t e r 4 a n d s e e m s t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e o n l y c o n c e s s i o n D B A E t h e o r i s t s a r e p r e p a r e d t o t a k e . P a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e Issues s e m i n a r a r r i v e d a t s o m e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e G e t t y r e g a r d i n g a e s t h e t i c v a l u e . T h e f i r s t i s a d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t t o t h e G e t t y c o n c e r n i n g i t s n e e d t o s t r o n g l y a d d r e s s w h i c h a r t s a n d e x e m p l a r s a r e t o b e 210 included i n DBAE, how the s e l e c t i o n process i s to occur, and who i s responsible for developing the c r i t e r i a . There was general agreement amongst the p a r t i c i p a n t s that some r e a l confusion e x i s t s concerning Getty's p o s i t i o n regarding the i n c l u s i o n of non-Western f i n e a r t s exemplars, and they f e l t that DBAE proponents must take the lead i n c l a r i f y i n g t h i s p o i n t . Since the time of t h i s seminar and the recommendations, the Getty has released two p u b l i c a t i o n s which deal with t h i s i s s u e . The f i r s t , a document released i n A p r i l , 1988 from the Getty Center, Perceptions of di s ci pi i ne-bas ed ar t education and t he Getty Cent er for Educat ion i n t he Ar t s , addressed a supposed number of misperceptions that i t f e e l s have a r i s e n about DBAE. One of the misperceptions concerns the b e l i e f that DBAE i s l i m i t e d to f i n e a r t from western c u l t u r e s . The Getty r e p l i e s by saying that DBAE includes a broad.base of a r t exemplars from Western and non-Western c u l t u r e s , ranging from most ancient to most contemporary. The important c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n of a l l a r t works for i n s t r u c t i o n i s that they be of high quality ( i t a l i c s added), and that they be outstanding examples of features or 211 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which the work d i s p l a y s or embodies (p. 7). The other r e l e a s e , First impressions (1988c), a l s o t r i e s to co r r e c t misperceptions that the Getty f e e l s has a r i s e n about DBAE. I t s t a t e s that the DBAE approach can encompass a broad range of a r t , not j u s t a r t i n the western t r a d i t i o n , but a r t from a l l c u l t u r e s and peri o d s . Content may include f o l k a r t , i n d u s t r i a l or a p p l i e d a r t s , and e l e c t r o n i c media i n a d d i t i o n to p a i n t i n g , s c u l p t u r e , print-making, and a r c h i t e c t u r e (p. 5). Both these rele a s e s are extremely vague i n q u a l i f y i n g what the i n c l u s i o n of other a r t s r e a l l y e n t a i l s i n terms of judgment and e v a l u a t i o n . The important questions are l e f t unanswered. What i s to be the status of the other a r t s i n a DBAE program? The important element i s not whether DBAE will include other a r t s , but how they w i l l include them. W i l l a l l the a r t s have equal st a t u s or w i l l they be subject to a hiera r c h y w i t h the f i n e a r t s at the top? The Getty needs to be much c l e a r e r on these questions i f an understanding of i t s p o s i t i o n regarding the place of a e s t h e t i c value in.a democracy i s to occur. 212 IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA T h e a t t e m p t t o i m p l e m e n t a c u r r i c u l u m p r o j e c t w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s one c u l t u r a l s e t o f v a l u e s c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d w i t h i n a c o u n t r y t h a t h a s a s i t s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a c c e p t e d c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , a n a p p r o a c h w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s t h e b l e n d i n g a n d i n t e g r a t i n g o f all c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a f t e r a l l , h a s n o o f f i c i a l p o l i c y w h i c h g i v e s l e g i t i m a c y t o p l u r a l i s t i c v i e w p o i n t s . B u t w h a t a r e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r C a n a d a , a c o u n t r y w i t h a n o f f i c i a l m u l t i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , o f a c c e p t i n g w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n t h e W e s t e r n c u l t u r a l v a l u e s u n d e r l y i n g t h e p r e s e n t f o r m o f D B A E ? C o n t e m p o r a r y C a n a d i a n a r t e d u c a t i o n i s s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d b y A m e r i c a n i d e a s ( M a c G r e g o r , 1 9 8 4 ) . " W h a t y o u f i n d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s a r t e d u c a t i o n y o u f i n d i n C a n a d a " ( G r a y , 1 9 8 4 , p . 6 ) . G r a y ( 1 9 8 4 ) s p e a k s o f c e r t a i n " c o a x i a l c o n n e c t i o n s " m a i n t a i n e d b y C a n a d i a n a r t t e a c h e r s t h a t p r o v i d e a s t e a d y f l o w o f a r t e d u c a t i o n i m a g e s a n d i d e a s b e t w e e n t h e t w o c o u n t r i e s . T h e s e c o n n e c t i o n s r u n n o r t h a n d s o u t h , e a s t a n d w e s t , a n d s p a n t h e A t l a n t i c a n d P a c i f i c O c e a n s . M o r e o v e r , t h e y o f t e n i n t e r s e c t . T h e v a l u e o f a n y c o a x i a l c o n n e c t i o n l i e s i n i t s c a p a c i t y t o c a r r y m a n y a n d v a r i e d t r a n s m i s s i o n s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ; i t p r o v i d e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o l e a r n s o m e t h i n g a b o u t 213 common concerns and underlying d i f f e r e n c e s (Gray, 1984, p. 6). Gray suggests that a r t education r e l a t i o n s h i p s have strengthened between Canada and the U.S. through developments of mutual understanding. This r e l a t i o n s h i p favors American i n f l u e n c e on Canadian a r t educators because the Canadian has e a s i e r access to American research than the American does to Canadian work. I t i s c e r t a i n l y no exaggeration to suggest that the bulk of a r t education ideas e x i s t e n t i n Canada today comes from a r t educators resident in the U.S.A. Connections are kept a l i v e by N a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as CSEA and p u b l i c a t i o n s such as the Canadi an Review of Art Education Research and the CSEA Annual Journal which includes American as w e l l as Canadian c o n t r i b u t o r s . Although only a few Canadian a r t educators have been a c t i v e l y i n v olved i n the debate concerning the formulation of DBAE 1 0 i t s t i l l seems only a matter of time before the ideas and t h e o r i e s w i t h i n the program become part of the Canadian educational landscape. But what are the i m p l i c a t i o n s that Canadian a r t educators should be aware of i n adopting DBAE programs f o r use i n Canadian schools? The f i r s t i m p l i c a t i o n concerns the fa c t That DBAE i s based on a e s t h e t i c values that are considered to be part of the American and European c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e . 2 1 4 This i s made q u i t e c l e a r by DBAE w r i t e r s , as t h i s study has shown. Canadian a r t educators who f e e l no qualms about basing t h e i r programs on American values, or who perhaps f e e l there i s no d i f f e r e n c e between American and Canadian values may f i n d the DBAE program s u i t a b l e f o r t h e i r purposes. The second i m p l i c a t i o n i s that DBAE i s based on the idea of the p r o v i s i o n of one p a r t i c u l a r set of c u l t u r a l values f o r the whole American p o p u l a t i o n . For Americans who b e l i e v e that t h e i r country i s based on a melting pot and who support the idea of a common c u l t u r e f o r a l l , t h i s concept may be acceptable. But Canadians have an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l and p o l i t i c a l context to consider. This d i f f e r e n c e has been most v i v i d l y e x e m p l i f i e d by the d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e s towards c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y that e x i s t s between the two c o u n t r i e s . The Americans have st r e s s e d the melting pot concept, whereas the Canadians have emphasized the c u l t u r a l mosaic. Speakers and w r i t e r s i n d e f a t i g a b l y p r a i s e d the s i t u a t i o n in which ethnic groups could r e t a i n t h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s and yet be Canadian, i n con t r a s t to the American melting pot as they conceived i t . They v i e d with each other i n proposing v i s u a l and gustatory metaphors such as "flower garden," 2 1 5 "sa l a d , " and "stew" f o r the Canadian s i t u a t i o n . In 1965, John Porter (1965) could say that the mosaic was the country's most cherished value (Burnet, 1984, p. 19). Although i n d i c a t i o n s c e r t a i n l y e x i s t that Canada does not t r e a t i t s m i n o r i t y groups e q u i t a b l y (D'Oyley, 1983), i t has at l e a s t always t h e o r e t i c a l l y claimed to have been concerned with the p r e s e r v a t i o n of c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y , Canada has always been c u l t u r a l l y and e t h n i c a l l y p l u r a l i s t i c , but t h i s d i v e r s i t y was not always recognized. The p o l i c y of the government has been a s s i m i l a t i o n , or Anglo-conformity (Gordon, 1964). I t i s true that p o l i t i c i a n s and a f t e r - d i n n e r speakers have d e l i g h t e d i n c o n t r a s t i n g the Canadian Mosaic with the American melting pot, but there has been l i t t l e governmental support f o r the mosaic (Burnet, 1983). This support however, changed i n 1971 when the Federal Government announced a p o l i c y of m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m . This p o l i c y emphasized the r e t e n t i o n of s p e c i f i c c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by any group that d e s i r e d to maintain them, and the sharing of these c u l t u r a l views with the Canadian s o c i e t y i n general (Samuda, Berry, & L a F e r r i e r e , 1984). P i e r r e Trudeau, then Prime M i n i s t e r of Canda, sta t e d (1971) 216 Although there are two o f f i c i a l languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other ( i t a l i c s added) ... A p o l i c y of m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m w i t h i n a b i l i n g u a l framework commends i t s e l f to the government as the s u i t a b l e means of assuring the c u l t u r a l freedom of Canadians ... Canadian i d e n t i t y w i l l not be undermined by m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m . Indeed, we b e l i e v e that c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m i s the very essence of Canadian i d e n t i t y . Every ethnic group has the r i g h t to preserve and develop i t s own c u l t u r e and values w i t h i n the Canadian context ... a p o l i c y of m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m must be a p o l i c y f or a l l Canadians (Trudeau, 1971). 1 1 Although t h i s document may have some p h i l o s o p h i c a l and conceptual problems, the set of r i g h t s i s a l s o supported by the C o n s t i t u t i o n - the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s e c t i o n 27. In a very r e a l sense, then, the o b l i g a t i o n s of educators i n Canada are r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those i n the U.S.A. This o b l i g a t i o n , based on an official m u l t i c u l t u r a l i d e a l f o r Canadian s o c i e t y , means that each Canadian educator must be concerned with how to accommodate ethnic and c u l t u r a l m i n o r i t i e s w i t h i n schools p r i m a r i l y designed for Anglo- and 217 French-Canadian students (Samuda, Berry, & L a F e r r i e r e , 1984). Canada i s a m u l t i c u l t u r a l s o c i e t y and t h i s f a c t r a i s e s c r i t i c a l questions about the goals of Canadian education. Should the aim of education be the a s s i m i l a t i o n , i n t e g r a t i o n or segregation of m i n o r i t y groups? Is e q u a l i t y of educational opportunity achieved by educating a l l c h i l d r e n i n the same way regardless of d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r c u l t u r a l and l i n g u i s t i c backgrounds? (Wyatt, 1984, p. 93) . Of course, there are many educators who do not agree with t h i s p o l i c y nor with p l u r a l i s m i n general. For them, the issues concerning the sole promotion of Western a e s t h e t i c values w i l l not be a problem. Questions r a i s e d by m u l t i c u l t u r a l concerns are not e a s i l y answered. I t i s beyond the scope of t h i s chapter to do more than merely suggest the framework of concerns surrounding m u l t i c u l t u r a l c u r r i c u l u m p o l i c y for Canada. Cummins (1984) provides a broad suggestion. The aims of the m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m p o l i c y for education are to f i n d e f f e c t i v e ways of r e a l i z i n g the educational p o t e n t i a l of c u l t u r a l l y and 218 l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i v e r s e c h i l d r e n and to develop s o c i a l cohesion by promoting a p p r e c i a t i o n among a l l c h i l d r e n of the v a r i e d c o n t r i b u t i o n s of d i f f e r e n t ethnic groups to the Canadian mosaic (p. 71). Chalmers (1984) provides another viewpoint when he st a t e s that educators should base a r t education programs on three premises: (1) that c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m i s a r e a l i t y and that grudging or t a c i t r e c o g n i t i o n must be replaced by genuine acceptance (2) that no r a c i a l or c u l t u r a l group i s superior to another, and (3) that e q u a l i t y of opportunity i s a r i g h t that must be enjoyed by every student regardless of ethni c or c u l t u r a l background (p. 23). These premises, of course, are e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t with the f e d e r a l m u l t i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the c u l t u r a l concerns expressed by educators during the l a s t twenty years. With these kinds of i n j u n c t i o n s on the development of Canadian a r t education w i t h i n the f e d e r a l m u l t i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , the DBAE program, as i t p r e s e n t l y stands, must be r e j e c t e d . As we have i n d i c a t e d , the two i m p l i c a t i o n s concern 2 1 9 t h e c l a i m t h a t D B A E c o n t a i n s W e s t e r n a n d A m e r i c a n v a l u e s , a n d t h a t one s e t o f c o m m o n a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s s h o u l d b e t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e n a t i o n . T h e s e a r e e n t i r e l y d i s s o n a n t w i t h t h e r e c o g n i t i o n a n d e x t e n s i o n o f r i g h t s o f c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i t y i n C a n a d a . I n o r d e r f o r C a n a d i a n s t o a c c e p t D B A E a s i t i s f o r m u l a t e d b y t h e G e t t y , i t w o u l d h a v e t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o f m u l t i c u l t u r a l c o n c e r n s m o r e f o r c e f u l l y a n d d e m o c r a t i c a l l y t h a n i t i s p r e s e n t l y d o i n g . C a n a d i a n a r t e d u c a t o r s s h o u l d r e j e c t t h e G e t t y ' s v e r s i o n o f D B A E o n t h e s a m e g r o u n d s t h a t m a n y A m e r i c a n a r t e d u c a t o r s a r e r e j e c t i n g i t , i . e . , o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t a s i t i s p r e s e n t l y f o r m u l a t e d , i t d o e s n o t a d d r e s s t h e d i v e r s e c u l t u r a l p o p u l a t i o n s r e s i d e n t w i t h i n t h e c o u n t r y . NOTES 1 T h i s e n t h u s i a s m f o r t h e a s s i m i l a t i o n o f a l l c u l t u r a l b e l i e f s c a n b e c a u g h t f r o m t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f t h e e a r l y 2 0 t h c e n t u r y . F o r e x a m p l e , Z a n g w i l l ( 1 9 0 9 ) s t a t e s i t f i r m l y : A m e r i c a i s G o d ' s c r u c i b l e , t h e g r e a t M e l t i n g P o t w h e r e a l l t h e r a c e s o f E u r o p e a r e m e l t i n g a n d r e - f o r m i n g ! H e r e y o u s t a n d , g o o d f o l k , t h i n k I , w h e n I s e e t h e m a t E l l i s I s l a n d , h e r e y o u s t a n d i n y o u r f i f t y g r o u p s , w i t h y o u r f i f t y l a n g u a g e s a n d h i s t o r i e s , a n d y o u r f i f t y b l o o d h a t r e d s a n d r i v a l r i e s . B u t y o u w o n ' t b e l o n g l i k e t h a t , b r o t h e r s , f o r t h e s e a r e t h e f i r e s o f G o d y o u ' v e c o m e t o - t h e s e a r e t h e f i r e s o f G o d . . . G e r m a n s a n d F r e n c h m e n , I r i s h m e n a n d E n g l i s h m e n , J e w s a n d R u s s i a n s - i n t o t h e c r u c i b l e w i t h y o u a l l ! G o d i s m a k i n g t h e A m e r i c a n . Y e s , E a s t a n d W e s t , a n d N o r t h a n d S o u t h , t h e p a l m a n d t h e p i n e , t h e p o l e a n d t h e e q u a t o r , t h e c r e s c e n t a n d t h e c r o s s -2 2 0 h o w t h e g r e a t A l c h e m i s t m e l t s a n d f u s e s t h e m w i t h h i s p u r g i n g f l a m e ! H e r e s h a l l t h e y a l l u n i t e t o b u i l d t h e R e p u b l i c o f M a n a n d t h e K i n g d o m o f G o d ( Z a n g w i l l , 1 9 0 9 ) . T h i s k i n d o f r e l i g i o u s z e a l f o r t h e u n i t y o f t h e i d e a l A m e r i c a n c a r r i e s o v e r i n t o t h e 1 9 8 0 ' s . We s e e t h i s i n a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e g r a d u a t i o n c e r e m o n y o f t h e F o r d E n g l i s h S c h o o l : a p a g e a n t i n t h e f o r m o f a m e l t i n g p o t , w h e r e a l l t h e men d e s c e n d f r o m a b o a t s c e n e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e v e s s e l o n w h i c h t h e y c a m e o v e r ; d o w n t h e g a n g w a y . . . i n t o a p o t 15 f e e t i n d i a m e t e r a n d 7 f e e t h i g h , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e F o r d E n g l i s h S c h o o l . S i x t e a c h e r s , t h r e e o n e i t h e r s i d e , s t i r t h e p o t w i t h t e n f o o t l a d l e s r e p r e s e n t i n g n i n e m o n t h s o f t e a c h i n g i n t h e s c h o o l . I n t o t h e p o t 5 2 n a t i o n a l i t i e s w i t h t h e i r f o r e i g n c l o t h e s a n d b a g g a g e g o . . . P r e s e n t l y t h e p o t [ b e g i n s ] t o b o i l o v e r a n d o u t [ c o m e ] t h e m e n d r e s s e d i n t h e i r b e s t A m e r i c a n c l o t h e s a n d w a v i n g A m e r i c a n f l a g s ( d e s c r i p t i o n s b y D e w i t t & M a r q u i s , i n M e y e r , 1 9 8 1 , p p . 6 0 - 6 1 ) . I t i s n o t s o m u c h t h e v a l u e s t h e m s e l v e s t h e c r i t i c s o b j e c t t o , a s i t i s t h e a t t e m p t t o u s e t h e v a l u e s a s t h e sole b a s i s f o r a r t e d u c a t i o n . T h e i s s u e i s c e r t a i n l y n o t a s s i m p l e a s s o m e m a y s u g g e s t . T h e t w o p o s i t i o n s s h o u l d b e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d a s o c c u p y i n g a c o n t i n u u m w i t h a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f i n t e r v e n i n g v i e w p o i n t s . M c i n t o s h ( 1 9 7 8 ) d e v e l o p s q u i t e a u s e f u l c o n t i n u u m w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e m a j o r f a c e t s o f d e a l i n g w i t h c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i t y w i t h i n a s o c i e t y . D i s c o u r a g e D i f f e r e n c e s A p p r o a c h 1 . A n g l o - c o n f o r m i t y 2 . D e f i c i t m o d e l 3 . M e l t i n g p o t E n c o u r a g e D i f f e r e n c e s A p p r o a c h 1 . S e p a r a t i s t 2 . E t h n i c S t u d i e s 3 . P l u r a l i s m 4 . M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m I a n n i ( 1 9 6 8 ) g o e s o n t o d e v e l o p t h i s i d e a o f c u l t u r a l d e p r i v a t i o n i n more graphic d e t a i l s . I f I were a Negro in Bedford-Stuyvesant or a Puerto-Rican i n East Harlem, I would not for one moment consider g i v i n g up my r i c h - i f disadvantaged c u l t u r e for the l o n e l y general c u l t u r e any more than I have been p e r s o n a l l y w i l l i n g to give up the m a r g i n a l i t y of being I t a l i a n - A m e r i c a n , despite the f a c t that most of my colleagues t e l l me i t i s tension-producing and anx i e t y - r i d d e n to be in such c u l t u r a l c o n f l i c t . Oscar Lewis has done a b r i l l i a n t job of showing how r i c h and comforting the c u l t u r e of poverty can be and repeatedly i l l u s t r a t e s that what causes the d i s j u n c t u r e s and the disharmonies i s our attempt to t e l l them that they don't know what they are missing ( I a n n i , 1968, p. 18 -3) . The i n v i s i b i l i t y was hard to detect at times. In Art and Society seminar, the respondents to McFee were Dobbs, and R i s a t t i . McFee here uses the term multicultural i n i t s broader sense to mean more than mere ethnic d i v e r s i t y . McFee (1988) s t a t e s 7 g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s and then s t a t e s a p o s i t i o n based on them. The seven g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s are: 1. A r t i s u n i v e r s a l i n that i t i s found to some degree i n a l l c u l t u r e s , but the v a r i a t i o n s of ar t are r e l a t e d to the d i f f e r e n t s o c i o - c u l t u r a l contexts i n which they develop. 2. A s o c i o - c u l t u r a l system motivates, molds, m o d i f i e s , and rewards the production and use of a r t . 3. Their a r t i s a mirror for the members of a c u l t u r a l group. 4. Most a r t i s made fo r some s o c i a l purpose. 5. The d i f f e r e n t v i s u a l a r t s have subcultures of t h e i r own. They include the a r t i s t s and the s o c i a l networks of i n d i v i d u a l s who share t h e i r values and support t h e i r work. 6. The new video and computer technologies are such pervasive communication a r t forms that we need 222 to consider them as s o c i a l f a c t o r s of t h e i r own. 7. American s o c i e t y today continues i n a churning s t a t e of f l u x . (McFee, 1988 - Issues - p. 105-107). But of course, t h i s has already been discussed as an assumption of the DBAE program. I t appears that only three Canadian a r t educators have taken an a c t i v e r o l e i n documenting t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the Getty's DBAE: Graeme Chalmers (1987a,1987b); Jim Gray (1987a, 1987b); and Ron MacGregor (1985, 1988 - a l s o c o - a s s i s t a n t e d i t o r of Research readings for Discipline-Based Art Education (1988). (See Dobbs, 1988a). The focus of t h i s p o l i c y seems to be concerned with ethnic d i v e r s i t y rather than on p l u r a l i s m as defined i n t h i s study. The terms p l u r a l i s m and m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m a l s o appear to be used synonymously. We b e l i e v e that c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m i s the very essence of Canadian i d e n t i t y . Every ethnic group has the r i g h t to preserve and develop i t s own c u l t u r e and values w i t h i n the Canadian context. No p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r e i s more o f f i c i a l than another. A p o l i c y of m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m must be a p o l i c y f o r a l l Canadians (First Annual Report, 1975, p. 7). CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY The Getty's DBAE i s one of the most h i g h l y p u b l i c i z e d and funded of contemporary a r t education reforms. I t s advocates b e l i e v e i t i s making a seriou s impact i n American education and that i t has received o f f i c i a l support from most of the major educational a s s o c i a t i o n s . Although there are many c r i t i c s of the DBAE program, the c r i t i c i s m seems to have centered mainly on i t s s t r u c t u r a l design while only a small p o r t i o n has been d i r e c t e d towards a c r i t i c i s m of the a e s t h e t i c values i t promotes. For t h i s study, a e s t h e t i c value was defined as any c r i t e r i a by which one v i s u a l experience i s considered to be superior to another according to c l a s s e s of v i s u a l phenomena. The study was conducted i n order to determine the nature, context and purpose of the a e s t h e t i c values expressed i n the Getty's DBAE documents. Content a n a l y s i s was performed on a l l of Getty's p u b l i c documents and statements. I t was discovered that the c r i t e r i a f or judgment take place w i t h i n an extended concept of a e s t h e t i c s . The DBAE program extends a e s t h e t i c worth to include e x t r i n s i c non-formal p r o p e r t i e s 223 224 as w e l l as i n t r i n s i c and formal ones. This i s l o g i c a l since DBAE takes place w i t h i n an academic context and seeks understanding of a r t , rather than i t s mere appr eci at i on. In order for t h i s understanding to occur, a concept of worth must be developed that i s wider than that encompassed by mere formalism. Within t h i s extended a e s t h e t i c concept are lo c a t e d s i x c r i t e r i a f or the a t t r i b u t i o n of worth to a superior v i s u a l experience. Aesthetic Criterion No. J - the visual experience which is embodi ed in an art work created by an artist is better than the visual experience which is not. Although many things are a v a i l a b l e to human s i g h t , i t i s the work of a r t created by an a r t i s t which i s considered most valuable i n DBAE. These works of a r t can be judged and evaluated i n accordance with o b j e c t i v e standards of excel l e n c e and u s u a l l y form a s t r i c t h i e r a r c h y . Aesthetic Criterion No. 2 - the art work which can claim membership in the fine art tradition is better than the art work which cannot. The Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n i s used as the standard for the judgment of a l l other works and classroom exemplars are u s u a l l y chosen from i t s ranks. A work i s admitted i n t o the ranks of the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n by the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n and q u a l i t y of i t s v i s u a l symbolism. 2 2 5 Aesthetic Criterion No. 3 - t he art work which embodies a sophisticated and complex code demanding literacy for its decipherment is better than the one which does not. T h e v i s u a l s y m b o l i s m c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e i m a g e i n a w o r k o f a r t i s c a l l e d i t s c o d e . T h e c o d e e m b o d i e s a n d t r a n s m i t s m e a n i n g t o a v i e w e r w h o m u s t b e i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a s p e c i f i c k i n d o f l i t e r a c y i n o r d e r t o d e c i p h e r t h e m e a n i n g . A r t e d u c a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h o s e f o r m s o f l i t e r a c y . I n o r d e r t o b e c o n s i d e r e d s u p e r i o r i n D B A E , a c o d e m u s t e m b o d y a n d t r a n s m i t s p e c i f i c i n t e l l e c t u a l , c u l t u r a l , a n d f o r m a l v a l u e s . Aesthetic Criterion No. 4 - t he code which contains sophisticated intellectual values accessible through an intellectual literacy is superior to the one which does not. T h e c o d e c o n s t i t u t e s a b o d y o f k n o w l e d g e , a n d a s e t o f s k i l l s t o d e c i p h e r i t . S i n c e D B A E i s b a s e d o n a n a c a d e m i c a n d s c h o l a r l y e n d e a v o u r , t h e v i s u a l c o d e m u s t j u s t i f y a n d s u p p o r t a s e t o f i n t e l l e c t u a l v a l u e s . S k i l l s s u c h a s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a n a l y s i s , o b s e r v a t i o n , s y n t h e s i s , c o m p a r i s o n , e t c , m u s t n o t o n l y b e u s e d t o u n d e r g o a n y e v a l u a t i v e p r o c e s s , b u t m u s t a l s o b e p r o m o t e d a n d r e i n f o r c e d w h e n i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i m a g e . A n i m a g e w h i c h d e m a n d s n o c o g n i t i v e o r i n t e l l e c t u a l c o m m i t m e n t i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d w o r t h y o f e x e m p l a r s t a t u s i n D B A E . 226 Aesthetic Criterion No. 5 - the code which contains and t r ansmi I s c e r t ai n cultural v a I ue s needing a sophisticated cul t ur a I literacy to de ci phe r it is superior to t he one which does not . DBAE i s f i r m l y based i n western c u l t u r e . A superior v i s u a l code not only c o n t a i n s , t r a n s m i t s , and demands i n t e l l e c t u a l commitments, but a l s o c u l t u r a l ones. DBAE promotes c e r t a i n western values l i k e s o c i a l order, personal commitment, r a t i o n a l i t y , and s o b r i e t y . Works which contain these rather than t h e i r opposites are accorded higher s t a t u s i n DBAE. C u l t u r a l values of the past must a l s o be understood i n order to decipher works i n the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . Aesthetic Criterion No. 6 - the code which contains formal val ues requiring a special literacy to decipher it is better than the one which does not. In the past, a e s t h e t i c worth was a t t r i b u t e d to an object only on the basis of the formal r e l a t i o n s h i p s i t d i s p l a y e d . The elements i n a v i s u a l image can be arranged i n a v a r i e t y of ways. DBAE supports those arrangements of elements which emphasize u n i t y , harmony, complexity, and balance, and that are s p e c i f i e d and described by the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . This r e q u i r e s that the a r t i s t put them there and that the viewer possess the l i t e r a c y to i d e n t i f y them. 227 These values comprise a e s t h e t i c worth i n DBAE and are part of a l a r g e r t r a d i t i o n i n Western human thought which has been supported and developed w i t h i n the humanities approach i n Western European h i s t o r y . B a s i c a l l y t h i s approach s t a t e s that the highest and best e d u c a t i o n a l experiences come about through the study of the western c u l t u r a l f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . I t s i n f l u e n c e on the development of a r t education theory i s e a s i l y discerned and i t i s c l e a r that the major i n f l u e n c e i n DBAE, both on the Getty's mandate and on the w r i t e r s comprising DBAE personnel, i s the value system of the humanities t r a d i t i o n . CONCLUSIONS Because of t h i s humanities component, the values expressed and supported i n DBAE are those of the Western European t r a d i t i o n . This t r a d i t i o n b e l i e v e s i t s values are common to all Americans and should c o n s t i t u t e the edu c a t i o n a l f a r e of all students. This approach has brought DBAE i n t o c o n f l i c t with those who advocate c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m i n the U.S.A. With the r e c o g n i t i o n that America c o n s i s t s of very d i v e r s e c u l t u r a l populations has come a concern f o r the promotion of common and dominant values. C r i t i c s of DBAE are wary of any cur r i c u l u m program which seems to ignore c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y and which promotes one dominant c u l t u r a l l y - b o u n d set of values as better than a l l others. 228 The G e t t y has not responded f u l l y t o the c r i t i c s who demand t h a t i t make i t s p o s i t i o n known r e g a r d i n g e d u c a t i o n f o r a d i v e r s e and p l u r a l i s t i c p o p u l a t i o n . B a s i c a l l y , the G e t t y has s a i d t h a t a l l a r t forms can be employed w i t h i n the DBAE s t r u c t u r e , but t h e r e i s the u n r e s o l v e d i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t a l l a r t s would be s u b j e c t t o the same fine art c r i t e r i a and would be p l a c e d w i t h i n a h i e r a r c h y w i t h the fine arts o c c u p y i n g the t o p p l a c e . McFee (1988) has c h a l l e n g e d the G e t t y and o t h e r s t o become c o n s c i o u s of our approach i n the use of a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s i n a r t e d u c a t i o n . S i n c e i t has been s t a t e d t h a t the G e t t y documents e x i s t as a p u b l i c r e a l i t y w i t h the p o t e n t i a l t o i n f l u e n c e c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p e r s and p l a n n e r s , some d i r e c t i o n must be g i v e n t o thos e who w i s h t o a v o i d the c u l t u r a l monism of the G e t t y ' s approach and d e s i g n c u r r i c u l a which a d d r e s s p l u r a l i s m i n a democracy. A v a r i e t y of frameworks employing s t r a t e g i e s f o r the development of p l u r a l i s t i c and m u l t i c u l t u r a l c u r r i c u l a e x i s t . Approaches t o m u l t i c u l t u r a l c u r r i c u l u m range from tho s e which g i v e token r e c o g n i t i o n of h o l i d a y s t o i n t e g r a t e d approaches where most s u b j e c t m a t t e r a r e a s t a k e m u l t i c u l t u r a l m a t e r i a l s and i s s u e s i n t o 229 account. Some programs take a heritage/museum approach where the focus i s on a group's past and the primary objects of study are a r t i f a c t s or m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e . Other programs take an issues approach, or focus on themes l i k e c u l t u r a l change t a k i n g a dynamic view of e t h n i c i t y and c u l t u r e (Wyatt, 1984, p. 99). D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education e x i s t s as a concept for enl a r g i n g the scope of an a r t program to include a e s t h e t i c , c r i t i c a l , and h i s t o r i c a l concerns i n a d d i t i o n to studio/production work. T h e o r e t i c a l l y , the v i s u a l exemplars in t h i s type of a program can embrace both mono- and m u l t i - c u l t u r a l examples. The idea of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education has been gai n i n g l e g i t i m a c y since the 1960's and today e x i s t s i n a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t forms. (Kern, 1987). D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d , models such as those that e x i s t i n A u s t r a l i a and Canada are c e r t a i n l y v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s to the model o f f e r e d by the Getty. The State of V i c t o r i a i n A u s t r a l i a has some f a i r l y d e t a i l e d c u r r i c u l u m guides which use the d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d model for a r t education. The e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between i t and the Getty model, however, i s that the V i c t o r i a n model r e j e c t s the t r a d i t i o n a l western f i n e a r t approach. I t presents a view that embraces a l l those aspects that have been omitted 230 from the " t r a d i t i o n a l c l o s e d and l i n e a r models." This program s t a t e s that the usual approach i n a r t education has been t r a d i t i o n a l . Art h i s t o r y courses are d i v i d e d i n t o periods of Western h i s t o r y , such as P r e h i s t o r y , Egyptian, C l a s s i c a l , Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, N e o - C l a s s i c a l , Romantic, and Modern. Most major h i s t o r y of a r t books f o l l o w t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l c h r o n o l o g i c a l approach when surveying Western a r t from cave p a i n t i n g to modern times (Artworks, 1987, p. 5) . The program suggests that what i s needed i s a view that embraces a l l those aspects that have been omitted from t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l and closed l i n e a r model. Stereotyped a t t i t u d e s towards what i s included and excluded from a r t h i s t o r y are challenged and a broad-based approach adopted. This broad-based approach recognizes as v a l i d content for study, a l l v i s u a l a r t s d e a l i n g with a l l world c u l t u r e s throughout time. Emphasis i s given to modern and contemporary approaches i n c l u d i n g f r i n g e and women's a r t as w e l l as the a r t of l e s s e r known a r t i s t s . There i s a strong focus on a r t of the present. Also s t r o n g l y emphasized are areas other than the t r a d i t i o n a l f i n e a r t s , i . e . , popular, a d v e r t i s i n g , commercial, and media a r t s . A healthy a p p r e c i a t i o n and 231 understanding of A u s t r a l i a n and a b o r i g i n a l a r t i s advocated. The program gives an i n d i c a t i o n of the method of assessment or e v a l u a t i o n that should be used when judging or examining other kinds of a r t . The i n a b i l i t y to suspend assumed c r i t e r i a leads to d i f f i c u l t i e s . A Western perception f r e q u e n t l y imposed on other-than-western a r t r e s u l t s i n a lack of understanding, and assumptions are made which s t r i p s the a r t works of t h e i r true meaning. For t h i s reason, s o - c a l l e d " p r i m i t i v e a r t " has sometimes been described as having c h i l d - l i k e s i m p l i c i t y , suggesting that r e s u l t s are u n i n t e n t i o n a l or a c c i d e n t a l (Artworks, 1987, p. 50). Each v i s u a l subculture i s to be assessed on i t s own standards and c r i t e r i a , rather than by using standards from the f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . All forms of a r t are to be appreciated with no stigma attached to the kind of a r t one p r e f e r s . "This approach allows for the a p p r e c i a t i o n of the work of, say Mozart or Mantegna, but perhaps a preference f o r the works of Mick Jagger or Norman Rockwell" (Curriculum Frameworks, 1985, p.23). The expansion of an a r t program to include more than the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n i s b e l i e v e d to be b e n e f i c i a l . "Developing an a p p r e c i a t i o n for a range of a r t / c r a f t works from d i f f e r e n t people, times and places provides students w i t h important clues to the formation of the c u l t u r a l and • a r t i s t i c h e r i t a g e " (Arts Framework, 1987, p. 27). The program has a major s e c t i o n on the popular a r t s . A r t / c r a f t experience introduced to students a l s o needs to be broader than the t r a d i t i o n a l areas u s u a l l y considered as " f i n e a r t s " ... t e l e v i s i o n , f i l m , newspapers, magazines, post-cards, a d v e r t i s i n g , f a s h i o n , i n t e r i o r design, comics, cartoons, and computer-generated images should be recognized as s i g n i f i c a n t o u t l e t s for a r t i s t i c expression (Arts Framework, 1987, p. 29). This program i s important i n that i t challenges the major assumptions of the Western f i n e a r t and Humanities t r a d i t i o n . I t does not r e j e c t study of the f i n e a r t s t r a d i t i o n , but r a t h e r , includes i t as one of many expressions of human v i s u a l c u l t u r e . For Canadian c u r r i c u l u m planners, there a l s o e x i s t p r o v i n c i a l documents which use a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d model and a more p l u r a l i s t i c approach. The Ontario M i n i s t r y of Education i s c u r r e n t l y producing c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s which 233 take account of m u l t i c u l t u r a l concerns (Wyatt, 1984). Although described i n f a r l e s s d e t a i l than the A u s t r a l i a n m a t e r i a l s , i t s a r t education c u r r i c u l u m guide s p e c i f i e s that i n s t r u c t i o n i s to occur i n f i n e a r t s , c r a f t s , p r a c t i c a l a r t s , popular a r t s , and f o l k a r t s , as w e l l as experimental a r t and technology. A respect for m u l t i c u l t u r a l concerns i s in d i c a t e d i n the b e l i e f that "a c r i t i c a l and s e n s i t i v e examination of the a r t forms of the various ethnic and c u l t u r a l groups i n today's p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y w i l l lead students to a bet t e r understanding of and respect for both past and present c u l t u r e s " {Curriculum guideline, 1986, p. 13). This program c o n t i n u a l l y emphasizes i t s goal of "developing esteem for the customs, c u l t u r e s , and b e l i e f s of a wide v a r i e t y of s o c i e t a l groups' (p. 3). An obvious i m p l i c a t i o n for f u r t h e r research would be to conduct an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the existence of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d c u r r i c u l a which embody more c u l t u r a l l y p l u r a l i s t i c values than that o f f e r e d by the Getty. Curriculum frameworks for d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education which allow a more c u l t u r a l l y democratic approach to the treatment of a e s t h e t i c value are a v a i l a b l e and these, rather than the program espoused by the Getty should be used as models when designing d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education programs. 234 I t i s evident that i n a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y , the present form of DBAE i s an anachronism. But the Getty i s i n a very d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n . I t has based i t s program on a set of humanities-oriented a e s t h e t i c values which give support and v a l i d i t y to the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . Further research i s needed i n order to determine whether the Getty Trust i t s e l f has a mandate to continue to develop the humanities-based f i n e a r t values of i t s founder, John Paul Getty. I t i s i n t h i s kind of research that the how and why questions surrounding the mechanisms whereby these values were adopted may be answered. The primary purpose of the Trust, a f t e r a l l , i s to maintain and develop the huge f i n e a r t legacy w i t h i n i t s museum (Getty Museum, 1978, 1986). In order to give p r i o r i t y to t h i s commitment, i t must continue to promote Paul Getty's v i s i o n of the fine arts as con t a i n i n g superior exemplars of human e x c e l l e n c e . Any admission by the Getty that the popular a r t s are equal to the f i n e a r t s might s e r i o u s l y damage i t s primary c l a i m concerning the s u p e r i o r i t y of museum exemplars. With a d d i t i o n a l research i n t h i s area i t may be discovered that the Getty i s i n the unenviable p o s i t i o n of maintaining i t s support of ?a Western c u l t u r a l l y - b a s e d humanistic a e s t h e t i c t r a d i t i o n because of i t s mandate to support a Western f i n e a r t s museum program. 235 This study sought e x p l i c a t i o n of the argument that the Getty documents o u t l i n e a d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d program based on s p e c i f i c a e s t h e t i c values which are derived from a l a r g e r body of c l a s s i c a l thought which c o n s t i t u t e s the Western f i n e a r t t r a d i t i o n . I t has been adequately shown that t h i s i s so. What i s now needed from the Getty and other humanities-oriented educators i s a d e f i n i t e and coherent response to the c r i t i c s ' claims that t h i s approach to education does not meet the contemporary needs of a p l u r a l i s t i c North American s o c i e t y . Can those who advocate the t r a d i t i o n a l humanities approach continue regarding t h e i r values as the only c o r r e c t and v i a b l e values for Americans, or do they have the a b i l i t y to respond more c r e a t i v e l y and comprehensively than they have been doing, to the challenges of a c u l t u r a l l y p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y ? REFERENCES Acuff, B . (1978). Using our heads while coming to our senses. Studies in Art Education, 79(3), 33-40. Aiken, H.D. (1968). Art and a n t i - a r t . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 2(3), 105-120. Anderson, F.E. (1971). A e s t h e t i c s e n s i t i v i t y , dogmatism and the E i s n e r a r t i n v e n t o r i e s . Studies in Art Education, 12(2), 49-55. Anderson, J.P. (1972). Humanism, a r t educational philosophy in t r a n s i t i o n . Art Education, 25(1), 18-19. Anderson, V. (1971). A new p r i o r i t y : A r t s and humanities. Art Education, 24(3), 10-11. Arnheim, R. (1971). Art and humanism. Art Education, 24(1), 5-9. A r n s t i n e , D. (1966). The a e s t h e t i c as a context f o r general education. Studies in Art Education, 6>(1), 13-22. Arts Framework (1987). M i n i s t r y of Education (Schools D i v i s i o n ) , V i c t o r i a , A u s t r a l i a . Artworks (1987). Curriculum Branch, M i n i s t r y of Education (Schools D i v i s i o n ) , V i c t o r i a , A u s t r a l i a . 236 237 Barzun. J . (1974). The use and abuse of art. Mellon Lectures on the Fine A r t s , B o l l i n g e r S e r i e s 35. P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press. Beardsley, M.C. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Beardsley, M.C. (1968). The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of c r i t i c a l reasons. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 2(3), 55-63. Beardsley, M.C. (1969). A e s t h e t i c experience regained. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 2 5 ( 1 ) , 3 — 11. Beardsley, M.C. (1970). The a e s t h e t i c point of view. In H.E. K i e f e r & M.K. Munitz (Eds.), Perspectives, in education, religion, and the arts (pp. 219-237). Albany: State U n i v e r s i t y of New York Press. Beardsley, M.C. (1971). On Aiken's defense of the humanities. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 5(4), 72-76. Beardsley, M.C. (1973). A e s t h e t i c w e l f a r e , a e s t h e t i c j u s t i c e , and educational p o l i c y . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7(4), 49-61. B e l l , D. (1972). The c u l t u r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s of c a p i t a l i s m . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 6(1/2), 11-38. 238 Bennett, W.J. (1984). To reclaim a legacy: A report on the humanities in higher education. Washington, D.C: Nat i o n a l Endowment for the Humanities. Bennett, W.J. (1987). Address to the Getty Center conference on a r t education. Keynote Speech. In Getty Center, Discipiine-based art education: What forms will it take? (pp. 32-41). Proceedings of a Na t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference Sponsored by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles. Bersson, R. (1987) Why a r t education i s n e i t h e r s o c i a l l y relevant nor c u l t u r a l l y democratic: A co n t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s . In D. Blandy & K.G. Congdon (Eds.), Art in a democracy (pp. 78-90). New York: Teachers C o l l e g e . Beymer, R. (1971). Changing times, a r t educators! Art Education, 24(3), 14-16. Blandy, D., & Congdon, K.G. (Eds.). (1987). Art in a democracy. New York: Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y . Blocker, H.G. (1975). The o i l c a n theory of c r i t i c i s m . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 9(4), 19-28. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: 239 David McKay Co. Bourdieu, P. (1968). O u t l i n e of a s o c i o l o g i c a l theory of a r t pe r c e p t i o n . International Social Sci enee. Journal, 20(4), 589-613. Bowles, S., & G i n t i s , H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books. Boyer, E.L. (1985). Art as language: I t s place i n the schools. In Getty Center, Beyond creat i ng: The place for art in America' s schools (pp. 8-9). A Report by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The J.Paul Getty Trust. Boyer, E.L. (1987). The a r t s , language, and the schools. Keynote Speech. In Getty Center, Di s ci pi i ne-bas ed art education: What forms will it lake? (pp. 46-51). Proceedings of a N a t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference sponsored by the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles. Brigham, D. (1988). Doing DBAE d i f f e r e n t l y to achieve i t primary g o a l . In J . Burton, A. Lederman, & P. London (Eds.), Beyond DBAE: The case for multiple visions of art education (pp. 64-77). Massachusetts: The U n i v e r s i t y C o u n c i l on Art Education. 240 Broudy, H.S. (1970). Q u a l i t y education and a e s t h e t i c education. In G. Pappas (Ed.), Concepts in art and education (pp. 280-289). New York: The Macmillan Co. Broudy, H.S. (1972). Enlightened cherishing: An essay on aesthetic educat i on. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press. Broudy, H.S. (1973). Humanism i n education. Journal of Aest hel ic Education, 7(2), 67-77. Broudy, H.S. (1976). Some r e a c t i o n s to a concept of a e s t h e t i c education. Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 7 0 ( 3 / 4 ) , 29-37. Broudy, H.S. (1978). The a r t s as basic education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 72(4), 21-29. Broudy, H.S. (1981a). Truth and credibility: The citizen's dilemma. New York: Longman. Broudy, H.S. (1981b). A r t s education as a r t i s t i c p e r ceptions. In G.W. Hardiman & T. Zernich (Eds.), Foundations for curriculum development and ev al uat i on in art education (pp. 9-17). Champaign, I l l i n o i s : S t i p e s . Broudy, H.S. (1987). The role of imagery in learning. Occasional Paper 1. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education i n the Ar t s 241 Bryant, P. (1981). Fine a r t s . In W.D. Halsey & E. Friedman (Eds.), Merit students encycl opedia (pp. 32-33). New York: Macmillan Educational Company. Budd, R.W., Thorp, R.K., & Donohew, L. (1967). Content analysis of communications. New York: The MacMillan Company. Burnet, J . (1983). M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m 10 years l a t e r . In J.L. E l l o t t (Ed.). Two nations, many cultures: Ethnic groups in Canada, (pp. 235-242). Scarborough, Ontario: P r e n t i c e - H a l l Canada Inc. Burnet, J . (1984). Myths and m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m . In R.J. Samuda, J.W. Berry, & M. L a F e r r i e r e (Eds.), Multiculturalism in Canada (pp. 18-29). Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. Burton, J . , Lederman, A., & London, P. (Eds.). (1988). Beyond dbae: The case for multiple visions of art educat i on. Massachusetts: The U n i v e r s i t y C o u n c i l on Art Education. C a r d i n a l , R. (1 972). Outsider art. London: Studio V i s t a . C a r l s o n , A. (1979). Formal q u a l i t i e s i n the n a t u r a l environment. Journal of Aesthetic Educati on, 13(3), 99-114. 242 Cassidy, M.L. (1971). Art as humanism: Secondary a r t education. Art Education, 24(3), 12-13. C a w e l t i , J.G. (1976). Popular c u l t u r e : Coming of age? Journal of Aesthetic Education, 70(3/4), 165-182. Chalmers, F.G. (1981). A r t education as ethnology. Studies in Art Education, 22(3), 6-14. Chalmers, F.G. (1984). C u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m and a r t education in B r i t i s h Columbia. Art Educat i on, 57(5), 22-26. Chalmers, F.G. (1987a). Beyond current conceptions of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education. Art Educat i on, 40(5), 58-61. Chalmers, F.G. (1987b). C u l t u r a l l y based versus u n i v e r s a l l y based understanding of a r t . In D. Blandy & K.G. Congdon (Eds.), Art in a democracy (pp. 4-12). New York: Teachers College. C h i l d , I.L. (1965). P e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s of e s t h e t i c judgment. Journal of Personality, 33, 476-511. C l a r k , G.A., Day, M.D., & Greer, W.D. (1987). D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education: Becoming students of a r t . The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 129-193. C l a r k , S.A. (1975). Modern t h e o r e t i c a l foundations of 243 a p p r e c i a t i o n and c r e a t i o n i n a r t education textbooks 1960 - 1970. Studies i n Art Education, 76(3), 12-21. College Board (1983). Academic preparation for college: What students need to know and be able to do. New York: CEEB. Commission on the Humanities (1980). The humanities in american life. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Conant, H. (1977). Art i n context, ( l e t t e r s column), Le onar do, 10, p. 352. Crawford, D.W. (1987). A e s t h e t i c s i n d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 227-242. C r i t t e n d e n , B. (1982). Cultural pluralism and common curriculum. C a r l t o n , V i c t o r i a : Melbourne U n i v e r s i t y Press. Cronbach, L. (1980). V a l i d i t y on p a r o l e : Can we go s t r a i g h t ? New Directions for Testing and Measurement, 5, 99-108. Cultural policy i n Hungary (1974). P a r i s : UNESCO. Cummins, J . (1984). The min o r i t y language c h i l d . In S. Shapson & V. D'Oyley (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspect i ves (pp. 71-92). Clevedon, Avon: M u l t i l i n g u a l Matters L t d . 244 Curriculum frameworks P-12: An introduction. (1985). Curriculum Branch, Education Department of V i c t o r i a , A u s t r a l i a . Curriculum guideline - visual arts intermediate and senior divisions (1986). M i n i s t r y of Education, Ontario. D i B l a s i o , M.K. (1985a). Escaping narrowness: Broader v i s i o n s for a r t s c u r r i c u l a . Design for Arts in Educat i on, 56(5), 28-30. D i B l a s i o , M.K. (1985b). Continuing the t r a n s l a t i o n : Further d e l i n e a t i o n of the DBAE format. Studies in Art Educati on, 26(4), 197-205. D i B l a s i o , M.K. (1987). R e f l e c t i o n s on the theory of Di s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 221-226. D i c k i e , G. (1964). The myth of the a e s t h e t i c a t t i t u d e . American Philosophical Quarterly, 7( 1 ), 56-65. DiMaggio, P., & Useem, M. (1980). The a r t s i n education and c u l t u r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n : The s o c i a l r o l e of a e s t h e t i c education and the a r t s . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 74(4), 55-72. Dobbs, S.M. (Ed.). (1988a). Research readings for di scipi i ne-based art edue at ion: A journey beyond 245 creating. A P u b l i c a t i o n of the N a t i o n a l Art Education A s s o c i a t i o n . Reston, V i r g i n i a : NAEA. Dobbs, S.M. (1988b). A response to June King McFee's "Art and S o c i e t y . " In Getty Center, Issues in di s c i pi i ne- bas e d ar t e due at i o n: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons (pp. 113-116). Los Angeles: The Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Dorn, CM. (1984a). Does e c l e c t i c i s m work i n p r a c t i c e ? Art Education, 57(3), 34-39. Dorn, CM. (1984b). The a r t s as academic education. Art Education, 57(4), 16-19. Douglas, N.J., Schwartz, J.B., & Taylor , J.B. (1981). The r e l a t i o n s h i p of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e of young c h i l d r e n and t h e i r modes of responding to p a i n t i n g s . Studies in Art Education, 22(3), 24-31. D'Oyley, V. (1983). Contested or non assumed educational r i g h t s . In D. Ray & V. D'Oyley (Eds.), Human rights in Canadian education (pp. 198-212). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt P u b l i s h i n g Company. Dufrenne, M. (1979). Main trends in aesthetics and the sciences of art. New York: Holmes & Meier P u b l i s h e r s . Duke, L.L. (1983). The Getty Center for Education i n the 246 A r t s . Art Education, 56(5), 4-8. Duke, L.L. (1984a). S t r i v i n g f o r excellence i n a r t s education. Design for Arts in Educat i on, 85(3), 45-46. Duke, L.L. (1984b). The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Phi Delta Kappan, 65(9), 612-614. Duke, L.L. (1988). The Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s and d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education. Art Education, 41(2), 7-12. Duncum, P. (1987). What, even D a l l a s ? Popular c u l t u r e w i t h i n the a r t cu r r i c u l u m . Studies in Art Education, 29(1), 6-16. E f l a n d , A.D. (1971). The t r a n s i t i o n continued: The emergence of an a f f e c t i v e r e v o l u t i o n . Studies in Art Educat i on, 75(1), 13-25. E f l a n d , A.D. (1987). Curriculum antecedents of Di s c i p l i n e - B a s e d A r t Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 57-94. E i s n e r , E.W. (1971). Media, expression and the a r t s . Studies in Art Educat i on, 75(1), 4-12. E i s n e r , E.W. (1976). Making the a r t s a r e a l i t y i n the schools of tomorrow: An agenda for today. Art Education, 247 29(3), 20-24. E i s n e r , E.W. (1982). Cognition and curriculum: A basis for deciding what to teach. New York: Longman, Inc. E i s n e r , E.W. (1985). Why a r t i n education and why a r t education? In Getty Center, Beyond creating: The place for art in America's schools (pp. 64~69). A report by the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Trust. E i s n e r , E.W. (1987a). S t r u c t u r e and magic i n d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education. Keynote Speech. In Getty Center, Discipii ne-based art educat i on: What forms will it take? (pp. 6-21). Proceedings of a Na t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference sponsored by the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles. E i s n e r , E.W. (1987b). The role of di scipi i ne-based art education in America's schools . A report prepared for the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles. Engel, M. (1977). Research and development: A r t s i n education. Art Education, 30(1), 24-28. Evans, J . (1973). Fine a r t s . In Encyclopedia Britannica. (pp. 276-277). Chicago: Encyclopedia B r i t a n n i c a , Inc. Ewens, T. (1988). Flawed understandings: On Getty, E i s n e r , 248 and DBAE. In J . Burton, A. Lederman, & P. London (Eds.), Beyond DBAE: The case for multiple visions of art education (pp. 5-25). Massachusetts: The U n i v e r s i t y C o u n c i l on Art Education. Exoo, C.F., & Draper, A. (1987). A l t e r n a t i v e c u l t u r e s , autonomous i n s t i t u t i o n s . In C F . Exoo (Ed.), Democracy upside down (pp. 189-224). New York: Praeger. F e i n s t e i n , H. (1982). A r t means values. Art Education, 35(5), 13-15. F e i n s t e i n , H. (1983). The therapeutic t r a p i n metaphoric i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Art Education, 56"(4), 30-32. Feldman, E.B. (1970). Becoming human through art. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc. Feldman, E.B. (1976). V i s u a l l i t e r a c y . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 70(3/4), 195-200. Feldman, E.B. (1978). C a t a l y s t - The a r t s . Art Education, 31(7), 6-12. Feldman, E.B. (1980). A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l conceptions of a r t c u r r i c u l a . Art Educati on, 33(6), 6-9. Feldman, E.B. (1981). Varieties of visual experience. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc. 249 Feldman, E.B. (1982). A reply to Ralph Smith. Art Educat i on, 55(5), 20-22. First annual report of the Canadian consultative council on multiculturalism (1975). Ottawa: Canadian C o n s u l t a t i v e Council on M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m . Fishwick, M.W. (1974). Parameters of popular culture. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green U n i v e r s i t y Press. Fishwick, M.W. (1982). Common culture and the great tradition: The case for renewal. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Flexner, S.B. (Ed.). (1987). The random house dictionary of the english language. New York: Random House. Forman, B.I. (1968a). Some c u l t u r a l shortcomings of current a r t education. Art Education, 27(4), 4-8. Forman, B.I. (1968b). E a r l y antecedents of American a r t education: A c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of pioneer i n f l u e n c e s . Studies in Art Education, 9(2), 38-51. Fos t e r , S. (1977). Hemisphere dominance and the a r t process. Art Education, 30(2), 28-29. Gainer, R.S., & Gainer, H. (1977). Educating both halves of the b r a i n : Fact or fancy? Art Education, 30(5), 20-22. 250 Gans, H. (1985). American popular c u l t u r e and high c u l t u r e i n a changing c l a s s s t r u c t u r e . In J.H. B a l f e & M.J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), Art, ideology, and politics (pp. 40-57). New York: Praeger P u b l i s h e r s . Geahigan, G. (1975). Feldman on e v a l u a t i o n . Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 9(4), 29-42. Geahigan, G. (1985). The e l i t i s t - p o p u l i s t controversy: A response to Ralph Smith. Studies in Art Educat i on, 26(3), 176-177. Getty, J.P. (1964). My life and fort unes . London: George A l l e n & Unwin L t d . Getty, J.P. (1976). As I see it. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc. Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s (1985). Beyond cr eat i ng: The place for art in america's schools. A report by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Trust. Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s (1987a). Discipiine-based art education: What forms will it take? 'Proceedings of a Na t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference sponsored by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s (1987b). The preservice challenge: Di s ci pi i ne-Bas ed Art Education and recent reports of higher education. Program from a Nat i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Seminar.sponsored by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s , August 8-15, 1987, Snowbird, Utah. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Getty Center for Educat ion i n the A r t s (]S88&) . Iss ues in di s c i pi i ne-bas ed art education: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons. Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Trust. Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s (1988b). Perceptions of.discipline-based art educat i on and the Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s (1988c). F i r s t impressions. In Getty Center Newsletter. Summer 1988. Los Angeles: Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Getty Museum (1978). The J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Museum. Getty Museum (1986). The J. Paul Getty museum handbook of the collections. Malibu, C a l i f o r n i a : The J . Paul Getty Museum. 252 Getty Trust (1985). The J. Paul Getty Trust: Program review, 1981 - 1985. Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Trust. Glaeser, W. (1973). A r t , concepts of r e a l i t y , and the consequences of the " c e l e b r a t i o n of peoples." Studies in Art Education, 75(1), 34-43. Gl a z e r , N. (1984). The s t r u c t u r e of e t h n i c i t y . Public Opinion, October/November, 2-6. Gluck, P.G. (1984). Q u a l i t y versus ideology: A note on " e l i t i s m " and " c u l t u r a l democracy." Journal of Aesthetic Education, 18(2), 77-88. Godkin, E.L. (1870, November 10). Autotypes and oleography. The Nat i on, 317-318. Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. I n d i a n a p o l i s : B o b b s - M e r r i l l . Goodman, N. (1983). Notes from the underground. Art Education, 36(2), 34-35. Gordon, M.M. (1964). Assimilation in american l i f e . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Gove, P.B. (Ed.). (1971). Webster's third new international dictionary. S p r i n g f i e l d Massachusetts: G & C Merriam Co. Pu b l i s h e r s . 253 Gray, J.U. (1984). C o a x i a l connections: Art education i n Canada. Art Educat i on, 57(5), 6-8. Gray, J . U. (1987a). A s e v e n t y - f i v e percent s o l u t i o n f or the success of DBAE. Art Education, 40(5), 54~57. Gray, J.U. (1987b). To L with DBAE: L i m i t a t i o n s of L a n i e r , Lansing, and Lankford. Studies in Art Educat i on, 25(4), 243-245. Green, H. (1966). Walter Smith: The forgotten man. Art Education, 19(1), 3-10. Greer, W.D. (1984). D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education: Approaching a r t as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 212-218. Greer, W.D. (1987). A s t r u c t u r e of d i s c i p l i n e concepts f o r DBAE. Studies in Art Educat i on, 28(4), 227-233. Greer, W.D. & Rush, J.C. (1985). A grand experiment: The Getty I n s t i t u t e s f o r Educators on the V i s u a l A r t s . Art Education, 38(\), 32-35. Hadas, M. (1968). Humanism: The contin u i n g i d e a l . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 2(3), 11-19. Hamblen, K.A. (1983). The c o g n i t i v e umbrella. Studies in Art Education, 24(3), 177-183. 254 Hamblen, K.A. (1987a). An examination of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education i s s u e s . Studies in Art Education, 28(2), 68-78. Hamblen, K.A. (1987b). What general education can t e l l us about e v a l u a t i o n i n a r t . Studies in Art Educat i on, 25(4), 246-250. Hamblen, K.A. (1988a). Approaches to a e s t h e t i c s i n a r t education: A c r i t i c a l theory p e r s p e c t i v e . Studies in Art Education, 29(2), 81-90. Hamblen, K.A. (1988b). What does DBAE teach? Art Education, 41(2), 23-35. Hausman, J . J . (1985). Review: An a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s view. Art Education, 38(5), 52-53. Hausman, J . J . (1987). Another view of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Art Education, 40(\), 56-59. Hepburn, R.W. (1968). A e s t h e t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n of nature. In H. Osborne (Ed.), Aesthetics in the modern world (pp. 49-66). New York: Weybright and T a l l e y . Hesse, M. (1980). Revolution and reconstruction in the philosophy of science. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press. 255 Heussenstamm, F.K. (1971). Humanizing higher education. Art Educati on, 24(3), 17-18 . Hewett, G.J., & Rush, J.C. (1987). F i n d i n g buried t r e a s u r e s : A e s t h e t i c scanning w i t h c h i l d r e n . Art Education, 40(1), 41-43. Hobbs, J.A. (1984). Popular a r t versus f i n e a r t . Art Educat ion, 37(3) , 11-14'. Hobbs, J . (1985). Response to Smith's "A r i g h t to the best." Studies in Art Education, 26(3), 176-180. H o d s o l l , F.S. (1987). Address to the Getty Center Conference on Art education. Keynote Speech. In Getty Center, Di scipii ne-based art educat i on: What forms will it take? (pp. 104-113). Proceedings of a N a t i o n a l Conference sponsored by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the a r t s . Los Angeles. Hoffa, H. (1971). Art as humanism. Art Education, 24(3), 8-21. Holden, C D . (1978). A e s t h e t i c education, a e s t h e t i c l i t e r a c y , and the a r t s i n general education: Curriculum i s s u e s . Art Education, 31(3), 23-27. Holloway, H., & George, J . (1979). Publ i c opinion. New York: St. Martin's Press. 256 H o l s t i , O.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Company. I a n n i , F.A. (1968). The a r t s as agents for s o c i a l change: an ant h r o p o l o g i s t ' s view. Art Educat i on, 21(1), 15-20. Ihde, D. (1972). Youthcult and youthmyth. Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 6(1/2), 193-210. Johansen, P. (1979). An a r t a p p r e c i a t i o n teaching model for v i s u a l a e s t h e t i c education. Studies in Art Education, 20(3), 4-14. Johnson, N., & Ciganko, R. (1978). Coming to whose senses? P o t e n t i a l impact of a n a t i o n a l a r t s education p o l i c y . Studies in Art Education, 19(3), 21-24. Jones, R.L. (1974). A e s t h e t i c education: I t s h i s t o r i c a l precedents. Art Education, 27(9), 13-17. K e l l y , E. (1983). Philosophy, a e s t h e t i c experience, and the l i b e r a l a r t s . Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 17(3), 7-17. Kern, E.J. (1970). A proper f u n c t i o n for a r t education i n the s e v e n t i e s . Studies in Art Education, V o l . 12, No. 1, pp. 4 - 9. . 257 Kern, E.J. (1987). Antecedents of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education: State departments of education c u r r i c u l u m documents. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 35-36. Khatchadourian, H. (1980). Humanistic f u n c t i o n s of the a r t s today. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 14(2), 11-22. Kiesc h n i c k , W.F. (1985). The s i g n a l s of a r t to the workplace. In Beyond creating: The place for art in America's schools, (pp. 22-23). A report by the Getty Center f o r Education in the A r t s . Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Trust. Kjorup, S. (1977). F i l m as a meeting place of m u l t i p l e codes. In D. Perkins & B. Leondar (Eds.), The arts and cognition (pp. 20-47). Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press. Kleinbauer, W.E. (1987). Art h i s t o r y i n D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d A r t Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 205-217. La n i e r , V. (1979). Some c r i t i c i s m s of the 1977 NAEA commission r e p o r t . Studies in Art Education, 27(1), 5-16. L a n i e r , V. (1980). S ix items on the agenda for the e i g h t i e s . Art Education, 33(5), 16-23. 2 58 L a n i e r , V. (1985). D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education: Three is s u e s . Studies in Art Educat i on, 26(A) , 253-256. L a n i e r , V. (1987). ART, a f r i e n d l y a l t e r n a t i v e to DBAE. Art Education, 40(5), 46-52. Lansing, K.M. (1978). Art as a humanizing agent. Art Education, 31(8), 24-27. L a r r a i n , J . (1979). The concept of ideology. London: Hutchinson & Co. L t d . Lather, P. (1985). Empowering research methodol ogi es. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n . Chicago: March, 1985. Lederman, A. (1988). Art for the r e a l world. In J . Burton, A. Lederman, & P. London (Eds.), Beyond DBAE: The case for multiple visions of art educat i on (pp. 78-86). Massachusetts: The U n i v e r s i t y C o u n c i l on Art Education. Lee, H.N. (1957). The meaning of i n t r i n s i c value. In R. Lepley (Ed.), The language of value (pp. 178-196). New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press. L e v i , A.W. (1973). Homage to the square. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7(2), 1.1-34. L e v i , A.W. (1974). The poverty of the avant garde. Journal 259 of Aesthetic Education, 5(4), 5-27. L e v i , A.W. (1983). The humanities: Their essence, nature, f u t u r e . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 17(2), 5-17. Lids t o n e , J . (1988). A conversation with myself. In J . Burton, A. Lederman, & P. London (Eds.), Beyond DBAE: The case for multiple visions of art education (pp. 131-141). Massachusetts: The U n i v e r s i t y C o uncil on Art Educat i o n . London, P. (1988). To gaze at the s t a r s . In J . Burton, A. Lederman, & P. London (Eds.), Beyond DBAE: The case for multiple visions of art education (pp. 26-41). Massachusetts: The U n i v e r s i t y C o uncil on Art Education. Lovano-Kerr, J . (1985). I m p l i c a t i o n s of DBAE for u n i v e r s i t y education of teachers. Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 216-223. Lovano-Kerr, J . , & Zimmerman, E. (1977). M u l t i c u l t u r e teacher education program i n the a r t s . Art Education, 50(1), 34-38. MacDonald, D. (1963). A theory of mass c u l t u r e . In B. Rosenberg & D. White (Eds.), Mass culture: The-popular arts in America (pp. 59-73). New York: Free Press. MacGregor, R.N. (Ed.). (1984). Readings in Canadian art 260 education. Vancouver, B.C.: Western Education Development Group. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. MacGregor, R.N. (1985). An outside view of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education. Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 241-246. MacGregor, R.N. (1988). Curriculum reform: Some past p r a c t i s e s and current i m p l i c a t i o n s . In Getty Center, Issues i n Di s c i pi i ne-Bas e d Art Educat i on: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons. Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Trust. McCready, W., & Greeley, A. (1972). An end of American Catholicism? America, 125, 334-338. McFee, J.K. (1984). An a n a l y s i s of the g o a l , s t r u c t u r e , and s o c i a l context of the 1965 Penn State seminar and the 1983 Getty I n s t i t u t e for Educators on the V i s u a l a r t s . Studies in art education, 2J(4), 276-280. McFee, J.K. (1988). Art and s o c i e t y . In Getty Center, Issues in di s ci pi i ne-bas ed art education: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons (pp. 104-112). Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . McFee, J.K., & Degge, R.M. (1977). Art, culture, and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company, Inc. 261 Mcintosh, J.C. (1978). A f t e r the melting pot. Art Education, 31(6), 16-20. Machotka, P. (1970). V i s u a l a e s t h e t i c s and l e a r n i n g . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 4(3), 117-123. Manheim, H.L. (1977). Sociological research: Philosophy and methods. Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press. Mann, D.A. (1979). A r c h i t e c t u r e , a e s t h e t i c s , and p l u r a l i s m : Theories of ta s t e as a determinant of a r c h i t e c t u r a l standards. Studies in Art Education, 20(3), 15-29. Meyer, L.B. (1967). Music, the. arts, and ideas. Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. Meyer, S.J. (1981). The five dollar day. Albany: State U n i v e r s i t y of New York Press. M i t i a s , M. (1982). What makes an experience a e s t h e t i c ? Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 41(2), 157-169. Mulcahy, K.V. (1980). C u l t u r a l p o l i c y and "Kulturkampf." Journal of Aesthetic Education, 14(4), 48-53. Mulcahy, K.V. (1983). R e f l e c t i o n s on the humanities and american l i f e . Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 17(2), 118-121. Mulcahy, K.V. (1986). The humanities and the f a i l u r e of 262 american higher education: Reactions to W i l l i a m Bennett's To reclaim a legacy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(2), 98-102. Mutchler, B.I. (1975). Art h e r i t a g e c u r r i c u l u m . Art Education, 28(2), 10-11. Mutchler, B.I. ( 1 976). American a r t h e r i t a g e . Art Educat i on, 29(5), 19-21. Muth, H. (1988). A commentary on DBAE. Art Educat i on, 41(2), 19-22. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. (1983). Washington, D.C: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . N a t i o n a l Art Education A s s o c i a t i o n (1977). Report of the NAEA commission on art educat i on. Reston, V i r g i n i a : NAEA. Osborne, H. (1971). Taste and judgment i n the a r t s . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 5(4), 13-28. P a r r o t t , J . (1986). Developing excellence through c u r r i c u l u m i n a r t . Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 20(3), 67-75. Parton, J . (1869). On p o p u l a r i z i n g a r t . The Atlantic Monthly, 349-357. 263 Pepper, S.C. (1949). Principles of art appreciation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. Pepper, S.C. (1958). The sources of value. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Poore, H.R. (1903). Pictorial compos i t i on and the critical judgment of pictures. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. P o r t e r , J . (1965). The vertical mosaic: An analysis of social class and power in Canada. Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press. P r i c e , K. (1979). What makes an experience a e s t h e t i c ? British Journal of Aesthetics, 19(2), 131-143. Rabkin, E.S. (1978). Ways of knowing i n the humanities. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 72(1), 105-107. Redfern, H.B. (1986). Questions in aesthetic educat i on. London: A l l e n & Unwin. R i d l e s s , R. (1984). Ideology and art: Theories of mass culture from Walter Benjamin to Umberto Eco. New York: Peter Lang. R i s a t t i , H. (1987). A r t c r i t i c i s m i n D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 217-226. 264 R o c k e f e l l e r (1977). Coming to our senses: The significance of the arts for American education. A r t s , Education and Americans Panel, D. R o c k e r f e l l e r , J r . (Chr.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rokeach, M. (1979). Understandi ng human values. New York: The Free Press. Romanish, B.A. (1983). Modern secondary economics textbooks and i d e o l o g i c a l b i a s . Theory and Research in Social Educati on, 17(1), 1-24. Rosenblum, P. (1981). The popular c u l t u r e and a r t education. Art Education, 34(\), Rush, J.C. (1979). Can the a r t s teach t h i n k i n g ? A look at a r t i s t i c conceptual behavior. Art Education, 52(3), 6-8. Rush, J.C. (1987). I n t e r l o c k i n g Images: The conceptual core of a D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art l e s s o n . Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 206-220. Rush, J . C , & Conant, H. ( 1979). E x c e l l e n c e : The key to educating v i s u a l a r t i s t s . Art Educati on, 32(8), 8-14. Rush, J . C , Greer, D.W. , & F e i n s t e i n . ( 1986). The Getty I n s t i t u t e : P u t t i n g educational theory i n t o p r a c t i s e . Journal of Aest het i c 'Educat i on, 20(1), 85-95. Samuda, R.J., Berry, J.W., & L a F e r r i e r e , M. (Eds.). (1984). Multiculturalism in Canada: Social and educational perspectives. Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. Se r a f i n e , M.L. (1979). P e r s i s t e n t myths about a r t s education. Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 13(3), 5-16. Sharer, J.W. (1980). D i s t i n g u i s h i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n s and explanations i n judgments of a r t . Studies in Art Education, 21(2), 38-42. S h i e l d s , A. (1973). Wilderness, i t s meaning and value. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 11(3). Shuman, R.B. (1980). Toward r e d e f i n i n g the humanistic p e r s p e c t i v e . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 14(4), 91-103. Silverman, R.H. (1988). E g a l i t a r i a n i s m of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Art Education, 41(2), 13-18. Simpson. J.A. (1976). Towards cultural democracy. Strasbourg: C o u n c i l of Europe. Smith, D.E. (1974). The s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of documentary r e a l i t y . Sociological Inquiry, 44(4), 257-268. Smith, R.A. (Ed.). (1966). Aesthetics and criticism in art educat i on. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. 266 Smith, R.A. (1968). A e s t h e t i c c r i t i c i s m : The method of ae s t h e t i c education. Studies in Art Educat i on, 9(3), 12-31. Smith, R.A. (1969). On the t h i r d domain - Ae s t h e t i c i n q u i r y and humanities education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 3(2), 5—10. Smith, R.A. (1970). Art and a e s t h e t i c statesmanship i n american education. Art Education, 23(6), 13-15. Smith, R.A. (1971). On the t h i r d domain - C r i t i c i s m and the common good. Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 5(4), 5-11. Smith, R.A. (1973a). On the t h i r d domain: Notes on the aesthetosphere. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7(3), 5-8. Smith, R.A. (1973b). C u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s and teacher preparation i n the a r t s . Art Educat i on, 26(8)", 16-19. Smith, R.A. (1973c). Teaching a e s t h e t i c c r i t i c i s m i n the schools. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7(1), 38-49. Smith, R.A. (1975). C u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s , the a e s t h e t i c w e l f a r e , and educational research. Studies in Art Education, 16(2), 5-11 . Smith, R.A. (1976). A r t , s o c i e t y and education. Art 267 Education, 29(6), 4~9. Smith, R.A. (1978). The naked piano p l a y e r : Or, what the R o c k e r f e l l e r Report Coming to our senses r e a l l y i s . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 12{\), 45-61. Smith, R.A. (.1980). The de-schooling of a r t education: How i t ' s happening and what to do about i t . Art Educat i on, 33(3), 8-10. Smith, R.A. (1981a). E l i t i s m versus populism: A question of q u a l i t y . Art Education, 34(4), 4-5. Smith, R.A. (1981b). A r t , the human career, and a e s t h e t i c education. Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 15(3), 9-25. Smith, R.A. (1982). On the t h i r d realm - E l i t i s m versus populism: The con t i n u i n g debate. Journal of Aesthetic Educati on, 16(\), 5-10. Smith, R.A. (1983a). The a r t s i n general education ideology: Some c r i t i c a l observations. Art Educati on, 36(4), 34-38. Smith, R.A. (1983b). On the t h i r d realm - Remoralization and a e s t h e t i c education: R e f l e c t i o n s on Truth and credibility: The citizen's dilemma by Harry S. Broudy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7 7 ( 1 ) , 5-13. Smith, R.A. (1984a). The a e s t h e t i c s of Monroe C. Beardsley: 268 Recent work. Studies in Art Education, 25(3), 141-150. Smith, R.A. (1984b). From a e s t h e t i c c r i t i c i s m to humanistic understanding: A p r a c t i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n . Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 238-244. Smith, R.A. (1985). A r i g h t to the best: Or, once more, e l i t i s m versus populism i n a r t education. Studies in Art Education, 26(3), 169-175. Smith, R.A. (1987a). I n t r o d u c t i o n . Journal of Aesthetic Educati on, 21(2), i x - x i x . Smith, R.A. (1987b). The changing image of a r t education: T h e o r e t i c a l antecedents of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 3-34. Smith, R.A., & Smith, CM. (1970a). J u s t i f y i n g a e s t h e t i c education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 4(2), 37-51. Smith, R.A., & Smith, C A . (1970b). A e s t h e t i c s and environmental education. Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 4(A), 125-140. S p r a t t , F.* (1-987). Art Production i n D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d A r t Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 197-204. Stankiewicz, M.A. (1984). A p i c t u r e age: Reproductions i n 269 p i c t u r e study. Studies in Art Educat i on, 26(2), 86-92. Stewart, W. (1971). Humanism and i n q u i r y i n a r t education. Arte Education, 24(3), 19-21. Stewart, W. (1972). A humanistic study of the v i s u a l a r t s , the commitment, r i s k , and p o t e n t i a l . Art Education, 25(2), 2-3. S t o l n i t z , J . ( i 9 6 0 ) . Aesthetics and philosophy of art criticism: A critical introduction. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . S troh, C. (1974). Art i n the general c u r r i c u l u m : A plea for emphasis on the c o g n i t i v e . Art Education, 27(9), 20-21. Swanger, D. (1981). Ideology and a e s t h e t i c education. Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 15(2), 33~43. T a t a r k i e w i c z , W. (1980). A history of six ideas: An essay in aesthetics. Warsaw: PWN/Polish S c i e n t i f i c P u b l i s h e r s . T a y l o r , A. (1975). The c u l t u r a l roots of a r t education: A report and some models. Art Education, 28(5), 8-13. Trudeau, P.E. (1971). House of commons debates, October 8, 1971. Ottawa: House of Commons. Ulanov, B. (1965). The two worlds of american art: The private and the popular. New York: The Macmillan 270 Company. Wheeler, D,K, (1970). A e s t h e t i c education and c u r r i c u l u m . Journal of Aest het i c 'Educat i on, 4(2), 87-108. W i l l , F.L. (1983). Reason and t r a d i t i o n . Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 17(A), 91-105. W i l l i a m s , R. (1958). Cul ture and society. London: Chatto and Windus. W i l l i a m s , R, (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: OUP. Wi l l i a m s , R. (1981). Culture. Glasgow: F o n t a n a / C o l l i e r . W i l l i a m s , R.M. (1968). The concept of values. In D.L. S i l l s (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences, Vol. 16 (pp. 283-287). New York: Macmillan and Free Press. W i l l i a m s , R.M. (1970). American society: A sociological i nt er pr et at i on. New York: Knopf. W i l l i a m s , R.M. (1979). Change and s t a b i l i t y i n values and value systems: A s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Underst andi ng human values (pp. 15-46). New York: The Free Press. Williamson, J.B., Karp, D.A., Dalphin, J.R., & Gray, P.S. (1982). The research craft: An introduction to social 271 \ j research methods. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company. Winthrop, H. (1972). The pop i n t e l l e c t u a l as a n t i c h r i s t . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 6(1/2), 211-229. Winthrop, H. (1974). The untermensch i n popular c u l t u r e . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 8(1), 107-109. Wolff, J . (1983). Aesthetics and the sociology of art. London: George A l l e n & Unwin. Wyatt, J . (1984). I m p l i c a t i o n s of m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m for cu r r i c u l u m . In S. Shapson & V. D'Oyley (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives (pp. 71-92). Clevedon, Avon: M u l t i l i n g u a l Matters L t d . Z a n g w i l l , I . (1909). The melting pot. New York: Macmillan. Z e l l e r , T. (1983). Let's teach a r t with o r i g i n a l s . Art Education, 36(1), 43-45. Z e l l e r , T. (1984). "A nation at r i s k . " A mandate for change in a r t s education. Art Education, 37(A), 6-9. Zimmerman, E. (1982). Digraph a n a l y s i s and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of Broudy's a e s t h e t i c education theory: An exemplar for a e s t h e t i c education theory a n a l y s i s and c o n s t r u c t i o n . Studies in Art Educat i on, 23(3), 39-47. Zimmerman, E. (1988). Response to Dennie Wolf's paper, "The 272 growth of three a e s t h e t i c stances: What developmental psychology suggests about D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education." In Getty Center, Issues in Di s ci pi i ne-Bas ed Art Education: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons (pp. 101-103). Seminar proceedings. An I n v i t a t i o n a l Seminar sponsored by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . APPENDIX A THE GETTY LITERATURE This l i s t contains the p u b l i c l y a v a i l a b l e documents d i s c u s s i n g the Getty's DBAE program which are produced and/or sanctioned by the Getty T r u s t . These documents are supportive of the a e s t h e t i c values expressed i n DBAE and act as the main source of information for the study. The study i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with an a n a l y s i s of the " i d e a l " c u r r i c u l u m as expressed i n t h i s body of l i t e r a t u r e . Bennett, W.J. (1987). Address to the Getty Center conference on a r t education. Keynote Speech. In Getty Center, Discipline-Based Art Education: What forms will it take? (pp. 32-41). Proceedings of a Na t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference Sponsored by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles. Boyer, E.L. (1985). Art as language: I t s place i n the schools. In Getty Center, Beyond Creating: The place for art in America's schools (pp. 8-9). A Report by the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The J.Paul Getty Trust. Boyer, E.L. (1987). The a r t s , language, and the schools. 273 274 Keynote Speech. In Getty Center, Discipii ne-based art education: What forms will it take (pp. 46-51). Proceedings of a Na t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference sponsored by the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles. Broudy, H.S. (1987a). Theory and p r a c t i c e i n a e s t h e t i c education. Studies in Art Educat i on, 28(4), 198-205. Broudy, H.S. (1987b). The role of imagery in learning. Occasional Paper 1. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s C l a r k , G.A., Day, M.D., & Greer, W.D. (1987). D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education: Becoming students of a r t . Studies in Art Educat i on, 21 (2), 129-196. Crawford, D.W. (1987). A e s t h e t i c s i n D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 227-242. Day, M.D. (1987). D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education i n secondary classrooms. Studies in Art Education, 28(4), 234-242. 275 D i B l a s i o , M.K. (1985a). Escaping narrowness: Broader v i s i o n s for a r t s c u r r i c u l a . Design for AT t s i n Education. 86(5), 28-30. D i B l a s i o , M.K. (1985b). Continuing the t r a n s l a t i o n : Further d e l i n e a t i o n of the DBAE format. Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 197-205. D i B l a s i o , M.K. (1987). R e f l e c t i o n s on the theory of Di s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. St udi es in Art Education, 25(4), 221-226. Dobbs, S.M. (Ed.). (1988). Research readings for Di sci pi i ne-Bas-ed .Art Educat i on: A journey beyond creating. A P u b l i c a t i o n of the Na t i o n a l Art Education A s s o c i a t i o n . Reston, V i r g i n i a : NAEA. Duke, L.L. (1983). The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Art Education, 36(5), 4~8. Duke, L.L. (1984a). S t r i v i n g f or excellence i n a r t s education. Design for Arts in Education, 85(3), 45-46. Duke, L.L. (1984b). The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Phi Delta Kappan, 65(9), 612-614. 276 Duke, L.L. (1986). The r o l e of p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s i n a r t education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(4), 48-49. Duke, L.L. (1988). The Getty Center for Education i n the Ar t s and D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Art Education, 41{2) , 7-12. Ef l a n d , A.D. (1987). Curriculum antecedents of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 57-94. E i s n e r , E.W. (1985). Why a r t i n education and why a r t education. In Getty Center, Beyond cr eat i ng: The place for art in America' s schools (pp. 64-69). A report by the Getty Center for EDucation i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty T r u s t . E i s n e r , E.W. (1987a). S t r u c t u r e and magic i n d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education. Keynote Speech. In Getty Center, Discipline-Based Art Education: What forms will it take? (pp. 6-21). Proceedings of a N a t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference sponsored by the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . LOs Angeles. E i s n e r , E.W. (1987b). The role of Discipline-Based Art 277 Education in Ameri ca' s school s . A report prepared for the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles. Getty Center f o r Education on the Ar t s (1985). Beyond creating: The place for art in America's schools. A report by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Trust. Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s (1986). Beyond creating: Roundtabl e seri es . Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s (1987a). Discipline-Based Art Education: What forms will it take? Proceedings of a N a t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference sponsored by the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s (1987b). The preservice challenge: Discipline-Based Art Education and recent reports of higher educat i on. Program from a Na t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Seminar sponsored by the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s , August 8-15, 1987, Snowbird, Utah. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . 278 Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s (1988a). Issues in di s ci pi i ne-bas ed art education: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons. Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty T r u s t . Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s (1988b). Perceptions of di s c i pi i ne-bas e d art education and the Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Los Angleles: The Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s (1988c). F i r s t impressions. In Getty Center Newsletter. Summer, 1988. Los Angeles: Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . Getty Trust (1985). The J. Paul Getty Trust: Program Review, 1981 - 1985. Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty T r u s t . Greer, W.D. (1984). D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education: Approaching a r t as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 212-218. Greer, W.D. (1987). A s t r u c t u r e of d i s c i p l i n e concepts for DBAE. Studies in Art Education, 28 (4) , 227-233. Greer, W.D. & Rush, J.C. (1985). A grand experiment: The 279 Getty I n s t i t u t e s for Educators on the V i s u a l A r t s . Art Education, 38(.), 32-35. H o d s o l l , F.S. (1987). Address to the Getty Center Conference on Art education. Keynote Speech. In Getty Center, Discipline-Based Art Educat i on: What forms will it take? (pp. 104-113). Proceedings of a Na t i o n a l Conference sponsored by the Getty Center for Education i n the a r t s . Los Angeles. Kern, E.J. (1987). Antecedents of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education: State departments of education c u r r i c u l u m documents. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 35-56. Kiesc h n i c k , W.F. (1985). The s i g n a l s of a r t to the workplace. In Getty Center Beyond creati ng: The place for art in America^ schools (pp. 22-23). A report by the Getty Center f o r Education i n the A r t s . Los Angeles: The J . Paul Getty Trust. Kleinbauer, W.E. (1987). A r t h i s t o r y i n D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d A r t Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 205-217. Lovano-Kerr, J . (1985). I m p l i c a t i o n s of DBAE for u n i v e r s i t y 280 education of teachers. Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 216- 223. R i s a t t i , H. (1987). Art c r i t i c i s m i n D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Educat i on, 21(2), 217- 226. Rush, J.C. (1984). E d i t o r i a l : Who decides? Studies in Art Educati on, 25(4), Rush, J.C. (1987). I n t e r l o c k i n g Images: The conceptual core of a D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art les s o n . Studies in Art Education, 28(A), 206-220. Rush, J . C , Greer, D.W. , & F e i n s t e i n . (1986). The Getty I n s t i t u t e : P u t t i n g educational theory i n t o p r a c t i s e . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(1), 85-95. Sevigny, M.J. (1987). D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education and teacher education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 95-128. Silverman, R.H. (1988). E g a l i t a r i a n i s m of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Art Education, 41(2), 13-18. Smith, R.A. (1987a). I n t r o d u c t i o n . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 27(2), i x - x i x . Smith, R.A. (1987). The changing image of a r t education: T h e o r e t i c a l antecedents of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 27(2), 3-34. Sp r a t t , F. (1987). Art Production i n D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 27(2), 197-204. APPENDIX B THE DBAE LITERATURE This l i s t c ontains documents concerned with DBAE but not n e c e s s a r i l y produced or sanctioned by the Getty Trust. These documents may e i t h e r be supportive or c r i t i c a l of the Getty and DBAE. Burton, J . , Lederman, A., & London, P. (Eds.). (1988). Beyond dbae: The case for mul t ipi e v/si ons of art education. Massachusetts: The U n i v e r s i t y C o u n c i l on Ar t Education. Chalmers, F.G. (1987a). Beyond current conceptions of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education. Art Education, 40(5), 58-61. Chalmers, F.G. (1987b). C u l t u r a l l y based versus u n i v e r s a l l y based understanding of a r t . In D. Blandy & K.G. Congdon (Eds.), Art in a democracy (pp. 4-12). New York: Teachers C o l l e g e . Ewens, T. (1988). In a r t education, more DBAE equals l e s s a r t . Design for Arts in Education. M a r c h / A p r i l . 282 283 G o e l l e r , J . M. (1985). Review: A teacher's view. Art Educat i on, 38(5), 53-54. Gray, J . U. (1987a). A sev e n t y - f i v e percent s o l u t i o n f or the success of DBAE. Art Education, 40(5), 54-57. Gray, J.U. (1987b). To L with DBAE: L i m i t a t i o n s of L a n i e r , Lansing, and Lankford. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 243-245. Hamblen, K.A. (1987a). An examination of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education i s s u e s . Studies in Art Education, 28(2), 68-78. Hamblen, K.A. (1987b). What general education can t e l l us about e v a l u a t i o n i n a r t . Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 246-250. Hamblen, K.A. (1988). What does DBAE teach? Art Education, 41(2), 23-35. Hausman, J . J . (1985). Review: An a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s view. Art Educat i on, 38(5), 52-53. 284 Hausman, J . J . (1987). Another view of D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Art Education, 40(\), 56-59. Huber, B.W. (1987). What does feminism have to o f f e r DBAE? or So what i f l i t t l e red r i d i n g hood puts aside her crayons to d e l i v e r g r o c e r i e s for her mother? Art Education, 40(3), 36-41. Jackson, P.W. (1987). Mainstreaming a r t : An essay on Di s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Educational Researcher, 16(6), 39-43. L a n i e r , V. (1985). D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education: Three iss u e s . Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 253-256. L a n i e r , V. (1987). ART, a f r i e n d l y a l t e r n a t i v e to DBAE. Art Education, 40(b), 46-52. Lewis, H.P. (1987). D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education: An overview. Art Education, 40(5), 4-5. McFee, J.K. (1984). An a n a l y s i s of the go a l , s t r u c t u r e , and s o c i a l context of the 1965 Penn stat e seminar and the 285 1983 Getty I n s t i t u t e for Educators on the V i s u a l A r t s . Studies in Art Educat ion, 25(4), 276-280. MacGregor, R.N. (1985). An outside view of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education. Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 241-246. Muth, H. (1988). A commentary on DBAE. Art Education, 41(2), 19-22. P i t t a r d , N.K. (1988). The ro m a n t i c i s t legacy and D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education. Art Educati on, 41(2), 42-47. Salome, R.A. (1987). E d i t o r i a l : Another look at DBAE. Studies in Art Educat i on, 25(4), 195-197. APPENDIX C THE GETTY TRUST AND THE OPERATING PROGRAMS THE GETTY TRUST OPERATING PROGRAMS 1. The J . Paul Getty Museum 2. The Getty Center for the H i s t o r y of Art and the Humanities 3. The Getty Conservation I n s t i t u t e 4. The Getty Art H i s t o r y Information Program 5. Getty Center for Education in the Arts This includes the I n s t i t u t e f or Educators on the V i s u a l A r t s . .6. Program for Art on F i l m 7. Museum Management I n s t i t u t e 286 287 These a c t i v i t i e s were l a t e r expanded to eight i n 1984 with the a d d i t i o n of 1. The Getty Grant Program * The operating a c t i v i t y which most concerns t h i s study i s the Getty Center for Education i n the A r t s . APPENDIX D CHRONOLOGY OF GETTY, DBAE, AND THE DOCUMENTS 1953 - Trust formed. C a l l e d the J . Paul Getty Museum. 1976 - (June) J . Paul Getty d i e s at the age of 83. Leaves huge f i n a n c i a l endowment to the T r u s t . 1981 - (May) Harold W i l l i a m s becomes c h i e f executive o f f i c e r and president of the Trust. 1981 - Trust begins i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the problems and issues i n the v i s u a l a r t s . 1982 - ( A p r i l ) J . Paul Getty's estate f i n a l l y s e t t l e d . 1982 - Center for Education i n the A r t s formed. 1983 - Trust's name changed from the J . Paul Getty Museum to the J . Paul Getty Trust. 1983 - Research p r o j e c t with Rand Corporation. I n v e s t i g a t i o n of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t programs. 1983 - (Summer) F i r s t I n s t i t u t e f or Educators on the V i s u a l A r t s . 1984 - (Summer) Second I n s t i t u t e f o r Educators on the V i s u a l A r t s . 1985 - P u b l i c a t i o n - Beyond creating: The place for art in Amer i ca's school s 1985 - (Oct) Roundtable Di s c u s s i o n 1 - Boston. 1985 - (Dec) Roundtable Discussion 2 - S e a t t l e . 1986 - (Apr) Roundtable Discussion 3 - New Orleans. 288 289 1986 - (May) Roundtable Di s c u s s i o n 4 - Chicago. 1986 - P u b l i c a t i o n - Beyond creating: Roundtable series. 1987 - (Jan) F i r s t N a t i o n a l I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference, Los Angeles. " D i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d a r t education: What forms w i l l i t take? 1987 - P u b l i c a t i o n (Summer) 10 papers commissioned by the Getty Center appeared i n the Journal of Aesthetic Education, 27(2). 1987 - (May) I n v i t a t i o n a l Seminar, C i n c i n n a t i , Ohio. "Issues i n D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education: Strengthening the stance, extending the horizons." 1987 - (Aug) Seminar, Snowbird, Utah. "The P r e s e r v i c e Challenge: D i s c i p l i n e - B a s e d Art Education and Recent Reports on Higher Education. 1987 - P u b l i c a t i o n - Discipline-Based Art Education: What forms will it take? 1987 - P u b l i c a t i o n - Broudy, H. The role of imagery in learning. 1987 - P u b l i c a t i o n - E i s n e r , E.W. The role of Discipiine-Based Art Educati on in America's schools. 1988 - P u b l i c a t i o n - Issues in Discipline-Based Art Education: Strengthening the stance, extending the hori zons. 1988 - P u b l i c a t i o n - A book of readings sponsored by the Getty. Dobbs, (Ed.). Research readings for 290 Discipline-Based Art Education: A journey beyond creating. 1988 - P u b l i c a t i o n - Perceptions of Di sci pi i ne-Based Art Education and the Getty Center for Education in the Ar t s . 1988 - P u b l i c a t i o n - Getty Center Newsletter, J, Summer. APPENDIX E KEY VALUE CONCEPTS The Getty l i t e r a t u r e was analyzed according to three questions (see p. 40). 438 statements were e x t r a c t e d and c l a s s i f i e d according to the f o l l o w i n g concepts. CONCEPT TIMES MENTIONED 1. A e s t h e t i c s 98 2. Culture 96 3. Fine Art 94 4. The Art Work 71 5. M i n d / I n t e l l e c t 64 6. Code/Literacy 56 7. Understanding 49 8. Meaning 45 9. Values 38 10. F o r m a l / S t r u c t u r a l 36 11 . C r i t e r i a / S t a n d a r d s 34 12. Judgment/Appraisal 26 13. Museums 23 14. Popular Art 1 6 15. Beauty 1 3 16. Adult Standards 1 2 17. Access 9 291 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055107/manifest

Comment

Related Items