Our collective purpose is to explore the history and historiography of art education broadly from national, international, and comparative perspectives, and provide historical context for the formation of educational policy. Members teach and research in a variety of contexts, from K-12 schools, community colleges and research universities, to independent scholars and others working outside of the academy. The HHAE offers a community of inquiry and inclusiveness, opening avenues to address topics not limited to:
The disciplinary morphology of research and scholarly publication in art education history has closely followed broader postmodern trends in historiography. Contemporary historian Alexander Lyon Macfie (2015) describes as an almost complete disciplinary shift from the view of history as an objective or “true” rendering of a past to the view of history as “a literary construct… [of] a past that may or may not have existed, at least in the manner conventionally supposed” (p. 1). The specialized study of art education history is still a relatively small field, and although historical writing on art teaching and learning existed prior to modernity, only a handful of art educators have chosen to make a concerted effort to investigate issues of historical import.
Art education scholar Donald Soucy (1985) points to educational historians such as Frederick Logan (1955), Stuart MacDonald (1970), and Foster Wygant (1983) as having constructed the much-needed skeletal framework for art education’s history, even if their foundational works were broad surveys that favored breadth over detail. In the mid-1980s Soucy (1985) called for more localized histories which could “play a vital role in distinguishing actual influence [of characters and events] from mere visibility” (p. 7). He saw the importance of localized histories as a way to “test the load bearing capacity” (p. 8) of these foundational publications, stressing the importance of using primary sources as a way to “append, contradict, support, and otherwise clarify” (1985, p. 3) written histories.
Art educator Mary Erickson (1985) shed some light on the relationship between the philosophy and the methods of history by looking at four styles of historical writing: realistic, formal, expressive, and pragmatic. For each style she considered “the philosophical position of the historian, the methods employed, criteria for judgment, and examples of the style in the literature of art education” (p. 121). She explains each historian “approaches art education from a different perspective and with varying goals for its future. There is no agreement among historians about the basic nature of historical inquiry. Some call history an art; others, a science” (p. 123). Erickson concludes by noting “in histories of art education, as in the art world, we should not expect or seek unanimity, but rather should prize the insight that diversity can bring” (p. 124). Currently, this diversity is represented through a broad spectrum of voices in art education histories: of students, teachers and community facilitators, as well as policy makers and administrative leaders.
Twenty years ago art education scholar Paul Bolin (1995) introduced “new histories” to the field of art education by way of historian Peter Burke’s (1991) description of what this kind of history looks like. For Burke, new history was defined by: 1) moving beyond political concerns to a wider scope of human activity; 2) analyzing the underlying structures of history, rather than recording its narrative events; 3) a shift from exploring the lives and influence of great men to the overlooked people and cultural groups that had been neglected in the past; 4) an expansion of historical methods to include oral histories, photos, and other objects; 5) a move from a narrow, singular historical focus to the acceptance of multiplicity in historical understanding; and 6) acknowledgment of the historian’s perspective and the impossibility of objective historical writing. As Bolin notes, Burke’s characteristics do not capture “the entire breadth and meaning of ‘new’ history” but they encapsulate many of its primary goals (1995, p. 47). These new directions characterized what Bolin already saw emerging in historical research in art education: a movement toward an arts-based trend of opening up history and expanding perspectives on ways of knowing about the past.
Art education historian Mary Ann Stankiewicz (1995) proposed historians put more emphasis on the role of narrative in historical interpretation in order to bring their work into focus and “make it more meaningful to readers” (p. 53). The engagement of art educators with their own history requires a thoughtful narrative constructed within literary and relational tropes. Stankiewicz applies Hayden White’s (1978) model of history as narrative to a variety of published art education histories to demonstrate the artful literary qualities found therein. In her study, she overlays modes of emplotment and literary tropes onto written histories by Harry Green (1966), Diana Korzenik (1985), and Arthur Efland (1990) to show how these literary elements function. Stankiewicz (1995) argues along with White that “history gets its meaning from narrative, that historical narratives derive plot structure from the myths of a culture, and that historians tend to employ one of four distinct ideological positions” (liberal, conservative, radical, and anarchist) in “determining the form that any historical representation must take” (pp. 57–58). In contrast to the recent art education history that pays more attention “to describing data than to telling a story” (p. 59), Stankiewicz suggests “historians of art education might want to consider questions of plot type, explanatory model, ideology, and figurative language as they write” (p. 60). Intriguingly, she theorizes that past criticism of art education histories “may reflect not so much our attention to irrelevant research problems as our failure to tell the tale in a way that engages readers and encourages them to find significance and meaning” (p. 60).
In a literature review of research in art education history from 1885-2001, Graeme Chalmers (2004) focuses on English, North American art education history publications. He commends the work of Soucy and Stankiewicz (1990) and Bolin, Blandy, and Congdon (2000), among others, for reminding us “each writer and historical document offers only a limited perspective on issues which are extremely complex, both in their occurrence and in their interpretation” (p. 2). Chalmers notes styles of historical investigation, selection, and interpretation vary, and recommends art education histories continue to be presented as “attempts to understand what really happened within wider ideological and social contexts” (p. 13). Chalmers (2004) concludes his discussion of art education history by stating “art educators are increasingly realizing that, even when dealing with the same subject, many different histories can be written” (p. 13).
Bolin (2009) recognizes scholars engaging with histories of art education “choreograph a dance of compatibility between the fragments of a known past” (p. 110) and a “critical feature of any historical analysis is the historian’s act of selectivity” (p. 116). He asks readers and writers of art education histories to “consider that thoughtful and grounded speculations and wonderings of the imagination are profitable motivators that assist the historian in initiating and carrying out lively and meaningful investigations” (p. 111). Bolin points to a variety of historians (for example, Sharpe, 1991; Gaddis, 2002; Walch & Harding, 2007) who “recognize the beneficial roles imagination, contextual understanding, and grounded speculation may play in searching out and participating in provocative historical inquiry and discussion” (pp. 111–112). Examples that correspond to Bolin’s theorizing are found in the following section. In the conclusion to his article, Bolin (2009) notes a diversity of critically examined perspectives, purposes, practices, individuals and institutions could create a foundation for the future expansion and complexity of art education.
Scholarly histories of art education are a fairly recent phenomenon (Chalmers, 2004, p. 12), and Stankiewicz (2017) notes only a “committed cadre of art educators maintains historical research as a primary interest” (n.p.). The opportunity for expansion is virtually limitless, and new forms of innovative historical practice could entice art educators from diverse specialties to take up this form of artful construction. A new NAEA history and historiography interest group will open avenues for unrepresented or marginalized groups to articulate their experiences. Histories from the LGTBQ+ community, the disability community, First Nation communities around the world, as well as under-recognized specialties like community art education and art therapy, could all incorporate methods of oral history, conduct interventions in archives, and perform presentations as versions of a constructed past.
Creating contemporary art education history requires layering subjectivities and thinking outside singular understandings in order to move this specialized subfield toward useful ways of knowing (Soucy, 1990). Recent interest in art education history has resulted in both special issue publications (Daichendt, Funk, Holt & Kantawala, 2013; Stankiewicz, 2017, Garnet, 2022) and art education history conferences at Columbia University’s Teachers College in 2015 and 2023. The value of bringing forward new and diverse histories is highlighted through the stories of struggle, achievement, and innovation in the field of art education. Art education scholar Doug Blandy (2008) aptly explains our histories are “fluid, cyclical, permeable, transformative, unpredictable, and antiauthoritarian” (p. 4), made from “complex networks of relationships” (p. 5). For a new generation of scholars, an NAEA history and historiography interest group will help to facilitate meaningful stories and inventive ways of showing and telling our pasts.
Excerpts taken from:
Garnet, D. (2017). Historying the past: Revisiting new histories in art education. Studies in Art
Education- Special issue: Histories and Historical Research in Visual Arts Education, 58(1), 39-50.
- Methods and methodologies in historical research
- BIPOC Histories
- LGBTQ+ Histories
- Archives, museums and collections
- Institutional histories
- Educational change
- Monuments and public art
- Demographics and trends
- Political and social histories
- Biography and autobiography
- Association histories
- Historiographic theory
- Revisionist histories
- Creative non-fiction
- Experimental and innovative historical presentation
- Erased, forgotten or destroyed histories
- Museum education histories
The disciplinary morphology of research and scholarly publication in art education history has closely followed broader postmodern trends in historiography. Contemporary historian Alexander Lyon Macfie (2015) describes as an almost complete disciplinary shift from the view of history as an objective or “true” rendering of a past to the view of history as “a literary construct… [of] a past that may or may not have existed, at least in the manner conventionally supposed” (p. 1). The specialized study of art education history is still a relatively small field, and although historical writing on art teaching and learning existed prior to modernity, only a handful of art educators have chosen to make a concerted effort to investigate issues of historical import.
Art education scholar Donald Soucy (1985) points to educational historians such as Frederick Logan (1955), Stuart MacDonald (1970), and Foster Wygant (1983) as having constructed the much-needed skeletal framework for art education’s history, even if their foundational works were broad surveys that favored breadth over detail. In the mid-1980s Soucy (1985) called for more localized histories which could “play a vital role in distinguishing actual influence [of characters and events] from mere visibility” (p. 7). He saw the importance of localized histories as a way to “test the load bearing capacity” (p. 8) of these foundational publications, stressing the importance of using primary sources as a way to “append, contradict, support, and otherwise clarify” (1985, p. 3) written histories.
Art educator Mary Erickson (1985) shed some light on the relationship between the philosophy and the methods of history by looking at four styles of historical writing: realistic, formal, expressive, and pragmatic. For each style she considered “the philosophical position of the historian, the methods employed, criteria for judgment, and examples of the style in the literature of art education” (p. 121). She explains each historian “approaches art education from a different perspective and with varying goals for its future. There is no agreement among historians about the basic nature of historical inquiry. Some call history an art; others, a science” (p. 123). Erickson concludes by noting “in histories of art education, as in the art world, we should not expect or seek unanimity, but rather should prize the insight that diversity can bring” (p. 124). Currently, this diversity is represented through a broad spectrum of voices in art education histories: of students, teachers and community facilitators, as well as policy makers and administrative leaders.
Twenty years ago art education scholar Paul Bolin (1995) introduced “new histories” to the field of art education by way of historian Peter Burke’s (1991) description of what this kind of history looks like. For Burke, new history was defined by: 1) moving beyond political concerns to a wider scope of human activity; 2) analyzing the underlying structures of history, rather than recording its narrative events; 3) a shift from exploring the lives and influence of great men to the overlooked people and cultural groups that had been neglected in the past; 4) an expansion of historical methods to include oral histories, photos, and other objects; 5) a move from a narrow, singular historical focus to the acceptance of multiplicity in historical understanding; and 6) acknowledgment of the historian’s perspective and the impossibility of objective historical writing. As Bolin notes, Burke’s characteristics do not capture “the entire breadth and meaning of ‘new’ history” but they encapsulate many of its primary goals (1995, p. 47). These new directions characterized what Bolin already saw emerging in historical research in art education: a movement toward an arts-based trend of opening up history and expanding perspectives on ways of knowing about the past.
Art education historian Mary Ann Stankiewicz (1995) proposed historians put more emphasis on the role of narrative in historical interpretation in order to bring their work into focus and “make it more meaningful to readers” (p. 53). The engagement of art educators with their own history requires a thoughtful narrative constructed within literary and relational tropes. Stankiewicz applies Hayden White’s (1978) model of history as narrative to a variety of published art education histories to demonstrate the artful literary qualities found therein. In her study, she overlays modes of emplotment and literary tropes onto written histories by Harry Green (1966), Diana Korzenik (1985), and Arthur Efland (1990) to show how these literary elements function. Stankiewicz (1995) argues along with White that “history gets its meaning from narrative, that historical narratives derive plot structure from the myths of a culture, and that historians tend to employ one of four distinct ideological positions” (liberal, conservative, radical, and anarchist) in “determining the form that any historical representation must take” (pp. 57–58). In contrast to the recent art education history that pays more attention “to describing data than to telling a story” (p. 59), Stankiewicz suggests “historians of art education might want to consider questions of plot type, explanatory model, ideology, and figurative language as they write” (p. 60). Intriguingly, she theorizes that past criticism of art education histories “may reflect not so much our attention to irrelevant research problems as our failure to tell the tale in a way that engages readers and encourages them to find significance and meaning” (p. 60).
In a literature review of research in art education history from 1885-2001, Graeme Chalmers (2004) focuses on English, North American art education history publications. He commends the work of Soucy and Stankiewicz (1990) and Bolin, Blandy, and Congdon (2000), among others, for reminding us “each writer and historical document offers only a limited perspective on issues which are extremely complex, both in their occurrence and in their interpretation” (p. 2). Chalmers notes styles of historical investigation, selection, and interpretation vary, and recommends art education histories continue to be presented as “attempts to understand what really happened within wider ideological and social contexts” (p. 13). Chalmers (2004) concludes his discussion of art education history by stating “art educators are increasingly realizing that, even when dealing with the same subject, many different histories can be written” (p. 13).
Bolin (2009) recognizes scholars engaging with histories of art education “choreograph a dance of compatibility between the fragments of a known past” (p. 110) and a “critical feature of any historical analysis is the historian’s act of selectivity” (p. 116). He asks readers and writers of art education histories to “consider that thoughtful and grounded speculations and wonderings of the imagination are profitable motivators that assist the historian in initiating and carrying out lively and meaningful investigations” (p. 111). Bolin points to a variety of historians (for example, Sharpe, 1991; Gaddis, 2002; Walch & Harding, 2007) who “recognize the beneficial roles imagination, contextual understanding, and grounded speculation may play in searching out and participating in provocative historical inquiry and discussion” (pp. 111–112). Examples that correspond to Bolin’s theorizing are found in the following section. In the conclusion to his article, Bolin (2009) notes a diversity of critically examined perspectives, purposes, practices, individuals and institutions could create a foundation for the future expansion and complexity of art education.
Scholarly histories of art education are a fairly recent phenomenon (Chalmers, 2004, p. 12), and Stankiewicz (2017) notes only a “committed cadre of art educators maintains historical research as a primary interest” (n.p.). The opportunity for expansion is virtually limitless, and new forms of innovative historical practice could entice art educators from diverse specialties to take up this form of artful construction. A new NAEA history and historiography interest group will open avenues for unrepresented or marginalized groups to articulate their experiences. Histories from the LGTBQ+ community, the disability community, First Nation communities around the world, as well as under-recognized specialties like community art education and art therapy, could all incorporate methods of oral history, conduct interventions in archives, and perform presentations as versions of a constructed past.
Creating contemporary art education history requires layering subjectivities and thinking outside singular understandings in order to move this specialized subfield toward useful ways of knowing (Soucy, 1990). Recent interest in art education history has resulted in both special issue publications (Daichendt, Funk, Holt & Kantawala, 2013; Stankiewicz, 2017, Garnet, 2022) and art education history conferences at Columbia University’s Teachers College in 2015 and 2023. The value of bringing forward new and diverse histories is highlighted through the stories of struggle, achievement, and innovation in the field of art education. Art education scholar Doug Blandy (2008) aptly explains our histories are “fluid, cyclical, permeable, transformative, unpredictable, and antiauthoritarian” (p. 4), made from “complex networks of relationships” (p. 5). For a new generation of scholars, an NAEA history and historiography interest group will help to facilitate meaningful stories and inventive ways of showing and telling our pasts.
Excerpts taken from:
Garnet, D. (2017). Historying the past: Revisiting new histories in art education. Studies in Art
Education- Special issue: Histories and Historical Research in Visual Arts Education, 58(1), 39-50.