ARE6094 Reading Review 5
Introduction
Vincent Lanier was a professor of art education during a time when much discussion was taking place as to the purpose of the discipline. He was opinionated and bold in his writings, suggesting a shift in priorities as well as a change of direction in art education. He thought that the curriculum of his time did not reflect the unique contributions that art education could offer, benefits that no other area of study could present to education. His appeal was for art curriculum to be relevant and to focus on aesthetic education rather than studio production (Lanier, 1975).
A Different Opinion
Lanier did not agree with the picture study movement or Arthur Wesley Dow from the 1930s and 1940s, nor was he a supporter of the 1950s emphasis on the importance of creativity. Even though the 1960s and 1970s brought about “a wealth of new ideas such as aesthetic education, visual literacy, environmental design, structured and sequenced art content, related arts, humanities, and film arts” (Lanier, 1974, p. 12) he felt there was still no evidence of change in the art classroom. The art classroom was still maintained as a studio promoting the development of creativity.
Lanier (1974) believed a “proper aesthetic education curriculum would focus on the question…what happens to us when we react to art” (p. 14). Lanier felt there should be no distinction made between the popular arts such as folk art, pop art, and mass media and the fine arts. It was his opinion that art educators were ignoring the visual imagery from film, TV, and advertising that surrounded their students. Curriculum from Lanier’s point of view should be centered on things well within the cultural environment of the students. It should “examine aesthetic response to all visual phenomena, including natural objects, popular arts, commercial and industrial forms, as well as the fine arts” (Lanier, 1984, p. 233). Basically, Lanier believed the bulk of classroom time should be spent on aesthetic education rather than creating art.
Lanier also promoted the use of technology. He supported educators having access to all types of visual images and stressed the importance of using media such as motion pictures, videos, and television to teach aesthetic education. Lanier (1984) emphasized that “priority should be given to the most recent appropriate examples” (p. 234). Being relevant was necessary to engage the student and enhance the aesthetic experience. Special care should be taken to select “material for curriculum content relevant to the largest portion of the learner group” (p. 235).
Personal Reflections
Reading Vincent Lanier’s writings gave me a better understanding of art education in the 1970s and 1980s and his vision of how art education should change. While I agree with some of his ideas, with others I must disagree.
As far as his beliefs on the impact of technology on the art classroom I can agree. Although it is hard for us to imagine schools without computers, during the 1970s and 1980s PCs were just making their way into the classroom. They were expensive and extra time and effort was required to learn how to operate them. Today it is hard to imagine our classrooms without technology. We have moved from chalkboards to smart boards and from easels to Elmos. There are now categories in art exhibits for iPhone art as well as colleges that specialize in media arts. I believe Lanier would be pleased.
Another idea of Lanier’s with which I can agree is stated in his eight guidelines for selecting art curriculum content. “A sixth guideline is the injunction to deal with the contemporary arts whenever possible. If there are viable options in selecting illustrative material, priority should be given to the most recent appropriate examples” (Lanier, 1984, p. 234). Although I do include a variety of artwork for each lesson I teach, I believe it is important for students to see artwork that they can relate to, artwork that is relevant and contemporary. Students are thrilled when a movie character like Olaf appears in a lesson.
The one recommendation of Lanier with which I cannot agree is the absence of creating art. This is the main focus of my classroom and I believe it is essential. Creating artwork teaches a student valuable skills and tools that can be applied throughout their life. They learn how to brainstorm and select an appropriate idea for a task. They learn different ways to present their ideas, how to overcome obstacles, and how to discuss and reflect on their work. They strengthen their abilities in areas of collaboration, negotiation, and flexibility. Students learn how to make choices to respond to their own thoughts, their own ideas, and their own interest, through making art. I believe Lanier missed the mark on this topic. Or he wanted to cause people to react!
References
Lanier, V. (1984). Eight guidelines for selecting art curriculum content. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 232-237.
Lanier, V. (1976). The future of art education or tiptoe through the tea leaves. Art Education, 29(3), 12-14.
Lanier, V. (1975). Returning the art to art education. Art Education, 28(3), 28-33.
Lanier, V. (1974). A plague on all your houses: The tragedy of art education. Art Education, 27(3), 12-15.
Lanier, V. (1969). The teaching of art as social revolution. The Phi Delta Kappan, 50(6), 314-319.
Lanier, V. (1966). Newer media and teaching art. Art Education,19(4), 4-8. Teaching for artistic behavior supports 21st century skills. (2015). In Teaching for Artistic Behavior. Retrieved February 20, 2015, from http://teachingforartisticbehavior.org/why-tab/21st-century-skills/
Vincent Lanier was a professor of art education during a time when much discussion was taking place as to the purpose of the discipline. He was opinionated and bold in his writings, suggesting a shift in priorities as well as a change of direction in art education. He thought that the curriculum of his time did not reflect the unique contributions that art education could offer, benefits that no other area of study could present to education. His appeal was for art curriculum to be relevant and to focus on aesthetic education rather than studio production (Lanier, 1975).
A Different Opinion
Lanier did not agree with the picture study movement or Arthur Wesley Dow from the 1930s and 1940s, nor was he a supporter of the 1950s emphasis on the importance of creativity. Even though the 1960s and 1970s brought about “a wealth of new ideas such as aesthetic education, visual literacy, environmental design, structured and sequenced art content, related arts, humanities, and film arts” (Lanier, 1974, p. 12) he felt there was still no evidence of change in the art classroom. The art classroom was still maintained as a studio promoting the development of creativity.
Lanier (1974) believed a “proper aesthetic education curriculum would focus on the question…what happens to us when we react to art” (p. 14). Lanier felt there should be no distinction made between the popular arts such as folk art, pop art, and mass media and the fine arts. It was his opinion that art educators were ignoring the visual imagery from film, TV, and advertising that surrounded their students. Curriculum from Lanier’s point of view should be centered on things well within the cultural environment of the students. It should “examine aesthetic response to all visual phenomena, including natural objects, popular arts, commercial and industrial forms, as well as the fine arts” (Lanier, 1984, p. 233). Basically, Lanier believed the bulk of classroom time should be spent on aesthetic education rather than creating art.
Lanier also promoted the use of technology. He supported educators having access to all types of visual images and stressed the importance of using media such as motion pictures, videos, and television to teach aesthetic education. Lanier (1984) emphasized that “priority should be given to the most recent appropriate examples” (p. 234). Being relevant was necessary to engage the student and enhance the aesthetic experience. Special care should be taken to select “material for curriculum content relevant to the largest portion of the learner group” (p. 235).
Personal Reflections
Reading Vincent Lanier’s writings gave me a better understanding of art education in the 1970s and 1980s and his vision of how art education should change. While I agree with some of his ideas, with others I must disagree.
As far as his beliefs on the impact of technology on the art classroom I can agree. Although it is hard for us to imagine schools without computers, during the 1970s and 1980s PCs were just making their way into the classroom. They were expensive and extra time and effort was required to learn how to operate them. Today it is hard to imagine our classrooms without technology. We have moved from chalkboards to smart boards and from easels to Elmos. There are now categories in art exhibits for iPhone art as well as colleges that specialize in media arts. I believe Lanier would be pleased.
Another idea of Lanier’s with which I can agree is stated in his eight guidelines for selecting art curriculum content. “A sixth guideline is the injunction to deal with the contemporary arts whenever possible. If there are viable options in selecting illustrative material, priority should be given to the most recent appropriate examples” (Lanier, 1984, p. 234). Although I do include a variety of artwork for each lesson I teach, I believe it is important for students to see artwork that they can relate to, artwork that is relevant and contemporary. Students are thrilled when a movie character like Olaf appears in a lesson.
The one recommendation of Lanier with which I cannot agree is the absence of creating art. This is the main focus of my classroom and I believe it is essential. Creating artwork teaches a student valuable skills and tools that can be applied throughout their life. They learn how to brainstorm and select an appropriate idea for a task. They learn different ways to present their ideas, how to overcome obstacles, and how to discuss and reflect on their work. They strengthen their abilities in areas of collaboration, negotiation, and flexibility. Students learn how to make choices to respond to their own thoughts, their own ideas, and their own interest, through making art. I believe Lanier missed the mark on this topic. Or he wanted to cause people to react!
References
Lanier, V. (1984). Eight guidelines for selecting art curriculum content. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 232-237.
Lanier, V. (1976). The future of art education or tiptoe through the tea leaves. Art Education, 29(3), 12-14.
Lanier, V. (1975). Returning the art to art education. Art Education, 28(3), 28-33.
Lanier, V. (1974). A plague on all your houses: The tragedy of art education. Art Education, 27(3), 12-15.
Lanier, V. (1969). The teaching of art as social revolution. The Phi Delta Kappan, 50(6), 314-319.
Lanier, V. (1966). Newer media and teaching art. Art Education,19(4), 4-8. Teaching for artistic behavior supports 21st century skills. (2015). In Teaching for Artistic Behavior. Retrieved February 20, 2015, from http://teachingforartisticbehavior.org/why-tab/21st-century-skills/