question, answers and the possibility of surprise

Question, Answers and the Possibility of Surprise 1

What’s Worth Teaching in Art?

Robert Sullivan

October 25, 2011

Question, Answers and the Possibility of Surprise

All three authors seem to be espousing, what could very well be considered, a modern

outlook or approach to teaching art. It is, nonetheless, paradoxical that Bolin, Gude and Wiggins’

outlooks would be deemed contemporary when in fact it appears their ideas are immersed in a

classical method of imparting and gaining wisdom. However, there are differences in their

concerns. Bolin and Wiggins seem most concerned with the importance of what the student or

teacher asks while Gude, in general, covers the same philosophical concerns but delves more into

practical detail about the best way to actually illustrate ideas, even giving the reader specific

examples of classroom art making projects to consider.

In Paul E. Bolin’s article, We Are What We Ask (1996) he seems to be dealing with three

primary things; questioning, answers and societal concerns. In the first sentence of his article,

Bolin asserts a powerful premise; “Our lives are directed through the questions we ask.” (Bolin,

1996, p.6) He goes on to discuss the proclivity to query as being a relentless part of the human

condition, reminding the reader that there are “questions that remain significant throughout the

ages”. (Bolin, 1996, p.6) He even directs us to question the questions when he asks; “What do art

educators, and writers about art view as essential questions that demand attention within the

current world of visual art?” (Bolin, 1996, p.7) Questioning the questions is perhaps one of the

most important things to consider as we tend to yield the floor of curriculum making to those

“experts” that have been christened so by other “experts” and as with any decision making or

judgments, one has to wonder, after all, who is judging the judges? Other considerations like;


“what it means to be human” (Bolin, 1996, p.7) seem to have no definite answer and still

challenge us today. While some questions raised in past times such as; “Is the world flat or

round?” (Bolin, 1996, p.7) have been answered, the fact that they have been resolved opens us up

to the possibility that a question need not remain rhetorical and the possibility of having any

question answered, is a viable one.

Bolin veers into the aspect of the artist directly dealing with social concerns by

referencing Suzi Gablik’s book, The Renchantment of Art (1991) whereby Gablik asks; “Are

political and social concerns in the arts informing a new aesthetic? Are artists becoming more

engaged in work that addresses social issues?”(Bolin, 1996,p. 8) His citings and comments about

other writers who have raised the issue of socially conscious artists working today is more

pointed than what Gude or Wiggins formulate in their essays and seems to be a much more

tangible observation of what perhaps is at least one important result of all these queries.

Olivia Gude, in her essay Principles of Possibility: Considerations for 21st-Century Art &

Culture Curriculum(2007) appears to be most focused on recognizing possibilities, the

making/playing as well as societal concerns. “The essential contribution that arts education can

make to our students and to our communities is to teach skills and concepts while creating

opportunities to investigate and represent one’s own experience-generating personal and shared

meaning.” (Gude, 2007, p.6) She also states in regard to ‘Attentive Living’; “Attuning students

to vitally experiencing everyday life should be a goal of any systematic art education. Students

will learn to notice and to shape the world around them.” (Gude, 2007, p.10) Considering

making and playing Gude cites on page 7; “Learning begins with creative, deeply personal,

primary process play. Such play must be truly free, not directed toward mastering a technique,


solving a specific problem, or illustrating a randomly chosen juxtaposition.” (Lowenfield &

Brittain, 1965)

It is important to note too that Gude does stress the knowledge of history, societal and

culture as important curriculum components. (Gude, 2007, p.6) She cites on page 8; “Great art

often engages the most significant issues of the community, calling on each of us to bring the

deepest understanding and empathy to our shared social experience.” (Tolstoy, 1898/1996)

Grant Wiggins’ article, The Futility of Trying to Teach Everything of Importance (1989),

is considering questioning, determining what’s actually important and self-confidence as

significant criteria for curriculum. The idea that modern curriculum should adhere to the motto

of the 17thcentury Royal Society Nullus in Verba, roughly translated to mean, “Take nobody’s

word for it, see for yourself” (Wiggins, 1989, p.45), is at the root of his premise that we must

encourage our students to rightfully question everything. Knowing what is important and not

settling for “learning to know and do a few important things well and leaving out much of

importance” (Wiggins, 1989, p.45) goes right to the heart of criticizing our modern age of

specialization and how we often honor specialization over a more holistic understanding of the

world. This modern focus on specialization seems to be contributing to an education vacuum

amongst even our professional class, a group that makes a lot of our cultural decisions. Wiggins’

use of the term “self-confidence” is unique amongst the three essays as he is expressing the idea

that a student be confident in the idea that they should do everything in their power to continue to

question as when he states; “One therefore learns self-confidence as a student by seeing that

one’s questions, not ones current store of knowledge, always determine whether one becomes

truly educated.” (Wiggins,1989, p.48)


The idea that art curriculums should encourage students to question is the one initiative

that all three articles wrestle with. Known commonly as the Socratic Method, a method of

teaching by question and answer used by Socrates to elicit truths from his students is a classic

device that promotes critical thinking. The Socratic Method has certainly seen its challenges

throughout the ages. Though Wiggins mentions Socrates directly on page 58 of his article, there

is no doubt that all three authors would not be alluding to the need to employ this worthwhile

method of teaching into an art curriculum if there were not still challenges to its usefulness.

Currently, the Socratic Method is still being disputed by many modern educators and not by the

edict of a prevailing religion as it has been in the past (though religion certainly does have its

influence on discouraging critical thinking in our public schools even today), but more perhaps

by the popular sentiment of what is considered an effort to promote the pragmatic in education.

This may be a result of the dominant influence a pragmatic working class attitude has had on the

education process since western culture, in particular, has taken upon itself the chore of

educating the general public en masse. The result of this pragmatism insinuating itself into our

public education system over the years seems more concerned with trying to create good

“specialized” worker-bees rather than good thinkers.

I would have to surmise that all three of these authors are encouraging the reinforcement

of a classical inquiry as being worth teaching in art and as a means to a better society. I think

Olivia Gude summed it up best and really answers the question of why we even bother to make

art when she writes; “Most art teachers I meet have a quality of “radical proactively”. Art

teachers are optimists. They believe in the possibility of a more playful, sensitive, thoughtful,

just, diverse, aware, critical, and pleasurable society.” (Gude, 2007, p. 15) These are all really


important things that our culture needs for its own survival and for culture to also flourish in a

meaningful, fair and just way, thus making the world (as naïve and as surprising as it may

sound), simply a better place to live. The possibilities are limited to what we can imagine and we

must be willing “…to hold out, even in times of deep pessimism, for the possibility of

surprise.”(Gude, 2007, cited from Hward Zinn, p. 6)

References

Bolin, Paul E. (1996, September). We Are What We Ask, Art Education, pp 6-8.

Gude, Olivia (2007, January). Principles of Possibility: Consideration for a 21st-Century

Art & Culture Curriculum, Art Education, pp 6-8, 10.

Wiggins, Grant (1989, November). The Futility of Trying to Teach Everything of

Importance, Educational Leadership, pp 45, 48, 58.

question, answers and the possibility of surprise

Documents