National Art Education Association

On Caring and CraftsmanshipAuthor(s): Jim WrightSource: Art Education, Vol. 35, No. 3 (May, 1982), p. 33Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192595 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 01:16

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 support@jstor.org.

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:16:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

On Caring and Craftsmanship

"The object of beauty at the end of the process can be a learner, motivated through care and high standards, to be all that he can be."

Jim Wright

Let's look at two dimensions of what we, as good art teachers,

should be thinking about: caring and craftsmanship. Caring suggests that we have concern for and about people, and craftsmanship suggests doing something really well. The notions of caring and craftsmanship are not new to art education, but when understood together in the manner suggested here, they take on added meaning.

One of the most powerful ideas that has emerged from humanistic literature of the past few years is that those people in helping profes- sions (doctors, nurses, teachers, etc.) who are the most effective seem to be truly caring people.' Of many identified qualities, they share the common characteristic of caring about the people they work with. They care also about how things appear to others, and about the meaning of experiences and inter- actions shared with, and perceived by the other person. We could, in our case, say that more effective art teachers are attentive to the effect of the total experience in the art room on the learner. Good art teachers attempt to be attentive to the way things seem to be for the learner. They attempt to assess their effect on the situation, and they are aware of varying perceptions of external reality. However much the art

product as outcome is valued, we would all be better art teachers by not losing sight of these factors. This also carries with it the responsi- bility for doing all that we can to make it easier for students to achieve success. Barriers to communication and understanding need to be broken, and environments of trust and mutual accomplishment established.2

We need to communicate our goals and beliefs to our students. It doesn't hurt, in fact it's downright beneficial, to tell students: "I care about you!" "I care about the way you feel!" "It's important for us to talk with each other so we can better understand each other!" "Tell me how you feel about doing this!" "If we don't work at understanding where we each are 'coming from' we can't accomplish as much!" Does this suggest laissez-faire approaches to teaching? Does it suggest our standards should be low? No! In fact, we really don't care about our students if we just go through the motions, or play therapists, or have no standards (or low standards) of expected achievement. The poorest teachers I've had were the ones who didn't communicate with me and/or accepted anything I did (and worse; told me it was good.) When we do that, we don't truly care about the learner.

Another dimension of caring about students is in finding avenues for learners that helps them to be their very best. If we really care, we want them to be all that they can be at that particular time. This is not suggesting the level of accomplishment will be the same for each learner. Furthermore, telling students that everything they do is wonderful and good (a promoted practice at one time in art education) is simply lying to them. We eventually communicate the opposite of our word and intent. We're really saying ". . . it really doesn't matter what you do ... it has little value." Pretty soon the students get the real message.

So what does all this have to do with craftsmanship? Everything.

Craftsmanship, as I am learning it, means to do something the very best that you can to the highest and finest level possible.3 Yes, there can be beauty in the finished object, but as much beauty may also exist in the planning, the revising, and the working. Caring is evidenced by every step of the process. A certain "rite of passage" exists in the craftsman when the challenge of the idea is translated through him to become a special object of beauty.4 The object came about because the artist had high standards and had mastered considerable skills to create a par- ticular artifact at a particular time. Tremendous personal satisfaction can be the reward for a job really well done. But the artist frequently feels a companion dissatisfaction because he senses/conceptualizes a need to move on. A new problem has grown out of the old, and the craftsman moves toward a new challenge. Those of us who have had this experience know its thrill and excitement.

As teachers of art we thus need to be good craftsmen. Our craft becomes a wedding of our care for the learners and our understanding of the craftsmanly process. We can think about the foregoing description of craftsmanship in terms of people, not only things. The object of beauty at the end of the process can be a learner, motivated through care and high standards, to be all that he can be. If we accomplish this, we have gone through the craftsmanship process using our special skills in our own special ways to bring about a truly beautiful thing: a more accomplished, more secure, evolving, independent, and changing person- one who hopefully will continue in the process of inquiring, daring, and growing. We can do it because we truly care and because we're good at our craft.

Jim Wright is associate professor in the department of art education, Virginia Commonwealth University at Richmond.

Art Education May 1982 33

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:16:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions