This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries]On: 18 October 2014, At: 15:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

British Journal of EducationalStudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbje20

Art or nature: A problem ofart in education and teachertrainingPhilip Meeson aa Senior Lecturer in Art , Brighton College ofEducationPublished online: 21 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Philip Meeson (1974) Art or nature: A problem of art ineducation and teacher training, British Journal of Educational Studies, 22:3,292-302, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.1974.9973415

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.1974.9973415

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ART OR NATURE: A PROBLEM OFART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHERTRAINING

by PHILIP MEESON, Senior Lecturer in Art, Brighton College of Education

\ Ithough the place of art in education is now assured, in the senseI—\ that there is now general recognition of its civilizing value in the

JL A. school curriculum, there remains little common agreementamongst educationalists or art teachers about the actual educational pur-poses which art serves. This lack of agreement normally takes two formsand arises from disagreement amongst teachers of art about the methodswhich should be adopted in teaching the subject, whether, for example,it should be seen as an instrument or vehicle for broader educational aimsthan are contained within the notion of art as a subject in the academicsense, or whether it should be taught in order to develop particulartechnical skills associated with the making of one sort of artefact or an-other. Both of these views of art education as commonly expressedcontain within them also various emphases deriving from individual viewsabout the nature of art and of education, but broadly speaking opinionabout the aims of art education tends to divide itself either along the linesof the notion of art as a subject with its own individual and distinct modesof thought or of the notion of art as a quasi-natural process by means ofwhich certain goals may be attained not necessarily having in themselvesanything to do with art in this more specialized sense. In this paper I wantto examine both these views of art and to show how, because they are inmany ways conflicting, they may be the source of much of the confusionwhich surrounds art education at the moment.

As Quentin Bell,1 Gordon Sutton,2 and Stuart Macdonald,3 havedescribed, art entered general education largely in response to a demandin the nineteenth century for skilled industrial artisans. The aim ofart education at this stage of its history was relatively simple, it wasto develop in those children considered to have sufficient aptitude thenecessary manual skills to enable them to become, after training, skilledindustrial artisans capable of transforming a designer's instructions intoa manufactured product. This orientation of what was art education onlyin a very technical sense towards industry and manufacture excluded

292

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

much that would come within the province of fine art and indeed it wasnot until the latter years of the century that the notion of fine art becameacceptable as in any way relevant to art education, at least in its earlierstages.4 The main line of development in art education thereafter tookthe form of a gradual accommodation between a severely technical viewor craft view of art and an alternative view, centred about a view ofart which adhered closely to 'fine art' notions, which gave greateremphasis to aesthetic factors involving taste and artistic discriminationand with those broadly cultural aspects of art which link it with the otherarts and with the historical development of civilization as a whole. Inmore recent years and running counter to what might be called this fineart/craft view of art a radically alternative view has had a profoundinfluence on art education. This looks upon art education as a generalizededucational concept which does not posit any particular outcome forartistic activity in the form of a particular artefact but sees art as part ofa broad educational process within which it acts simply to facilitate learn-ing in a general sense. Such a view closely associated with the writings ofJohn Dewey,5 Herbert Read,6 and Viktor Lowenfeld7 attaches much lessimportance to the acquisition of skill and to the evaluation of the resultsof the art lesson against explicit technical standards or formal criteriabut relies more upon a looser definition of art which is closer in reality toa generalized notion of creativity than to the traditional notion of art andwhich is almost entirely alien to the notion of art as craftsmanship.

Craft education in its more restricted nineteenth-century sense has nowgiven way to a broader concept of art education within which craft ortechnical skill is seen only as a necessary requirement in the making of anartefact of one sort or another not as it was understood in the nineteenthcentury as a particular skill having a direct application in manufacture.The fine art concept of art education has also moved away from its earlierconnotation which implied a close adherence to the academic traditionin art education, a tradition which attached prime importance to the skillof drawing, and has moved towards a somewhat broader view whichencompasses art appreciation, art history and those various inter-disciplinary and cross-subject groupings which link art with the broaderpattern of learning as a whole.

The main division of opinion and attitude in art education may be said,therefore, to mark fundamental differences of view about the significanceof the product or artefact which arises out of the engagement with thematerials of art. What might be termed the fine art/craft view placesconsiderable emphasis upon the work of art as an object requiring in itsmaking particular skills or techniques or as an object requiring, in orderto be understood, certain appreciative and analytical skills. In either casethe notion of the work of art as a definable, or at least, potentially defin-

293

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

able object is established in this view as a necessary postulate upon whichany subsequent educational programme is made to depend. By contrastthe Dewey/Read/Lowenfeld view directs attention not to the object orartefact which arises from the manipulation of the materials of art (theseagain being defined in the fine art/craft view by the requirement of theparticular artefact being fashioned) but directs it rather to the supposededucational value of the making, fashioning or manipulative processesthemselves. In this view also evaluation of the resulting object againstmeasurable standards deriving from previously established artistic oraesthetic criteria is eschewed, the only evaluational guide-lines allowedbeing those derived from a psychological concept of stages of mentaldevelopment or growth in children.

It will be evident that any definition of art which places majoremphasis upon the work of art and which defines the work of art in termsof skill will have less relevance to art education as one descends the agescale from secondary to primary education, and the converse will be trueof any definition of art which ignores the question of skill and concentratesupon a generalized concept of art founded on psychological considera-tions, for development can occur here only if the psychological sub-stratum, as it were, changes but as such changes are both unpredictableand, from the point of view of art, uncontrollable, this can lead to noconsistent or coherent programme of art education.

To a large extent these alternative views of art, apart from markingout differing philosophical conceptions concerning the nature of art,define also the difference of attitude towards the purpose of art educationcommonly found between the primary and secondary sectors. This dis-parity of attitudes does not simply arise from a difference of opinion aboutthe purpose to which art should be put in education but often marks afundamental difference of view about the nature of art itself and it isimportant to recognize this, for any attempt to form an accommodationbetween these two views of art requires either the acceptance of one viewover the other or else some form of compromise between the two whichmakes some allowance for their inherent conflicts and differences ofemphasis. Either way, however, it is necessary to be sure that these twoattitudes towards art education do constitute in themselves valid ways ofapproaching the problems lying within this area of education and thatthey provide also a sufficiently wide based and comprehensive platformupon which to construct a practical pedagogical framework, but a closerexamination of both these views of art reveals, I believe, fundamentaltheoretical problems which make it unlikely that either the completeacceptance of one view over the other or even some form of accommoda-tion between them will provide an entirely satisfactory theoretical basisfrom which to approach the broader problems of art education, for the

294

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

definition of art implicit in each one of them is both defective and toonarrowly conceived.

IIThe fine art/craft view takes the work of art to be essentially that

which is constructed or fashioned according to certain rules or conditionswhich derive in part from traditional conceptions of what works of artcharacteristically are and from equally traditional conceptions of thenature of those manual skills necessary for their making. Such a view willlay down, perhaps, as negative criteria, that works of art are not char-acteristically made of straw or mud but will establish as positive criteriathat they are usually made of stone, metal or paint on canvas. It will alsolay down the function that works of art may serve both in the broadersense of their operation within a cultural nexus, fixing for them, forexample, their relationship to religious, political or economic forces andwill in a narrower sense establish the expressive range considered properfor works of art to employ. All in all, such a view will tend towards theerection of a model or ideal image of a work of art and the purpose of arteducation thereafter will be to teach pupils or students practical strategiesfor achieving this image or model.

The degree to which one might be prepared to accept such a view ofart and of the purpose of art education will clearly depend upon theextent to which one accepts the force of tradition as a defining and, ofnecessity, a limiting factor in art and also the degree to which one is inagreement with the model or ideal image being proposed. But it will alsodepend upon acceptance of the view that both art and art education aredefinable in terms of characteristic and paradigm examples of works ofart as distinct from the view that it is the mode of thinking, the overallmental approach, as it were, which provides the criteria of definition.

The inadequacies of the view that art is defined essentially by the arte-fact and the technical means employed in its making have been pointedout by Croce8 and by Gollingwood9 both of whom distinguished betweenthe conception of a work of art in the imagination and the means bywhich this is given tangible form through the practical manipulation ofmaterials of one sort or another and who allowed the term art to be usedonly as a descriptive of the former. To define art by reference to thetechniques employed in its making was not to talk of art at all, in theirview, but of craft. To think of art in this way inevitably tended to removeit from the wider cultural realm where it rightly belonged and restrict itto the infinitely smaller and shallower world of the merely practical.Although many would take issue with Croce and Gollingwood over theirapparent refusal to admit the significance even to the forming of an idea

295

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

in the imagination of the history and traditions associated with the makingprocesses of art10 many would hold that to look upon art as essentially amatter concerned only with the making or fashioning of artefacts of aparticular type is a remarkably narrow view to take of the expressivepotentialities of art. Croce's more particular criticism of this view of art,however, and in many ways his more substantial one was that in concen-trating upon art in its technical or craft aspect those many questionswhich revolve around the relationship between language and the aesthe-tic, between the way we perceive the world and the way our innate urgeto give form to our intuitions of pattern, structure and order in the thingswe see and hear affects the way in which we construe the world, wereleft to one side or ignored altogether. In other words, to rest upon a tech-nical definition of art was effectively to cut short any deeper enquiry intothe source of expressive language itself and was, therefore, in the fullestsense of the term unscientific.

The difficulties created in general education by such a too narrowlyconfined definition of art, by a definition of art, that is, which stems fromwhat is in effect closer to a definition of craft than of art, have beenrecognised for some time, particularly in the initial stages of schooling,for in these earlier stages it has long been appreciated that it is quite in-appropriate to apply a rigid paradigmatic view of art based either upontechnical skill or expressive content. The removal of childrens' art fromthe context of adult art, which would seem to be inevitable once theclaims of traditional techniques and expressive forms as controllingfactors in assessing the artistic value of childrens' art are denied, rendersunsuitable the fine art/craft definition of art as a definition applicable tothe work of young children and therefore it has now become customaryto approach childrens' art from the point of view of the information itmay contain about the child's psychological development rather thanfrom the point of view of the knowledge it may display of the child'sfamiliarity with established adult examples. Such a view clearly impliesrather more than the Croce/Collingwood counter argument to the 'artand craft' position for whilst neither Groce nor Collingwood expresslydenied the possibility of making value judgements in art founded uponaesthetic criteria but questioned rather the basis upon which such judge-ments might be made, it is now customary to find through the applicationof psychological rather than aesthetic criteria to childrens' art that thequestion of artistic value as defined in aesthetic terms is ruled outaltogether and is supplanted by a relativism which distinguishes only be-tween different levels of psychological development in children, theirwork merely providing evidence of these levels or, in an even morerestricted sense, providing evidence simply of their different psychologicaltemperaments.

296

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

It has not generally been recognized, however, that when art is madeinstrumental to psychological theory in this way and removed from itswider cultural setting, the subject of art, that complex of learned andhence potentially teachable activities, operations and concepts, as distinctfrom innate and autonomous modes of thought, is destroyed, when, thatis, the conscious control of the artist over the materials and forms of hisart is reduced to a relatively unimportant factor in the creation of a workof art.11 If the fine art/craft notion of art places too much emphasis uponoperational facility and the Croce/Collingwood counter argument paystoo little recognition to the importance of technique in the making of awork of art, therefore, the Dewey/Read/Lowenfeld notion of art, depend-ing as it does largely upon a psychological rather than a subject orientatedview of art tends to make art merely a term applicable to certain char-acteristic manipulations of the materials of art, and indeed the term artwithin this notion tends to be reserved, in effect, simply to describe thoseactivities which involve no more than the manipulation of new or unusualmaterials.

In practice, however, judgements of aesthetic value in art are not soeasily denied for they are inseparable from the apprehension of intentionin the design or construction of an art object whether it be a painting, apiece of sculpture or a pencil drawing. Objects of this sort are clearlyintended to be seen as works of art (whatever significance beyond this theymay have for us) in however a restricted sense, and not as objects havinga practical function, so that unless we approach such objects in a strictlyscientific manner, merely examining them in order to analyse theirphysical composition, to describe their measurable aspects or to cate-gorize them in relation to established stereotypes or examples, we arebound to see their form as the result of an intention to communicateartistic meaning and hence as being available for appraisal in these terms.It would be tempting to argue that the art of very young children doesnot display intention in this sense, that it is the product of nature like aplant or a flower and some teachers and writers on art education haveclaimed as much,12 but unless by an effort of will we refuse to respond tothe artistic meanings which are latent within child art or to be moved inany way by its sensuous properties of colour or line, where these arepresent, believing the existence of such properties to be entirely a matterof chance not related in any way to the conscious will of the child, wecannot avoid, should we direct our serious attention to childrens' drawingand painting from taking up the participatory invitation which the workoffers to us to respond to it in a more positive aesthetic way. In short,even if we deny as a definition applicable to the work of young childrenthe accepted usage of the term art as meaning human skill as opposed tonature, in practice unless we deny also that children's art contains any

297

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

evidence of conscious intention at all it is not possible to claim that it isnot in any sense art.

Because the Dewey/Read/Lowenfeld view of art attempts to substitutethe principle of natural development for that of cultural development itplaces in jeopardy the relationship in art between form and meaning forthis view essentially denies that a particular meaning can be given aparticular form. Whatever a work of art expresses becomes merely amatter of chance (if indeed the term expression can be applied whereconscious intention is absent) and the work of art in such a situationceases to be an autonomous means of expression with its own particularskills, forms, notation, language or vocabulary each to be consciouslylearned and applied but becomes merely a manifestation of nature, dis-torted rather than improved by any conscious interference on the partof the artist. According to this view, therefore, child art cannot strictlybe art at all, a conclusion which even the protagonists of this view of artwould surely find unacceptable.

It is now possible to ask if anything can be salvaged from these twoinadequate definitions of art which might form the basis of a moresatisfactory theory not revealing obvious shortcomings when applied toeducation. A number of pointers to the form that such a theory mighttake can already be seen. Firstly, although it is not necessary, nor as wehave seen, desirable to apply craft or formal standards of a paradigmaticnature to the work of young children (such an approach being moreappropriate to the work of the adolescent seriously engaged upon a studyof art or to the professional or intending professional artist) we cannotargue that all judgements of skill are entirely irrelevant, for skill is inwhatever form a necessary component of art. Secondly, works of art beingexpressive constructs (fictions) as distinct from natural phenomena arenot separate individuals but exist and can only exist by virtue of theirrelationship one to another, or to put this another way, the existence ofart depends upon our predisposition to make the mental links which artencourages us to make and to react to it upon the assumption that ourreaction will differ in no essential way from the reaction of others. Evenif we do not like a work of art or are incapable of deriving very muchfrom it we must see the point of art, that is we must see it as embracinga certain category of objects distinguishable from other objects by virtueof their possessing quite unique qualities or properties supplied tothem by human skill. To this extent art, in however small a measure,must always have a cultural significance. Thirdly, psychological idio-syncrasies as between individual human beings are not in themselvesand alone the cause of art but are revealed by art. To make art entirelydependent, therefore, upon the individual psychology of the artistreduces in a quite arbitrary manner the range of influences and forces

298

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

which in fact bear upon works of art and which affect their finalform.

If the major problems in art education arise from confusion over theessential distinction between art and nature further conflicts arise fromattempts to reduce or diminish the scope of art or its necessary elementseither by making it instrumental to an extraneous theory or ideology orby using one of the elements or applications of art to describe the wholeof art. So, for example, if art is made instrumental to a theory of educa-tion in which it serves simply to facilitate ends others than those leadingto an understanding of art itself particular questions concerning thefashioning or constructing of works of art will tend to seem out of place.Likewise, if a too technical approach to art is adopted many questions ofa broader cultural or psychological nature may be overlooked.

I l l

It is in the use of art as an instrument to a general theory of educationthat a particular danger lies in concurrent courses of teacher training forit is tempting to argue that the value of art within a curriculum of teachertraining is not to encourage students to become skilled or knowledgeablepractitioners of art but rather to enable them to apply artistic conceptswithin the field of education generally. Such a view is commonly ex-pressed but it is fundamentally fallacious.

The only way in which such an argument can stand is if it is acceptedthat there is nothing to distinguish between art and nature: if this isallowed then it becomes possible to argue further that, art being nature,the teacher's influence will then be similar to that of the gardener's,limited, that is, simply to arranging the best physical conditions withinwhich art will flourish of its own accord. But as we have seen, such a viewis untenable for it ignores those technical and cultural factors withoutwhich art cannot exist. It may be, of course, that the term art is beingused somewhat loosely here to describe certain art-like activities whichmay have valuable applications outside of art itself, as mending a fusemay be loosely called science, but such activities would not in themselvesconstitute art and any description of them can in no way lead us to adescription of what activities would constitute art for the essential diffi-culty of the situation is that in this view what art is is held to be self-evident. What art is, however, as with bicycle riding, is not onlywhat one notices other people doing but what one does oneself. To thisextent a knowledge or an understanding of art is inseparable, even withinan instrumentalist context, from an understanding of requisite skills, offormal components and the relationships between individual psychologyand the resulting work of art which can be gained only through the

299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRATNING

practice of art. To claim, therefore, that the study of art in a concurrentteacher training programme is essentially instrumental to the higherclaims of a theory of education is effectively to leave unanswered thequestion of what art is in the first place, and if there is no clarity uponthis issue it is hard to see what value the term art has in this context, otherthan being generally and loosely descriptive of certain ways of working.

Whatever the virtues may be of an instrumentalist theory of art ineducation, and they are many, such a theory provides no absolution fromthe need at some stage to teach art as art, that is as a form of creativeinquiry involving certain skills, certain types of knowledge and certaininsights of a psychological nature and a student's understanding of whatall this implies will only be made evident in the work, the painting, thesculpture, the drawing etc., that the student produces.

Child art presents no problem needing a separate or special theory ofart to account for it or a separate definition from that which applies toart as a whole and therefore does not require a separate educationalphilosophy. As art child art can be approached in precisely the same wayas Michelangelo's David or a painting by Jackson Pollock, all that mustbe remembered is that we must not use the one to illustrate the other butrather use the one to illuminate the other. We are now free to teachchildren art from the moment they begin to scribble on pieces of paper,our major concern being simply with the teaching strategies we employ.

It is not possible here to essay a detailed programme of such strategiesbut it is possible to outline the form that a course for intending teachersof art to children should take. Such a programme will need to be foundedupon a study of art which will include direct and personal involvementwith those ways of thinking characteristic of art in its practical andcreative sense not simply to inculcate a certain level of skill but to enablestudents to ask pertinent questions about the nature of these ways ofthinking. In other words an heuristic attitude should be adopted to thestudy of art in place of the present attitude which tends to emphasize,often unconsciously, the purely transitory stylistic aspects of art. At thesame time students should be presented with the existing philosophicalframework within which questions about the nature of art may morereadily be answered and then encouraged to apply this to their owncreative work, to the cultural field within which art operates and to theproblems of art in education. Above all, students should be encouragedto involve themselves with the creative activities of children as a naturalextension of their own creative involvement with the world about them,not being over concerned with the dominant child art aesthetic which hasbecome such a debilitating influence in art education. The fears on thepart of certain educationists that children may be given 'the wrongmodels' by such direct involvement are less important than the ultimate

300

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

effect not only on children when they reach an age when they find them-selves incapable of adequate expression in art through inadequate know-ledge and skill but also on teacher training courses which include an artcomponent whose raison d'être is undermined by the passive attitude toart education which students engaged upon such courses are frequentlyinstructed to adopt.

All this points to the need for the content of that knowledge whichconstitutes art as distinct from other modes of thinking to be identifiedclearly for only if this task is embarked upon seriously can there possiblybe any development, not to say progress, in this area. Works of art do notbecome so by accident and an appeal to nature does no more than per-petuate a needless air of mystery here. To state this is, however, to statein effect that no curriculum in art education can exist without the accept-ance, either explicitly or implicitly, of a definition of art, but it must berecognized that such a definition will not limit itself only to those aspectsof art for which verbal equivalents can be found but will allow room alsofor those areas of knowledge which can be expressed and indeed whichcan only be thought of through the practice of art itself. In the end whatis at stake here is whether we accept the sort of knowledge expressedthrough works of art as of an equal status to that expressed in statementsof a propositional nature or expressible in those forms of communicationwhich do not require, and which it would seem irrelevant to demand, theengagement of our feelings or emotions. Within the prevailing climateof English education today much of the knowledge embodied in worksof art and inexpressible in any other form is considered to be less impor-tant as knowledge than the sort of knowledge contained in statements orpropositions of a factual or scientific nature. The practice of art shouldenable children to recognize, eventually, the essential inadequacy of thisview and thereby to widen their understanding of the scope of life, butfor this to happen children must be taught. Art teachers should followthe example of the scientist and insist that this teaching should beginas soon as possible.

REFERENCES

1. Quentin Bell, The Schools of Design, London, 1963.2. Gordon Sutton, Artisan or Artist, Pergamon, 1967.3. Stuart Macdonald, The History & Philosophy of Art Education, London, 1970.4. An indication of this change in attitude was signalled by the setting up of the

Art for Schools Association supported by Ruskin in 1883.5. John Dewey, Art as Experience, London, 1934.6. Herbert Read, Education Through Art, London, 1943.7. Viktor Lowenfeld, Creative and Mental Growth, U.S.A., 1947.

301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PROBLEM OF ART IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

8. Benedetto Croce, Aesthetics, 2nd ed., trans., Douglas Ainslie, London, 1922.9. A. G. Collingwood, The Principles of Art, London, 1938.

10. See particularly, Richard Wollheim, Art & Its Objects, London 1968.11. Herbert Read writes, for example; 'From a scientific point of view.. .realism

and idealism, expressionism and constructivism are all natural phenomena, andthe warring schools into which men divide themselves are merely the productsof ignorance and prejudice.' Education Through Art, London, 1958, 28.

12. Franz Cizek, for example; 'Nothing is made here, it has grown like flowers...look inside yourselves, there are the most beautiful picture books . . . I shouldlike the children to grow up on islands amongst themselves.' In The Child asArtist, Some Conversations with Professor Cizek, Francesca Wilson, London,1921.

302

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

57 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014