References
- John Walton and James L. Kuethe, eds., The Discipline of Education, University of Wisconsin, 1963; G. W. Ford and Laurence Pugno, eds., The Structure of Knowledge and the Curriculum Chicago, 1964; Stanley Elam, ed., Education and the Structure of Knowledge, Chicago, 1964; and Pi Lambda Theta, The Body of Knowledge Unique to the Profession of Education, Washington, D.C., 1966. The topics have also been discussed in the various subdomains of aesthetic education.
- Joseph T. Tykociner, Research as a Science: Zetetics, University of Illinois Elect. Engr. Resrch. Lab., 1959, 146–64.
- Robert Redfield, “Relations of Anthropology to the Social Sciences and to the Humanities,” in Sol Tax, ed., Anthropology Today, Chicago, 1962, 454–64.
- George Dickie, “Is Psychology Relevant to Aesthetics?” Philosophical Review, LXXI, 1962, 285–302.
- For remarks about professional education, I am indebted to Harry S. Broudy's “Criteria for the Professional Preparation of Teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education, XVI, 1965, 408–15. See also Harry S. Broudy et al., Philosophy of Education, Urbana, 1967.
- The philosophical issues attending the idea of an aesthetic object are critically surveyed in Virgil C. Aldrich, Philosophy of Art, Englewood Cliffs, 1963, 19–27 passim. See also Aldrich's “Back to Aesthetic Experience,” JAAC, XXIV, 1966, 365-71, and Dickie's response “Attitude and Object: Aldrich on the Aesthetic,” JAAC, XXV, 1966, 89-91. B. R. Tilghman has discussed some of the issues in “Aesthetic Perception and the Problem of the ‘Aesthetic Object’,” Mind, LXXV, 1966, 351-67.
- Fifty years of research on responses to art, music, and literature is presented in C. W. Valentine, The Experimental Psychology of Beauty, London, New York, 1962. Extensive bibliographies can be found in Norman Kiell, Psychiatry and Psychology in the Visual Arts and Aesthetics, University of Wisconsin, 1965, and Irvin L. Child, “Esthetics,” in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. III, Reading, Mass., 1968, Chap. 28. An earlier discussion is Douglas N. Morgan's “Psychology and Art, 1950: A Summary and Critique,” JAAC, IX, 1950, reprinted in Morris Philipson, ed., Aesthetics Today, Cleveland, 1961, 279-98. For more recent discussions, see C. A. Mace, “Psychology and Aesthetics,” British Journal of Aesthetics, II, 1962, 3-16; Thomas Munro, “The Psychology of Art: Past, Present, and Future,” JAAC, XXI, 1963, 263-82; and Herbert Read et al., “Psychology of Art,” in Encyclopedia of World Art, XI, New York, 1966, cols. 750-82. Also noteworthy is Cyril Burt's review of the Valentine book in Journal of Aesthetic Education, Inaugural Issue, 1966, 71-84 [originally printed in The British Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIII, 2, 1963, 194-201]; Dale B. Harris, “Aesthetic Awareness: A Psychologist's View,” Art Education, XIX, 1966, 25; Rudolf Arnheim, Toward a Psychology of Art, University of California, 1966; and the chapters on the arts in N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago, 1963.
- I intend Israel Scheffler's definition of “Programmatic” in The Language of Education, Springfield, Illinois, 1960, Chapter I.
- John Hospers, Meaning and Truth in the Arts, Hamden, Conn., 1964; c. 1946, University of North Carolina, 74–78.
- Ibid.
- Aldrich, Philosophy of Art, op. cit., 92.
- This way of putting the matter was suggested by a discussion of the discipline of aesthetic form in Solon T. Kimball and James E. McClellan, Jr., Education and the New America, New York, 1962, 301–03.
- Thus are the points acknowledged made by John Hospers in “The Ideal Aesthetic Observer,” British Journal of Aesthetics, II, 1962, 99–111.
- Monroe C. Beardsley, “On the Creation of Art,” JAAC, XXIII, 1965, 291–304; reprinted in Ralph A. Smith, ed., Aesthetics and Criticism in Art Education, Chicago, 1966.
- Beardsley, “On the Creation of Art,” op. cit., and Justus Buchler, The Concept of Method, Columbia University, 1961, Chapter XI.
- Aldrich, Philosophy of Art, op. cit., 35–40.
- Ibid., 19–24.
- As surveyed, for example, by William K. Wimsatt, Jr., and Monroe Beardsley in “The Intentional Fallacy,” in W. K. Wimsatt, Jr., The Verbal Icon, University of Kentucky, 1954, Chapter I. Widely reprinted.
- Harry S. Broudy has written: “! the ground rules for qualifying as a genuine aesthetic experience are that it be predominantly an instance of perception rather than discursive reasoning or memory, that whatever is expressed be expressed in a symbol that embodies or presents the meaning rather than merely refers to it, and that the satisfaction or interest aroused by it shall be traceable to its sensory, formal, and expressive properties.” From “The Structure of Knowledge in the Arts,” in Stanley Elam, ed., Education and the Structure of Knowledge, op. cit., 75–106; reprinted in Smith, op. cit.
- Frank Sibley, “Aesthetic and Nonesthetic,” Philosophical Review, LXXIV, 1965, 136–37.
- Valentine, op. cit. An example of a character type would be a response to the color scarlet as “loud and aggressive” an example of an objective type would be a response to ultramarine blue as a “pure blue.” Other types, such as associative and subjective, evoke more personal and idiosyncratic reactions which, Valentine notes, are less relevant to keen aesthetic perception. See also Robert D. Clements and Sue W. Smith, “Bullough's Perceptive Types Reconsidered,” Journal of Aesthetic Education, II, 1968, 109–16.
- Jerome S. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University, 1966, Chapter I. Bruner seems to take his terms to be an improvement on Piaget's sensory-motor, concrete, and formal periods of cognitive growth.
- See the recent discussion in Sibley, “Aesthetic and Nonaesthetic,” op. cit., 142–43.
- Piaget has remarked: “We take as the fundamental problem of adolescence the fact that the individual begins to take up adult roles. From such a standpoint, puberty cannot be considered the distinctive feature of adolescence. The essential fact (underlying the growth of formal thought) is this fundamental social transition (and not physiological growth alone).” As quoted in J. G. Wallace, Concept Growth and the Education of the Child, England and Wales, 1965, 204.
- For example, Jacques Barzun in Science: The Glorious Entertainment, New York, 1964. See the last chapter, “One Mind in Many Modes,” in which Barzun distinguishes between geometry and finesse, a distinction that pervades several of his critical works.
- A recent sample is Rudolf Arnheim's essay “Visual Thinking” in Gyorgy Kepes, ed., Education of Vision, New York, 1965, 1–14.
- See the essay by William J. J. Gordon, “The Metaphorical Way of Knowing,” in the Kepes volume, ibid., 96–103.
- June K. McFee, Preparation for Art, San Francisco, 1961.
- The central concern of Viktor Lowenfeld and W. Lambert Brittain in Creative and Mental Growth, 4th ed., New York, 1964.
- See Benjamin S. Bloom, ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York, 1956, and David R. Krathwohl et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook II: Affective Domain, New York, 1964.
- Krathwohl, et al., Affective Domain, Ibid.
- For a recent statement of the problem of form, see Max Reiser, “Problems of Artistic Form: The Concept of Form,” JAAC, XXV, 1966, 17–26.
- For an extended discussion of aesthetic criticism, see Ralph A. Smith, “Aesthetic Criticism: The Method of Aesthetic Education,” Studies in Art Education, IX, 1968, 12–31.
- The idea is hardly new or original and some of Dewey's ideas in this respect have been successfully popularized by Bruner.
- Krathwohl, et al., Affective Domain, op. cit.
- Ibid., 88.
- Another way of thinking about what is meant by “the discipline of aesthetic criticism” is to understand it as an aesthetic conceptual net or map that facilitates storage and recall of relevant facts and procedures in the aesthetic domain.