Texas Trends in Art Education, Volume 3, Number 1, Fall 1985 Page: 22
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas Trends in Art Education and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Texas Art Education Association.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
and applicability. It has been reprinted in at
least one textbook besides Feldman's and
been the subject of articles, commentaries,
and theses (Gaitskell, C. and Hurwitz, A.,
1975). It has been tried in all kinds of set-
tings from grade school to graduate school.
For full details of the method, as originally
conceived by Feldman, one should consult
his textbook (1967). Below, however, is a
synopsis of the first three stages as revised
by Richard Salome (1984).
I. DESCRIPTION: Identify things about
the work that a group of people can see,
name, describe and agree on. Be sure
that your statements are non-evaluative
and non-interpretive; this stage is only
an inventory.
A. Subject Matter Inventory recogniz-
able objects, shapes, forms that you
see in the work, e.g. people, build-
/22 ings, trees, fields, etc. If the work
consists of free forms, indicate that
and go on to Art Elements.
B. Art Elements:
1. Line. What kinds of line do you
see: outlines, contour lines, bro-
ken lines, etc? Line may occur
around shapes or forms.
2. Color. Identify the hues you see.
Identify dark colors, light colors,
dull colors, etc.
3. Shapes. Are they flat (2-dimen-
sional)? Are they 3-dimensional?
Do they represent objects and
figures?
4. Texture. Surface quality that sug-
gests how surface might feel,
e.g. rough, smooth, course, etc.
Is the texture simulated (repre-
senting the texture of an object
or figure) or an actual part of the
art work (e.g. thick paint, carved
marble, etc.).
5. Space. Spatial depth is an illusion
on a flat surface. Is the space
shallow or deep?
II. ANALYSIS: Using the information from
the Description phase, analyze the ways
in which the artist has integrated the
various things listed under subject
matter and the art elements. Notice in
particular how they are related:
A. Similarity: Are there some things
that have the same shape? Are any
colors repeated? Are some lines
similar in being curved or straight;
are they going in the same direction?
B. Contrasts: Are there some things
that are vividly different-in size,
shape, color, light and dark, direc-
tion, etc.?
C. Continuities: Are there any elements
or series of elements that involve or
flow through a large part of the
composition?
D. Connections between formal ele-
ments and subject matter: Are there
any vivid connections between the
two? For example, did the artist use
cool colors to emphasize the cold-
ness of a winter landscape?E. Overall qualities: This aspect can ap-
ply to any of the art elements. For
example, a work may be basically
"rectilinear" (consisting of mainly
straight lines and shapes), "rough
textured," "brightly-colored," etc.
III. INTERPRETATION: Relate the infor-
mation you have collected to your feel-
ings, ideas, emotions aroused by the
work. Hypothesize a meaning (or mean-
ings) for the work. Use the evidence
gathered in the first two phases to de-
fend your hypothesis.
(The last phase-evaluation-has been
omitted because, in my judgement, assess-
ing the merit of an art work is difficult
enough for professionals, let alone students.
Dr. Feldman (1982), himself, does not advo-
cate a stress on evaluation.)
Although some graduate students in art
education have used the system as a re-
search tool, I contend that it also a teaching
technique, and a very effective one. As such
it may be used in at least three ways: (1) as
a structure to be followed by the teacher
whenever a work of art is analyzed (in this
case, clear thinking about art would be facili-
tated through the teacher serving as a role
model); (2) as a structure to be learned by
the student for making written or verbal
statements about art; and (3) as a seminar
style in which the whole class participates. I
have had first-hand experience at the college
level with #2. My art appreciation and hu-
manities students are taught the system in a
very straight-forward, deductive way. They
are then required to use it in papers about
art-usually about work found in the ISU
galleries. Considering the level of freshman
writing ability at ISU, these papers have
been remarkably good-not only for their
logical flow, but for their insights about the
works in question. I have also had experi-
ence (both as student and teacher) with #3,
the seminar method. Again, the system as a
technique is presented in a deductive way.
But, in the seminar itself, it becomes induc-
tive. For example: members of a class view-
ing a single work, talk about it-either by
volunteering or waiting their turn according
to some prearranged order. The only rule is
that they must follow the stages, that is,
thoroughly inventorying the observable fea-
tures of the work in question before compar-
ing and contrasting those features, and
completing the analysis phase before at-
tempting to interpret the work. In essence,
the Feldman system is an inductive process
for inferring conclusions (generalities) from
the available evidence (particulars). Not all
students, of course, will agree in their inter-
pretations, but each one will be required to
defend his/her interpretation based on the
evidence uncovered in previous statements
made during the descriptive and analytical
stages. Some years ago, as a CEMREL co-
ordinator, I used this seminar style suc-
cessfully with sixth graders; but since I was
not their regular art teacher, I was unable
to test the system's possibilities as a perpet-ual teaching tool. I have heard from others
that it is feasible to use as low as even third
grade, but I have no first-hand knowledge
of this.
Some critics claim that, as it stands,
the Feldman method is very good as a tool
for formal analysis (because of the first two
stages), but very inadequate for social analy-
sis. This criticism is related to a larger inter-
necine debate among advocates of aesthetic
education in the NAEA that we need not go
into here (Hobbs, J. 1985; Geahigan, G.
1985). Formal analysis is familiar to every-
one in art, since the art world has, until very
recently, been dominated by "formalist" crit-
ics, and schools of art typically resort to for-
mal analyses in studio classes. The aims of
social analysis perhaps can be summarized
as follows: (1) to investigate the relation-
ships between art and the cultural context;
(2) to enhance not only the students' under-
standing of a work but also their aesthetic
appreciation of a work; and (3) to determine
the social messages and/or social implica-
tions of works of art.
I, for one, favor relating art to its social
context whenever we deal with it. This is
especially necessary in the classroom setting
(and I'm thinking of higher education as well
as secondary and elementary) in which most
of what we call art is foreign, indeed alien, to
students' experiences. The art is so foreign
because its cultural origins are foreign, espe-
cially to students who have not had sufficient
exposure to European history and literature
(not to mention Chinese, African, Pre-
Columbian, etc.). Even the cultural origins
of contemporary American art are foreign to
those students who are not art majors. For
example, what sense does it make to have a
student appreciate a Durer self portrait
solely on the basis of its observable features
(formal characteristics) when the crucial im-
portance of it has to do with the fact that it
is the artist's persona, his proclamation of
himself to the world. If this knowledge plus
other information, i.e. Germany's religious
restlessness on the eve of the Reformation
and Durer's relationship to that restlessness
is not considered in the encounter, then I
think both the student and the art have been
cheated. It is not that I think art cannot be
used in the classroom without students first
having thorough backgrounds in history. But
I do believe that art works should not be
considered in isolation.
One way that a teacher may relate the
Durer portrait to its context is simply to tell
the facts to the class beforehand. The other
way, the one I prefer, is to withhold those
facts until after the interpretation phase, and
then divulge them, following with the stu-
dents re-interpreting the work in light of the
new evidence. My modification of the Feld-
man method can be diagrammed in five steps
as follows:
1. Description (based on what is observable
in the work)
2. Analysis
3. Interpretation #1
4. Introduction of external evidence: title,TRENDS / fall 1985
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View five pages within this issue that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas Art Education Association. Texas Trends in Art Education, Volume 3, Number 1, Fall 1985, periodical, Autumn 1985; Dallas, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth279681/m1/24/?q=architectural+drawings: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas Art Education Association.