Connecting Art, Learning, And Creativity

7/27/2019 Connecting Art, Learning, And Creativity

1/16

National rt Education ssociation

Connecting Art, Learning, and Creativity: A Case for Curriculum IntegrationAuthor(s): Julia MarshallSource: Studies in Art Education, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Spring, 2005), pp. 227-241Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3497082.

Accessed: 29/03/2014 03:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Studies in Art Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 64.62.201.15 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:50:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naeahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3497082?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3497082?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea


2/16

Copyright005bytheNationalArtEducation ssociation

ConnectingArt,Learning,andCreativity:A Case for CurriculumIntegrationJulia MarshallSan Francisco tateUniversity

Theauthorargueshat substantive'rtintegrationarmonizes ithcontempo-rarypostmodernhoughtn arteducation ndrepresents strategyorteachingart n a postmodern ay.Bringing ogetherheoriesromcognitive cienceandmetaphorheory specificallyonnection ndprojection),he author howshowsubstantiveintegrationromotesearningndcreativity.mageshatconnectartand sciencearegivenas examples f substantiveintegrationn postmodernrtthatrevealmentalprocessesndcreatemeaning ndinsight hrough onceptual'collage.'Theseimageshelpteachers nd studentsunderstandhe conceptualbasisfor much postmodernart and give educatorsclues to cognitionandcreativeprocesseshatcanguide,deepen,andupdatepracticen artmakingndin teaching.Postmodern theorists endorse an art education where art is contextual-

ized, boundaries between domains are blurred, and emphasis is placed oncontent in relation to form (Efland, Freedman & Stuhr, 1996; Hutchens& Suggs, 1997; Clark, 1996). Integration of art with other subjects iscongruent with these tenets of postmodernism because it relates ideas toform (shifting the focus of art education away from formal concerns tomeaning-making), crosses disciplinary boundaries to reveal conceptualconnections, and locates art in context with other disciplines. Mostimportantly for teachers, integration represents a concrete and feasibleapproach to teaching art in a postmodern way.Even with its attention to content, context, and boundary-crossing,postmodern art education has not explored fully the integration of artwith academic curriculum as a practice congruent with postmoderntheory. However, the topic of integration is slowly entering contemporarydiscourse in art education. We see this in 'issues-based art education,'which is a form of integration in which "social, political, and culturalissues become subjects to address in the teaching of art" (Gaudelius &Spiers, 2002, p. 3).

Integration is also emerging in art education literature that exploreslearning and cognition in light of postmodern and visual culture theory.Freedman (2003) and Efland (2002) examine how new findings andtheories from cognitive science are shaping our understanding of learningand epistemology. These theories describe learning as essentially a situ-ated, socially-constructed, and culturally mediated process of makingmeaning. They emphasize the connections between the body, context,experience, culture, emotion, and high-order thinking (Freedman, 2003)and view the mind as an integrated system that unites symbol-processing

Correspondenceregarding his articlemay be sent to theauthor at the ArtDepartment, SanFranciscoStateUniversity, 1600Holloway Avenue,San Francisco,CA94132. E-mail:[email protected]

Studies in Art Education

Studies n Art EducationAJournalf Issues ndResearch2005, 46(3), 227-241

227

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

JuliaMarshall

with sociocultural actors(Efland,2002). Conventionalnotionsof disci-pline-based epistemology are overthrown by these conceptions oflearning. Knowledgeis no longer thought of as divided into discretedomains,but is seen in terms of an integrated ystem(Freedman2003,Efland,2002). Freedman 2003) findsjustificationn these theoriesforthe embraceof visual culture as a conceptualgrounding or art learningand viewsthematic/conceptually-basedurriculumas a methodology orexploring art in context. Efland (2002) also finds justification forcurriculumintegration sawayof advancing earning:If the aim of education s to fullyactivate he cognitivepotentialof the learner,wayshaveto be found to integrateknowledge rommanysubjects o achievea fullerunderstandinghan would beprovidedby content treated n isolation.(p. 103)Efland(2002) findsart to be a propitious,earning-friendlyub for inte-grated earningbecauseart is the location wheresubjectiveand culturalinterpretationmeaning-making)remostopenlycelebratedndpracticed.Efland(2002) alsoexplores reativityn relationshipo cognition.Thesubjectof creativity s wherepostmodernismand cognitive psychologymay appearto be least compatible.While some postmoderntheoristschallenge he veryexistenceof creativity Barrett,1997), cognitivescien-tists persistin researchingt in orderto understandand demystifyit.Howeverdisparate ognitivescienceandpostmodernismmayappear, hefindings of cognitive science ultimatelymesh with postmodernismintheir challenge to the romantic modernist concept of creativityas amagicalprocessof self-expression arriedout by an isolatedindividual,and suggestthat creativityexists in its culturalcontext, often entailingrecycling,appropriation,reframingor adapting existing ideas to newconcepts.This article furtherexplores deas from cognitivescience andcognitive linguistics (metaphor theory) to help us understandsomespecificcontributionsintegrationbringsto learning,understanding ndcreativityn thepostmodernartclassroom.

SubstantiveCurriculumIntegration"Atruly ntegrated urriculums organizedo show the connectednessof things,while an interdisciplinaryurriculums organizedn waysthatreinforcethe separateand discretecharacterof academicdisciplines"(Clark,1997, p. 35). Clark'sconceptof integrations in alignmentwithwhat I will referto here as 'substantiveintegration.'Substantiventegra-tion resistssimply depictingsubjectmatteroutsideart,addressingocialissuesthroughart or placingart in its sociocultural ontext.Substantiveintegrations a pedagogy hatgoesdeeperand broaderhantheseapplica-tions; it involvesmakingconceptualconnectionsthat underlieart andother disciplines.It revealssomethingof the core principles,structures,and practices of fields by moving beyond the most concrete level(depictingsubjectsmattersparticularo disciplines), o a more abstract

Studies n ArtEducation28



4/16

A CaseforCurriculumIntegration

level(tapping nto the concepts hatunderlie he disciplinesaddressed)othe most profound and conceptual level (revealing concepts that arecommonto art,the disciplineswith which it is integrated, nd the mindin general).Connectingart to other areasof inquiryin a substantive,ntegrativewaynot onlyrevealshefoundationsof eachdiscipline,butalso makes orsound pedagogy because it: (a) is congruent with the way the mindworks-how we think and learn;(b) highlightsand promotes earning,especially learning for understandingand transfer;and (c) catalyzescreativity.We find a strong theoretical rationale for these claims inconstructivistheoriesof learningand some of the new thinking n cogni-tive science hataddresseslearningandcreativity.

Connection-Making and Cognition:Ideas from Cognitive ScienceThe literaturen cognitivesciencehasa recurringheme-connectionsareat the core of cognitionand consciousness.Neural-networkheory,firstproposedby Hopfieldin 1982, indicates hatcognitionoccurswhenneuralnodesin the brainareactivatedsimultaneouslyn net-likeconfigu-rations(Martindale,1995).Cognitivescientistscall this physicalprocessPDP, paralleldistributingprocessing,or 'connectionism' Solso, 1994).The neuralconnectionsn the brainare, n turn,directly onnected o theconceptualstructures f the mind, which mimic the neuralarchitecturefrom whichtheyemerge.Cognitive inguists,LakoffandJohnson(1999)makethiscrucial onnectionbetween hephysicalandthe conceptual:In shortwe formextraordinarilyichconceptual tructuresor ourcategories ndreasonabout themin manywaysthat arecrucial oroureverydayunctioning.All theseconceptual tructuresre,ofcourse,neural tructuresn ourbrains.(p. 20)

According o Piaget(1963), learningoccurswhen new informationsattached o priorknowledgeand placedin existingconceptualcompart-ments or 'schemata.'Cognitive psychologiststoday continue to builduponPiaget's onceptthat the mindis a systemconstructed f these basicunits and that cognition is a function of organizinginformation intomoduleswithin a largermentalstructure.LakoffandJohnson(1999) puta slightly differenttwist on schematheoryand suggestthat the mindconceptualizeshe world by placingphenomena n categories.They seethe implicationsof categorizationndargue hat the mind, in organizingphenomenanto categories,hinksanalogously;t seessomething n termsof somethingelse.It makesconnections.Justasestablishing elationships etweenentities s a keyto learningn

its most basicform,expanding hoseconnections s the critical actor nunderstanding.The literaturen learning heory ndicates hatauthenticlearning requiresunderstandingand understandingentails not only

Studies n ArtEducation 229



5/16

JuliaMarshall

rememberinghe facts of a domain,but comprehending ow thosefactsfit together Bransfordt al., 2000).Understandings a key factorin transfer.Defined as "theabilityto

extendwhat has beenlearned n one context to new contexts" Bransfordet al., 2000, p. 55), transfers a criticallearningobjectiven education. t,too, is foundedon makingand expandingconnections,connections hatgeneratenferenceorprojection.The Connection Between Learning and CreativityCreativity, ike learning, s rootedin findingor makingconnections.Recognitionof this correlation etweencreativity ndlearnings not new.Koestler 1990) believed hatcreative deasaregenerated hrough bisoci-ation' or the juxtaposition(or connection) of previouslyunassociated

entities. These bisociativepairingsare unexpected,often dissonant,andtheir dissonancecompelsthe mind to build a bridgebetweenthem inimaginativeways.Hummel and Holyoak(2002) suggestthat creativethoughtis rootedin analogous hinking.As noted earlier,LakoffandJohnsonview analo-gous thinkingas a key element in learning.LakoffandJohnson(1980)also seeanalogous hinkingat the cruxof creativity,but theytake it a stepfurther;they synthesize analogous thinking with bisociation in theirtheoryof metaphor.To LakoffandJohnson,metaphors wherecreativityand learning ntersect; t is also the primaryprincipleof consciousnessandcognition.Metaphorsbeginwith analogous hinkingwhenone thingis compared o another.An analogy hen servesas a basis for projection,where one thingis seen in termsof another. n metaphor,however, hereis not completeaccordbetween the two comparedentities. The discordbetween he two entitieschallengeshe mind to re-conceptualizehe orig-inal entity and see it differently.The mind, accordingto Lakoff andJohnson, earnsthroughmetaphorical rocessesand when the dissonanceof metaphor hocks us into new analogies, he mind adjusts ts conceptsto fit the new configuration.n metaphor,seeingas,'which is the coreoflearning,becomescloselyalignedwith 'seeingdifferently,' cornerstoneof creativityLakoff& Johnson,1980).Anothervitallinkbetweenlearningandcreativityiesin the conceptof'imagination.' In their theory of categorization,Lakoff and Johnson(1999) suggestthat the qualitythat links one entitywith another(thatputsthem in the samecategory)s an abstraction, concept.This impliesthat abstractconcepts are generatedor revealedwhen connectionsaremade.LakoffandJohnson'snotion that abstractionsemergeout of rela-tionshipsbetweentangibleconcretethingsis a cornerstoneof Ricoeur's(1981) theoryof imagination.Imagination,according o Ricoeur,is anactiveprocessin which the mind constructslinkagesbetween tangibleentities.A leap of the imaginationoccurswhen the mind projects deasandconstructsnewrelationships.Due to the pictorialnatureof the mind,

Studiesn Art Education30



6/16

A Casefor CurriculumIntegration

imaginative inks or leapsareoften manifested n mental images-thusthewordimagination. ecauseimagination perateshroughconstructingbridgesbetween perceivedentities (connection-making)and developsfurtherthrough projection, t is a closelylinkedto learningand under-standing.Thornton (2002) bringsa differenttwist to the connectionbetweencreativity ndlearningby suggesting hatcreativitys an extensionof thelearning ontinuum.According o Thornton, earning anbe divided ntotwo categories:non-relationaland relational.Non-relationallearning slearningabout objectsas they are in themselves.Relationallearning slearningaboutobjects n relationshipo otherobjects.To Thornton,rela-tional learningis the most significantform of learning.It is not onlybasedon connection-making,but it is recursive.This means that theoutputdatafrom one iterationof the learningprocessbecomes he inputdata for the next iteration. A relational recursivelearning process isongoing, ever-constructingndevolving.

Learningis defined by Thornton as an "incrementaldiscoveryofsuccessful evels of description-a kind of constructiverepresentation-buildingoperation"p. 242). This processusuallyculminateswith align-ment,whererealityandconception ntersect.Learninghat culminatesnalignment s objectiveand literal.When continuedunchecked,however,relationallearningextends beyond mere alignmentand can become agenerative process that creates new relationships and therefore newknowledge.It reachesbeyond objectivealignmentto the realm of thesubjective;he learnerbecomesactivelyengaged n takingan idea furtherand looking to the possibilities suggested by the facts. This kind oflearninginvolves interpretationand imagination.Thornton calls this'runawayearning' ndsaysthatit lies on the creative nd of the learning-creativitycontinuum.The ultimate effect of 'runaway earning'is 'recoding.'Thornton'snotion of 'recoding' s similar o LakoffandJohnson's deasconcerningmetaphor. n bothconcepts,newideas,knowledgeandinsightsaregener-ated-by first establishingconnections or relationshipsand then byprojectinghe newconcepts,or drawingnferences.LakoffandJohnson'sand Thornton'sexplanationsof learningand creativityemphasizethementalprocessesof 'weaving' connection-making)o generateabstractideasand'spinning' taking deasfurther).Weaving' onnotesa web-likeconfiguration,while'spinning' uggestsa threadortrail.

Implications for Curriculum IntegrationSubstantive urriculumintegration,hen, requires ducators o under-stand how the mind perceives,earnsandconceptualizeshroughanalog-ical thinking, metaphorand schema-construction.By elucidatingtheprocesses f learningandcreativity, onnectionistandconstructivistheo-ries offerinsightinto the mind and providea theoretical ationalebased

Studies in Art Education 231



7/16

JuliaMarshall

in cognitiveprocesses or curriculumintegration.These theoriesvalidateartintegration ecauseintegrations essentially boutmakingconnectionsand projections.They help us to betterunderstandhe linkagesbetweenlearningand creatingat their most fundamental evel. These theories,therefore, iveus critical nformation o usein developing urriculumnte-gration hatis substantive.Curriculumintegrationhas many functions that are supportedbycognitive heoryandconstructivism.Theyare:1. Curriculumintegration ighlightsnterior tructuresf and connec-tionswithindisciplines.Whentheorganizationf a field of inquirysrevealed,heways n which the mind structuresknowledge, nd howthatconfigurationhapes esearch,ractice, nd attitudes rediscovered.In exploringhe structuralaspectsof a discipline, tudentsmaycometosee thatknowledgen a disciplines connectedandordered, nd thatstructuregives t coherence.Thisunderstandingouldgo furtheroshedlighton how newknowledges created, onnected, udged,andbuiltuponwithin a discipline.Students ould cometo understandhatthesestructures renecessaryordevelopment f allknowledgeincludingknowledgen the field of art.2. Curriculumintegration oregroundshesimilarities etweenandamongdisciplines y locatingresemblances etweenknowledge,practice,beliefsandassumptionsn multipleareas f inquiry.Whenanalogous

thinking s appliedacrossdisciplinaryines,connectionsaremade,inferences redrawn,and abstractconcepts hat connectareas fthoughtarediscovered.n constructivistarlance, orrelating isciplinesexpandsearners'understandingybringingnformationromdifferentdisciplinesnto thesameschemata.3. Cross-disciplinarytudypromotes ransfer s it involves ross-contextapplications f knowledgeand ideas.Transfer, suallyassociatedwithlearning,hasimplicationsorcreativity.When ideasaretransferredrapplied rom one area o another, ecodingoccursand matters rere-conceptualized.urriculumintegration,herefore,osters reativethinking.Martindale1995) states,"Creativedeasofteninvolvetakingideas rom one disciplineandapplyinghem to another"(p.252). Toillustratehispoint,he citestheground-breakingnsightsof Hopfield,the fatherof neural-networkheorywho developedhis ideaof neuralnetsbyapplying oncepts romphysics, pecificallyheareaof spinglasstheory, o cognition.4. Curriculumntegration lso breaksdownthebarriers f categorizationthat tendto limitunderstanding ithina discipline.The prevalence fstructure asits downside.According o Ward(1995), an inflexibleand narrowdisciplinarytructure anlimitinnovative hinking.LakoffandJohnson(1980) believe hatnewinsightsaregenerated ndnewlearningoccurswhenthe boundaries f conventional ategorizationre

Studies n ArtEducation32



8/16


broken.When thishappens, he tenetsof a disciplineareseendiffer-ently;conventionalcategorizations disrupted, ndnewschemata renecessarilyreated o accommodate ewinsights.5. Integrationlsohighlightshe differences etweendisciplines.Bransfordet al. (2000) maintain that contrasting entities is an especiallyeffective

strategyfor teaching and learning about the specifics of those entities."Appropriatelyarrangedcontrasts can help people notice new featuresthat previously escaped their attention and learn which featuresarerelevant or irrelevantto a particular concept" (p. 60). This is especiallytrue in interdisciplinarystudies because different disciplines have theirown distinct elements and seeing these particularitiesin relationship tothose of other disciplines puts them in high relief.6. Integration of art with the academic curriculum is especially good forhighlighting the learningmodalities of 'weaving'and 'spinning' becauseof the special nature of art images and the recursive characterof theart-making process. As mentioned before, weaving constructs abstractconcepts through linkages, and spinning takes them further. Ineducation parlance,weaving is 'integration' and spinning is 'extension.'As for weaving and art, interpreting the world through visual images isa combinatory act of connecting the conceptual to a tangible, visualrepresentationof it (Ricoeur, 1991). Weaving also occurs in artwhenimages arejuxtaposed on a picture plane, in a three-dimensional objector in a time-based series of images to create meaning.Making art also lends itself to runawaylearning or spinning. Spinningin art-making is particularlysignificant because the creativeprocess ofmaking art lends itself to evolving, recursivelearning. Artmakingpromotes imaginative play with concepts and whimsical projections ofabstractionsonto new contexts. Students can literally run awaywithideas in their art, apply them to fantasies,and learn through imaginativeinference and projection. Spinning is extended and expanded when artis integrated and the focus of the spinning includes not only art, butareasoutside art.All of this implies that artmakingis essentially alearning process that spans the entire continuum between learning andcreativity.

Art Images: Visual Representation of the MindMental processing seems so abstract and intangible that addressing itwith students is a daunting task; it usually lies outside the commondiscourse in art education classes and beyond the normal purview of ourstudents. But understanding the way people think, learn, and create isimportant for learners, for artists, and especially for art educators.Bransford,et al. (2000) agree. They refer to consciousness of one's mentalprocessing as 'metacognition' and state that the literature in learningscience stresses the significance of metacognition in understanding andtransfer. Fortunately, the images of art can give us clues to mental

Studiesin Art Education 233



9/16

JuliaMarshall

processing.They can makecognition,learning,and creativityaccessible,viablesubjects or our classroomsand help our students to achieveandpractice metacognition.

Solsowritesof the connectionbetweenartand mind andsees the valueof art n illuminatinghisconnection,Art is a reflectionof the innerstructures nd theperceptions f themind of the artistand the artviewer .. For in art-especially artthatappeals o universalprinciples f perceptionandcognitiveorga-nization,and resonatessympathetically ith the innerneurologicalstructures f the brain-we candiscover he salient actsnecessaryto formulategeneralawsof themind and the often elusiverelation-shipof the mind with the external(electromagnetic)orld.(Solso,1994, p. 49)BarbaraMariaStafford 1999) examines he connectionbetweenmindand image from a visual cultureperspective.She agreeswith Ricoeur(1981) thatconsciousness s essentiallypictorial.For this reason,Staffordargues hat consciousnessinds its truestexpressionn art.The visualarts,asespecially ighorder ormsof envisioning,makean elusivepersonalawarenesssubstantiallyeal n an externalrealization.Theyhelpus understand he myriadmodesbywhichpeople endlesslymodifyand reuseelementsavailable o them.(Stafford,p. 138)Staffordagreeswith connectionistmodelsin cognitivesciencethat themind worksin combinatorialways.She proposes hat abstractdeasandconsciousness itself are generated in the mind through a process of'collaging'or juxtaposingof images,experiences nd ideas."Collageas aprocessof transformingphemera ycuttingandpasting hem to momen-tarily tableconfigurations,ontinues o be a particularlyffectivetechniqueforcapturinghechimeraof consciousnessn action" Stafford, .146).Stafford'suse of the art termcollageo describehow the mind works,emphasizes he connection between art imageryand mental processes.

Many of her examples(Picasso,Braqueand Gris) are taken from early20th-centuryEuropewhencollage irstappearedn art.Theseearlyworksare clearexamplesof collaging,as they areliterallyconstructedof foundimages uxtaposedon a pictureplane.As such,theyherald aterartworksthat may not be actualphysicalcollagesbut arecreatedby conceptualcollaging.In contemporary, ostmodernart we find clearexamplesof collagingas a common and effectivestrategy or amplifying deas,framingrealityand revealing he workingsof the mind. Artists MarkTansey,ThomasGrunfeldandMarkDion, forexample,haveproducedmanyimages hatembodycollage.Their imagesareespeciallyuseful for educatorsbecausetheyare noncoalescentimages(Stafford,1999). Stafford indsnoncoales-centimagesparticularlyevealing.

Studies n Art Education34



10/16


Typesof images hatconspicuously o not blend theirelementsareespecially ffectiven demonstratingherulesgoverning he brain'sconnectivity,how it is able to activatemanydiscreteareaspossessingspecific unctionsandjuxtaposeheminto a larger oherentpattern.(Stafford,p. 144)The artworksof Tansey, Grunfeld, and Dion are also significantbecause t is in them that theoriesof learningand creativityromcogni-tivescience,metaphorheory,curriculumintegration ndpostmodernismcometogether.First,theseworksprovidevisualrepresentationsf manyof the ideasabout learningand creativity put forth in cognitive science discussedabove.They not only embodythese ideas,they do it in veryconscious

ways.The artworksof these threeartistsrepresenta propensity owardself-awareness(metacognition)hatpredominatesn muchcontemporaryart.Theirwork, for that reason,makesinsightinto the creativeprocessaccessible.Second,these artistsusemetaphorn their work. Theirimagesoverlapto revealconceptual onnectionsand thejuxtaposition ompelsviewers osee one imagein terms of another.In doing so, the artistscreateinsightandmeaning.Third,in regardo curriculumintegration,heworksof these artistsgobeyond interdisciplinaritydepictingsubjectmatterin science), using

collage to go deeper to revealunderlyingconcepts. We see here thatcollage,becauset connectsat theconceptualevel,is truly ntegrative.The specific magesdiscussedn this articleintegrate r collageartandscience.This is a particularly roductiveareaof integrationbecauseartand sciencerepresentprimary ields of inquirywith a common core-curiosityand a will to know and understand.They are fields in whichepistemology oincideswith aesthetics(knowledgeandmeaningreside nform and configuration)and the world is constructedthroughobserva-tion, questioning,experimentationand imagination.Juxtaposing hesetwo areas an shedlighton the internalworkingsof the mind and itswaysof constructing eality.Since the connectionsbetweenartand sciencearelocated at such a deep and elementalplane,exploring heirconnectionscantakecurriculumintegrationo itsdeepest evel.Thomas GrunfeldThomas Grunfeldaligns art with science in ways that captureourattentionby disruptingourexpectations.His Misfit(St.Bernard),1994)is an animal with the head of a sheep and the body of a St. Bernardrecliningn a vitrine.AlthoughMisfit(St.Bernard)s noticeably ynthetic,it has a disturbing eality o it-perhaps because t is constructedof realanimalparts.This creature s one in a seriesof hybridanimalsbegunin1989 in whichGrunfeldcombinesdisparate artsof preserved nimals ocreatenew fantasycreatures.Theseanimalsrecall he European radition

Studies nArtEducation 235



11/16

JuliaMarshall

ThomasGrunfeld,Misfit (St.Bernard),1994. Taxidermy,plexiglas,andwood vitrine.Courtesyof the Arnot and MichaelJanssenGallery.of collecting,stuffing,anddisplaying nimals n naturalhistorymuseums.In this way, they connect the latest technologyand researchn geneticengineeringo earlier fforts n science o controlnature.Grunfeldalsogivesus cluesto creativeprocess n both art andscience,especiallysynthesisor combining existingentities to create new inven-tions. Grunfeld's synthesis is essentially collaging as understood byStafford (1999) and bisociation (Koestler, 1990). Grunfeld's collageprocess s particularlylear n these animalsbecause t is embodied n twodisparateand discretenoncoalescentpartsthat join togetherto generateeach new entity. Each new creatureresonateswith many associations.Therefore,Grunfeld'shybridsalso havea runawayquality; hey embodythe question'What if?'and each of them suggestsa creationmyth and alife of its own.MarkDion

Mark Dion merges art and science in his artwork by mimickingresearchpractices,organizingprinciples,and conventionsof displayusedin the natural ciences.For this reason,his workmakesclearconnectionsbetweenart and science and providesgood examplesof deeper nterdisci-plinarycross-pollination.

Studiesn Art Education36



12/16

A Case forCurriculumIntegration

Dion's workalsoalludesto the ways we think. " :Many of his installationsinvolve collections ofobjects displayed according rto categoriesand thereforehint at how the mind orga-nizes what it encounters.This connects Dion's workto the theories of catego-rizationprofessedby Lakoff a*a _ . - ,_and Johnson. Also, there is f Ia direct link between thework of Dion and Stafford's y lnotion of collage. We seethis especially in his work,Cabinet of Curiosities(2001). In this piece, Dion MarkDion, CabinetofCuriosities,2001.updates the tradition of the With RobertWilliams.Courtesyof the artist.17th- and 18th-century'cabinets of curiosities' orwunderkammer, n which artifacts of all sorts, both natural and human-made, are displayed together as objects of wonder. These cabinets areespeciallysignificantin that they representan intersectionbetweenartandscienceat a pivotaltimewhen curiosityandobservation ommingledwith obsessive accumulation and aesthetic display (Stafford, 1999,Mauries,2002). Analysisof these artifacts ndividuallyrevealsthem asobjectsthatembodyideas.The naturalobjectsexemplifynaturalpatternsand laws;the culturalobjectsrepresentdeasabouthumanlife, particu-larlyspirituality, thics,and reason. In juxtaposingnaturalwith culturalobjects,we can see that theseobjectsareconceptuallyrelatedand intuithow many human concepts, beliefs, and aesthetics were derivedfromobservation of natural forms, patterns and relationships. TheseEnlightenment-eraollectionswere,according o Stafford,physicalmani-festationsof the collaging processesof the mind; they revealedhow themind juxtaposesphenomenaand createsnarrativesnd conceptsthroughrelationships.Cabinetsof curiositiesarealsometaphoricalepresentationsof schema-mixing.The mind is representedsa largecabinetwith shelvesand files for differentcategoriesof objects.Often the placement n thesecabinets s informalor quitecasualand the objectsescapetheircategoriesto createnewrelationshipsnd newconcepts.

Dion's Cabinetof Curiosities2001) is a particularlyostmodern loset.It is filled with an arrangementf natural pecimens uch asbones,skulls,shells, and preservedanimals that one would find in the traditional

Studies n ArtEducation 237



13/16

JuliaMarshall

wunderkammer.On the top shelf, however, is a collection of mass-produced tems fromcontemporary opularculture.With the inclusionof these pop-culture icons, Dion puts a modern twist on thewunderkammerraditionby replacinghe relicsof EnlightenmentEurope,such as portraitsof Greekgods, tools, and globeswith the artifactsoftoday. Dion's ironic commentary ies in the parallelsand contrastshedrawsbetween the historical icons of western Europe and the mass-produced magesof contemporary opularculture.In usingthese'relics,'he reveals he contemporarymind as a descendentof the Enlightenmentmindwith its tendencyto collageor blur the boundariesbetweennatureand culture and its practiceof deriving ideas and meaning from theobjects hatsurroundt.MarkTanseyThe work of MarkTanseyis especiallynoteworthyas combinationalimagerycreatedthrough uxtaposingdistinctimages.These worksbringtogether disparate images that make peculiar, surprising, and oftenprofoundsense when placedin proximitywith each other. Tansey is apainter.He does not collage in the conventional art sense-physicallycutting and arrangingmagesor organizingobjectsand partsto createjuxtapositions-but he collages n a conceptualway,selecting magesandjuxtaposinghem in his paintings.Tansey'scollageprocess s particularlyself-conscious;he often uses a wooden table he constructed of threerotatingconcentric ircles,eachwith a multitudeof tinylines of textradi-atingfrom the center. In spinningthese circlesandnotinghow the textsline up when the circlesstop rotating,Tanseygenerates ndless randomcombinations of ideas. This processof arbitrary uxtaposition makesTansey'sworkparticularly eliberate nd metacognitive.His imagesalsoecho runawayearningbecausetheyevolvethrougha processof pushingthe combinationsbeyondthe initialsynthesis hroughto theirlogicalorillogicalconclusions.

Tansey'ssubjectsare often the historyof art, literature,and philos-ophy, but Tansey also touches upon science. The Enunciation 1992)depictsMarcelDuchamp,the fatherof conceptualart,sittingon a trainobservinghimselfas RroseSelavy,his feminine alterego, passingon atrain going in the opposite direction.This image referencesEinstein'slegendary piphany,which took placeon a movingtrain and led to theTheoryof Relativity.Tanseyrecreates he trainscenarioas an archetypalcollaging experience. In so doing, he creates an analogy betweenDuchamp's groundbreakingdeas,which led to conceptualand perfor-manceart,with Einstein'sworkin physics.On a deeper evel,Tanseyisalsosuggesting hat ideas,even the trulymomentousones, aregeneratedby the combinatoryprocessof collaging.Tansey reminds us that thiscollaging trategyworks n bothart andscience-and it is the enginethatgeneratesnew understandingsand ideas, especiallywhen the artist or

StudiesnArtEducation38



14/16

A Case for CurriculumIntegration

s9m.> . -w MarkTansey,_i .- ' E-Dij_cienti rsawayw e i"ea gn ataThe Enunciatin1992.I-- i'a Oil on canvas,t _ S ~ivei 6 a84 x 64 inches._s appr h t_ 'i mar , ; l CourtesyGagosianC: fX0 \ _ - - _-G Gallery.Photograph

____ingndersanding and eatii.l 1 liby Robert McKeever.

scientist runs away with the idea generated through collage, weaves orconnects it to other ideas, sees its implications, and 'spins' a new trail.Implications for Art EducatorsTo teach authentically about art and postmodern concepts, we must

employ an approach to teaching and learning in tune with postmodernprinciples that works in a pedagogically sound way. I believe that substan-tive art integration is such a pedagogy because it offers a conceptually-based approach to exploring contemporary ideas while promotinglearning, understanding, and creativity. Developing and implementingsubstantive integration is a challenge for art educators. Cognitive science,metaphor theory, and postmodern art provide information and ideas thatcan facilitate this endeavor. Cognitive science and metaphor theory giveus clear descriptions of learning and creative thinking that help teachers torecognize these processes when they occur in student work, and to designintegrative curriculum that catalyzes and nurtures these processes.

A central tenet of learning and creativity theory is that learning andcreativity are essentially connection-making. Consequently, teaching is apractice of making connections or helping students to make connections.




15/16

JuliaMarshall

Connectionismand constructivismchallenge eachers o re-conceptualizetheir practice and role-not as mere distributors of information ortrainersof skills, but as connection-makerswho 'weave'nets betweendisparate reasof knowledge.Learning nd creativity lso involveprojec-tion and inference.Therefore,art teachersmust see themselvesas 'spin-ners'who pose questionsthat challengestudents to take things further,followideas,and mine theirimplications.The conceptsof'spinning'and'weaving'are at the core of artand they areamplifiedand expanded ncurriculumintegration.Postmodern art helps us in developing integrative curriculumbyproviding nsightinto the natureof substantiveintegration.Rather hanunderstandingntegrationas simplyusingart to exploreand communi-cate ideasfrom otherdisciplines, heseworkssuggestthat integration sactuallya form of cross-disciplinaryollage-a juxtapositionof discipli-naryelements hat reveals r generates onnective deas.Ideas becomethe focus when elements(subjects,nformation, tories,objectsandimages)arecollaged.The primacyof ideas s oneof thesignif-icant essons hatintegrativetudyandpostmodernism ringto arteduca-tion. In highlighting ideas, integration encourages art educators toincludeconceptualstrategiesn their art lessons-to integrate deas andconceptualprocesseswith techniques,materials,and visual form and tomakethe vitalconnectionbetweenvisualimagesand ideas.

Postmodernart also presentsclearimagesfrom which to teach aboutidea-generationand creativeprocess. When these images are viewedthroughthe lens of cognitivetheoryand metaphor heory,we can bettersee the conceptualprocessesof collaging,weaving,and spinningbehindthem.Analysisof these artworks anhelpstudentsbecomeawareof theirownconceptualprocessesn image-making,ndto utilize hatknowledge.Aboveall, postmodernartimagesprovidecatalystsordevelopmentofsubstantive urriculum.Miningthese worksfor the concepts heyharbor,linkingthem to relatedcontexts, deas,andimages,andconnecting hemto the mentalprocesses hey embodyarewaysto generate deas for artexerciseshatengagestudents n thinking, earning,andimage-makingnsubstantive and integrativeways. This approachnecessitatesapplyingsimilarimaginativeprocesses o curriculumdevelopmentand teachingasthosepostmodernartistsuse in theirwork-connection, projection,andconceptual ollage.References

Barrett,T. (1997). Modernism and postmodernism:An overview with artexamples.InJ. Hutchens, & M. Suggs, (Eds.). Art education:Contentandpractice n apostmodern ra(pp. 17-30). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Studies in Art Education40



16/16

A Case for Curriculum Integration

Bransford,J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (2000). Howpeople earn:Brain, mind, experienceand school.Washington, DC: Commission on Behavioraland Social Sciences and Education,National ResearchCouncil, National Academy Press.

Clark,E. (1997). Designingand implementing n integrated urriculum:A student-centeredapproach.Brandon,VT: Holistic Education Press.Clark,R. (1996). Art education: ssues npostmodern edagogy.Reston, VA: National Art

EducationAssociation.Efland,A. (2002). Art and cognition, ntegrating he visualarts in thecurriculum.New York:

TeachersCollege Press.Efland, A., Freedman, K., & Stuhr, P. (1996) Postmodern rt education:An approach o

curriculum.Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.Freedman,K. (2003) Teachingvisualculture:Curriculum, esthetics, nd the sociallife ofart.New

York:TeachersCollege Press.Gaudelius, Y., & Spiers,P. (2002) Contemporaryssues n art education.Upper-SaddleRiver,NJ:

Prentice-Hall.Hummel, J., & Holyoak, K. (2002). Analogy and creativity:Schema induction in a structure-

sensitive connectionist model. In T. Dartnell, (Ed.), Creativity, ognitionand knowledge(pp.181-210). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Hutchens, J., & Suggs, M. (1997) Student complaints and facultymoaning: Some antecedentstothe essaysthat follow. In J. Hutchens & M. Suggs, (Eds.). Art education:Contentandpracticein apostmodern ra(pp. 7-15). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association

Koestler,A. (1990). The act ofcreation.New York:Penguin Books.Lakoff,G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophyn theflesh. New York: Basic Books.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphorswe live by. Chicago, IL:The Universityof Chicago

Press.Martindale,C. (1995). Creativityand connectionism. In S. Smith, T. Ward, & R. Finke, The

creativecognitionapproach pp. 249-268). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Mauries,P. (2002). Cabinetsofcuriosities.New York:Thames and Hudson.Piaget,J. (1963). Theoriginsofintelligence n children M. Cook, Trans.). New York:Norton.

(Originalwork published 1952)Ricoeur, P. (1981). The metaphoricalprocessas cognition, imagination,and feeling. In M.

Johnson (Ed.), Philosophicalperspectivesn metaphor pp. 228-247). Minneapolis:Universityof Minnesota Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1991). The function of fiction in shapingreality.In M. Valdes, (Ed.), A Ricoeurreader:Reflection nd imagination pp. 117-136). Toronto: Universityof Toronto.Solso, R. (1994). Cognitionand the visualarts.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Stafford,B. (1999). Recombinancy:Binding the computational "new mind" to the combinatorial'old mind'. In B. Stafford, Visualanalogy:Consciousnesss the art of connecting pp. 138-179).

Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Thornton, C. (2002). Creativityand runaway earning.In T. Dartnall, (Ed.), Creativity, ognition,and knowledgepp. 239-249). Westport, CT: Praeger.Ward, T. (1995). What's old about new ideas?In S. Smith, T. Ward, & R. Finke, The creative

cognitionapproach pp. 157-178). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.


Connecting Art, Learning, And Creativity

Documents

Transcript of Connecting Art, Learning, And Creativity