The Artist in Society: Understandings, Expectations, and Curriculum Implications

Abstract

Disparate and contradicting assumptions about culture play a significant role in how the artist is constructed in the public imagination. These assumptions have important implications for how young artists should be educated and for the curriculum of artistic education. In this article, I theorize three conceptions of the role of the artist in society and the challenge they present for artistic education. I discuss three theoretical conceptions: the artist as Cultural “Civilizer,” the artist as “Border Crosser,” and the artist as “Representator.” Although markedly different, these three conceptions all view the artist as an agent playing an active role in society, or a type of “cultural worker.” I argue that these different views of the artist are grounded on different cultural discourses, that each of these discourses constructs the artist as an individual in a particular way, and that each view of the artist corresponds to specific institutions that mediate the role of the artist in society. Furthermore, I suggest the implications that each of these views has for the curriculum of artistic education and the preparation of cultural workers. I suggest that a contemporary artistic education grounded on these views should affirm the role of the artist in the public sphere of a democratic society.

Notes

Notes

1 “Art(s)” and “artist(s)” refer here to broad categories that are inclusive of artistic domains (i.e., music, dance, theater, etc.). I will make claims about views of the artist that include all domains described as “the arts.” I assume that there exists a concept “artist” that can be “separated from other categories of human beings in discourse” (Soussloff, 1997, p. 4), and that this concept includes individuals who work within and across different artistic domains.

2 I use the term artistic education as a short hand to refer specifically to the educational experiences of students who have chosen to pursue artistic careers. I am not suggesting this as a new term, but as a way to bring attention to this oft-neglected aspect of the arts in education.

3 See for instance Efland (1990, 1996), Fowler (1996), and Siegesmund (1998). While some argue that the arts improve academic achievement (e.g., Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles, 2000; Catterall & Waldorf, 1999), others stress the importance of the arts as an independent subject of study as important as other subjects (e.g., Davis, 2005; Eisner, 1997; Smith & Simpson, 1991).

4 Haynes (1997) develops the notion of the artist as spiritual guide and healer (see also Feldman, 1982).

5 Cultural theorists have demonstrated that there is a relationship between ways of talking about culture and ideas about the arts and artistic work (e.g., Bauman, 1999; Bourdieu, 1993; Clifford, 1988; Hall, 1997; Willis, 1990; Wolff, 1993; Zolberg, 1990).

6 For Becker, artists produce works of art as part of an organized web of workers who collaborate within a structured “division of labor” with particular hierarchies of power. The institutions of these art worlds hold participants, including the “artist,” accountable for their contributions.

7 Wolff (1995) also argues that while the arts are grounded and framed in a social context, some aspects of the aesthetic are not reducible to the sociological. While “the aesthetic sphere is itself socially and historically constituted [it] does not mean that aesthetic judgments can be translated into social or political judgments” (p. 136).

8 The show contained works with mutated and dismembered body parts, explicit photos of an indigent couple under the influence of alcohol, and animals sliced and suspended in formaldehyde (Lieberman & Haithman, 1999). The promotional materials of the show contained health warnings and alerted museum visitors that the show “may cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, euphoria and anxiety” (Gumbel & Garner, 1999, p. 4).

9 DiMaggio (1982a) illustrates how organizations like the Museum of Fine Arts and the Boston Symphony Orchestra emerged during the mid-19th century as a way of constructing the cultural identity of the new Boston elites, rather than to protect works of art.

10 During his daily press conference, the mayor acknowledged that defining art was difficult, yet went on to offer a “rule of thumb” for determining whether particular works deserved the protection of the state. “Anything that I can do is not art, ... and if you want to throw dung at something—I could figure out how to do that” (cited in Lieberman & Haithman, 1999, p. 30).

11 For Marx (1973) changes in the cultural sphere reflect changes in the conditions of production, but he was not convinced that all aspects of culture had a material basis. In fact, Marx interpreted “artistic pleasure” as resulting from man’s obsession with his own childhood as a utopian stage of naïveté to which he could never return.

12 Gramsci (1985) was fascinated by an artistic movement called Futurism, which he viewed as an attempt to develop an art of the proletariat that would replace the art of the bourgeoisie.

13 The author is in the initial stages of a research project that explores educational experiences in the context of specialized arts programs in public secondary schools. Readers interested in learning more about this research should contact the author directly.

14 This traditional or “foundational” approach to artistic education is the basis for the widely debated “discipline-based arts education” (Dobbs, 1997; Smith & Simpson, 1991).

15 For a discussion of the construction of genius, see McDermott (2004).

16 While the relationship between these social categories and “artistic talent” has not been systematically studied, earlier research does suggest that gender is an important predictor of success in professional arts education (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1964, 1976).

17 There are certainly exceptions to this trend (e.g., Bartel, 2004; Shapiro, 1998; Small, 1996). The author’s current research is beginning to shed light on the rather complex world of public arts high schools in urban centres. While there are certainly many possibilities inherent in the opportunities available in these understudied programs, early findings suggest that complex social dynamics weigh heavily on what actually happens. Yet, the immense variety of programs and the diversity of students served are a persistent reminder that there is much yet to be explored in the context of urban public arts high schools (Gaztambide-Fernández et al., 2008).

18 Brent Wilson (2001) has argued that arts high schools can serve as models for school reform. Wilson’s observations are consistent with other studies of individual arts high schools (e.g., Davis, 2005; Davis, 2001; Gaztambide-Fernández, 2001).