Arts Education, Aesthetic Value, and Policy

Abstract

Increasingly asked to think of themselves as educators, teachers of visual might wonder whether they are in fact members of a larger disciplinary field and thus should give up pretense of providing instruction in a single subject. Before deciding, however, they would do well to heed remarks of Vincent Lanier who cautions that any attempt at a combined education which does not carefully and clearly identify distinctions among will only escalate or reinforce confusion and curtail its own effectiveness.' Despite such warnings, notion of education continues to have currency. Why? For one reason, idea serves interests of a number of groups whose motives do not spring from a serious concern for but rather from imperatives of political expediency. One such group is composed of advocates who lobby for federal support for cultural and educational programs. Convinced that there is strength in coalitions, they press case for the arts and education, not for a particular art or subject. Government officials echo interests and rhetoric of these cultural lobbyists (although, to be sure, two groups are often indistinguishable) and are loath to make distinctions that might offend those with political influence. That art educators have, for most part, offered little resistance to politically motivated concepts of education is understandable. Many (but of course not all) of professional leaders in art education are themselves advocates and lobbyists and thus tend to take their cues from larger cultural establishment. Other art educators do not object to their subject being subsumed under rubric of education if this promises to increase chances for professional survival. Expedience aside, however, art educators may also be swayed by seemingly .. . it may be concluded that teachers in all can pursue their common objective best by teaching their respective fields separately.