Throughout the
readings this week one common theme became very clear to me. That
is, art has meaning. It has purpose. By it's very definition, it is
always about something. It should be the goal of arts
education to provide students with the kind of literacy and
discretion necessary for interpretation and a more intelligent
process of creation. As Eisner puts it, “Helping students
understand that artists have something to say – and that they have
as well – is a fundamental aspect of learning in the arts. A
narrow focus on the technical mastery of the material or a
preoccupation with the quality of the form leads to a neglect of
matters of intention.”(p. 31).
The later part of
his admonition echos Freedman's point of view on formalism and the
limitations it places on arts curriculum.
“While [a formalist] model of
aesthetics appears only to facilitate an analysis of what is
contained within a work of art, it has actually conditioned students
to approach visual culture as a series of objects isolated from
larger social meanings....This model of aesthetics does not include
an analysis of use, function, underlying assumptions, social impact,
and so on, because its application does not tend to account
sociocultural aspects of visual culture.”(p.
27)
According
to Freedman, a purely formalist approach to interpretation is lacking
because strict analysis of this kind can not always provide adequate
understanding of a piece. For example, when formal qualities, such
as color or line are altered for symbolic or subjective reasons, the
formal paradigm cannot explain it. Often one must access cultural
knowledge or articulate emotional responses in order to construct
meaning. It is
important that students, both in the process of viewing and making
art can engage in a truly aesthetic experience, meaning that their
emotions are stirred and senses awakened. According to both Freedman
and Eisner, exercises in formal qualities alone don't go far enough.
The
articles by Terry Barrett really drive home the point that
intrinsically art has meaning and context that begs to be understood.
According to Barrett, art interpretation/criticism is persuasive
and should be thought of as creating a convincing argument for the
meaning of a particular work of art. Attention should be given to
not only the formal qualities, but to the cultural context of the
work, our emotional reaction to it, and what we know about the
artist's other work and life. I appreciated the succinct, practical
advise laid out in Barrett's principles for interpretation, most of
which can be utilized for a range of age and experience levels and I
am inclined to agree with the author about the importance of
interpretation as an aspect of criticism, assessment, and enjoyment
of art. I think Freedman makes an insightful point when she notes
that “For most students not training to be arts professionals, it
is probably less important to understand art facts than is is for
them to understand why the arts exist, the contributions of art to
individuals' lives, and its social significance.” (Freedman p. 32)
Intelligent interpretation is not only informed by
that understanding but can also help up to reach it.
You made a succinct connection between the articles when you stated that the authors are saying that artists are meaning makers and that includes both art production and viewing art. Artmaking is about response to ideas, stimuli, other artists' work. Freedman and many others view a strict emphasis on a formalist aesthetic as limiting to the students. You can imagine a much more vibrant approach to art teaching would meet the students where they are in their lives, inviting them to share their personal vision through the development of their visual voice. It is both about empowerment and a social justice issue. Art teachers are charged with the task of helping them decode their world and giving full voice to their imaginations.
ReplyDelete