critical lenses || using feminist perspectives in art education

National Art Education Association

Using Feminist Perspectives in Art EducationAuthor(s): Elizabeth A. AmentSource: Art Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, Critical Lenses (Sep., 1998), pp. 56-61Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193720 .Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:41:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naeahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3193720?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

r*p

II-f

, -A:

BY ELIZABETH A. A

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1998


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ectives

orgive me, art teacher, but in my country we love to use bright colors." Lupita, a new student from Mexico, had selected intensely warm colors for her painting, then noticed that most of her classmates had chosen more subdued colors. Earlier that week, Michael had confided that the paintings in his grandparents' home in Taiwan looked very different from the Matisse reproductions hanging in the school hallway. These children helped me recognize a growing problem in our art program. Most examples of artworks that we were using were drawn from mainstream Western artistic traditions, inadvertently suggesting to our students that only these traditions were worthy of attention.

Lupita and Michael were students in my art classes during the late 1980s at an elementary school outside Chicago, just northeast of O'Hare Airport where many international companies had recently established American headquarters. In about 10 years, this district

SEPTEMBER 1998 / ART EDUCATION

IIn

GC



went from a homogeneous student body to one in which over 40 languages were spoken in the homes. To recognize the many different cultural traditions of the students, the district began to hold ethnic festivals several times a year and to add examples of art traditions from around the world to our art program.

However, in the art program, it became apparent that the "add diverse works of art and stir" method did not do much to help our students understand or value diverse artistic traditions. Students came to know that there were many different kinds of art from around the world, but did not develop a framework for understanding or valuing images from unfamiliar artistic traditions.

To meet this challenge of developing approaches for teaching art in school settings with increasingly multicultural school populations, a number of art educators (Chalmers, 1996; Lankford, 1992a, 1992b; May, 1992; McFee & Degge, 1978/1992) have called for a re-examination of the philosophical underpinnings of art educational research, theory, and practice. As art educators attempt to translate a variety of diverse artistic traditions into themes, issues, and strategies for today's art classrooms, the need to examine and revise the philosophical bases of art education becomes more apparent.

An examination of prevailing cultural beliefs and assumptions about art can help art educators to re- examine their own views and the prevailing views in art education to consider how these views affect teaching practice. The goal of this examination is to work toward an art educational practice that: a) identifies and works to change discriminatory practices; b) encourages students to

reflect about how and why art is produced in all cultures without demeaning or misinterpreting diverse artistic traditions; and c) recognizes human commonalities in art as well as differences.

Because most North American art teachers (including those from non- Western cultures) have been socialized in Western culture, they usually hold a view of art that blends several early 20th-century theories of art. Despite a move away from a narrow interpretation of moder artistic traditions, prevailing 20th- century art theories still contend that the most important art presents ideas or feelings of individuals (usually male) who are thought to have a special gift for artistic production. These designated artists of the contemporary Western art world are encouraged to skillfully manipulate art elements in a unique way, independent of cultural context. The problem with this prevailing view is that many of the world's artistic traditions do not fit into this conception of art.

ADDRESSING MARGINALIZATION

One way to examine and consider the influence of prevailing conceptions of art on teaching practice is to draw from aesthetics, the branch of philosophy which deals with questions

about the role and nature of art. Feminist theorists in contemporary aesthetics, in particular, are examining many of the same issues being considered by art educators. "Feminist," in this case, denotes theories grounded in feminist scholarship rather than referring to art created by women.

A number of feminist scholars have been working for several decades to develop a framework where multiple perspectives in the arts can co-exist. Linda Nochlin (1979) noted that the challenge for feminist scholars looking at the arts is to "resolve a conflict between ingrained attitudes and new possibilities and to develop a plan for translating philosophy and aims into practical reality in cultural institutions" (p. 3). Hilde Hein (1993) points out that feminist inquiry in the arts is a good place to start this translation, noting that the field of aesthetics has always dealt with the complexities of diversity, while also looking for commonalities of human experience expressed in diverse art practices.

Like many art teachers today who have become aware of the Eurocentric focus of most North American school art programs, feminist scholars in the arts began with the powerful discovery of the exclusion of women from mainstream Western art (Nochlin, 1971). Parallel to the experience of art

IFeminist, in this case, denotes theories grounded in feminist

scholarship rather than referring to art created by women.




teachers who have added marginalized artists to their lists of art examples, feminist theorists have found that adding the work of women artists to the list of important artists in classrooms and in art history texts has done little to improve the status and understanding of marginalized artistic traditions.

Recognizing that inclusion of marginalized exemplars does not address the underlying beliefs that enable discrimination, feminist scholars together with other critical theorists, began to examine the socially constructed nature of who is designated an artist, what is defined as art, and how art is evaluated. Exploring the role of gender differences and noting the resulting culturally based biases have led many feminist theorists to step back and see that gender (like race, ethnicity, social class, ability, and age) can be a useful analytical tool for identifying cultural beliefs and assumptions that label some groups as less important than others. The term gender refers to one's socially constructed identity as man or woman, while the term sex refers to one's biological determination as male or female.

Feminist theorists build on the views of Simone de Beauvoir (1949/1961) who believed that men and women behave and consider the world differently, not primarily because of biological differences, but because of the differing ways men and women are socialized. De Beauvoir was among the first to point out that to be socialized as a female is not just to be considered as opposite to mainstream male but to exist as a deviation from the norm, as Other. Thus, gender identity becomes a problem, not because of biological differences, but because being

identified as female places that person in a culturally determined disadvantaged position.

Discrimination against women in the arts has been widespread and consistent (Chadwick, 1990; Hein, 1990; Korsmeyer, 1993; Lauter, 1990; Nochlin, 1971). Until the middle of this century in Western culture, most women have been considered unable to create serious art and have been excluded from art studios except as subjects. Only women related to famous male artists have been able to have any degree of success as serious artists. Serious work by women has often been attributed to their male relatives. Traditional women's arts, such as quilting and weaving, have been considered less important forms of art. Some contemporary feminist theorists have repeatedly challenged prevailing beliefs and practices in the arts that exclude most women, a challenge that can also be used to question the exclusion of other groups of artists.

EXAMINING AND REVISING PREVAILING BELIEFS ABOUT ART

Feminist theorists have questioned the prevailing Western belief that an artist is a genius who has unique vision and works to express this vision in isolation from cultural influences. Estella Lauter (1990) suggests that the concept of the lone artist is a stereotype that developed in Western culture, even though numerous accounts of the actual lives of artists from Michelangelo to Picasso contradict this cliche. In reality, these artists have been unabashedly interconnected with the lives and ideas of their contemporaries and have

worked in collaboration with others. Throughout most of recorded history, and by most indications from prehistoric times, art often has been created as a community activity (Hein & Kormeyer, 1990; Korsmeyer, 1993; Lauter, 1990). Groups of men and women, sometimes segregated by gender, sometimes not, have worked collaboratively to generate art works and events. These artworks and events convey the range and breadth of the common human capacity to celebrate, mourn, initiate, comfort, and negotiate through artistic modes.

Unlike the prevailing 20th-century Western view that the best artworks, like cream, rise to the top, Lauter (1990) notes that styles of art which become dominant throughout recorded history reflect cultural values rather than innate qualities of high art forms. This is not to say that there can be no standards for assessing art, nor people who are more talented and skilled, but that standards for excellence in the arts are arbitrary and culturally specific. Because standards are based on complex social and economic factors, the practice of using these standards as criteria for selecting art as examples in our schools needs to be carefully examined.

Recognizing and revising our views about art is a complex, daunting task that requires commitment, patience, and diligence. In the past decade, many art teachers began to include many diverse artistic traditions in revised art programs. However, prevailing discriminatory Western values about art remain deeply imbedded in our thinking and inhibit our teaching practice.




COMPARING FORMALIST AND FEMINIST THEORIES

One way to understand the exclusionary practices of mainstream Western art that play out in our classrooms is to contrast dominant Western views of art with emerging feminist art theories. Lauter (1990) has provided an example of this approach in her comparison of prevailing Western views about art, which she has collectively called formalist, with her view of an emerging collective feminist theory of art. She forms these two categories for the sake of discussion and clarification, well aware of the dangers inherent in such over-simplification. Lauter's comparison can be quite instructive for art teachers who are re- examining their own views about art since she offers specific language to use in reconsidering views about art.

Lauter (1990) proposes that the perspectives that formalist theories have in common are: a) art objects are autonomous within a culture, b) art is to be considered using a special attitude of detachment, and c) art can only be produced by individuals who are technically trained and have a unique vision. In contrast, Lauter believes that the views that feminist theories share are: a) art is a continuum of objects and enactments, b) the viewer's role is to understand the art in context, and c) the artist's role is one of co-creator in an interactive system.

THE NATURE OF THE ART OBJECT

Lauter explains that formalist theories tend to arrange art forms in hierarchical order, giving highest priority to those least useful in daily life. Art objects are explained in reference to their formal qualities

As art educators attempt to translate a variety of diverse artistic traditions into

themes, issues, and strategies for today's art classrooms, the need to examine and revise the philosophical bases of art education becomes more apparent. rather than in reference to their context. In contrast, Lauter believes that emerging feminist theories consider that art is ever-expanding. Art "concerns life, but neither art nor life can be discussed as totalities; boundaries between art and culture, or art and nature are identifiable but shifting" (Lauter, 1990, p. 103).

Lauter describes the model for art in formalist theories as linear, with one artistic movement replacing another, building on the assumption that the latest movement is better than the last. Though Lauter cautions that we may need more than one model for something as complex as art, she finds the web metaphor a good model for art in emerging feminist theories. Lauter points out that the web, like art, is fragile yet resilient; interconnected, yet also connected to the exterior world. Even the sense of danger inherent in the web is in keeping with a conception of art that recognizes its value for survival.

THE ROLE OF THE VIEWER Lauter believes that the role of the

viewer in formalist theories is to

appreciate art objects and enactments as separate entities using objective language in an attitude of detachment. In feminist theories, the viewer is encouraged to consider art in its context and to evaluate art not as a thing unto itself, but by how the work is interconnected with its community.

THE ROLE OF THE ARTIST Lauter suggests that the role of the

artist in formalist theory is as a maker of forms equivalent to or more important than nature and who works autonomous within a culture. The artist learns specific techniques of one or more closely related media through formal education and apprenticeship with at least one "master." In evolving feminist theories, the artist learns techniques in any of several ways- sometimes through formal education, but also through a craft tradition or self-education. Thus, the artist is a co- creator of structures in an interactive system which includes both nature and culture(s). In this interactive system, artmaking is:

an act of love...a giving of self to the subject rather than an objective




standing at a distance...The distance between the subject and object is closed, but it is not by an act of mastery or conquest. (Hein in Lauter, 1984, p. 221)

IMPLICATIONS FOR ART EDUCATION

In an art program grounded in feminist views about art, multiple perspectives on the arts would be explored and presented as a necessary component of understanding diverse artistic traditions. Furthermore, art would always be considered in context using extensive explorations rather than isolated lessons focusing on one artwork. Students would learn to make and appreciate art by working in an interactive system paralleling the collaborative working tradition of many artists (both male and female). Evaluation would concentrate on a student's ability to demonstrate a broad-based understanding of diverse conceptions of art. Artistic traditions proposed as most valuable would be those that focus on making sense of and enriching the human experience in harmony with the environment.

From these feminist perspectives in contemporary aesthetics, art educators can adapt strategies for teaching art that: a) consider selected works of art made by a variety of artists working in a range of interactive artistic traditions; b) focus on guiding viewers to understand these works of art in their cultural context and in contrast to other traditions; and c) emphasize the role of the arts for addressing aspects of the human experience individually according to our differences and collectively as human beings.

If I could return to be Lupita and Michael's art teacher again, I would plan lessons where we would study a

number of different art traditions and contrast them with dominant Western traditions in order to validate and appreciate the artistic traditions from the native countries of these students. If we were studying the traditions of impressionism, Lupita might feel more comfortable doing a painting that reflects some of her country's artwork. Michael would not need to ask if I had seen examples from Chinese art but would know that all art forms are valued and celebrated in our art program.

Mainstream theories of art in 20th- century Western culture have encouraged us to value individualism and autonomy in art, while devaluing art theories that celebrate our interconnection to each other. To do justice for all of our students in contemporary American schools, mainstream Western art needs to be viewed as one of many prevailing approaches to artistic expression rather than as the default mode.

Although far from monolithic, feminist perspectives in aesthetics offer approaches to examine prevailing Western theories of art that, in practice, are decidedly discriminatory. Having analyzed the prevailing theories of art, feminist theorists do not stop by pointing out the problems but offer alternative ways that we might present art in our classrooms that address, accommodate, and draw from the richness of pluralism.

Elizabeth Ament teaches art education methods courses and supervises student teachers at University of Wisconsin- Madison.

REFERENCES de Beauvoir, S. (1949/1961). The second sex

(H. M. Parshley, Ed. & Trans.). New York: Bantam Books.

Chadwick, W. (1990). Woman, art, and society. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd.

Chalmers, F. G. (1996). Cultural pluralism: Art, education and cultural diversity. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Hein, H. (1990). The role of feminist aesthetics in feminist theory. Journal of Aesthetics andArt Criticism, 48(4), 281- 291.

Hein, H. (1993). Refining feminist theory: Lessons from aesthetics. In H. Hein & C. Korsmeyer (Eds.), Aesthetics in feminist perspective (pp. 3-20). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hein, H., & Korsmeyer, C. (1990). Introduction, Special issue on feminism and aesthetics. Hypatia, 5(2) , 1-6.

Korsmeyer, C. (1993). Introduction: Philosophy, aesthetics, and feminist scholarship. In H. Hein & C. Korsmeyer (Eds.),Aesthetics in feminist perspective (pp. viii-xv). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lankford, E. L. (1992a). Aesthetics: Issues and inquiry. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Lankford, E. L. (1992b). Philosophy of art education: Focusing our vision. Studies in Art Education, 33(4), 195-200.

Lauter, E. (1984). Women as mythmakers: Poetry and visual art by twentieth-century women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lauter, E. (1990). Reinfranchising art: Feminist interventions in the theory of art. Hypatia, 5(2), 91-106.

May, W. (1992). Philosopher as researcher and/or begging the question(s). Studies in Art Education, 33(4), 226-243.

McFee, J., & Degge, R. (1978/1992). Art, culture and environment. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Nochlin, L (1971). Why have there been no great women artists? In V. Gorick & B. K. Moran (Eds.), Wqmen in sexist society: Studies in power and powerlessness (pp. 480-510). New York: Basic Books.

Nochlin, L. (1979). Toward a juster vision. In J. Loeb (Ed.), Feminist collage: Educating women in the arts (pp. 3-13). New York: Teachers College Press.




Article Contentsp. 56p. 57p. 58p. 59p. 60p. 61

Issue Table of ContentsArt Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, Critical Lenses (Sep., 1998), pp. 1-70Front Matter [pp. 1-3]An EditorialCritical Lenses [p. 4]

Statement as Incoming Editor [p. 5]Questioning the Assumptions behind Art Criticism [pp. 6-9]Critical Inquiry: Understanding the Concept and Applying It in the Classroom [pp. 10-16]Art History Inquiry Methods: Three Options for Art Education Practice [pp. 17-24]Instructional Resources: Worlds of Meaning [pp. 25-28+45-48]Aesthetics as Critical Inquiry [pp. 49-55]Using Feminist Perspectives in Art Education [pp. 56-61]Reflections on Excellence II [pp. 62-67]Back Matter [pp. 29-70]

critical lenses || using feminist perspectives in art education

Documents