Quotations and Considerations from The Arts and the Creation of Mind by Elliot Eisner Experiencing the environment

t is, of course, a process that continues throughout life; its the very stuff of life. It is a process that is shaped by culture, influenced by language, impacted by beliefs, affected by values, and moderated by the distinctive features of that part of ourselves we sometimes describe as our individuality (1). This quotation, from the very first page, summarizes why art is an important part of our lives. We experience the people and things around us. Sights, smells, sounds, textures, all of these things influence us how could we manage to not create things based on our experiences? Its natural from the earliest cave paintings. Schools, I believe, like the larger society of which they are a part, function as cultures in both senses of the term. They make possible a shared way of life, a sense of belonging and community, and they are a medium for growing things, in this case childrens minds (3). I like the Eisner points out that schools are a part of the larger society schools reflect what society values. Schools constitute a major part of kids lives, especially in younger grades. School is how they experience other people, new ideas, the world in general our schools have to reflect the world in some ways, and they have to show a hope for growth in our world if we hope to grow kids minds. The arts liberate us from the literal; they enable us to step into the shoes of others and to experience vicariously what we have not experienced directly. Cultural development depends upon such capacities (10). I strongly believe in learning about cultures through art not in a sense of learning about other cultures or appropriating cultures though. Students will learn about the other cultures represented in their classroom by their peers. They will learn about their own culture as seen through the eyes of other students. They will learn about the culture that we are all a part of. Art education programs should try to foster the growth of artistic intelligence. The conjunction of art and intelligence is not common. Ability in art is assigned to talent, ability in intellectual subjects like mathematics and science to intelligence (43). Art education should help students recognize what is personal, distinctive, and even unique about themselves and their work. There is so much in our schools that pushes for uniformity of response . . . (44). This is one of the major needs for art education we do not require students to produce clone models nor do we want students to produce such uniform things. We look for the subtleties, the differences, the personalization. Difference is a part of our world, and to require all students to perform the same way is such a strange thing. Art education allows for these differences to shine. . . . what cannot be provided to make the teachers script useful are scripts for students. When working with students, surprise is always present to some degree . . . The surest road to hell in a classroom is to stick with the lesson plan, no matter what (48). I love this quotation! It is so apt. Teaching can never be boiled down to a standardized method of doing things. Students are different and unique, learning

situations appear every day, the time and culture in which we are teaching is constantly shifting. Things change and we need not only be flexible we need to embrace that change and flux. There are several impediments to artistry in teaching. One is habit nurtured by comfortable routine (56). When there is no challenge, when everything is satisfactory, there may be little motivation to stretch ones thinking, to try something new, to experiment, to revise, to appraise, and to start again. Creativity profits from constraints. The problem is a major centerpiece by which learning is promoted (96). Art education is a prime way for students to learn problem-solving skills. Even if they have an idea of what they want to create, learning a new material well enough to create that vision is a challenge. It requires revisions in thought and planning. The materials themselves are problems to be solved, as well as the form and content of the creation. I have suggested that aims always come first and that means follow. But in fact aims, purposes, and ideas not only precede action; they often follow it. The material itself becomes a source of suggestive ideation (111). This is why art-making teaches editing, revision, reflection, and re-thinking. An idea may seem fully formed, but the restrictions and possibilities of the medium can lend themselves to different ideas. Nothing is ever created quite as it is seen in the minds eye, and creation is not a simple and straight-forward enterprise. Techniques represent ways of doing something, but techniques also reflect ways of thinking about the thing to be done. Thus the acquisition of a technique is not merely a technical achievement; it is a mode of thought; and as such the changing features in childrens artwork are the result of changes in the way in which they think about what they are doing (146). Evaluation of student progress can be seen in technique not just progress in skill, but progress in thinking. If a student learns a little bit about the anatomy of a face, is asked to really look at facial features, and their drawing changes because of it, they havent just learned to draw better. Theyve learned to see differently, to evaluate the schemas they think they know already, and to apply their new knowledge practically. . . . evaluation is often treated as a separate or independent process, something one does after one teaches a curriculum. The fact of the matter is that evaluative activity goes on concurrently with both curriculum planning and teaching (150). Artistry in teaching is more likely to occur when the classroom provides a context for improvisation and where unpredictability, rather than predictability of activities and consequences, is acknowledged (152). The art classroom lends itself to a range of activities and consequences, a range of surprises and experimentation. But this applies to how we teach too, not just the materials we use and the projects we work on. The way lessons are introduced, the way we ask students to interact with one another, and how we evaluate student knowledge need to vary as well.

What is the place of the arts in the school curriculum or in the classrooms curriculum? . . . Are they electives, or are they part of the core curriculum? Are grades in the arts taken into account by selective universities in calculating gradepoint averages? Does the school publicly acknowledge, as it does in athletics and some of the sciences, students who are excellent in the arts? (158). I dont think that the publics appreciation for art education is going to change significantly anytime soon, but there are certainly things that can be done on a smaller scale. Creating a sense of artistic pride within a school is entirely possible do non-art students get to interact with an artwork process? Is artwork displayed throughout the school? Are art shows taken seriously and are students acknowledged for their work? I may not be able to change how grading is done or how universities treat the arts, but I can make an impact on how art is viewed from my classroom, into the community. Problemsolving objectives are objectives in which the criteria to be met are specified, but the form the solution is to take is not (160). The logic for establishing standards is rather straightforward: educators should know in clear and unambiguous terms not only the direction in which they are headed but also the precise destination (161). This is what scares me about standards I appreciate the fact that art education is still comparatively free. What artists we teach, the order in which we teach a new skill or material, what projects we create and how many we get to in a year are not mandated. Nor should they be. The direction and the arching goal make sense the quantitative specifics do not allow for room to revise a project, to revisit an idea, or to go in a new direction based on student interest and input. The same uniformity that standards suggest has its echo in the mandate in some school districts to require students to wear uniforms in the belief it will remedy behavior problems. Such policies can only be cosmetic at best. Collectively they adumbrate a conception of schooling I resist saying a conception of education, for seldom is there a conception of education described in policies on educational reform that gives its garlands to what is uniform and rigorous. Rigor, in Latin, means stiff. Stiffness connotes inflexibility (167). I believe standards can make a contribution to arts education if they do the following: if they represent in a meaningful and non-rigid way the values we embrace and the general goals we seek to attain, if they provide those who plan curricula with an opportunity to discuss and debate what is considered important to teach and learn, and if they suggest criteria that can be used to make judgments about our effectiveness (173). Criteria and general goals are the way that I like to think about students work and about my own work as an educator. Flexibility, individualized attention, etc. are all allowed for when things do not become overly specific. Too much specificity does not allow for change, and routine work becomes lazy work it does not require a teacher to reflect and revise. What I have suggested is the creation of educationally interpretive exhibitions that explain to viewers the features of the work on display and describe the forms of

thinking that the child had to engage in to create such work (176). This is an important point for me to remember I always believe in creating a statement to explain a project to accompany its display, but giving more information could be nice. To have a student write (or a teacher write from a verbal statement) an artist statement for each piece displayed would allow for assessment and for more viewer understanding of a work. I would urge teachers to use standards as an opportunity for discussion, as considerations for curriculum development, but not as prescriptions for processes or even for goals. What goals or aims are appropriate for students is not best defined by policymakers who are not in contact with the students schools are intended to serve. Localism in this context is far preferable (177). The assumption that assessment and evaluation must focus on the results of a process and not on the process itself is also mistaken. Of course evaluation and assessment can focus on outcomes, but they need not. I can evaluate the ways in which the student is engaged in his or her work. I can evaluate the students willingness to take risks . . . judgments made about someones work need not eventuate in a grade. They can eventuate in a report or in a conversation with the student about his or her work. The giving of a grade is not a necessary consequence of assessment and evaluation (181). Why does the public display a keen interest in test scores? One answer is that there is precious little else provided with which the public can assess the quality of its schools (182). This is again something that I may not be able to change on a large scale, but its a worthy small-scale challenge. If parents are given more information on a more regular basis about what students are doing, how they are doing it, and why, they may feel more of a connection to the actual learning that is going on, and less of an emphasis on the grading aspect. To suggest that education has something to be learned from the arts is to turn topsy-turvy the more typical view that the arts are basically sources of relief, ornamental activities intended to play second fiddle to the core educational subjects (196). I like the sense of advocating for art education not only as important within itself, but also important outside of itself, in the larger realm of education in general. This should be a bigger priority of mine when I advocate for my career path and my students interests and achievements. . . . this is what scientists and artists do; they perceive what is, but imagine what might be, and then use their knowledge, their technical skills, and their sensibilities to pursue what they have imagined (199). The differences between science and art, hard and soft, work and play are so conflated. The actual processes are so similar, and I love how Eisner has described it. Imagination is key to discovery, invention, innovation, change. Without the ability to imagine something new, there is no creation of it. But imagination and creativity are not innate talents, unrelated to anything else. They show themselves within the confines of a technical skill, during a specific task.

Judgment depends on feel, and feel depends on a kind of somatic knowledge that enables one to determine if the form at hand has what Nelson Goodman once called rightness of fit (201). Somatic knowledge is not taught in schools and it is not a wellappreciated ability. When learning grammar, a student who says they know the correct answer just because it sounds right, and not because they know the grammatical rule does not meet the standards. Yet there is something to be said for the ability to identify how separate parts fit together relationships and connections are extremely important to understand. Somatic knowledge is a legitimate way to understand any kind of learning. The arts are examples of activities in which ends are held flexibly. . . Thus, the arts provide vivid examples of individuals immersed in tasks in which they are trying to bring something to resolution but who are not rigidly pinned to aims that initiated the inquiry (206). What has been problematized is the notion that knowledge is discovered . . . implying that truth is independent of the perspective, frame of reference, values, or criteria used to define the truth. . . Knowledge is less a discovery than it is a construction (211). We do consider knowledge and intelligence to be found things, the end product. We dont often look to or consider the process, the fact that our new understandings and skills are built slowly over time. Among all the fields of study in our schools, the arts are at the forefront in the celebration of diversity, individuality, and surprise (235). This is simply a prime way to describe a few of the most important lessons of arts education.