Joni Hough
September 9, 2009
ARTE 5121
Formalism in the Art Classroom
For the last several decades, formalism has played a central role in most K-12 art classrooms. According to Anderson and McRorie, “Any lesson or curriculum teachers institute comes from what they believe is important to be taught” (1997). Since the theories of Clive Bell and Roger Fry reached popularity, formalism has had “a profound influence on art instruction, in schools, as well as in college and university art departments. Indeed, many art teachers are formalist without being aware of the fact, a sure sign that formalist doctrines have been assimilated into our critical, aesthetic, and pedagogical cultures” (Feldman, 1992). Recently, formalism as the central theme in the art classroom has become controversial.
In his article, Formalism and Its Discontents, Feldman defines pedagogical formalism as, “the doctrine that the ultimate focus of aesthetic attention and critical meaning is, or ought to be, organization and presentation of the visual elements of works of art: line, shape, color, texture, mass, space, volume, and pattern” (1992). Feldman also claims that the visual elements are seductive to educators because they easily lend themselves to teaching. However, Feldman objects to a strictly formalist approach to art education. Feldman contends that “in the world’s major art traditions, motives for creating and looking at art are rarely formalist” (1992). Also, formalists tend to ignore nonart contexts, show a preference for nonobjective art, and formalism is ahistorical. Feldman further maintains that “formalist art instruction demeans working-class and/or populist values and aspirations” (1992). Feldman does not propose eliminating formalism from education, “Formalism is effective insofar as it encourages students to attend to ‘the facts’ of form, but formalism is counter-productive insofar as it persuades students that art is always and only a matter of finding the abstract geometrical order hidden in every image” (1992).
In Gude’s article, Postmodern Principles: 7 + 7?, she contends that the seven elements and seven principles of design that are the backbone of formalism are outdated and boring. She states that, “when visiting K-12 school art programs, I rarely see meaningful connections being made between these formal descriptors and understanding works of art or analyzing the quality of everyday design” (2004). Gude argues that when, “artworks are viewed and understood using the streamlined 7 + 7 Euro-American system of describing form…students often do not learn the aesthetic context of making and valuing inherent to the artists and communities who actually created the works” (2004). Gude proposes that instead of using the elements and principles of formalism, art educators should use eight postmodern principles to aid in understanding and making contemporary art: appropriation, juxtaposition, recontextualization, layering, interaction of text and image, hybridity, gazing, and representin’. Gude maintains that, “structuring art projects to introduce students to the relevant contemporary art and thus to postmodern principles…students will gain the skills to participate in and shape contemporary cultural conversations” (2004).
In contrast to Gude’s embracing of postmodernism, Lloyd clings to the formalism of modernist art. In his article, Souvenirs of Formalism: From Modernism to Postmodernism and Deconstruction, Lloyd asserts that formalism is the basis of good design and should be the foundation of any art curriculum. Lloyd states, “I strongly argue for foundation courses in the elements of art, the language of vision, and the grammar of design” (1997). To Lloyd, formalism is “the language of vision” and consists of a notion of order, clarity of form and space, and significant contrast (1997). Of postmodernist work, Lloyd declares, “Form had degenerated into grotesque assemblage. It fit the description of ‘funk’ as an art of systemized irrationality and bad taste” (1997). Lloyd further states, “I would like to admit that today’s postmodernism might be considered an intuitive rather than rational approach, but what I see is capriciousness and novelty celebrating itself as personal power masquerading as direct knowledge” (1997).
In their article, A Role for Aesthetics in Centering the K-12 Art Curriculum, Anderson and McRorie contend that there are, “two critical functions for aesthetics in art education: first, in directing student inquiry; and second …in framing curricula and programs” (1997). Anderson and McRorie then look at two approaches studying aesthetics: formalism and contextualism. They define formalism as, “emphasis upon (1) use of the elements and principles of design, (2) manipulation of materials with focus on mastery of particular media, and (3) originality, all leading to production of objects that have ‘significant form’ or that look good, look well crafted, aren’t copies of other work, that in short, look like art with a capital ‘A’” (1997). Contextualism is defined as the belief, “that the meaning and worth of art can only be determined in the context in which it’s made and used” (1997). Anderson and McRorie argue that formalism alone is not a comprehensive approach to art education. They state, “Women, African Americans, and other representatives of cultural minorities have been underrepresented in the artworld. They have felt left out of the so-called universal (formalist) agenda and have been the strongest advocates of the instrumental reconstructionists train of contextualism” (1997). Anderson and McRorie also state that, “What you won’t find in a pure contextualist curriculum, then, are technical and design solutions engaged in for their own sake. Pure aesthetic enjoyment is not a justified rationale for making art” (1997). They conclude that, “Neither a purely formalist aesthetic position, with its emphasis on elements and principles, media exploration, and originality, nor a purely contextualist one, with its emphasis on communication and socially relevant subject matter, is adequate to ground a comprehensive art program” (1997). Anderson and McRorie argue that a combination of formalism and contextualism, “allows for an almost infinite range of highly suitable art curricula that are locally specific, that includes themes that fire students’ individual imaginations as well as their collaborative social conscience, and that integrate art skills and techniques enabling them to effectively communicate their ideas in visual form” (1997).
In her article, Semiotics: Inscribing a Place between Formalism and Contextualism, Jeffers expands on Anderson and McRorie’s ideas. She states that, “Formalism/universalism is characterized by an essentialist view that sees form as paramount. Indeed, form is self-referential and universally communicates issues of pleasure and beauty to all who respond. The viewer’s (and student’s) task is to read and appropriate the meanings that reside within these aesthetic forms as to appreciate their intrinsic beauty” (2000). About contextualism, Jeffers asserts it, “sees context as paramount and holds that the meaning and worth of art can only be determined in the context in which the work was made and used. In this view, the meaning of a work of art does not reside within its form, but rather, is constructed in the context of its cultural, historical, social, or political functions. The viewer’s (and student’s) task, then, is to construct meanings about the work in these contexts-which themselves have constructed meanings” (2000). Jeffers maintains that, “semiotics not only allows for the exploration of this place (a place between formalist/universalist and contextualist theoretical position), it also calls into question the adequacy of either formalism/universalism or contextualism to explain art-making in the classroom” (2000).
In her article, Using Form+Theme+Context (FTC) for Rebalancing 21st-Century Art Education, Sandall states, “In embracing today’s standards for teaching studio art and art history in the context of contemporary visual culture, we need to help learners more fully understand art images, objects, and events, present and past, building a sense of relevance and significance in their lives” (2009). Sandall proposes a three-pronged approach for doing this. She contends that a comprehensive art program focuses on form, theme, and context. Through, “form, or how the work ‘is,’ we scrutinize the artist’s many structural decisions embedded in the creative process that leads to a final product,” through, “theme, or what the work is about, we discern what the artist expresses through a selected overarching concept that addresses the Big or Enduring Idea (Walker, 2001; Stewart & Walker, 2005) along with relationships that reveal the artist’s expressive viewpoint connecting art to life,” and through, “context(s), or when, where, by/for whom and why the art was created (and valued), we comprehend the authentic nature of the artwork by probing the conditions for and under which the art was created and valued as well as by considering the work under conditions from our perspectives in contemporary, foreign, or older cultures” (Sandall, 2009). Sandall contends that, “rebalancing art and art education through the conceptual mapping approach to exploring art contained in the FTC Palette has the following characteristics: it is focused, dialectical, inclusive (comprehensive), connective, creative, and engaging” (2009).
Personally, I find Sandall’s method to be the most compelling. Her focus on form, theme, and context provides students with a comprehensive, balanced art program. This approach, “…combines the vital aspects of modernism, postmodernism, and visual culture while ensuring each of their important contributions and place in our contemporary understanding of art and visual culture” (Sandall, 2009). This method incorporates the best ideas from Feldman, Gude, Lloyd, and Anderson and McRorie. With this style, students not only learn strong techniques, but they also learn to appreciate the broader meaning of art, while still learning to relate to art in a personal manner.
References
Anderson, T and McRorie, S. (1997). A role for aesthetics in centering the K-12 art curriculum. Art Education. Retrieved September 4, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193692
Feldman, E. (1992). Formalism and its discontents. Studies in Art Education. Retrieved August 8, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320360
Gude, O. (2004). Postmodern principles: 7 + 7?. Art Education. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from https://moodle.uncc.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=43423
Jeffers, C. (2000). Semiotics: Inscribing a place between formalism and contextualism. Art Education. Retrieved September 4, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193882
Lloyd, B. (1997). Souvenirs of formalism: From modernism to postmodernism and deconstruction. Art Education. Retrieved August 8, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193693
Sandell, R. (2009). Using form+theme+context (FTC) for rebalancing 21st-century art education. Studies in Art Education. Retrieved September 6, 2009 from http://alumniconnections.com/olc/filelib/NAEA/cpages/9002/Library/UsingFTCStudies_Spring09_Sandell.pdf
Posts
