The Study of Education and Art ed. by Dick Field, John Newick (review)

266 Books The Study of Education and Art. Dick Field and John Newick, eds. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1973. 244 pp. Paper. €1.90 Reviewed by Kim James* This is a collection of essays by lecturers at the Institute of Education of London University. Two of them are psychologists, two philosophers, one a writer on aesthetics and philosophy, whilst the co-editors are described as ‘lecturers in education with special reference to the teaching of art’. The book-jacket tells us that all these people are leading authorities in their fields. These are some of the subject-headings: ‘Art: Mistress and Servant of Man and His Culture’, ‘Art Education in Relation to Psychic and Mental Functioning’, Education in the Arts’ and ‘Art and Art Education’. It is difficult to be kind about such a book as this. Although the preface states that the book is addressed to ‘all students of art education’, it is difficult to see quite what students would get out of reading it. Not only is all the ground covered more closely and more ably in other works but there are viewpoints on this topic of which the contributors to this volume seem quite unaware. It is a considerable feat, and not without daring, in 1973 to write a book on education and art without so much as mentioning Piaget. Those readers of Leonardo who have read Gibson’s articles on the links between art and perception will also notice the absence of any hint of this kind of approach. Bruner is mentioned once, in the most oblique fashion. Only Arnheim of the non-analytical school of psychologists gets more than one quote and the second of these is to reinforce an analytical interpretation of a rather banal nature. The authorities of whom the contributors seem to approve, without qualification, are all of a piece. Herbert Read is quoted 15 times, Louis Arnaud Reid (the Emeritus Professor contributor) scores 10 quotes, Jung scores nine. All other authorities on all subjects get 1.9 on average and of these Ehrenzweig takes four. The basic approach is watered-down Jungianism. Some exciting books have been written by admirers of Jung but this is not one of them. There is much talk of ‘education’ and ‘art’ and ‘cognition ’ but never once do the contributors get down to defining what they mean by these terms. The first sentence in the book gives the measure of the perplexities in which the editors found themselves at the outset: ‘The phrase the srudy ofart education comes easily to the lips, but the content of such study appears to be tantalisingly elusive and mutable.’ Sad to say, in this volume it does not get any clearer. If the contributors had taken as their task to investigate this elusive and mutable quality, the book might have proved interesting and worthwhile. Probably the worst contribution in the book comes from one of the editors, J. Newick. His contribution is full of laboured statements of which the following is a fair sample: ‘But will autonomous change made by the teacher fall inevitably within the orbit of his own projections ? However perspicacious he may be, the artefacts may bear too close an affinity to his own aspirations.’ Quite so. Readings in Art and Design Education: Vol. 1 (After Hornsey), Vol. 2 (After Coldstream). David Warren Piper, ed. Davis-Poynter, London, 1973. 314 pp. €4.00 (each vol.). Reviewed by Peter Lloyd Jones** When books are the belated result of hastily convened ‘teach-ins’,such qualities as rigour, consistency and lucidity are not normally much in evidence. These volumes, coming for the most part from papers originally read at two symposia held at the Institute of Contemporary Arts *34 Marmora Road, London SE22, England. **22 Bradbourne Street, Fulham, London SW6 3TE, England. (I.C.A.) in London certainly bear all the signs of their origins. Their rather incestuous flavour arises directly from the manner of their birth. For despite appearancesthe philosophical window dressing, utopian sociologkal speculation and simplistic discussions on creativity-the impulse for the symposia was primarily political. They were part of a protest movement by people who felt that art and design education was threatened by government...