"From Endpoints to Repertoires": A Challenge to Art Education

Abstract

Whether or not we agree with Arthur Danto's (1997) idea of living in the after the end of era, one thing is certain: At the end of the 20th century the concept of art constitutes, more than ever before, an ill-defined category. The understanding of what art is, could be, or should be is guided by the universe of classification rules too vast to allow for an operational definition that would hold to the scrutiny of various social, political, cultural, ethnic, racial, religious, ideological, or aesthetic perspectives. While the notion of art as an open concept has been advocated from the late 1950s when Morris Weitz (1959) warned that the contention that 'art' is amenable to real or any kind of true definition is false (p.435), recent years have stretched the boundaries of this concept even further. This situation clearly poses a challenge to the field of art education. It necessitates re-examination of what art education should be in the after the end of era to account for a variety of pictorial repertoires and visual languages reflecting the open texture of the concept of art. It offers an opportunity to incorporate in art education realms of pictorial representation that have traditionally remained outside its boundaries. It calls for re-evaluation of our understanding of the notion of artistic and ways in which such growth should be encouraged and supported. Re-thinking Learning in Art: Artistic Development as Development in Repertoires of Pictorial Representation The road to a revised understanding of artistic has been outlined by researchers who have argued that there is a non-linear progression in artistic growth (e.g., Darras, 1992; Golomb, 1994; Wolf & Perry, 1988; Wolf, 1994; Pariser, 1997; Kindler & Darras, 1994, 1997, 1998). Wolf & Perry (1988) called for freeing our thinking about in art from a compulsive search for endpoints. They argued that the world of visual imagery is broader than what classical stage models could account for, noting that children are often capable of constructing and using a range of styles in pictorial representation within the time frame of a single stage. Wolf and Perry suggested that at various points in the of graphic symbolization children construct a range of visual languages with which to portray their experience or ideas. (p.31) This point has been well demonstrated by Atkinson (1991) who offered some convincing examples testifying to children's ability to access multiple pictorial systems. Bernard Darras and I have also suggested that in order to look at artistic in a comprehensive way it is necessary to explore not only the analysis of pictorial evidence produced by infants, young children, adolescents and adults, but also to examine the semiotic process that underlies the production of visual imagery (e.g., Darras & Kindler, 1993, 1997; Kindler, 1998; Kindler & Darras, 1994, 1997, 1997a, 1998). We have indicated that emergence of pictorial representation can be traced back to early iconic gestures, often long before first tangible marks are produced. This recognition of aspects of movement as iconic signs, bears serious implications to the discussion of of pictorial representation. It shifts emphasis to the semiotic function of an iconic sign, whether this sign is tangible and permanent or not. It is congruent with the assumption underlying our model that regards what has been referred to as development in art, as a semiotic process mediated by the socio-cultural context in which it unfolds. The understanding of artistic that we have proposed highlights the significance of this context. It exposes the actual and potential influence of culture in guiding choices of pictorial repertoires that are favored, valued, and taught. In the after the end of era, this model is particularly relevant as it considers multiple possible teleologies, purposes, and ambitions that may guide human pictorial behavior. …