The Limits of Theory in

Art Education
BRIAN ALLISON & JEROME HAUSMAN
Abstract
The last forty years have seen substantial and dramatic changes in the thinking
about education in art. Changes have taken place in art itself and there have been
incredible social, political and economic upheavals. All this has led to an enlarged
view of art education. It has given rise to the need for greater dialogue and debate.
In more recent years, there have been more concentrated and focussed efforts to
establish art curricula and standards of accomplishment for art education. In
England, there has been the introduction of the National Curriculum and in the USA
there has been the development of the National Standards for Arts Education. In
both countries there have been numerous efforts at national or state, local and
school levels aimed at assessing what students’ ‘know and are able to do’ in the
arts. The role of theory in art education is of some importance. It is through theory
that a systematic accounting can be constructed that explains and makes consistent
the individual critiques of what is going on in classrooms, schools, committees and
the nation-at-large.
The paper discusses developments in England and the United States with regard to
the theoretical development of curricula and the means for evaluation in art
education. It also outlines and discusses the ‘limits of theory in art education’. It is
not opposed to theory; rather it is posited that preoccupations with theory should
not over-ride the importance of maintaining a multiplicity of competing (or
emerging) meanings. It is argued that theories should inform and illuminate actions
rather than place arbitrary limits upon them.

Preface cation in the United Kingdom and the United

States. This discussion resulted in parallel pap-
Time and distance afford a useful vantage point ers being given at the European Regional Con-
for viewing developments in art education in gress of the International Society for Education
the United Kingdom and the United States. through Art held in Glasgow, Scotland in 1997.
Major ideas and events can be more clearly This article consolidates those papers, while
seen. Gone are the smaller and less significant maintaining the essential views presented in
details. They have been merged or obliterated. Glasgow.
What is left are the broader generalisations and
linkages that help to better discern patterns Art education theory in the
and influences.
Some time in 1996, Brian Allison and Jerome
United States
Hausman, who could be described as ‘senior art The nineteen fifties and sixties were times filled
educators’, took the opportunity to exchange with theoretical promise: leaders such as Victor
ideas on some of the changing perspectives and Lowenfeld, Herbert Read, Rudolph Arnheim
practices stemming from theories in art edu- and Victor D’Amico articulated a broad vision of

 NSEAD, 1998
122 BRIAN ALLISON & JEROME HAUSMAN The Limits of Theory in Art Education

art education; John Dewey’s Art As Experience Art educators sought to help students progress
(published in 1934) helped reconceptualise the along particular developmental lines toward
role of the arts in education; Bauhaus ideas and clearer, comprehensive, and more unified ends.
methodologies had already given rise to think- From this perspective we sought to construct a
ing that connected art and design; the establish- progressive, developmental narrative which
ment of the National Art Education Association ideally converged upon a clear definition of art
(1947) offered the promise of co-ordinated and the ways that students can experience art.
theoretical leadership at national level, the end
of World War II was followed by a period of Art education theory in the
governmental support for research and curricu-
lum development. The sixties into the seventies
United Kingdom
was a time for unprecedented projects to help In recent decades in the United Kingdom there
establish the arts as core subjects in the edu- has been a discernible rise in references to
cation of all students: the Penn State Seminar ‘theory’ or ‘theories’ in art, design and art and
in Art Education for Research and Curriculum design education. This has been partly because
Development; the Aesthetic Education Pro- art education, in common with almost every
gramme of the Central Midwestern Regional subject in the curriculum at all levels of edu-
Education Laboratory; and the John D Rocke- cation from primary school level to university
feller III Arts in Education Programme. level, has been swept up in a wave of account-
In the Report Coming to Our Senses: The Sig- ability. To be able to argue that a subject is
nificance of the Arts for American Education ‘underpinned by theory’ is seen to be a princi-
[Rockefeller, 1977], it was asserted: ‘Through the pal indicator of academic respectability and val-
arts we can learn to see our environment more idity. In most contexts, although the term
clearly; to sense its color, song, dance; and to ‘theory’ is used, it can most often be taken to
preserve its life and quality.’ [p.34]. The period mean ‘justification’ and being able to put for-
being described is one in which theoretical ward reasoned arguments to justify art edu-
assumptions stemmed from faith in an inherent, cation practices has been necessary to qualify
more comprehensive ‘goodness’ in human the place of art in the curriculum. ‘Art’, it should
desires and capacities. There was also faith in be noted, is now taken to be inclusive of art,
the perfectibility of human effort – through craft and design.
diligent work we might progress to higher and There is an assumed interaction between
higher levels of attainment. Through creative, theory and practice. Many of us would argue
artistic engagement we could come to know that ‘Practice without theory is uninformed and
and understand this ‘goodness’ and accomplish- theory without practice is esoteric’. In hindsight,
ment – the connection between the ‘good and this could be just a smart and pithy aphorism
the beautiful’. and quite inapplicable to art education in the
The leadership in American art education was UK. Art education in the UK is practice, it is
very much swept up by this orientation. If only pragmatic. Before the 1960s, art education did
we might know more, work more energetically, very well without theory What might have
develop more informed theories, we might then passed for theory, like the writings of R R Tom-
institutionalise and spread a more effective gos- linson and Marion Richardson, simply shifted
pel and gain more widespread acceptance and directions to art practices in schools and, by let-
approval. US art educators had an evangelical ting in particular interpretations of imagination
zeal. The ‘truth’ was out there. We needed to and expressiveness, released popular practices
be more systematic in its pursuit. To be ‘mod- from the constraints of copying and formalistic
ern’ was to believe in progress and advance- exercises. Education through Art by Herbert
ment towards accomplishing more unified Read certainly raised the status of art education
goals. Art education theory in the period being in academic circles but it seems few art teachers
described posited large goals and aspirations. actually read the book and even fewer under-

 NSEAD, 1998
BRIAN ALLISON & JEROME HAUSMAN The Limits of Theory in Art Education 123

stood it. In any case, art educational practice These approaches have been called ‘discipline-
has a facility of appearing to subscribe to theory based art education’. Overall, it can be seen that
but without actually changing. the Getty Center’s programme represents the
Prior to the 1960s, most specialist art teachers most sustained and financially substantial
were trained in departments within art colleges. undertaking by a foundation aimed at fostering
Their training was uniquely outside of the aca- changes involving the teaching of art in Amer-
demic structures of the universities where ican schools. It should be noted that the Getty
theories were commonplace. Typically, art Center’s efforts have aroused a chorus of criti-
teacher training consisted of the essential con- cism. From another perspective, the criticism
tinuance of practice as an artist, a summary can be seen as a ‘post-modernist’ orientation
grounding in some general education principles that brings into question the more linear,
and teaching practice in schools, which, again, sequential and ‘modernist’ leanings of DBAE. A
focused on the practice of art. Theories about recent evaluation of DBAE by Professor Brent
art education were not overtly considered. In Wilson and his associates [Wilson, 1997] deals
the 1960s, the reorganisation of higher edu- with the work of six regional consortia seeking
cation brought many of the art colleges out of to ‘create change in communities and spear-
their isolation. Advanced study in art education head DBAE development and implementation
emerged late in the decade with the develop- in school districts’. Up to 1996, the Regional
ment of a small number of Diploma courses Institutes have served ‘thousands of teachers
catering for experienced art teachers. Much of and administrators from some 217 school dis-
the literature relating specifically to art edu- tricts in thirteen states who, in turn, serve more
cation that provided the content for these than 1.5 million students. They have attracted
courses was published in the USA by writers international attention and secured close to $15
such as Lowenfeld, Arnheim and D’Amico, million to match grants from the Getty Edu-
who, as noted above, were the visionary leaders cation Institute’ [p.10].
of US art education. This literature provided a What is it that Wilson and his associates have
good support for a degree of missionary zeal concluded? ‘In less than ten years, these
which was similar to that in the USA. In these regional consortia have far exceed expec-
courses there was a highly enthusiastic and tations, becoming national resources for arts
pioneering commitment to develop an under- education reform’ [p.10]. Nevertheless, there is
standing of what we were doing and where we still an ‘evolving’ character in describing the
might be going. We felt there was a great need Getty Programme’s efforts. As Wilson put it:
to identify and formulate theories which would ‘The DBAE tapestry is still being woven’ [p.227].
illuminate art education practices in the UK Another of the major efforts aimed at improv-
although there were few, if any, publications or ing art instruction in the United States parallels
other means to disseminate and exchange developments in the UK – the establishment of
ideas. the National Standards for Arts Education (what
every young American should know and be
Further art education able to do in the arts) along with the develop-
ment of a national programme (National Assess-
developments in the United States ment of Educational Progress) in which rep-
The Getty Center for Education in the Arts was resentative data is being gathered aimed at
established in 1982. Its stated goal was to assessing what our students know and can do.
improve the quality and status of visual arts The United States is a large nation,
education in the United States public schools. encompassing great diversity. Establishing
In the years that followed, the Center provided national standards and uniform means for
support for an approach which integrates con- assessment appropriate for so large and com-
tent drawn from four related disciplines: art- plex a population has resulted in generalis-
making, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. ations that are broad enough to accommodate

 NSEAD, 1998
124 BRIAN ALLISON & JEROME HAUSMAN The Limits of Theory in Art Education

differences in students, instructional settings, ing by glossing over essential distinctions cen-
and value priorities. A problem is that the rec- tral to arriving at insights. Generalisations, in
ommended instruction and evaluation, in all too these latter instances, may convey an
many instances, has become so general as to impression of understanding but, in fact, con-
provide little or no specific help for our prac- tribute to the malaise of ‘talk without sub-
titioners. At its worst, the generalisations have stance’.
moved away from practice and become ends
unto themselves. It still remains to be seen as to Further art education
whether the establishment of national standards developments in the United
and the effort at national assessment will
accomplish the lofty goals that have been set
Kingdom
forth. The National Society for Art Education (now the
During the past fifty years, one can observe National Society for Education in Art and
that there has been a substantial increase within Design) played an important role in changing
the United States in publications, workshops, the culture of art education. In the early 1970s,
seminars, and conferences devoted to advanc- as part of the UK government’s Schools Council
ing the scope and scale of art education. If only initiation of developments across the whole
there could be some positive correlation school curriculum, the NSAE undertook a major
between the published word count and the real brief to develop a Crafts curriculum. In the
accomplishment. Judith Koroscik observed: event, they did not restrict themselves to the
Craft brief but developed a holistic art curricu-
In the zeal to push the intellectual benefits of
lum based on an extensive theoretical analysis
studying the arts and keep everyone in the arts
and consideration of what art is, who makes it,
and arts education happy, policy positions have
who uses it, who talks about it and so on, and
emerged for arts education that are contradic-
what it means to be ‘educated in art’. The out-
tory, exaggerated, oversimplified, and lacking
come of this theoretical analysis resulted in a
in supportive evidence. [Koroscik, 1997].
curriculum proposal familiarly known as the
Saying that ‘it is so’, does not make it so! Four Domains and showed the interaction and
Seen from a similar perspective, our ‘theories’ relationships between Expression / Production,
have merged with hopes and aspirations – the Perception, Analysis / Criticism, and History /
‘grand visions for the field’. Hausman’s com- Culture. [Schools Council, 1977]. Essentially, the
mentary on Doug Boughton’s 1996 Studies in Four Domains proposed a sequential curricu-
Art Education Invited Lecture reflects upon lum covering the whole of general education
Boughton’s observation about the ‘lack of which would involve the learners in making,
research and writing in assessment compared to looking at, responding to and talking about art,
grand visions of the field’. After all, it is easier craft and design from the present time and the
to wax eloquently about visions and vistas; it is past and from one’s own and other cultures
also easier to avoid the nitty-gritty of detail. One [Allison 1978].
can be positioned on a high ground, beyond In the same decade, the NSAE published an
the realm of lofty generalisation. Reference to article with the title ‘Professional Art Education’
what ‘ought to be the case’ can lead us on to a [Allison, 1974] which stressed the need for a
widening spiral of generalisations that loses new attitude to art education and, amongst
touch with its centre: the specific dynamics of many other points, argued the importance of
creating and responding to particular ideas, the literature of the field and the need for the
feelings and circumstances. From this perspec- NSAE to publish an appropriate journal for the
tive, generalisations can be seen as having two dissemination and exchange of ideas. As a
sides, a positive and problematic: they can help consequence, a small group, which included a
us to summarise, conclude or clarify; they can publisher, met and agreed to launch a new aca-
also contribute to obfuscating our understand- demic journal which, by the time it came to

 NSEAD, 1998
BRIAN ALLISON & JEROME HAUSMAN The Limits of Theory in Art Education 125

publication some years later, was resolved with the National Curriculum of what it would mean
its present title, the Journal of Art & Design to be ‘educated in art’ in human and social
Education. This development was as exciting as terms or how it might contribute to, enrich or
it was seminal. It was hoped that the journal change people’s lives. Despite its shortcomings,
would provide the vehicle for the presentation the National Curriculum gave a most welcome
and challenging of theory. structure to practice in schools and will do a
The first edition of the new Journal of Art & great deal to reduce the otherwise singular
Design Education was published in 1982 and attention to practical art activities. This is parti-
included a further exposition and extension of cularly the case in primary schools where the
Allison’s Four Domains curriculum conception National Curriculum structure and guidance
[Allison, 1982]. It is relevant to the perceived gives real help to general class teachers who
status of theory that an erudite response to the have had no specialist training in art.
article which appeared in a subsequent issue of The overall effect of the National Curriculum,
JADE challenged the value of curriculum dis- which includes inspections to ensure some
cussion in art education at all and argued that level of conformity and standard, has resulted in
‘such rhetorical verbiage leads to indigestion an art education more heavily dependent upon
not clarification’ [Povey, 1983]. Given the almost pragmatism and practice rather than theoretical
exclusive focus of art education at that time on
exposition. The National Curriculum identified,
the practice of making art in schools, such a
with more or less specificity, ‘what we are
response was, perhaps, not surprising. How-
teaching’. If there are contentious issues in art
ever, over the next decade there was growing
education, their resolution in schools is local
acceptance of the potential of broadening the
and pragmatic with virtually no discernible
curriculum to include looking at and talking
theoretical underpinning. In this post-modern
about art works, although in practice this
age, practice is practice and making is making.
tended to be piecemeal with focuses on parti-
cular aspects such as, for example, critical Theory in this context could be as limiting as it
activity and multicultural issues. In essence, would seem to be irrelevant.
there was a decrease in the resistance to a cur- It is, perhaps, ironic that in the 1990s changes
riculum which addressed ‘responding to works in government policy towards higher education
of art’ as well as ‘making art works’ although, and, in particular, the training of teachers has
in the main, justifications for this shift in attitude diminished the capacity for examining the
could be related mainly to meeting local theoretical implications of the content and
demands in schools or local education auth- implementation of the curriculum. Preservice
orities. teacher training within the last few years has
The full realisation of the expansion of the become substantially school-based with the
art education curriculum in the UK to accom- consequence of a reduction in the opportunities
modate both ‘making’ and responding’ came open to student-teachers to encounter, engage
through the development of the National Cur- in or challenge theoretical issues. Similarly,
riculum, which was introduced in schools in changes in funding and inservice policies have
1992 and was expected to be fully implemented led to a rapid decline in the number of teachers
throughout the school system by 1995. The able to engage in advanced study and collective
National Curriculum for art [DES, 1992] set out critical enquiry. There has also been a commen-
to identify and promote what pupils are ‘able surate fall in the number of institutions able to
to understand, know and do’ in art, craft and offer study in art education at postgraduate
design. The two aspects of making and level. It is interesting to note that in those
responding were embodied in the formulation remaining, it is likely that overseas students
of two ‘Attainment Targets’: Investigating and now outnumber UK students.
Making, and Knowledge and Understanding.
However, there was no overt conception in

 NSEAD, 1998
126 BRIAN ALLISON & JEROME HAUSMAN The Limits of Theory in Art Education

Looking ahead situation upon its own terms, analysing causes,

meanings, references and how they are materi-
It is possible that art education in the UK and ally embodied and how they are to be under-
USA, particularly at elementary and secondary stood. Artists and teachers draw upon what they
school level, is now at a watershed. In the UK, know and value. The process in which they
the National Curriculum has become an unchal- engage should challenge them to identify and
lenged establishment artefact even though, in test their theories and rethink what they are
practice, it is subject to a variety of interpret- doing.
ations. In the USA, a national curriculum has Does this place us in a relative state in which
not been proposed; rather, there are ‘voluntary we are faced with a constant condition of ambi-
standards’ under study and, in varying degrees, guity where there are no truths and anything
being adopted and implemented. Overall, it can goes? This is not quite the case. Of course, we
be said that ‘the votes are not all in’ as to the act using our existing knowledge and traditions.
effectiveness and long range impact of these Using Thomas S Kuhn’s metaphor provides us
initiatives. ‘not only with a map but also with some of the
There is some reason to feel ambivalent directions essential for map-making’. Like scien-
about the inviolate status of a national curricu- tists, we acquire ‘theory, methods and standards
lum or standards, particularly as they give shape together, usually in an inextricable nature’.
and direction to much of what was embraced [Kuhn, 1962, p. 109]. We see our present situ-
by the grand visions. Just the same, there are ation as inaugurating a new era of freedom and
important reasons for participating in the responsibility for art educators. If we are freed
review and evaluation of these national efforts. of the guilt or necessity for arriving at singular,
There is every reason to stress the need for criti- all encompassing, and fixed answers, we can
cal analysis on a major scale. This kind of come to the adventure and satisfactions of
review provides an opportunity to identify and working things through to the best, most infor-
examine theoretical underpinnings. We should, med, most satisfying outcomes. Gone is the
however, always keep in mind that, for teach- feeling that doing away with one style or ideol-
ers, theory and practice are inextricably linked. ogy is a prerequisite for the initiation of
The content of education is mediated by many another. We should seek to develop consensus.
factors. So too, theories should balance their Leadership in art education should attend to its
coherence with a multiplicity of competing theoretical suppositions. What we are urging is
emphases and differing circumstances. Theories attention to theory, which Ecker described as
for the teaching of art that lead to fixed, all- ‘hypothetical principles or rules by which past
encompassing generalisations may impress out- experiences may be connected with anticipated
siders – but they frequently provide much too future experiences’ [Ecker, 1965, p. 3], that does
global a frame of reference for teachers facing not isolate our considerations from practice.
concrete situations. The process in which art educators engage chal-
Our present time is one in which we are lenges them to continually test this theory and
being challenged to be clearer and more rethink what they know and value. In this pro-
explicit as to what we are teaching, why and cess, their formulas, theories, and fashions are
with what expected outcomes. The ‘criterion both tools and traps. They are tools for orient-
issue’ will always be with us. To be sure, ing, structuring and evaluating what goes on in
changes and innovations are occurring in artis- the classrooms. They are traps if they limit per-
tic practice. We are constantly being confronted ceptions to rigidly prescribed categories. This is
with new paradigms as to what art can be. This why the art historian, Rene Huyghe offered
is precisely the reason that art teachers are chal- this caveat:
lenged to be even more specific, to offer a
rationale that makes sense for a particular time The more insight the history of art gives us into
and place. It is important to take each work or the necessities that form the artist, the more

 NSEAD, 1998
BRIAN ALLISON & JEROME HAUSMAN The Limits of Theory in Art Education 127

nearly it liberates us from the temptation of for- to a formula or definition. [Huyghe, 1959, p.
mulas, theories, and fashions, because it shows 438]
us that these things, being subject to perpetual
change, are relative and vain. The only perma- Brian Allison & Jerome Hausman
nent thing is quality, which cannot be reduced

References
Allison, B. [1974]. Professional Art Education. Journal Studies Invited Lecture. Studies in Art Education,
of the National Society for Art Education. 1, 1, pp. 38, 4, pp. 214–6
3–9 Huyghe, R. [1959]. Ideas and Images in World Art:
Allison, B. [1978]. Sequential Learning in Art. Journal Dialogue with the Invisible. Princeton, NJ: Prince-
of the National Society for Art Education, pp. 6– ton University Press
14 Kuhn, T. S. [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revol-
Allison, B. [1981]. Professional Art Education. Journal utions. University of Chicago Press
of the National Society for Art Education. VIII, 2, Koroscik, J. S. [1997]. The Intellectualization of Amer-
pp. 22–5 [republication of 1974 article] ican Arts Education Policy. Arts Education Policy
Allison, B. [1982]. Identifying the Core in Art and Review, 98, 4, pp. 2–12
Design. Journal of Art & Design Education. 1, 1, Meyer, L. B. [1967]. Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Pat-
pp. 59–66 terns and Predictions in Twentieth Century Cul-
ture. The University of Chicago Press
Department of Education and Science [1991a].
National Curriculum. Art Working Group Interim Povey, D. F. [1983]. Cookery Books or Guidelines –
Report. London: DES confirmation or development? Journal of Art &
Design Education. 2, 1, pp. 117–20
Department of Education and Science [1991b]. Art for
Rockefeller, D. Jr [1977]. Coming to Our Senses: The
ages 5 to 14. Proposals to the Secretary of State
Significance of the Arts for American Education.
for Education and Science and the Secretary for
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Wales. London: DES
Schools Council [1977]. Examinations at 18+. N and
Department of Education and Science [1992]. Art in F Proposals. Report of the Crafts Commissioned
the National Curriculum [England]. London: DES Group based on the NSAE. London: Schools
Ecker, D. W. [1965]. On the Possibility of Theory in Council
Art Education. Studies in Art Education, Spring, Wilson, B. [1997]. The Quiet Revolution: Changing
6, 2, pp. 1–6 the Face of Arts Education. Los Angeles: The
Hausman, J. J. [1997]. Response to Doug Boughton’s Getty Institute for the Arts

 NSEAD, 1998