Reading Review 2
Brenda McCullers
January 18, 2015
Summary
In the 1800s author, painter, and printmaker John Gadsby Chapman wrote The American Drawing-Book. In his book he listed reasons why art was important to learn. Some of the things he included were: making and understanding visual images, pleasure, improving hand-eye coordination, drawing skills for women’s handiwork and educating children, and to improve American goods and better compete with European manufacturers (Stankiewicz, 2001). It is the last reason listed that led to the inclusion of art within the school system.
During the late 1800s the most industrialized state in the nation was Massachusetts. The leading manufacturers were bringing in skilled draftsmen and designers from Europe to provide the needed services to design their goods. In an effort for these manufacturers to compete on the world market, the state passed legislation in 1870 requiring that free industrial or mechanical drawing be given to people over fifteen years of age and drawing be taught in public schools (Bolin, 1985).
Walter Smith, a respected and recognized English art instructor from the School of Design at South Kensington, “was hired as the director of drawing for the Boston schools” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 10). Smith held lectures and trained artists and teachers in his industrial drafting method of drawing instruction. He developed textbooks and organized student art exhibitions. In addition, he founded the Massachusetts Normal Art School. Art specialists were trained at the school to supervise classroom drawing and instruct teachers. Nonetheless, Smith was released from his position in 1882.
Around the same time, psychologist G. Stanley Hall was developing “a science of education based on laws of natural development” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 18). His study led to reform and recommendations for art educators to encourage more creative expression, something children needed, rather than simply teaching a technique. It was believed art education should be modeled “more on the practices of the kindergarten” incorporating exploration and discovery. Smith’s rigid style of instruction and art textbooks were updated and revised by Louis Prang. The new art-education textbooks integrated a less rigid method that included more pictorial and observational drawing.
In 1899, the first Massachusetts state drawing exhibition for public schools since Walter Smith had been the state art supervisor was held. An evaluation of the students’ work revealed weak industrial drawing skills but an increase in the use of color and nature drawings. The exhibit displayed a variety of media and an assortment of subject matter. Art education had refocused from “learning to draw through imitation and toward modernist ideas of art as creative self-expression” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 26). It was evident that art educators were making changes.
Prominent teachers like James Hall and Irene Weir implemented their own experiences and methods into their art curriculum. For example, Weir’s understanding of her students’ interest in drawing the human form inspired her to use personal brush drawings of children as examples for her lessons. The two also applied knowledge they gained from psychological research on children’s drawings. Hall believed, “respect for each child’s individuality, encouragement of self-expression, and support for seeing and creating beauty should permeate art teaching” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 28).
As art curriculum and teaching strategies changed, a new love for visual art produced by children began to develop. Children’s art started to appear in prominent exhibits and artists like Kandinsky and Gabriele Munter began collecting children’s art. (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 30). Similarities between modern paintings and children’s art raised questions and produced mixed opinions amid viewers and critics. While some believed in the “sophisticated knowledge of avant-garde artists,” others held that “children—and adult modern artists—painted what they had seen and expressed innate, innocent intelligence before the standardization of school and urban life had stupefied them and destroyed any potential for genius” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 32). Others like Belle Boas believed, “all children could create to some extent if placed in a creative, active atmosphere” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 32).
As schools continued to develop toward a more child-centered atmosphere, teachers like Ruth Faison Shaw (the inventor of finger paints), Florence Cane, and Victor D’Amico worked to develop teaching methods to enhance spontaneity, playfulness, and a creative imagination. Although they differed in some ways they agreed that the children’s interest and needs should direct their creative expression. They also agreed that teachers should follow the “artistic development revealed by psychological research” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 37).
In private schools where smaller classes, flexible schedules, space, and ample budgets existed, many of the progressive teaching methods were easy to apply. However, this method of teaching art was not as easy to carry out in the public school systems. This resulted in a swing back towards approaching art education in a more structured, disciplined-centered instruction.
Personal Reflection
The history of art education during this road of time was not straight. There were many twists and turns along the way. As time progressed, art classes transformed from adult-centered classes to child-centered classes to a more discipline-centered classroom. The rigid, mechanical, technical discipline of art curriculum changed to one of exploration, discovery, and self-expression, then back to one more structured and disciplined. Fortunately the art educator today has the benefit of learning from art educators of the past.
Most important, the initial reason art was introduced into American schools—for students to learn necessary skills to help prepare them for their future lives—is still important today. While methods of the past can be incorporated into curriculum, the present day art educator needs to implement current, contemporary issues that prepare students for their future lives. With current technology increasing exposure to violence, abuse, sexuality, and the likes on a regular basis, today’s art educator must understand, “while children are different from adults they are not as different as we often like to imagine” (Duncum, 2002, p. 104). Children often struggle with many of the same thoughts, fears, and anxieties that adults struggle with. The art room can provide a place for children to learn creative skills while also learning how to express their fears and deepest concerns. Through research and study, successful methods from the past can be implemented, contemporary issues can be included, and self-exploration and creativity can be embraced.
References
Bolin, P. (1985). The influence of industrial policy on enactment of the 1870 Massachusetts free instruction in drawing act. In B. Wilson & H. Hoffa (Eds.). The history of art education: Proceedings from the Penn State conference (pp. 102-107). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Duncum, P. (2002). Children never were what they were: Perspectives on childhood. In Y. Gaudelius & P. Spiers (Eds.) Contemporary issues in art education (pp. 97- 107). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, W. (1873). Teachers’ manual for teaching freehand drawing in primary schools.. Boston, MA: James R. Osgood and Company.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). Roots of art education practice. Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Brenda McCullers
January 18, 2015
Summary
In the 1800s author, painter, and printmaker John Gadsby Chapman wrote The American Drawing-Book. In his book he listed reasons why art was important to learn. Some of the things he included were: making and understanding visual images, pleasure, improving hand-eye coordination, drawing skills for women’s handiwork and educating children, and to improve American goods and better compete with European manufacturers (Stankiewicz, 2001). It is the last reason listed that led to the inclusion of art within the school system.
During the late 1800s the most industrialized state in the nation was Massachusetts. The leading manufacturers were bringing in skilled draftsmen and designers from Europe to provide the needed services to design their goods. In an effort for these manufacturers to compete on the world market, the state passed legislation in 1870 requiring that free industrial or mechanical drawing be given to people over fifteen years of age and drawing be taught in public schools (Bolin, 1985).
Walter Smith, a respected and recognized English art instructor from the School of Design at South Kensington, “was hired as the director of drawing for the Boston schools” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 10). Smith held lectures and trained artists and teachers in his industrial drafting method of drawing instruction. He developed textbooks and organized student art exhibitions. In addition, he founded the Massachusetts Normal Art School. Art specialists were trained at the school to supervise classroom drawing and instruct teachers. Nonetheless, Smith was released from his position in 1882.
Around the same time, psychologist G. Stanley Hall was developing “a science of education based on laws of natural development” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 18). His study led to reform and recommendations for art educators to encourage more creative expression, something children needed, rather than simply teaching a technique. It was believed art education should be modeled “more on the practices of the kindergarten” incorporating exploration and discovery. Smith’s rigid style of instruction and art textbooks were updated and revised by Louis Prang. The new art-education textbooks integrated a less rigid method that included more pictorial and observational drawing.
In 1899, the first Massachusetts state drawing exhibition for public schools since Walter Smith had been the state art supervisor was held. An evaluation of the students’ work revealed weak industrial drawing skills but an increase in the use of color and nature drawings. The exhibit displayed a variety of media and an assortment of subject matter. Art education had refocused from “learning to draw through imitation and toward modernist ideas of art as creative self-expression” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 26). It was evident that art educators were making changes.
Prominent teachers like James Hall and Irene Weir implemented their own experiences and methods into their art curriculum. For example, Weir’s understanding of her students’ interest in drawing the human form inspired her to use personal brush drawings of children as examples for her lessons. The two also applied knowledge they gained from psychological research on children’s drawings. Hall believed, “respect for each child’s individuality, encouragement of self-expression, and support for seeing and creating beauty should permeate art teaching” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 28).
As art curriculum and teaching strategies changed, a new love for visual art produced by children began to develop. Children’s art started to appear in prominent exhibits and artists like Kandinsky and Gabriele Munter began collecting children’s art. (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 30). Similarities between modern paintings and children’s art raised questions and produced mixed opinions amid viewers and critics. While some believed in the “sophisticated knowledge of avant-garde artists,” others held that “children—and adult modern artists—painted what they had seen and expressed innate, innocent intelligence before the standardization of school and urban life had stupefied them and destroyed any potential for genius” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 32). Others like Belle Boas believed, “all children could create to some extent if placed in a creative, active atmosphere” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 32).
As schools continued to develop toward a more child-centered atmosphere, teachers like Ruth Faison Shaw (the inventor of finger paints), Florence Cane, and Victor D’Amico worked to develop teaching methods to enhance spontaneity, playfulness, and a creative imagination. Although they differed in some ways they agreed that the children’s interest and needs should direct their creative expression. They also agreed that teachers should follow the “artistic development revealed by psychological research” (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 37).
In private schools where smaller classes, flexible schedules, space, and ample budgets existed, many of the progressive teaching methods were easy to apply. However, this method of teaching art was not as easy to carry out in the public school systems. This resulted in a swing back towards approaching art education in a more structured, disciplined-centered instruction.
Personal Reflection
The history of art education during this road of time was not straight. There were many twists and turns along the way. As time progressed, art classes transformed from adult-centered classes to child-centered classes to a more discipline-centered classroom. The rigid, mechanical, technical discipline of art curriculum changed to one of exploration, discovery, and self-expression, then back to one more structured and disciplined. Fortunately the art educator today has the benefit of learning from art educators of the past.
Most important, the initial reason art was introduced into American schools—for students to learn necessary skills to help prepare them for their future lives—is still important today. While methods of the past can be incorporated into curriculum, the present day art educator needs to implement current, contemporary issues that prepare students for their future lives. With current technology increasing exposure to violence, abuse, sexuality, and the likes on a regular basis, today’s art educator must understand, “while children are different from adults they are not as different as we often like to imagine” (Duncum, 2002, p. 104). Children often struggle with many of the same thoughts, fears, and anxieties that adults struggle with. The art room can provide a place for children to learn creative skills while also learning how to express their fears and deepest concerns. Through research and study, successful methods from the past can be implemented, contemporary issues can be included, and self-exploration and creativity can be embraced.
References
Bolin, P. (1985). The influence of industrial policy on enactment of the 1870 Massachusetts free instruction in drawing act. In B. Wilson & H. Hoffa (Eds.). The history of art education: Proceedings from the Penn State conference (pp. 102-107). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Duncum, P. (2002). Children never were what they were: Perspectives on childhood. In Y. Gaudelius & P. Spiers (Eds.) Contemporary issues in art education (pp. 97- 107). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, W. (1873). Teachers’ manual for teaching freehand drawing in primary schools.. Boston, MA: James R. Osgood and Company.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). Roots of art education practice. Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
