Three Areas of Concern For Art Criticism Instruction Theoretical and Research

National Art Education Association
Three Areas of Concern for Art Criticism Instruction: Theoretical and Research Foundations,
Sociological Relationships, and Teaching Methodologies
Author(s): Karen A. Hamblen
Source: Studies in Art Education, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Summer, 1986), pp. 163-173
Published by: National Art Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320912 .
Accessed: 20/09/2013 05:24
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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Studies in Art Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Fri, 20 Sep 2013 05:24:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STUDIES in Art Education Copyright by the
A Journal of Issues and Research National Art Education Association
1986, 27 (4), 163-173
Three Areas of Concern for Art CriticismInstruction:

Theoreticaland ResearchFoundations, Sociological
Relationships, and Teaching Methodologies
Karen A. Hamblen
Louisiana State University
Despite current support in art education for an aesthetic education model, there has
been no consistent and widespread implementation of art criticism instruction. In
this paper, it is posited that research and foundational deficits, as these are revealed
in the literature, may be contributing factors. The need for the development of
theoretical and empirical frameworks and methods for implementation is suggested
by an investigation of the three following areas: (1) theoretical and research founda-
tions of art criticism, (2) sociological relationships, and (3) teaching methodologies.
Serious questions have been raised as to whether the traditional art program
concentrating primarily on studio production adequately develops aesthetic
discriminations, knowledge of art content, and analytical and evaluative skills
(Mittler, 1980). Increasingly, art educators are advocating an aesthetic model
that includes instruction in art history and art criticism in addition to studio
production. The use of an aesthetic education model by organizations such as
the Getty Center for Education and its use as the framework for numerous
state curriculum guidelines suggest that this is an auspicious time for the
widespread implementation of art criticism instruction. Such implementation
in the classroom is not occurring.
In addition to the much-expected and healthy debates on how art criticism
should be defined and approached (Geahigan, 1975; Nadaner, 1984), there are
basic conceptual and research deficits that, unless rectified, suggest that art
criticism instruction may remain peripheral in education.
Among the difficulties that might be ascribed to existing approaches is
the lack of an explicit foundation upon which to build critical
dialogue. .. Almost equally troublesome are theories and concepts that
constitute the ingredients of a foundation for criticism yet fail to provide
any correlative method for teachers or students of criticism to use.
(Lankford, 1984, p. 151)
The purpose of this paper is to examine three areas pertinent to art criticism
instruction: (1) theoretical and research foundations of art criticism, (2)
sociological relationships, and (3) teaching methodologies. It is proposed that
available literature in these areas needs to be analyzed and interpreted in rela-
tion to art criticism and that, where deficits occur, new theoretical and em-
pirical frameworks and methods for implementation should be developed.
Theoretical and Research Foundations of Art Criticism
The area of philosophical aesthetics provides the primary theoretical ra-
tionale for art criticism instruction. Art critical judgments are often based on
aesthetic criteria, and art critical procedures are linked to aesthetic theories
(Hamblen, in press; Mittler, 1982). Art criticism is, at its most basic, an ex-
ploration of the nature of art and aesthetic responses. By the same token,

164 KAREN A. HAMBLEN
through a reliance on aesthetic foundations, art criticism has inherited all the
controversy that seems to surround each and every aesthetic issue (Hamblen,
in press). Weitz (1962) argues that art is an open, contested concept inasmuch
as it eludes any stable definition or assurance of meaning that will command
consensus. "Aesthetic theory is a logically vain attempt to define what cannot
be defined, to state the necessary and sufficient properties, to conceive the
concept of art as closed when its very use reveals and demands openness" (p.
52).
Whether the focus of art criticism should be on making judgments, the ex-
tent to which the artist's intentions should or should not enter into one'e inter-
pretation, what constitutes artistic criteria, and other aesthetic issues, are cer-
tainly valuable concerns for art criticism instruction and deserve discussion.
Getting caught up in the intricacies of aesthetics can, however, easily divert at-
tention from pedagogical necessities. Granted, art criticism cannot exist
separate from aesthetic issues. When art criticism enters the classroom, other
concerns also develop, such as how students will respond to certain types of
art, what language they will use at certain ages and levels of readiness, how
their previous artistic background and their aesthetic tastes will influence
responses, and how personality types and learning styles relate to art inter-
pretations.
It is a major thesis of this paper that the bases of art criticism need to be
developed and expanded. This author believes that first and foremost art
criticism should be considered as an educational procedure that results in skills
for exploring aesthetic, sociological, personal, symbolic, and thematic mean-
ings of art. Rather than so constraining the art critical procedures within the
brackets of aesthetic integrity that they fail to have relevance to the student,
foundational rationales need to be developed beyond philosophic aesthetics to
a sociological aesthetic, and linkages need to be found to various types of
models for the very pragmatic purposes of facilitating classroom implementa-
tion.
Linguistic Development
Although Ecker (1967, 1972) has suggested that ultimately art critical
judgments occur through internalized responses to art, for practical and
pedagogical purposes, art criticism is a linguistic act entailing some form of
description, analysis, interpretation, and, often, judgment1 of an art object.
According to Feldman (1973), art criticism is "more or less informed, and
more or less organized, talk about art" (p. 50).
Despite language being the means through which art criticism is ex-
pressed, comparatively very little work has been done on children's re-
sponses to art. David Ecker, David Perkins, Ralph Smith and Brent Wil-
son have to some extent started to categorize the student's verbal re-
sponses to an art object or event, but any developmental schema for ver-
bal response to the work is still forthcoming. (Madeja, 1979, pp. 31-32).
Descriptions and collections of children's verbal responses to art do now exist
in the literature, but patterns of development have not been established nor
have such responses often been related specifically to art criticism (Kordich,
1982). A study by Winner, Rosenstiel, and Gardner (1976) indicates that
linguistic metaphors are developed along an age-based progression from the
'In this paper, these four steps serve as a generalized frame of reference.

ART CRITICISM INSTRUCTION 165
spontaneous generation of metaphors to an ability to explain metaphoric

meanings. This progression also exhibits an initial dependence on visual
similaritiesand later an abilityto form more abstractrelationships.In a study
of one preprimarychild, it was found that metaphorswere used in pretend
play duringage 2; by age4 metaphorswerebasedon perceptualqualities(Win-
ner, 1979). The use of metaphorsat these early ages appearsto be limitedto
functional and perceptual similarities. Not until the ages of 8 to 10 are
linguistic metaphors understood to describe psychological states, i.e., an
unkindperson as being icy, or used in a cross-sensorymanner,i.e., loud col-
ors. Significant to educators in the visual arts is the finding that when
presentedin the context of a picturedepictingthe linguisticmetaphor,early
primarychildrenare able to make correctselections. "The capacityto com-
prehendpsychologicalmetaphorsis a function of the measureused to assess
comprehension"(Winner,Wapner,Cicone, & Gardner,1979, p. 72). Not un-
til the middle years of childhood, however, do childrenspontaneouslynotice
expressive properties in works of art, and they do not talk about such
characteristicswithout promptinguntil early adolescence.This finding is of
significanceto art criticismin that "readingexpressionis essentialif a picture
is to be apprehendedin an aestheticmode" (Winner, 1982, p. 110).
Other findingssuggestthat a sensitivityto compositionis not evidentuntil
the middleelementaryyearsalthough6-year-oldscan classifyworksby style if
the distractionof conflicting subject matter is removed. Preferencesin 4-to
8-year-old children are based on color, representationalcontent, or both.
Judgments are based on whether or not they like the art work. Realism
becomes a determiningfactor of preferencefrom approximatelyage 8 until
adolescence,with judgmentsat these ages referredto experts.In adolescence,
a variety of styles is accepted, and aesthetic judgments become relative to
personaltaste or the artist'sintent. Accordingto Winner(1982),these changes
in preferenceand judgment parallelsimilar changes evidencedin cognitive,
personality,and moral development.
Parson, Johnston, and Durham(1978)have studiedthe developmentof ar-
tistic responsesdistinctfrom the more familiarstagesof logical-mathematical
or moral frameworks.Responsesto the topics of representation,subjectmat-
ter, feelings, artisticintent, color, and evaluationreveala developmentalsen-
sitivitytowardperceptualaspectsrelevantto the aestheticexperience.For ex-
ample, initially color in a painting is judged on the basis of personal
preference;in the secondstage, its realisticapplication;and in the thirdstage,
its expressiveaspects.
Despite these and other studies, there is, however, no widely accepted
developmental linguistic framework analogous to the familiar steps of
children'sgraphicexpressions.An often-statedpurposeof art criticismis to
wean childrenaway from literaland subjectiveresponsestowarda perception
of qualitiesintegralto the art object's physicalbeing. Thereis no formalized
linguistic framework that would indicate transitions along that route. In
developingart curriculafor elementarygrades,Chapman(1985)found ample
informationon "grade-by-gradeplacementof art conceptsand skillstypically
introducedthroughstudio work" (p. 207). For the sequencingof responsesto
art, she had to rely on teachingexperience,theoreticalwork, and the objec-
tives developed in other subject areas such as science, mathematics,social
studies, and languagearts.
The implementationof art criticisminstructionshould not be dependent

upon the existence of a linguistic developmental model. The inconsistencies,

errors, and problems that have come from relying on a model of children's
graphic expressions developing through a series of linear, age-referenced steps
is well-documented (Pariser, 1983; Wilson & Wilson, 1982). The lessons
learned from that experience need to be heeded. A general frame of reference
would be helpful, however.
Formalized talk about art, in addition to indicating what is perceived, re-
quires such conceptual skills as ordering, sequencing, and differentiating, as
well as the possession of language skills that allows for the written or verbal ex-
pression of those concepts. Just as a child's graphic expression is often not
congruent with what a child knows or is able to see, it is important to keep in
mind that what a child verbalizes in regard to art may lag far behind what is ac-
tually perceived and conceptually understood.
Developmental Model Parallels
Human development studies have been primarily linked with art produc-
tion, and artistic development has been used almost exclusively to mean ar-
tistic expression. In regard to art criticism, developmental theories have
primarily found application to the actual format and character of the art
criticism procedure itself rather than to age-based developmental patterns of
art critical response. The art critical levels of description, analysis, interpreta-
tion, and judgment are often considered to be developmental, paralleling, for
example, the cognitive stages of Piaget (Kordich, 1982), the steps of perceptual
models such as those of Arnheim (1969) and Bruner (1958), and the hier-
archical categories of learning models such as those of Bloom and Gagne (Arm-
strong & Armstrong, 1977; Hamblen, 1984). These developmental and hier-
archical models have in common the movement from lower levels of undifferen-
tiated, spontaneous, and concrete ways of responding toward higher levels of
differentiated, abstract, and internally constructed interpretations of reality.
The art criticism format serves as a miniature model of conceptual, perceptual,
and learning skill development. Movement through an art criticism format is
discussed as both an instructional procedure and as a developmental pattern
that occurs over time.
Ascertaining conceptual and structural similarities between cognitive stages
and art critical formats provides a valuable theoretical foundation for art
criticism in terms of empirical studies and actual classroom applications. Kor-
dich (1982) tested the cognitive levels of children and found that achievement
in art critical levels was commensurate with the attainment of parallel
cognitive levels. It was not that younger children could not act within the
higher levels of art criticism, but rather that they responded in less detail, ex-
pressed fewer discriminations, and clung to interpretations based on literal
qualities. Most developmental studies have neither a direct art criticism in-
structional application nor are conducted, as in the Kordich example,
specifically in relationship to art criticism instruction.
Perceptual Development
The perceptual foundations of art criticism follow essentially the same pat-
tern as that of relationships made to theories of conceptual development and
learning. Madeja (1979) finds Arnheim's (1969) categories of perception to be
helpful in explaining the perceptual process entailed in art criticism, i.e.,
observation, description, selection, and generalization. In addition to referen-
cing the steps of the art critical process to aesthetic theories, i.e., description-
imitationalism, analysis-formalism, interpretation-expressionism, Mittler

(1976) bases much of his art critical rationale on Bruner's (1958) four stages of
discriminate perceptual decision-making. This perceptual process is initiated
by a cursory primitive scanning, proceeds to a seeking of relevant cues, is
followed by the formation of a tentative categorization, and concludes with a
confirmation that results in a final categorization. As in art criticism, Bruner's
perceptual process involves a progression away from merely subjective, cur-
sory responses to greater discriminatory powers that result in a judgment
based on evidence that has been examined. The art criticism process is a
distillation and a consciously heightened perceptual experience of what occurs
on an often preconscious level throughout one's everyday perceptions.
Sociological Relationships
With aesthetics forming the most pervasive foundational area of art
criticism theory and practice, it is not surprising that sociological relationships
in the art critical process, the social significance of art objects studied, and
students' socio-economic background have received short shrift in the
literature. With little work done on the more traditional dimensions of in-
dividual differences as these relate to art critical responses, sociological im-
plications essentially are ignored. The overarching goal for art criticism in-
struction appears to be to wean students away from responses rooted in their
life world.
Sociology of the Art Critical Process
Art criticism, as a formalized procedure, is a learned skill; it is not how one
normally responds to art. It, thereby, represents a particular class of responses
to art not experienced by all citizens. The specialized language skills acquired
through art critical instruction enables one to communicate meanings specific
to art that can be shared with others similarly schooled.
Based on the socio-economic theory of Gouldner (1979), who has examined
the social implications of speech community membership, Hamblen (1984) has
termed the specialized linguistic codes of art criticism as constituting the
Culture of Aesthetic Discourse (CAD). Hamblen questions whether participa-
tion in the CAD might not unduly separate students' responses to art from
their biographical life worlds. In a similar vein, Nadaner (1985) questions the
formalist approach that is "commonly used in art classes, . . . restricts itself
to formal relations in the work and de-emphasizes the content of the work and
its socially-constructed meaning" (p. 11). Nadaner (1984, 1985) presents a
strong case for including social and subjectively constructed meanings in art
criticism. He advocates two types of criticism: historical criticism which "at-
tends to the 'world views' of the observer at a specific moment in history under
specific social conditions, [and] semiotic criticism [which] attends to the
'cultural codes' used by observers to understand signs in a visual work" (1985,
p. 11). Others have also lamented the general emphasis on formalistic
aesthetics throughout the art curriculum and have proposed inclusion of
sociological content (Bersson, 1982). There is a lack of prescribed, easily
replicated teaching strategies that would facilitate the implementation of
socially relevant art criticism.
Social Benefits of Art Criticism Study
Art criticism proponents have been fond of extolling the virtues of art
critical study, ranging from the intrinsic value of art study to statements on the
social benefits of an aesthetically enlightened populace, with all shades of
cognitive development and aesthetic literacy benefits in between. Similar to the

many benefits imputed to art production, it is often assumed that art criticism
study itself will result in social improvement rather than the process specifical-
ly being concerned with social meanings or the object of study necessarily em-
bodying social content. It has been proposed that art criticism will result in an
enlightened populace which has an expanded repertoire of feeling (Broudy,
1972; Smith, 1967) and that art critical skills may develop a type of visual
literacy that will counter the invidious effects of the mass media (Feldman,
1973). Broudy (1972), Johansen (1982), and Smith (1967) believe that ex-
emplars of art should constitute the objects of art critical study; Feldman
(1973) proposes that all types of humanmade objects be studied, "the meaning
of clothing, furniture, domestic architecture, and product design" (p. 55). The
critical act, according to Feldman, completes the aesthetic experience by
socializing it, by making it public. It should be noted that these same gen-
eralized social benefits have, at various times, been attributed to the art pro-
duction process, too.
As elsewhere in the art curriculum, questions on the appropriateness of in-
cluding social dimensions in the art study process will, in all probability, con-
tinue to be debated. However, as long as aesthetic theory forms the primary
foundation of art criticism instruction, with commensurate goals of
eliminating subjective responses and of developing sophisticated aesthetic
linguistic codes, it is doubtful that sociological implications will make any ma-
jor inroads.
Cognitive Learning Styles and Personality Types
Art criticism is in its infancy with regard to the psychology of the learner.
Other than the most general of comments, such as that the assumptive world
of students should be taken into consideration, few concessions and
allowances are made for the individual student in terms of learning styles and
personality types. There are few studies that look at art criticism in terms of
student differences. In a noteworthy exception, Hollingsworth (1983) tested
whether a counterattitudinal approach, habituation and/or art criticism were
efficacious ways in which to increase preferences of students of different grade
levels. It was found that for elementary students art criticism was most effec-
tive. A combination treatment was best for junior high, and a counterat-
titudinal approach might be useful to bring about a specific change in regard
to a particular work.
Lovano-Kerr (1983) relates art criticism methodologies and aesthetic percep-
tion to cognitive style.
The various approaches to art criticism and aesthetic perception may be
favoring one mode of processing information over the other. The em-
phasis of parts to the whole, restructuring, and hypotheses-testing may
exclude persons with a global style (field-dependent). Conversely, ap-
proaches focusing on mood, feeling, and intuition may exclude persons
with a more articulated style (field-independent). A better understanding
of these influences in responding to art could be basic to instructional
development, teaching, and learning. (p. 202)
In a study of museum tours, Housen (1980) found that visitors could be
classified into five types, ranging from the naive to the knowledgeable. Not
only could types of responses be correlated with level of sophistication, but
tour methodologies could also be prescribed. For example, those visitors with
a subjective or utilitarian focus on the object benefit from an exploratory, par-

ticipatory tour. Those visitors concerned with categorical placement and

knowledge about the artist, style, and period preferred a lecture mode.
In providing a general art education text, Chapman (1978) does not endorse
any one art critical procedure, but, rather, presents the steps and applications
of four different methods: inductive, deductive, interactive, and empathic.
These are discussed in terms of the art critical outcomes that result from using
these different approaches, not how certain types of students might be com-
patible with certain types of approaches. There are admonitions in art educa-
tion literature against believing that art critical judgments are either final or
definitive, or that students should be required to conform to any standards
during analysis and interpretation other than referential adequacy (Broudy,
1972; Smith 1967). But, as Lanier (1985) notes, the focus of art criticism is
foremost on the art object, not the perceiver of the object. Mittler (1982), in
addition to finding parallels between art theories and the steps of art criticism,
proposes that different theories be selected to guide the art critical process
depending upon the character of the object being analyzed. Art theories and
art critical approaches are selected as to their applicability to the art object
under consideration, not how the student might best be able to relate to the ob-
ject on the basis of his/her learning style or personality type.
Art criticism is not an exercise in self-expression as art production has often
been; yet, student factors such as age, experience, and background will have
an impact on the art critical learning that takes place. How those personal and
learning factors relate to the linguistic, conceptual, and perceptual complex of
processes that make up art criticism remain essentially unexplored. Studies on
individual differences from a variety of areas will need to be culled for relevant
findings and put within the art criticism perspective.
Teaching Methodologies
Instructional Cues
Examples of student-teacher dialogues abound in the literature and make
for interesting reading, but they provide few practical cues for actual im-
plementation. Feldman (1973) mentions the Socratic questioning method, yet
whether a teacher could implement this methodology from Feldman's book is
doubtful. Some authors present fairly precise and clearly outlined procedural
formats (Feinstein, 1983; Lankford, 1984), and others have presented infor-
mation on how classroom questions can be generated (Armstrong & Arm-
strong, 1977; Hamblen, 1984; Taunton, 1983).
There are numerous studies throughout the literature that have implications
for art criticism instruction. For example, as mentioned earlier, many studies
indicate that young children classify and make preference judgments about art
on the basis of subject matter, while older children tend to be able to differen-
tiate according to style. Questioning these broad generalizations, Hardiman and
Zernich (1977) suggested that a work's degree of realism may be a determining
factor for preference at all grade levels. Findings from other studies suggest
that the perception of aesthetic qualities may require a knowledge of artistic
conventions, the learning of stylistic rules, and an awareness of artistic inten-
tions (D'Onofrio & Nodine, 1981; Rush & Sabers, 1981). Perceptual studies re-
quiring art-based qualitative responses may also provide information on
linguistic patterns relevant to art criticism (Evans, 1984). Application of data
from such studies will, of course, require careful attention to the qualifying
variables of respondents' ages, personality types, cognitive styles, and past ar-
tistic experiences.

Learning Theory
Authors have not overlooked similarities among the traditional art criticism
four-step format, hierarchies of learning, and instructional taxonomies. These
relationships are particularly valuable in that they not only furnish a
theoretical foundation for art criticism but also provide clues for classroom
implementation. Hamblen (1984) has developed an art criticism questioning
strategy within the framework of Bloom's taxonomy, with further similarities
noted to the models of Gagne, Guilford, Harrow, Krathwohl, and Piaget.
Armstrong and Armstrong (1977) refer to Gagne's hierarchy of learning, Par-
sons' analysis of teachers' questions, and Ausubel's use of advanced
organizers to generate questions toward increasingly higher cognitive levels;
Taunton (1984) finds Gallagher and Aschner's categories helpful for shaping
questions to be used in art dialogues. Learning hierarchies not only provide an
instructional format but also indicate the patterned progression through
which, it is often believed, learners progress over a period of time.
Format Validity
An art criticism format is the outward, formal manifestation of its author's
goals and perspectives and is indicative of a particular philosophical or foun-
dational perspective. With reference to the steps involved in the scientific
method, Clements (1979) proposes an inductive art criticism methodology con-
sisting of engaging in analysis, forming an hypothesis, and confirming the
hypothesis. In a different manner, Lankford (1984) advocates a
phenomenological approach and includes three preliminary steps to prepare
the student for the art criticism experience. The steps of receptiveness, orien-
ting, and bracketing are followed by interpretative analysis and synthesis.
Art criticism derives not only its formal characteristics but, concomitantly,
its foundational rationale through the adaptation of a particular type of pro-
cedure. Although an art criticism format's formal qualities should not be con-
sidered equivalent to its substance, a particular procedure often has
antecedents in foundational areas. The art criticism process itself might
replicate conceptual development, modes of perception, learning procedures,
and patterns of awareness in the aesthetic experience. Such linkages suggest
theoretical validity as well as form the framework for further inquiry and pro-
vide clues for instructional implementation. As an art content area, art
criticism has the distinction of having a procedural format integral to its being
and a format explanatory of some type of human activity.
A note of caution against an uncritical enthusiasm for this type of format
validity is in order. Similarities between an art criticism format and a learning
hierarchy may merely indicate a pedagogical compatibility that can be pro-
fitably combined in an educational system in which there is a familiarity with,
and receptivity to, hierarchical constructs. This author believes that the art
criticism process should be about educational outcomes and artistic meanings
rather than about how one believes human inquiry and behavior, on a pan-
social and panindividual level, are organized. In proposing art criticism for-
mats that have overarching implications, as does, for example, the inductive
scientific approach, a truth may be implied above and beyond the analysis of
such and such art objects.
Art criticism certainly can be enlightening and even provide the thrills that
accompany expanded consciousness, yet art criticism is not a quest for eternal
verities. Assumptions of format validity can easily obscure the need for multi-
ple art critical approaches, differences students exhibit in their responses to
art, how students process information, and how they proceed to understand

any phenomenon, art included. Essentially, art criticism involves organizing

responses to, and ideas about, art. How those responses and ideas are or-
ganized in an art criticism format is a matter of choice indicative of values
placed on how it is believed students might best perceive and understand art.
An art criticism format is merely a curriculum option rather than an exclusive-
ly correct view on art.
Recommendations
Studio instruction is supported by a less than perfectly organized and
coherent pattern of inquiry (Rush, 1984). Nonetheless, artistic expression has a
respectable record of theory and research in foundational areas that provides
clues for actual classroom application. The proponents of art criticism need to
look beyond their philosophical-aesthetic horizons to establish a more firm
and varied empirical and theoretical foundation. Efforts need to be made to
establish a foundation for art criticism based on psychological studies, learn-
ing theory, perceptual theory, sociology, and cross-cultural aesthetics. An in-
itial, basic model of the psychological foundations of art criticism will need to
incorporate findings in the four areas of language development, conceptual
development, perceptual theory, and learning theory. Information in these
four areas will need to be assessed in terms of development over time as well as
in terms of responses within an art criticism format procedure at a given time.
As has been done with graphic expression, a series of vertical and longitudinal
studies need to be conducted wherein art-related comments made by
preprimary children and children of other ages are collected and analyzed for
their semantic content.
Parallels among art criticism formats, learning taxonomies, and
developmental models need to be investigated beyond the theoretical realm
and obvious conceptual similarities. Primary research in art criticism will need
to be heavily supplemented by data from relevant studies carried out in
linguistics, developmental psychology, experimental aesthetics, learning
theory, and perceptual investigations. Primarily, the many art criticism for-
mats now available will need to be thoroughly catalogued and evaluated as to
their applicability to specific contexts, goals, and student readiness levels
(Hamblen, 1985). As Geahigan (1980) notes in regard to art critical methods
and goals, "It is significant that questions such as these have yet to be asked in
the literature. Instead, the literature has grown in an incremental manner by
writers simply adding to the body of existing method and goal prescriptions"
(p. 64).
Conclusions
The general state of art criticism as it appears in the literature is one of dif-
fused aesthetic foundations and psychological foundational rationales built on
model-format similarities. There are vague allusions to individual differences,
an indifference to sociological foundations, and few explicit cues for
classroom implementation. These theoretical and research deficits are com-
pounded by the educational milieu art criticism instruction must enter. Artistic
production has served as not only the cornerstone of art education since its in-
ception, but has constituted, for all practical purposes, the entire edifice.
There are no periodicals devoted to art criticism lessons and projects, no full-
color advertisements displaying instructional procedures and the written
results of students' art criticism efforts, and no scholarships given for the most
insightful art critical analysis produced by a high school student.

There are some fairly positive prospects for art criticism that might counter-
balance the bleak state of current foundational and research development.
Whereas a decade or so ago Smith (1973) noted a climate unfavorable to art
criticism due to its intellectualized approach, Grieder (1985) now believes that
"a form of education that is opposed to the intellect is sure to meet opposition
or neglect" (p. 7). Art criticism has the potential for being the most clear-cut
instructional area in the aesthetic education model. No other area has an in-
structional format integral to its very being.
References
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Armstrong, C.L., & Armstrong, N.A. (1977). Art teacher questioning strategy. Studies in Art
Education, 18 (3), 53-64.
Bersson, R. (1982). Against feeling: Aesthetic experience in technocratic society. Art Education,
35 (4), 34-39.
Broudy, H.S. (1972). Enlightened cherishing: An essay on aesthetic education. Urbana. IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Bruner, J.S. (1958). On perceptual readiness. In D.C. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer, (Eds.),
Readings in perception. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand.
Chapman, L.H. (1978). Approaches to art in education. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chapman, L.H. (1985). Curriculum development as process and product. Studies in Art Educa-
tion, 26 (4), 206-211.
Clements, R.D. (1979). The inductive method of teaching visual art criticism. Journal of
Aesthetic Education. 13 (3), 67-78.
D'Onofrio, A., & Nodine, C.F. (1981). Children's responses to paintings. Studies in Art Educa-
tion, 23 (1), 14-23.
Ecker, D.W. (1967). Justifying aesthetic judgment. Art Education, 20, 5-8.
Ecker, D.W. (1972). Teaching art criticism as aesthetic inquiry. New York University Education
Quarterly, 3 (4), 20-26.
Evans, E.D. (1984). Children's aesthetics. Current topics in early childhood education, Vol. V.
Lilian G. Katz, Ed. Norwood, NJ: Abex.
Feinstein, H. (1983). The therapeutic trap in metaphoric interpretation. Art Education, 36 (4),
30-33.
Feldman, E. (1973). The teacher as model critic. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7(1), 50-57.
Geahigan, G. (1975). Feldman on evaluation. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 9 (4), 29-42.
Geahigan, G. (1980). Metacritical inquiry in arts education. Studies in Art Education, 21 (3),
54-67.
Gouldner, A.W. (1979). The future of intellectuals and the rise of the new class. New York:
Seabury.
Grieder, T. (1985). A post-modern theory of art education. Art Education, 37(1), 6-8.
Hamblen, K.A. (1984). An art criticism questioning strategy within the framework of Bloom's
taxonomy. Studies in Art Education, 26 (1), 41-50.
Hamblen, K.A. (1985). A descriptive and analytical study of art criticism formats with implica-
tions for curricular implementation. American Educational Research Association Arts and
Learning SIG Proceedings, 1-14.
Hamblen, K.A. (in press) Exploring contested concepts for aesthetic literacy. Journal of Aesthetic
Education.
Hardiman, G.W., & Zernich, T. (1977). Influence of style and subject matter on the development
of children's art preferences. Studies in Art Education, 19 (1), 29-35.
Hollingsworth, P.C. (1983). The combined effect of mere exposure, counterattitudinal advocacy,
and art criticism methodology on upper elementary and junior high students' affect toward
art works. Studies in Art Education, 24 (2), 101-110.
Housen, A. (1980). What is beyond, or before, the lecture tour? A study of aesthetic modes of
understanding. Art Education, 33 (1), 16-18.
Johansen, P. (1982). Teaching aesthetic discerning through dialog. Studies in Art Education, 23
(2), 6-13.
Kordich, D.D. (1982). An instructional strategy in art criticism for the middle school: A game

approach focusing on the stages of analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1982),
Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1016A.
Lanier, V. (1985). Discipline-based art education: Three issues. Studies in Art Education, 26
(4), 253-256.
Lankford, E.L. (1984). A phenomenological methodology for art criticism. Studies in Art Educa-
tion, 25 (3), 151-158.
Lovano-Kerr, J. (1983). Cognitive style revisited: Implications for research in art production and
art criticism. Studies in Art Education, 24 (3), 195-205.
Madeja, S. (1979). The child and aesthetic development. The arts and handicapped people:
Defining the national direction. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Education for the Handicapped,
Division of Innovation and Development, National Committee, Arts for the Handicapped.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 158 445)
Mittler, G.A. (1976). Perceptual thoroughness as a prelude to discriminate decision making in art.
Viewpoints: Bulletin of the School of Education at Indiana University, 52 (3), f5-29.
Mittler, G.A. (1980). Learning to look/looking to learn: A proposed approach to art appreciation
at the secondary school level. Art Education, 33 (3), 17-21.
Mittler, G.A. (1982). Teaching art appreciation in the high school. School Arts, 82 (3), 36-41.
Nadaner, D. (1984). Critique and intervention: Implications of social theory for art education.
Studies in Art Education, 26 (1), 20-26.
Nadaner, D. (1985). Responding to the image world: A proposal for art curricula. Art Education,
37 (1), 9-12.
Parsons, M., Johnston, M., & Durham, R. (1978). Developmental stages in children's aesthetic
respohses. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 12 (1), 83-104.
Pariser, D. (1983). The pitfalls of progress: A review and discussion of Gablik's Progress in art.
Visual Arts Research, 9 (1), 41-54.
Rush, J.C. (1984). Does anyone read Studies any more? Studies in Art Education, 25 (3),
139-140.
Rush, J.C., & Sabers, D.L. (1981). The perception of artistic style. Studies in Art Education, 23
(1), 24-32.
Smith, R. (1967). An exemplar approach to aesthetic education. Bureau of Educational Research,
Project No. 6-3-6-06127-1609, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education and Department of
Health, Education and Welfare.
Smith, R. (1973). Teaching aesthetic criticism in the schools. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 7
(1), 38-49.
Taunton, M. (1983). Questioning strategies to encourage young children to talk about art. Art
Education, 36 (4), 40-43.
Taunton, M. (1984). Reflective dialogue in the art classroom: Focusing on the art process. Art
Education, 37 (1), 15-16.
Weitz, M. (1962). The role of theory in aesthetics. In J. Margolis, (Ed.), Philosophy looks at the
arts: Contemporary readings in aesthetics. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Wilson, B.G., & Wilson, M. (1982). The persistence of the perpendicular principle: Why, when
and where innate factors determine the nature of drawings. Visual Art Research, 15 1-18.
Winner, E. (1979). New names for old things: The emergence of metaphoric language. The
Journal of Child Language, 12 (4), 289-297.
Winner, E. (1982). Invented worlds: The psychology of the arts. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Winner, E., Rosenstiel, A., & Gardner, H. (1976). The development of metaphoric understand-
ing. Developmental Psychology, 12, 289-297.
Winner, E., Wapner, W., Cicone, M., & Gardner, H. (1979). Measures of metaphor. In E. Win-
ner and H. Gardner (Eds.), New directions for child development: Fact, fiction, and fantasy in
childhood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Three Areas of Concern For Art Criticism Instruction Theoretical and Research

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Three Areas of Concern For Art Criticism Instruction Theoretical and Research

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

National Art Education Association

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Fri, 20 Sep 2013 05:24:20 AM