|D.161 | Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 16:30 - 17:00, Room D1 |
|Replacement for Art in Education
|The term art is used in many ways, two are relevant for the subject of art education:
Firstly, art is aesthetic, something special with high value, the quality which defines art as art is to be found in the artwork itself. Moreover, art is what the art world calls art. Both senses are used simoultaneously. Art in the sense of “aesthetic” dominates local and regional art, as well as art education. Art as a matter of the art world dominates the international contemporary art. In the long run the art world will dominate the definition.
Art is no more aesthetic, it is not a question of quality of the artwork, it is a question of a social system. In the art world something is either art or not, a decision of yes or no. In the aesthetic paradigm art is/was a quality on a scale from “no art” to “masterpiece”, the identity of art is/was in the object. However, something not recognized by the art world can/could be art anyway. So children are/were able to make art or act like artists. This time is over, because this paradigm is disappearing. “Art” education is losing the traditional meaning of its subject.
Art in the traditional aesthetic meaning focuses on special characteristics separated from everyday life, it has a special quality. Most of the objects which are important for our children do not fit this sense of art.
The paradigm of art education was characterized by children acting like artists, the piece of art as a masterpiece, and the teacher as a friend of the children. This paradigm does not work anymore, because of the shift in the art world and the needs in children’s education.
The art education has to look at the shift of the aesthetic paradigm to an institutional one, has to discuss the consequences and needs to develop a new paradigm for “art” in education.