The AP program, as presently conceived, will in the future con-

tinue to emphasize the distinctly humanist.ic values inherent in the

art process. The AP Committee, which oversees the content of the
art program, and the Readers who score portfolios also will con-
tinue to search for new and more appropriate ways to evaluate
student art performances. Both these groups see the AP Program in
Studio Art as an important activity for professionals concerned with
bridging the gap in the development of artistic and aesthetic
behavior between the senior high and college years. The dialogue
has begun and values important to both levels are being aired and
incorporated into curriculums, which, one hopes, will have lasting
impact on the education of the gifted art student of the future.
*****

Charles M. Dorn, Chief Reader

Advanced Placement in Studio Arts
Professor and Head, Department of
Creative Arts
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

THE US & USSR!

TWO ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE
GIFTED IN ART
Al Hurwitz

One Saturday morning this Fall, I was observing our Jazz dance
workshop in action. There were varying degrees of grace, skill and
[not or coordination in evidence and one couldn’t have placed more
than a third of the group as having any special talent in dance. Yet
here was a group of young people willing to give up their Saturday
mornings and venture out in all kinds of weather to make a 9 a.m.
non-credit class. What they all shared was more than a passing in-
terest in the dance and what they received from the experience was
a special pleasure derived from the kind of movement that only

dance can provide. A few of those present may emerge as better dan-
cera as aresult of the course, but as an administrator results of this
sort werenot the important factor. I was satisfied that a special
need was being met and happy that our own teen-agers had an op-
portunity to work with a top flight professional teacher and dancer.

458
 The Soviet administration who serves ths adolescent student,
would have assumed a long history of training in ballet and would
have admitted no one to a class of this sort without some snort of
rigorous performance test. Any comparison between Soviet and
American attitudes towards the gifted must begin with this com-
parison of philosophies regarding the purpose of the arts in
education. The American educator sees art as a part of general lear-
ning ; as a body of experience which supports the general aims of
education; the Russian sees the arts - at least beyond the age of
eleven -- as an area of pre-professional specialization to which only
the gifted may apply. In America, all are invited to attend where
services are available, and if the gifted happen to be part of the
crowd, we try to serve them as best we can.
The Newton Creative Arts Centers
The school system for which I work has allowed me to create a
number of special programs which exist apart from the conventional
offerings. We have a week-end arts program and one for the summer
and between them we offer a full range of arts activities plus in-
terdisciplinary experiences in media documentation, television,
animation and a general media workshop. We also provide more
traditional classes in art history (held at the Museum of Fine Arts)
and the Advanced Placement program in studio arts for those who
want to work for college credit. In no case, however, is there any
screen process. It is first come first served and it is
assumed that no one comes unless their interest is high, that
they are all self-motivated in art and that they are capable of ex-
tended periods of concentration. The students on the secondary level
do have a tendency to pursue art beyond high school, but no one has
been interested enough in the history of the elementary and junior
high participants to make a follow-up study. While we are indeed
dealing with the gifted, we believe that what we offer the high in-
terest child is in reality what all children Should be receiving. This
is the basis of our philosophy and also reflects the goals of the
aesthetic education movement. The problem, we have discovered,
liea not so much in separating gifted from average as younger from
older.

Identifying The Gifted Child In Art

The writer has noted, &dquo;American art educators have ambivalent
attitudes regarding the gifted in art; indeed, an examination of art
education literature reveals that most writers do not even discuss

459
the gifted.&dquo;’ All writers, however, are not reluctant to face the
problem of the talents; some notable exceptions being Lindstrom,z2
Conant,a Lark-Horovitz, Lewis and Luca.44

Many American art teachers place a value upon general at-

tributes of creativity which were publicized in the late 50’s and
which they feel parallel characteristics of giftedness. Since these
were identified by studying the personalities and behavior of

professional artists in all areas of the humanities, it can be assumed

that their careers do, indeed, reflect degrees of giftedness. Risk
taking, divergent thinking, openness to new experience and a desire
for experimentation are some traits shared by creative people in
general. The tests to ascertain such abilities, however, still have un-
certain validity when compared to individual and group intelligence
tests and achievement tests. Since precise measurements do not exist
for art, most art teachers still use observational skills, which in turn,
come down to judging the nature of art work rather than the
creative processes which precede it.

There is a fair degree of consensus amongst those who deal with

the problem, and their points of agreement center about the iden-
tification of such specific visual abilities as acuteness of observation,
vividness of memory, fluency of imagination, ability to remain
within the presence of a problem longer than most children, deriving
greater satisfaction from art, the need and desire for additional
time, etc. A child may possess many or only a few kinds of gif-
tedness ; indeed, a student’s tendency to repeat a narrow range of
success may be one of the most difficult demonstrations of talent for
a teacher to deal with --

partly because extreme specialization can

limit the parameters of experience even as it breeds success. Some
examples that come to mind are the compulsive cartoonist, the child
who sculpts only in one medium, the youngster who is a master of
pointillist techniques, etc. Parents often mistake precocity of copying
and representational drawing as evidence of talent when these
works may be totally lacking in originality of concept or technique.
The problem in general among American art teachers lies in a
philosophy of art so egalitarian in concept that many consider it
elitiest to single out talent for special consideration. Art education
is regarded and rightfully so --
as a part of basic education. Since
the development of graphic imagery is linked to how we learn, it is
also valued as a part of the child’s total developmental process. Art,

460
therefore, enjoys some form of mandate until the 8th grade, at which
time students usually continue on an elective basis. It would be a
mistake, however, to assume that our senior art rooms are peopled
with the gifted, as children may elect art for a number of reasons,
many of them suspect. Some may indeed be gifted, while others are
there either for pleasure, for curiosity, because it has been
recommended as an easy grade, or because a supposed lack of in-
tellectual rigor is found appealing. Indeed, many gifted children,
particularly in the junior high schools, will avoid an art elective
because the learning climate is found counter productive to their in-
terests. In urban centers such children go elsewhere, either to
museums or to private teachers. Those who live in rural areas lack
even these limited resources. The gifted in art, however one defines
them, are definitely in the minority and few schools can afford to
staff classes of under a dozen students. (The gifted in language,
linguistics, or physics do not have this problem -- at least in out bet-
ter heeled suburban high schools.)

In American schools giftedness receives its greatest attention in

the senior high schools. If a high school offers a three-year sequence
of courses for art majors or Advanced Placement opportunities,
talent is most likely to reside in such programs. The winners of our
National Scholastic Awards are clear demonstration of the
existence of artistic talent amongst our students, as are the
burgeoning enrollments in our art schools, colleges, and university
art departments.
It should be noted that it was only in 1971 that the U.S. Com-
mission of Education submitted its report to Congress setting
federal policy recommending assistance to children with exceptional
abilities. Even this long overdue action lacked adequate legislation
or funding to carry out the recommendation. The report did,

however, help create the OGT (Office for the Gifted and Talented)
which is struggling to survive the maze of piece-meal support from
whatever agencies can release funds.5 The arts in education clearly
do not figure largely in even our diffused methods of national policy
making, although a number of agencies are currently working on
policy statements in hope of influencing key figures in the political
proceSS.6 Although there exists a policy making complex in our
countr Y,7 there is little consultation either among themselves or with
the educational establishment.

461
 The matter ofcentral policy making may be a mixed blessing.
While itundoubtedly denies local teachers administrative
autonomy, it does have a leveling effect, protecting the child from
the whims and budgets of local authorities. It also deprives the child
of the benefits that an innovative administrator could provide. Cen-
tral policy on the other hand, is evidence that the country cares --
that art matters and that no child will be deprived of its benefits
--

because of an accident of environment.

In the U.S., ¡1policy making in the arts not only lies apart from
authority, it lacks the mechanisms that could unite the various for-
ces that work for the arts and whose coordinated efforts could have
some cumulative effect.

The Gifted Soviet Child

The gifted child, as I recently observed them in the USSR has a
far easier time of it. Giftedness is regarded as a state asset in
Russia, and in 1959 at the May meeting of the Party Congress, sup-
port of the &dquo;cultivation of aesthetic taste and the development of the
artistic skills&dquo; was officially recognized as a national priority.~

The Russian child on the elementary level has the first advantage
since art is a required subject in all schools until the age of eleven.
Beyond that point the State’s card for ’ alent uecomes apparent in
the choices that are open not only in art but in performing arts
--

and in academic areas. The choices for an art student are par-
ticularly varied in the cities and run as follows:
For the older teenager there are the arts centered high schools
which lead to the professional art schools. The curriculum here, as
reflected in a text book presented to me by the author at a meeting
at the Artists Union, reflects a strong foundation program,
somewhat dated and academic by American standards. Color
theory, perspective, drawing from Tife and plaster casts of classical
models and drafting seem to supply the basis of the program. It is,
however, a natural extension of what was begun in the lower grades.

Children of any age may attend museum classes and the Pushkin
Museum begins its activities on the pre-school level and continues
through high school. It offers a program of such diversity that it can
well serve as a model for our own museums. Irina Antonova, the

462
director showed me examples of work classes that dealt with pic-
torial analysis studies of old masters, and described seminars, lec-
tures, visits from artists, and to their studios and a junior docent
training program. The difference between this program and others
lies in the relationship of all art activities to the collection of the
museum.

General academic schooling ends in mid-afternoon and the

student then takes subway or bus to pursue a particular interest.
Another choice is the Student Art Center --
A half dozen of these
are scattered throughout Moscow and are manned by professional

artists all of whom have studio space at the centers, shared four to
a comfortably sized area. They are expected to produce art along

with their students and the dozens of work viewed showed mostly
still life and the figure study with some classes in puppetry, ceramics
and sculpture. In one room, portfolios of the fall semester’s work
was spread upon the floor prior to grading.

The young artist, if he prefers, may attend more classes at the

Pioneer Youth Palace since the Center classes meet .only two or
three times a week. The Youth Palace continue on into the evening
and offer far more complete facilities; models, sculpture stands, pot-
ters wheels, spacious north lit studios, controlled lighting, etc. In or-
der to attend these classes one must be a member of the Pioneer
Youth organization which is the Soviet equivelant of our Boy and
Girl Scout movement. The Youth Palaces, are most impressive if
only because of their scale (over a thousand children attend over a
--

hundred offerings in the arts, sciences, and special study groups.) As

in the other choices described, education like medical attention is
free. Admission to Art Centers, Youth Palaces and secondary art
schools is determined by portfolio submission and drawing skills
figure largely into the judges criteria.

There are also summer programs for the gifted which combine
travel with instruction in art also free of charge.
--

Conclusions
A number of specific situations have been described wherein the
Soviet child can feed his special aesthetic needs. Are there flaws in
Soviet thinking; is it all as rosy as described, and if the motives of
the state are suspect, in what specific ways? The teaching/learning
situations observed first hand were more than cosmetic; they were
very real instances of committed students working with great care

463
and concentration under the direction of dedicated and concerned
teachers --
even the most skeptical among my party conceded this

point. But as Smith points out in his review of Morton’s recent

study, &dquo;Measured by these criteria, the Soviet art education

program, despite pious references to love of beauty, sensitivity, and
creativity, does not seem to qualify as truly aesthetic education. Its
overriding objective is extra-aesthetic, namely, the shaping of the
Soviet personality. The heavy enlistment of the arts toward that end
is due to the conviction (a naive or at least philosophically and em-
pirically very questionable one) that art has a powerful effect on
character formation and that therefore, art of an officially approved
sort is an ideal tool for producing individuals that conform to
ideological specifications.&dquo;9

Having granted the Marxist utilitarian view of arts education, the

question arises, is it necessarily pernicious? If the end result of the
Soviet dream is indeed a humane society whose largness extends
beyond its borders, that is one thing; if, on the other hand, the
weight of Soviet repressions, entrenched beaucracy, surveillance,
and imperialism is too heavy to ignore, then the means, however
eloquently stated, are questionable. My own impression is that two
Russias exist simultaneously. Like most Americans, I have deep
reservations about the Russia on the other side of detente, yet even
my brief study of schools functioning within the system tells me that
for those (such as children) who are unaware of statist control, the
system works and the gifted are indeed being served.

Another problem which should be discussed at another time and

place deals with the nature of the art being served both gifted and
average children. To discuss this properly would require an analysis
of the philosophy of realism in art as a major focal point for in-
struction and a study of the way realism and the skills required to
master it related to the role of the professional artist as corn
municator. The Soviet artist is one who creates and embodies the
symbols of a society caught between romanticism and conservatism,
he is the one who treads the fine line of a society that is committed
to technology even as it maintains a hold on the trappings of it;
Czarist past. There is a special kind of schizophrenia here and th(
ways in which the gifted are served may determine how Russia’!
problems will eventually be resolved.

464
 FOOTNOTES
1. Children and Their Art, Charles Gaitskell and Al Hurwitz, Page
354. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Third edition, 1975.
2. Children’s Art, Miriam Lindstrom. Univ. of California Press,

3. Art in Education, Howard Conant and Anne Randall. Bennett

Pub., 1963
4. Understanding Children’s Art, Betty Lark-Horovits, Hilda
Present Lewis, and Mark Luca, 2nd edition. Merrill, 1973.
5. Harold C. Lyon, "A New Federal Priority" in Today’s Education,
Jan. - Feb., 1976
6. Three of the most important projects underway are the
Rockefeller report on the state of arts in education, the National Art
Education Association’s "Bicentennial Commission on Art
Education", and the "Arts Advocacy" report which is sponsored by
all major educational arts associations.
7. The National Endowment for the Arts, the Arts and Humanities
Branch of U.S.O.E., States Arts Councils.
8. Miriam Morton, "The Arts and the Soviet Child; The Aesthetic
Education of Children in the USSR." The Freed Press, 1972
9. The Journal of Aesthetic
Education, Vol. A - No. 1, Jan. 1975, Page 113.
******

Al Hurwitz is Coordinator of Visual and Related Arts for the

Newton Schools. He received his MFA from Yale and his doctorate
from Penn State University. He is currently Vice-President, Eastern
Regional of the National Art Education Association and President
of the International Society for Education Through Art (INSEA -
--

UNESCO). He is the author of two books "Children and Their Art"

with Charles Gaitskell and "Programs of Promise: Art in the
Schools." He is also National Chairman of the Advanced Placement
Program in Studio Art. The material covered in this article was the
result of a recent visit held under the joint sponsorship of the
Citizens Exchange Corps, the Lenin Peace Committee, and the
INTOURIST organization.
4 ****************
A Computer Engineer is twice as old as his wife was when he was as
old as his wife is now. He is 24. How old is his wife?

465