I'm a bit disappointed that there hasn't been more response to Marvin's post
about aesthetic questioning. ( I did read Mark's and I also have questions
about those parades of animals that have invaded our cities. My county
recently did mules. The cost to participate was exorbitant. My attitude is
"give artist's money to make art don't ask them to pay money to decorate
mass produced forms.")
But back to what Marvin wrote.
I think one of the big weaknesses in art education is the lack of attention
to aesthetics. I weed through all the posts to this list about lessons, and
technique, about practical teaching concerns, about rubrics and evaluating
.... but there is hardly ever any talk about aesthetics.
It IS one of the Standards, but I think the least regarded. Aesthetics is
about appreciating and valuing and just what is beauty.
I really like Marvin's questions about individuality and conformity and how
we conform or deviate from the cultural identity.
I think part of the problem with contemporary art is a lack of a basis in
aesthetic questioning. Shocking and offense is not necessarily creative,
yet so much of contemporary art falls into that category. And certainly
integrity is nearly disregarded. Mimicry and derivation have replaced
serious inquiry into process. My god, we derive the derivations...
I truly believe we have to take some time from standards and discipline an
go back to look at soul and intent.
Marvin writes:
We often hear that we should, "use things and care for people." This is
half-true. If we furnish our houses and schools with only indestructible,
childproof, throwaway, and discardable objects; it teaches children to be
careless in the use of things. On the other hand, if they use beautiful
objects and something of value is damaged, a teachable moment occurs. Grief
is expressed and real values are learned. Children learn about caring. When
children learn to care for things, caring becomes habitual. It is extended
to people. Art and craft lessons can teach children to care for things as
well as for those around them. For a classroom to have examples of finely
crafted items fosters an attitude of caring.
One day before Christmas I was listening to a report about the demise of FAO
Scwhartz. The reasoning was that kids today want "throwaway toys." There is
no longer value for the kind of product FAO is known for. I'm not sure
that is true. In discussions with my high school students, the toys they
have kept and remembered are not the "throwaways." And we have had and
long discussions on why they hold onto to certain items.
We make connections and it's usually very emotional.
Connections
on the basic level aesthetics is about informed "taste" it's about form
and function it's about fashion
and I think my job as an instructor of the visual arts is to make some
guides for selecting some alternatives to cognitive reasoning and to
understand the aesthetic expression as a social initiative process
the aesthetic is part of the process of the construction of personal and
cultural identity
30 years ago when I was in art school I had classes in aesthetics - we
grappled with unanswerable questions
I don't see those classes in course outlines anymore
I don't see philosophy in course outlines any more
If we maintain the standards who is being taught to wrestle with the
questions? And how does the naive aesthetic fit in?
I sometimes have no wonder as to why every one gets fooled all the time.
