Metacritical Inquiry in Arts Education.

Abstract

Inquiry into the topic of art criticism has come to be an accepted part of the literature in arts education. Since the seminal discussions of criticism in the writings of Ecker (1967, 1973), Feldman (1967, 1970, 1973), Kaelin (1964, 1968), and Smith (1968, 1973), numerous papers, articles, and studies dealing with art criticism have appeared, and continue to appear, within the literature. Criticism figures in numerous proposals for changing public school curricula (Barkan, 1966; Barkan, Chapman, and Kern, 1970; Eisner, 1965, 1969; Johanson, 1979). It is recommended as a component in the education of elementary and secondary teachers (Broudy, 1967; Ecker, 1973; Feldman, 1970; MacGregor, 1971). In addition, there has been an increased interest in empirically investigating matters bearing on the topic of criticism (Mittler, 1972; Stumbo, 1970; Wilson, 1970, 1972). The topic of criticism also seems related to a large body of empirical studies dealing with aesthetic preference and judgment and studies dealing with perception, although the relationships between these studies and studies dealing with criticism have yet to be fully clarified. Upon examination, one can see that the topic of criticism figures in numerous branches of the literature, from practical articles to scholarly papers, from textbooks to scientific studies. Given this pervasiveness, inquiry into art criticism, or metacritical inquiry as I shall label it, would seem to be an important part of the ongoing research of the field. At this point in time, I believe that it is appropriate to ask what it is that writers in the literature do when they theorize about art criticism. To ask such a question is to pose a characteristically philosophical problem, one analogous to that which philosophers of science, history, and education pose when they inquire into the activities of scientists, historians, and educators. As in these other areas of philosophic inquiry, the question asked does not reflect merely an academic interest. By delineating more precisely the tasks which metacritical theorists undertake, one can (a) suggest a number of bases for comparing one metacritical theorist with another; (b) point to a number of obscure areas in the literature in need of clarification; (c) direct attention to a number of conceptual problems in the literature; and (d) suggest the kinds of criteria which are appropriately used in appraising metacritical writing as a form of inquiry. In doing these things one can suggest directions for future inquiry into the topic of criticism. In this paper, then, I wish to initiate a discussion into the nature of metacritical writing as a distinct form of inquiry within the literature of arts education. In doing this, I shall make a number of generalizations about such writings in the literature. I believe that the generalizations I make apply to much of the literature on criticism, but, as with most generalizations, I shall only present what is characteristic, rather than what is universally true of the literature as a whole. In discussing the metacritical literature, I shall maintain that there are several logically distinct kinds of tasks which writers undertake when they theorize about art criticism. Some of these tasks are characteristically philosophical. Others are tasks which typically confront writers when they are concerned with educational problems and matters of schooling. As with many writings on education (c.f., Scheffler, 1958, p. 9), conceptual problems arise because educational metacritics simultaneously engage in two radically dissimilar sorts of tasks. Sometimes they lack an explicit awareness of one or more of the tasks upon which they are engaged so that two distinct forms of inquiry are sometimes confounded. A first step toward clarification of the metacritical literature, then, would be to make explicit the various tasks of those who engage in such inquiry.