Manuel Barkan and his contribution to art education

Contemporary multiplication of young prowess educators atomic number 18 being introduced to signifi preemptt figures in the account of prowess education in their programs of study. In todays fast environment, it is natural that some of these figures are accepted without question and some are left languishing in history only to be revisited by those raise in revising that history. Manuel Barkan could be considered such a figure.An individual who emerges as a pivotal force in the increase of ideas now infused in contemporary finesse education is Manuel Barkan who in 1965 advocated a then raw(a) approach to the curricular content of art education the use of the roles of the art historian, the art critic, and the aesthetician as well as that of the studio artist. directly these ideas seem so commonplace that its difficult to imagine bonny how radical they were when they were first introduced. The purpose of this paper is to examine Barkans wreak and its effect on contemporary art education in dress to understand current practice and school of thought of art education.About integrity-half a century ago, Barkan (1962) phoneed the importance of historical reflection in an article published in Art Education titled transmutation in Art Education Perceptions of Curriculum Content and Teaching and maintain that he believed the next decade would bring some truly primaeval changes in the supposition and practice of art education (Barkan, 1962, p. 12). He went on to say that when basic ideas are in the process of transformation, there is and must(prenominal) be an inevitable grinding of opinions one upon the other.There must be inevitable controversy and debate, because old ideas by their very temper, can non and do not change unless and until they are challenged by new ones (p. 12). The transformation of which he verbalise was the shift from the child-centered approach of the progressive movement to the disciplined-centered approach advocated for gen eral education. some other essential Barkans point concerned the kind of behavior a person must learn in order to achieve catch from the subject being studied. He stated that to learn through art, one must act like an artist (p. 14).Barkan (1962) also spoke of the urgency to treat children as artists and explained the characteristics of the artist as immersion in a medium, and determination to achieve the discipline and the skills involved (p. 18). He cautioned against organizing curriculum exclusively to give students experiences in a wide range of media, an approach he considered detrimental to the purposes which art education ought to be trying to achieve (p. 17). Instead, he thought students should engage is some exploration of media so that they could discover a medium they liked and be able to use it to express their ideas (p. 18). The art room should, in Barkans words in the 1962 article, re-create the aureole of an artists studio (p. 18).In 1965 Barkan proposed a rese arch and take onment center for aesthetic education to the U.S. Office of Education the political program called for a consortium of five universities each with research and curriculum victimisation labs (Hubbard, 1971). consort to Chapman (1993), the plan was not funded due to the federal governments aspect that all of the arts must be included, making the initial plan too complex. Barkan continued to refine the idea.Barkan turned to television as a tool for disseminating resources and curriculum concepts for the teaching of art. By that time, he had begun to work with Laura Chapman, and unitedly they developed Guidelines for Art Instruction through Television for the Elementary Schools for what became upshot Instructional Television. In 1970, he and Chapman published Guidelines for Curriculum Development in Aesthetic Education as a guide for educators working to develop curriculum materials in music, dance, theater, literature, and the visual arts. Elliot Eisner, writing i n a 1971 issue of Studies in Art Education that focused on Barkans work, stated that throughout his career in art education, Manuel Barkan concerned himself with both the development of more adequate theory and the improvement of the art of teaching art (p. 4). In fact, Barkan believed that art education could promote a more in the raw brain of social problems.His first book, A Foundation for Art Education, published in 1955, presented a synthesis of then current concepts from psychology, sociology, anthropology, cultural history, philosophy and the arts (Barkan, 1955, p. vi). According to Chapman (1971), Barkan was concerned with the growing number of sometimes so-called classroom activities that were being justified as forms of creative self-expression. He want to better define the term in relation to concepts about humankind behavior growing out of research in other palm (Barkan, 1955, p. vii) and to develop a foundation for art education that would rest on a synthesis of t his information in the context of operational problems in teaching (Chapman, p. 40). Barkans book was an effort to develop a loyal philosophical foundation for art education built upon research in other disciplines.Today, the idea that the curricular content of art education should dig artmaking, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics is generally widely accepted. Art teachers address these components of art education in a manner that takes into account the nature of the child and the importance of both making and responding to art. Art has become a subject for study, but it retains its ability to teach us about ourselves and the others with whom we tract this world.That art education is still engaged in handing over is without doubt, and, is in fact, desirable. Postmodern thought, feminist perspectives, and multicultural concerns are but a a few(prenominal) of the contemporary issues that influence todays emerging art educators. However, an understanding of the history of our field and the work of key individuals such as Manuel Barkan can provide insight and guidance as we continue the ongoing transition in art education that he addressed in 1962. full treatment Cited ListBarkan, M. A transition in art education. Art Education, 15.7 (1962) 12-27Barkan, M. A Foundation for Art Education. New York The Roland Press, 1955.Chapman, L. H. A second look at A Foundation for Art Education. Studies in Art Education, 13.1 (1971) 40-49.Chapman, L. H. Reflections on the theory and practice of curriculum development in art. Paper presented at the internal Art Education Association Convention Super-Session III, Chicago, IL, 1993.Eisner, E. Media, expression, and the arts. Studies in Art Education, 13.1 (1971) 4-12.Hubbard, G. The lord leadership of Manuel Barkan. Studies in Art Education, 13.1 (1971) 70-72.