the promise of contradiction

National Art Education Association

The Promise of ContradictionAuthor(s): Irving KaufmanSource: Art Education, Vol. 24, No. 9 (Dec., 1971), pp. 9-13Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191651 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 12:24

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 91.229.229.86 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:24:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191651?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Irving Kaufman There is a paradox, if not a contradiction, in the general

public's as well as the educator's perception of an art museum as a place of culture and learning. It is, at once, a storehouse of riches or a mausoleum; an evocative contact for the discovery of ideas and feelings or a bastion of dullness housing a dead heritage; an elitist gathering place for connoisseurs and artists

or a place where class art is democratically converted to mass art; a sanctuary for contemplation, inspiration, and revelation or a pleasure palace for entertainment and amusement; a center focusing upon art and aesthetic education or an instrument to be utilized for social change. Such a gamut of attitudes through which the museum is perceived is, of course, parallel to or perhaps caused by the societal turmoil we seem to be in the



midst of. These varying attitudes reflect the enterprising and frequently belligerent questionning of the traditional values of American civilization. Among most dimensions of American life there is a swirl of speculation and a feeling of transition. This results in fresh but numerous reassessments of institutional goals and practices, especially in as vulnerable an organization as a museum, followed by an insistence upon timely action despite the perplexing variety of frequently opposing directions which are being suggested.

Museums over the past decade, as a consequence, have been pushed off their relatively privileged perches as this rush of changing social and aesthetic pressures butts its way into the ever current market place of ideas. They are being forced into a contentious arena of the here and now as new and aggressive demands are made upon their collections, space, personnel, and funds. Not the least of these demands calls for an expansion of the museum's educational role.

In one sense there is a peculiarity of intellectual redundance in such a demand. Most museums were initially founded as places of study in the arts in addition to their conserving and exhibiting functions. A basic reason for their establishment was the Victorian penchant to provide popular enlightenment. In another sense, this public responsibility was too passively pursued in that, until recently, museums did little to seek out and involve mass audiences, other than to sit pat, add to their collections, and receive visitors during "bankers' hours." The visit to a museum, all too frequently, was a happenstance affair, a desultory excursion for youngsters especially, despite the aesthetic stimulation and vividness of objects to be experienced. Popular instruction and a meaningful development of aids and guides to aesthetic and critical learning was not a common practice.

A very real question arises then as to the most appropriate educational functioning of a museum which as well prompts one to inquire into the very nature of museum organization. The educational issue also is a complex piting against one another of philosophical directions, social and political pressures, and varying aesthetic concepts, which tend either to cluster as cultural knots that are difficult to unravel or splinter into traditional versus radical forces which opt for a remarkably diverse range of goals.

The museum professional, particularly the one responsible for developing educational programs, not only needs to con-

10

sider the contigencies and energies prevalent in his own disci- pline, but he has to be aware, too, of concurrent happenings in the larger area of art and of education. Connections have to be made between the museum and the art world for a number of relevant reasons, while a liaison between museums and schools has to be maintained so that students receive the most appropriate motivations and guidance. However, the currently frenetic art scene and the uncertain patterns of educational practice are not easily related to in secure and stable ways.

The functions and forms of both art and education are presently subject to a severe and drastic internal radicalization, while a disparite confusion of external influences makes their pressures felt. There is, for instance, in art a clamor to relate such various considerations as pop; op; minimal and conceptual styles; the new realism; lyrical abstraction; the aesthetics of non product, process, and impossible art; art merged into life; political, social, and ethnic determinants in addition to the weight of all past art history. There are also the amorphous but pervasive counter-culture and youth movements, the omni-



present media, a new and sensuous aestheticism, and the over- whelming spectre of technology. In education, there is as broad an array of contending influences: the behavioral psychology of Skinner and Gagne, the discovery learning of Bruner, and the developmental analysis of Piaget; the self contained classroom and the informal or open corridor-concept, the free school, and the new modular structuring; the mini-school and the educational park; the deschooling philosophy of Illich and the total day concept of inner-city groups who would make the schools surrogate homes; community control and education for urban, suburban, rural, the disadvantaged, the exceptional, the average, the talented, for girls, for boys, and finally ethnic, racial, and religious considerations. It is, in all, a kaleidoscopic array of factors which do not complement one another, in most in- stances. The continuing crisis of confidence that exists within the basic aesthetic and educational institutions may be an honest and desperate response, as is the mounting urgency to reorder priorities.

In this spirit, among most museum personnel, whatever their philosophical persuasion, there is a growing acceptance of responsibility for organizing increased and intensified educational programs which go beyond counter clicking. Some museum reformers and most radical critics go much further than the traditional adherents in fundamentally redefining the museum's role as a broadly educational one with a very contemporary and immediate social consciousness. Conceivably, the educational issue will determine the structure and function of the future art museum or indeed, if museums as we know them will exist at all in the emerging "brave new world." In any case, some thorny problem areas are staked out as the dynamics of an expanded museum education make themselves felt. Among them are private as against public funding. Once the money is available, and characteristically since it is likely to be inadequate for all museum needs, what priorities are to be set-acquisition, preservation, construction, scholarly support, mass appeal, new technological installations, tie-ins with media, publishing, schools, community organizations? What ideas and principles should a museum program and promote? Should its criteria be only critically aesthetic and historical, or are others also appropriate? Does the museum have educational obligations beyond its own walls? What initiative should it take toward relating to public or private schools and community groups?

A host of questions; and no simple answers are easily

available! It would not serve a purpose to ignore the difficulties to be faced or the opposing attitudes which exacerbate the contradictions inherent in a museum's educational role. These, at times, create adversary situations and programs which invite controversy-not that controversy is an undesirable element in experiencing art and in stimulating responsiveness. Quite the contrary. Yet, one can legitimately question whether an oppor- tunity is provided to experience art imaginatively and intelli- gently if museum practices reflect either a die-hard, doctrin- naire traditionalism or a deliberately designed social and political disturbance.

The extremes of traditionalism and radical reform may indeed establish a mutual exclusiveness. But, there is also as the result of the renewed activity in museum education a remarkably fresh and varied accumulation of ideas which can be the basis of a rewarding dialogue. Though there are many subtle distinctions within various and graduated shades of advocacy and commitment, it may be helpful to examine briefly the educational functions and patterns which tend to cluster around the traditional as against the "reform" positions, though not at their narrow or irresponsible extremes.

The more traditional position grows out of a prime sense of responsibility to a museum's collection-to its growth, preservation, and display. However, in the best sense of this position there is also a consistent respect not only for what is regarded as the independence of the art object, but a respect as well for the individuality of the museum visitor. There is a stress upon perception, aesthetic communion, and personal relationship which one has to feel and see for oneself. This favors the visitor who comes prepared or is a sophisticate in art, and it remains a serendipitous experience for the casual visitor and student. Nevertheless, the experience is not a coercive one, nor one of mass inculcated and predigested conditioning. It is rather one which enriches and refines innate sensibilities as presented by its advocates.

I call this the "Lonesome Looker" or "Less is More" theory of museum education. It insists that the museum is a place of primary sources where original works of art may be seen in an environment which would not violate their nature. (It may be difficult to accommodate such an attitude with the fact that most art in museums was not created to be displayed there, but it is the esteem of experiential self-sufficiency accorded the art object which is the point here). As such, the museum is a special

11 This content downloaded from 91.229.229.86 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:24:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


place offering special experiences in the aesthetic realm. Though this may have elitist overtones, it is balanced by the democratic assessability of the museum. It is an elitism to which all are welcome, requiring only an intrinsic and sympathetic involvement with art. The crux of the experience which is available is in its transforming character as the individual onlooker engages the art object in metaphoric dialogue, bringing into play one's feelings, intelligence, and invariably one's imagination.

The museum's educational function is met, in this view, when it simply and without pedagogical encumbrances displays works of art, permitting an open-ended encounter, an "immediate experience" with tastefully exhibited objects of art. The encounter should be one of discovery and exploration without any disturbing and predetermining paraphernalia of explanation or interpretation, whether of an aesthetic, social, or political nature. The encounter between art object and viewer is regarded as a unique, a very individual, matter, and it is felt that the experience is violated and adulterated by most forms of external exegesis. Obviously, this theory would call for such explication to take place, perhaps at home or in a library, but most probably in school.

The "Lonely Looker" position frequently faults the schools at all levels, but especially as the schools fail to meet their art educational responsibilities in general education. Advocates of this position feel that little genuine or sensitive preparation is provided for the average students either in critical or imaginative dimensions-so as to encounter the art in museums on an intelligent level. Whether this is due to a prevailing uncritical "creativity" in the classroom or a sentimentalized misunder- standing or philistine-like ignorance of art, of which too many teachers are guilty, the fact remains that art education has not produced a large number of responsive students capable of encountering art in a direct, imaginative, and personal manner. The more traditional position is also more likely to accept the self sufficiency of the art experience. Therapeutic considerations, social, and political concerns as well as the more immediately practical usages of art would be looked at suspiciously because they would substitute extrinsic for intrinsic responses. This does not negate social insights and other therapeutic re- wards to be reaped from art; the point they would make is that these qualities can honestly be activated only as the aesthetic and imaginative dimensions of art are respected. Otherwise, they would insist, the experience is spurious and abortive, more

12

propaganda and shallow emotional quackery than art. The reform or radical position can be popularly dubbed as

the "Communal Lollipop" or "More is More" theory. In this position, everyone deserves a lick, and the bigger the pedagogical possibilities permitted, the greater the number who can have a lick. Preservation and display of art works are not considered sufficient functions for an art museum to perform, despite the implications for intrinsic learning. The educative function has to be more assertive and socially responsible, in the view of those adherents who rally behind the instrument considerations of art and museums. They point to the museum as a vital extension of society, not only reflecting its history and its univer- sality of expressive form, but creating as well an environment in which the links between art and life may be collectively explored in a democratic way. The social usages of art bring together aspiration and inspiration, an orderly sense of community, the rational and aesthetic control of one's surroundings and sharing of experience, with art as the communicative mode. As such, art would validate the daily experiences of everyone as well as create an ambience within which we would all experience a humanistically oriented social growth along with aesthetic satisfactions.

For this reform position, the art object is only one, albeit, the original and most vividly symbolic, among many other re- sources of the museum. A frame of reference has to be estab- lished, so that the art object achieves a "relevant" significance for all onlookers. And this may be achieved by any means which supposedly develops understanding from elaborated biographical and other informational signs to movies, audio guides, audience participatory devices, and the promise of magnificently complex and complete technological means of descriptive, comparative, and interpretive exegesis.

The "More is More" advocates would not confine their activities to the parent physical plant, but would literally invade various communities, expanding their educational jurisdictions to include as many people and places as possible. This raises not only the factor of extension education but posits an evangel- ical museological thrust into the decentralization and local control.

Central to the reform position is the harnessing of what they believe to be the power of art so as to affect immediately the human thoughts and actions of as great a human group as ingenuity and technology permits. They would make the re-



sources of the museum and any others they can command in relationship to museum functions, available to the public-at- large, believing that the qualitative elements of the art experience would emerge, making for a fuller and more satisfying life, helping people to cope with an otherwise grim and alienating, depersonalizing culture.

The "Lonely Looker" and the "Communal Lollipop" theories of museum education do offer alternatives. Yet neither one appears to present a full response to the problems of art in education as they are likely to emerge over the next decade. The more traditional approach demands more effort, counter- acting the passive conformism that is endemic to a mass technological society. It offers a private, unique communion instead of a public and standardized communication. It also reinforces the intrinsic realizations of experiences, providing a sense of personal significance in a culture which is becoming increasingly meaningless to the individual and automatically controlled by external and remote forces. It posits a directness of involvement and an intriguing challenge-yet it cannot fulfill mass educational aims because, as yet at least, it is not appropriate for the greater majority. The education, preparation, and the nurturing encouragement of society is simply lacking. Whatever the reason-shoddy schools, reflecting vulgar concerns; ill prepared teachers rarely touched by art themselves; the imposition of a commercially manufactured culture, the suicidal implications of ecological exploitation, continuing warfare, and national enmity, racism, and poverty-we simply do not engage enough students in a serious adventure with imaginatively creative and critically aesthetic experiences.

The reform position offers an immediacy of mass excitement, an extensive involvement of many with at least the appearances of art, the utilization of a rich human artistic resource toward humanistic ends. It would bring the delights and insights of art to the communal threshold of a culture's capacity to become collectively involved. But it may also provoke and prod some personal responses that could lead to greater understanding and increased creative participation. It may just inform a social consciousness so as to provide a decent basis for judgment and action. Yet, this position must be committed to the mass aspects of media, to the public means of communication and standard models of elucidation-all of which contribute to the passive and mechanical gearing of group rather than individual thinking and feeling. A danger arises that the very goal to be achieved

will be subverted by the most reasonable means employed to achieve that goal-mass means for mass art education. The result may be the manipulation of individuals in group stiuations no matter how altruistic the goals, and a further dimunition of the self realization and personal creating of an environment which characterizes past art accomplishments.

We return to the initial set of paradoxes which have some- how become contradictions in museum and art education. They reflect the larger dynamics of society which demonstrates as much creative energy and vitality as it does cultural stagnation and large scale self deception. The contradictions are under- standable, given the enormous change and vigorous potency of contemporary social and aesthetic forces and their impact on education. They may even be signs of cultural growth and health in that they are indications of a society openly coming to grips with deepseated and formerly repressed problems. Most signifi- cantly, the contradictions inherent in private versus public, individual as against communal, intrinsic as compared to extrinsic, may be seen as challenges to create fresh insights and new orders of educational, social, and aesthetic elements without necessarily extinguishing our past creations and critical judgments.

Certainly, museum education has an exacting task ahead with an embarrassment of problems. However, it cannot escape the contingent nature of the forces that play upon it; but it can assert its belief in art as a vital and civilizing experience and as an independent experience which shapes and enriches the larger dimensions of life. Similarly, the museum must be regarded as a kind of self contained cultural unit which provides a uniqueness of direct, exploratory aesthetic experiences, yet is intimately interrelated to the ongoing conditions and events of the world in which it exists. Such thinking necessitates mutual planning among museums, schools, and the various communities. The connecting element is obviously art education, and it is a promising one with which to establish a partnership in which the various parts do complement one another, achieving the kind of unity of form which defines enduring and expressive art.

Irving Kaufman is professor of art, The City College, City University of New York, New York.

13 This content downloaded from 91.229.229.86 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:24:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


the promise of contradiction

Documents