Texas Trends in Art Education, Volume 3, Number 1, Fall 1985 Page: 23
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:
artist, social background, etc.
5. Interpretation #2
Now, to return to the Durer self por-
trait (Prado Museum), although the students
will not know that it is a self portrait they
will nevertheless draw conclusions during
step 3 about the sitter's personality. No
doubt they will be puzzled, if not amused, by
the costume. They might conclude, among
other things, that the sitter was a proud,
young prince; who knows? Then the new
information is introduced in step 4. Of course
just the knowledge that the painting is a self
portrait will affect their interpretations in
step 5. But it will not be simply a matter of
new information changing the prior inter-
pretation. The original interpretations-
which were arrived at through a rigorous
process-will also inform the new informa-
tion. In other words, the relationship be-
tween internal and external evidence is
reciprocal.
I have applied this method to the presen-
tation of Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal
Son (Hermitage Museum). It is fascinating
to hear students' remarks and interpreta-
tions about the painting during interpretation
#1. It is even more gratifying to witness
them in the process of reconsidering their
conclusions after being told that the work
was made by Rembrandt, that it was one of
his last works, that it is about a parable, etc.
In this case the seminar became quite lively
with questions raised about the artist, his
life at that time, and about seventeenth-
century Dutch society. Not only did this
method serve as a vehicle for students to
learn something of seventeenth-century his-
tory (and I make no apologies for that re-
sult); but also the students learned relevant
facts about the artist, the Bible, and Dutch
society thus making their experience of the
painting more vivid and rewarding.
REFERENCES
Boyer, E. (1985). Art as Language: Its place in
the schools. Beyond creating: The place for
art in America's schools, Los Angeles: The
Getty Center, 8-9.
Chapman, L. (1978). Approaches to art in educa-
tion. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chapman, L. (1982). Instant art instant culture:
The unspoken policy for American schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Clark, G., and Zimmerman, E. (1978). Art/
Design: communicating visually. Blauvelt,
N.Y.: Art Education, Inc.
Down, A. (1979). Art, basic education, and the
back to basics movement. Arts education
and back to basics, Reston, VA: National Art
Education Association.
Eisner, E. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New
York: MacMillan.
Feldman, E. (1967). Art as image and idea. Engel-
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Feldman, E. (1970). Becoming human through
art. Engeiwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Feldman, E. (1973). Varieties of visual experience.
Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Feldman, E. (1982). A reply to Smith Art Educa-
tion, 35 (5), 20-22.
Gaitskell, C. and Hurwitz, A. (1975). Children
and their art (3rd edition). New York: Har-
court Brace Jovanovich.Geahigan, G. (1985). The elitist-populist contro-
versy: A response to Ralph Smith. Studies in
Art Education,26 (3), 178-180.
Hobbs, J. (1984). Popular art versus fine art. Art
Education, 37 (3), 11-14.
Hobbs, J. (1985). Response to Smith's 'A right to
the best Best'. Studies in Art Education, 26
(3), 176-178.
Lanier, V. (1982). The arts we see. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Lowenfeld, V. (1952). Creative and mental growth
(2nd edition). New York: Macmillan.
Salome, R. (1984). A guide to critical analysis of
art. Viewpoints: Dialogue in art education.
Sewall, G. (1982). Against anomie and amnesia:
What basic education means Kappan, 63 (9).
Sizer, T. (1984, February 9). Bloomington pan-
tagraph (Bloomington, IL), A8.
Smith, R. (ed) (1966). Aesthetics and criticism in
art education. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Time. (1982). 120 (10).
Jack Hobbs is a Professor in the Department
of Art at Illinois State University, Normal,
Illinois.TRENDS / fall 1985
I
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/m1/25/?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.