Art Education 498: An Affirmation of Art & Psychology in 1971
Abstract
Spurred by the Soviet Unions’ launch of the Sputnik satellite, President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched the National Defense Education Act to support development in the American education system. This was a catalyst to develop new models of curriculum centered on underlying structures of psychology and education. This paper narrates the journey of Kenneth R. Beittel and Dale B. Harris as they explore the connection between Art & Psychology through a curriculum developed for graduate students at Penn State University in 1971 and concludes with the findings of Dale. B. Harris: Psychology and Art: Some Reflections and Tentative Affirmations.
“Scrutinize your schools curriculum and standards”, echoed over the airwaves on November 13 1957. Americans tuned in to hear President Dwight D. Eisenhower give the public address titled “Our Future Security”. The power of his voice would echo over the next decade as America began restructuring and strengthening the education system in an effort to increase national security. President Eisenhower signed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) on September 2, 1958. This provided America’s schools with the support they needed to strengthen their programs in mathematics and sciences. (Eisenhower, 1957) The research produced during this time redefined our current principals and techniques and expanded our knowledge in these areas. This created a movement toward a more disciplined based core concepts of curriculum. (Marché, 2002) In 1959 the NDEA gathered leading scholars in Woods Hole Massachusetts. This resulted in a revival of disciplined centered education, outlined in The Process of Education by Jerome Bruner1 in 1960. (Marché, 2002; Hovarth, 1964) According to Marché (2002), this cued a curriculum driven by standards that filtered into all areas of education, including that of the Arts. The 1960s saw a rise in music and art educators, though most Arts educators believed this model was too progressive and preferred the model of creative self-expression. These educators argued that a more creative populace would improve our national defense (Marché, 2002). In 1965 the United Stated Office of Education (USOE) sponsored a seminar at Pennsylvania State University. This seminar was designed to generate a framework of curricula through an interdisciplinary base of knowledge by gathering researchers in the fields of art education, psychology, and other fields with related interests. (Beittel & Mattil, 1966) In the fall of 1962 Kenneth Beittel and Edward L Mattil from the Pennsylvania State Art Education department began planning the conference. The conference was intended to identify the most crucial areas of concern in art education and define their structural relationship through philosophical methods. This paper establishes the relationship between Kenneth Beittel and Dale B. Harris as they evaluate and reformulate the basic knowledge of art and psychology through Art Ed 498; a course collaborated in 1971 at Pennsylvania State University.
In a letter dated September 9th 1965 Kenneth Beittel, Art Education professor at Pennsylvania State, sent a letter to Dr. Dale B. Harris. In this letter he expressed his gratitude to Harris, for his participation in the 1965 Seminar in Art Education, Beittel appreciated his participation despite his other commitments. Harris, a PSU professor of psychology, constructed a talk based on philosophical learning theories of educational psychology and art education. Beittel stated that Harris’ participation was “hard bought” from his other commitments. Not everyone at the seminar resonated with Beittel’s sentiments. In a handwritten note titled Talk Assumptions Harris wrote:
Professor Villemain2 [is] extremely lucid introduction to this conference reminds me that men of my discipline are especially prone to avoid any reference to matters philosophical. This, I take to be evidence of our adolescence as a discipline – we are seemingly eager to disavow our filial loyalties. (Harris, n.d.)
This also seemed the case for Beittel as he defended his talk; his methodologies such as situated learning, measurement, and feedback were heavily questioned by his peers.3 (Mattil, 1996)
He continues by thanking Harris for the support of his paper and his encouragement. In several of the communications Beittel doubts himself, in this correspondence he writes “my sometime faltering belief in the importance of what logically may seem [an] impossible task.” (Beittel, 1965, para. 2) A reaction reiterated in the final record of their correspondence.4 Beyond the seminar, this is the first evidence of correspondence between these professors however evidence supports continued correspondence; in 1967 Beittel and Harris offered a one-credit seminar based on the psychology of art.
This is evident by a proposal put forth by both professors for Art Ed. 498, Psychology of Art. The instructors open the proposal by stating, “There is no course in any college of the University which focuses exclusively on the psychology of art.” (Beittel, n.d., p. 1) According to the proposal, there was very little literature that related the two subjects. He continues to identify Sciences de L’Art and the American Journal of Art Therapy as supporting resources, as well as, James Hogg’s text Psychology and the visual Arts and Norman Kiell’s Psychiatry and Psychology in the Visual Arts and Aesthetics. The opening paragraph concludes by referencing the Seminar for Research and Curriculum Development in Art Education. Since the course was designed to be interdisciplinary it would not be restricted to Art Education students. (Harris, n.d.)
Beittel’s proposal continues by laying out the organizational model the course would take based on common reading from James Hogg’s (1969) anthology, Psychology and the visual Arts. The course was to be laid out using three approaches. The first approach would be topical, meaning that it would cover broad emphases in the areas of the “image and imagination, form and forming, theories or artistic development, and use of art in psychotherapy.” (Beittel, n.d.) The second approach would be through the introduction of important psychologists and philosophers such as “Galton, Freud, Jung, Langer, and Dewey”. The third would fall under methodologies, however since this area is emphasized in courses on the philosophy of science it would be reduced in part to debates concerning “nomothetic and morphogenic approaches (Allport)…humanistically oriented psychology inquiry (Maslow, Bakan, Koestler)…modes of ‘knowing’ (Bridgman, Hanson, Polyanyi, ect.)…phenomenology and behaviorism (Wann)… the relationship between philosophy and the psychology of art, etc.” (Beittel, K. & Harris, D., 1971)
Each of these topics would be discussed through mini-lectures on the various topics and assessed through a brief paper on a related “special” topic.
The course was scheduled for the Spring Term of 1971. In preparation, Harris prepared a working reference list to support the course.5 (Harris, n.d.) It included books on Psychology and Art, Cognitive processes, Creativity, Perception, Personality, Foundations, and a few additional articles and individual chapters within other texts. (Harris, D., n.d.) In a review of the articles provided we could see many of the influences laid out in the proposal. It is a strong convergence of materials in both fields. The working reference provided a solid body of information to structure the class. Despite the lack of a syllabus we have an idea of what the reading assignments would have been based on a letter to the registered students dated March 30, 1971 that provided an initial overview.
The memo was a short two pages. It highlighted basic information about the course. The meetings were scheduled on Wednesdays from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. in room 228 Chambers (See Fig. 1). However the first meeting of the term was cancelled and scheduled to start on April 14th with a reading from Hogg’s anthology Psychology and the visual Arts (pages 9-88) on Approaches and Problems. It provided a dated list of “Base Readings Assignments” and additional course requirements including class participation. (1971, March 30)
The course requirements offered a choice between a “paper” demonstration-discussion or participate in a topical seminar report. Each student was required to meet with the instructors for approval of “topic or plan” and “guidance with literature”. (Beittel, 1971) In the final two paragraphs the letter further explained the difference between the paper and the demonstration. Very much like a traditional term paper the seminar report was expected to be delivered orally and stimulate group discussions. However if time became an issue or another component of the course needed additional attention these papers could be turned in as a written term paper. One of the interesting components of the course is the concept of the “demonstration-discussion”. In this option the students could provide a demonstration based on the “premise that experiencing, showing, and seeing are appropriate methods for introducing issues and phenomena that are not readily cast into discursive forms.” (1971, March 30; p. 2)
Spurred by the Soviet Unions’ launch of the Sputnik satellite, President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched the National Defense Education Act to support development in the American education system. This was a catalyst to develop new models of curriculum centered on underlying structures of psychology and education. This paper narrates the journey of Kenneth R. Beittel and Dale B. Harris as they explore the connection between Art & Psychology through a curriculum developed for graduate students at Penn State University in 1971 and concludes with the findings of Dale. B. Harris: Psychology and Art: Some Reflections and Tentative Affirmations.
“Scrutinize your schools curriculum and standards”, echoed over the airwaves on November 13 1957. Americans tuned in to hear President Dwight D. Eisenhower give the public address titled “Our Future Security”. The power of his voice would echo over the next decade as America began restructuring and strengthening the education system in an effort to increase national security. President Eisenhower signed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) on September 2, 1958. This provided America’s schools with the support they needed to strengthen their programs in mathematics and sciences. (Eisenhower, 1957) The research produced during this time redefined our current principals and techniques and expanded our knowledge in these areas. This created a movement toward a more disciplined based core concepts of curriculum. (Marché, 2002) In 1959 the NDEA gathered leading scholars in Woods Hole Massachusetts. This resulted in a revival of disciplined centered education, outlined in The Process of Education by Jerome Bruner1 in 1960. (Marché, 2002; Hovarth, 1964) According to Marché (2002), this cued a curriculum driven by standards that filtered into all areas of education, including that of the Arts. The 1960s saw a rise in music and art educators, though most Arts educators believed this model was too progressive and preferred the model of creative self-expression. These educators argued that a more creative populace would improve our national defense (Marché, 2002). In 1965 the United Stated Office of Education (USOE) sponsored a seminar at Pennsylvania State University. This seminar was designed to generate a framework of curricula through an interdisciplinary base of knowledge by gathering researchers in the fields of art education, psychology, and other fields with related interests. (Beittel & Mattil, 1966) In the fall of 1962 Kenneth Beittel and Edward L Mattil from the Pennsylvania State Art Education department began planning the conference. The conference was intended to identify the most crucial areas of concern in art education and define their structural relationship through philosophical methods. This paper establishes the relationship between Kenneth Beittel and Dale B. Harris as they evaluate and reformulate the basic knowledge of art and psychology through Art Ed 498; a course collaborated in 1971 at Pennsylvania State University.
In a letter dated September 9th 1965 Kenneth Beittel, Art Education professor at Pennsylvania State, sent a letter to Dr. Dale B. Harris. In this letter he expressed his gratitude to Harris, for his participation in the 1965 Seminar in Art Education, Beittel appreciated his participation despite his other commitments. Harris, a PSU professor of psychology, constructed a talk based on philosophical learning theories of educational psychology and art education. Beittel stated that Harris’ participation was “hard bought” from his other commitments. Not everyone at the seminar resonated with Beittel’s sentiments. In a handwritten note titled Talk Assumptions Harris wrote:
Professor Villemain2 [is] extremely lucid introduction to this conference reminds me that men of my discipline are especially prone to avoid any reference to matters philosophical. This, I take to be evidence of our adolescence as a discipline – we are seemingly eager to disavow our filial loyalties. (Harris, n.d.)
This also seemed the case for Beittel as he defended his talk; his methodologies such as situated learning, measurement, and feedback were heavily questioned by his peers.3 (Mattil, 1996)
He continues by thanking Harris for the support of his paper and his encouragement. In several of the communications Beittel doubts himself, in this correspondence he writes “my sometime faltering belief in the importance of what logically may seem [an] impossible task.” (Beittel, 1965, para. 2) A reaction reiterated in the final record of their correspondence.4 Beyond the seminar, this is the first evidence of correspondence between these professors however evidence supports continued correspondence; in 1967 Beittel and Harris offered a one-credit seminar based on the psychology of art.
This is evident by a proposal put forth by both professors for Art Ed. 498, Psychology of Art. The instructors open the proposal by stating, “There is no course in any college of the University which focuses exclusively on the psychology of art.” (Beittel, n.d., p. 1) According to the proposal, there was very little literature that related the two subjects. He continues to identify Sciences de L’Art and the American Journal of Art Therapy as supporting resources, as well as, James Hogg’s text Psychology and the visual Arts and Norman Kiell’s Psychiatry and Psychology in the Visual Arts and Aesthetics. The opening paragraph concludes by referencing the Seminar for Research and Curriculum Development in Art Education. Since the course was designed to be interdisciplinary it would not be restricted to Art Education students. (Harris, n.d.)
Beittel’s proposal continues by laying out the organizational model the course would take based on common reading from James Hogg’s (1969) anthology, Psychology and the visual Arts. The course was to be laid out using three approaches. The first approach would be topical, meaning that it would cover broad emphases in the areas of the “image and imagination, form and forming, theories or artistic development, and use of art in psychotherapy.” (Beittel, n.d.) The second approach would be through the introduction of important psychologists and philosophers such as “Galton, Freud, Jung, Langer, and Dewey”. The third would fall under methodologies, however since this area is emphasized in courses on the philosophy of science it would be reduced in part to debates concerning “nomothetic and morphogenic approaches (Allport)…humanistically oriented psychology inquiry (Maslow, Bakan, Koestler)…modes of ‘knowing’ (Bridgman, Hanson, Polyanyi, ect.)…phenomenology and behaviorism (Wann)… the relationship between philosophy and the psychology of art, etc.” (Beittel, K. & Harris, D., 1971)
Each of these topics would be discussed through mini-lectures on the various topics and assessed through a brief paper on a related “special” topic.
The course was scheduled for the Spring Term of 1971. In preparation, Harris prepared a working reference list to support the course.5 (Harris, n.d.) It included books on Psychology and Art, Cognitive processes, Creativity, Perception, Personality, Foundations, and a few additional articles and individual chapters within other texts. (Harris, D., n.d.) In a review of the articles provided we could see many of the influences laid out in the proposal. It is a strong convergence of materials in both fields. The working reference provided a solid body of information to structure the class. Despite the lack of a syllabus we have an idea of what the reading assignments would have been based on a letter to the registered students dated March 30, 1971 that provided an initial overview.
The memo was a short two pages. It highlighted basic information about the course. The meetings were scheduled on Wednesdays from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. in room 228 Chambers (See Fig. 1). However the first meeting of the term was cancelled and scheduled to start on April 14th with a reading from Hogg’s anthology Psychology and the visual Arts (pages 9-88) on Approaches and Problems. It provided a dated list of “Base Readings Assignments” and additional course requirements including class participation. (1971, March 30)
The course requirements offered a choice between a “paper” demonstration-discussion or participate in a topical seminar report. Each student was required to meet with the instructors for approval of “topic or plan” and “guidance with literature”. (Beittel, 1971) In the final two paragraphs the letter further explained the difference between the paper and the demonstration. Very much like a traditional term paper the seminar report was expected to be delivered orally and stimulate group discussions. However if time became an issue or another component of the course needed additional attention these papers could be turned in as a written term paper. One of the interesting components of the course is the concept of the “demonstration-discussion”. In this option the students could provide a demonstration based on the “premise that experiencing, showing, and seeing are appropriate methods for introducing issues and phenomena that are not readily cast into discursive forms.” (1971, March 30; p. 2)
Again, I am impressed with the large number of simply first-rate minds in this group of young people. Penn State surely must be attracting the very best in the country in art education. I certainly don’t recall people like this at Minnesota! (Harris, 1971, p.2)
We know that Beittel had passed on this information to the students “where applicable”. In a correspondence to Harris dated June 18, 1971 he opens the dialogue by expressing his appreciation for the notes and opinions in his correspondence dated June 14, 1971 and confided that he had shared them with the students along with his own. He noted that in most cases they were in agreement about the student’s work, but in a few cases they differed. However he agreed that the students always showed interest. (Beittel, 1971, June 18)
Beittel shed further light on Jerry Morris’ paper. He provides us with at title, West Virginia Interviews. He agrees that Harris should document his material on the handling of subjective material and the building of classification schemes because it would fill a methodological need. (Beittel, 1971, June 18)
As mentioned previously Beittel expressed some doubts about his work being somewhat ineffective, but we are left to wonder in what ways he felt personally ineffective. It can be assumed now that he feels himself to be “too much the artist type… doomed to muse and brood upon [my] current immersion in problems, so that I can neither gain perspective nor work in a patient, relaxed fashion.” (See Endnote 4)
Beittel concludes the correspondence by expressing an interest in submitting another proposal to the “two deans” to have “a go at the course again”. He expresses that the course would not provide the depth and scope required without Harris’ “clarity, organization, and helpfulness”.
Beittel (1971) also discusses Harris’ “tentative affirmations” concerning psychology and art. These are the findings that were produced as a result of the conference and work with Beittel. I found an updated copy titled: Psychology and art: Some reflections and tentative affirmations dated July 2, 1971.6 This document provides the salient findings from his previous two decades of work. In this document he has postulated 14 affirmations based on his research between science and art.
He iterates that there is a connection between sciences and art, however it cannot be found in the traditional behavioristic terms. (Harris, 1971, July 2) According to Harris behavior is the bridge between the two, both “can and does study behavior systematically without destroying that behavior.” (Harris, 1971)
Harris found that both viewing and making art call for psychological processes. In psychology the process is known as cognition and affect. Harris believed that the more an Art Educator knows about cognition and effect the more they will understand their own field in depth and breadth through new insights and perspectives of the “complexities and richness of the artistic enterprise”. (Harris, 1971, p. 2)
Despite the fact that learning transference happens when producing art, Harris did not feel that understanding normal information processing models would be affective since behaviors cannot be understood by focusing on a single moment. Instead he felt the humanistic and developmental approaches in psychology would be helpful, such as perception, cognition, imagery, communication and symbolic processes. ”. (Harris, 1971, pp. 2-3)
Additionally the philosophy of aesthetics and science will require certain assumptions both philosophical and psychological. They will help understand the field better but “your intellectual problems about your field may be insoluble except on a temporary, relativistic or pragmatic basis.” (Harris, 1971, p. 3)
The psychologist could learn extensively from the art educator about creativity, organizational processes, cognition, and communication. He then gives reference to the works of Kenneth Beittel to help the psychologist with “guidance of artistic activities, understandings and apprecireations.”6 (Harris, 1971, p. 3)
A Scientist, committed to psychological phenomena and operations, would have a difficult time when working with the field of art. Since art is only partially translatable and translating psychological phenomena and operations into words and numbers is futile. Art “draws on motoric and iconic processes… if they wish to study them the scientist may have to develop new methods, recording systems, concepts, and taxonomis.” (Harris, 1971, p. 3) The scientist will not be content with the “unconfirmed evidence” that comes from this study. He further explains that there is no standard to set a validated measure. (Harris, 1971, p. 3-4)
In his 7th article Harris discusses choice. He notes that the artist’s reaction and performance involves choice however; the psychologist’s
…models of choices or decision-making behavior may not be appealing to the artist and indeed may not be entirely appropriate, but they constitute a demonstrated, useful approach to ordering the phenomena of human choice. The art educator can well afford to learn about the psychologist’s approach to choice, liking, preference, and the like. (Harris, 1971, p. 4)
Harris stresses that the art educator would benefit from understanding the “psychology of perception” especially where compatible in both fields. (Harris, 1971, p. 4) He recommends looking into the works of Ernest Gombrich in art history and June McFee in art education. (Harris, 1971)
The study of systematic methodology would be beneficial to the art educator if they choose to employ research methods but will require the artist to develop “complete descriptions, or samples taken according to some prearranged plan”. (Harris, 1971, p. 4) He continues by explaining that the “single case” or “”single event does not fit the scientific systematic approach. Despite that an effort has been made by psychologist, no theories have yet been proven.
The art educator will benefit learning about situated cognition in “natural settings” in context of observation. Harris discuses discerning observations between art and behavior, a common ground for discussion between the psychologist and the art educator. (Harris, 1971)
“There is no ultimate psychology of art; there are only more or less useful and consistent psychological viewpoints which may be brought to bear on artistic phenomena…A theory holds only until another, more productive and effective one replaces it; there is no ‘final truth’ for which we may ultimately hope. Just so, there is no ultimate psychology of art; there are only more or less useful and consistent psychological viewpoints which may be brought to bear on artistic phenomena.” (Harris, 1971, p. 5)
He repeats himself in affirmation 13 by saying that there is no final “truth” and that the art educator should “select and utilize” from psychology that which advances their own theories of psychosocial concepts, research, and discussion. (Harris, 1971)
However the most interesting thing is the 14th affirmation handwritten at the end of the document. He notates five researchers in the field of psychology who are emerging with a new method from the general stance of the “participant observer”. It is unknown when he returned to write this in, but he believes that further research would be beneficial.
Almost a decade and a half after the catalytic movement started by President Eisenhower in the Conference on American Science Education and Sputnik, we have researched affirmations on the connections between Art and Psychology. This was one of the five broad areas of concerns expressed for the focus at The Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development.9 (Mattil, 1966) The journey of Kenneth R. Beittel and Dale Harris has concluded; yet almost a half a century later following the conference scientists and art educators are still following standards in curricula and seeking the connections along the path of psychology of Art.
We know that Beittel had passed on this information to the students “where applicable”. In a correspondence to Harris dated June 18, 1971 he opens the dialogue by expressing his appreciation for the notes and opinions in his correspondence dated June 14, 1971 and confided that he had shared them with the students along with his own. He noted that in most cases they were in agreement about the student’s work, but in a few cases they differed. However he agreed that the students always showed interest. (Beittel, 1971, June 18)
Beittel shed further light on Jerry Morris’ paper. He provides us with at title, West Virginia Interviews. He agrees that Harris should document his material on the handling of subjective material and the building of classification schemes because it would fill a methodological need. (Beittel, 1971, June 18)
As mentioned previously Beittel expressed some doubts about his work being somewhat ineffective, but we are left to wonder in what ways he felt personally ineffective. It can be assumed now that he feels himself to be “too much the artist type… doomed to muse and brood upon [my] current immersion in problems, so that I can neither gain perspective nor work in a patient, relaxed fashion.” (See Endnote 4)
Beittel concludes the correspondence by expressing an interest in submitting another proposal to the “two deans” to have “a go at the course again”. He expresses that the course would not provide the depth and scope required without Harris’ “clarity, organization, and helpfulness”.
Beittel (1971) also discusses Harris’ “tentative affirmations” concerning psychology and art. These are the findings that were produced as a result of the conference and work with Beittel. I found an updated copy titled: Psychology and art: Some reflections and tentative affirmations dated July 2, 1971.6 This document provides the salient findings from his previous two decades of work. In this document he has postulated 14 affirmations based on his research between science and art.
He iterates that there is a connection between sciences and art, however it cannot be found in the traditional behavioristic terms. (Harris, 1971, July 2) According to Harris behavior is the bridge between the two, both “can and does study behavior systematically without destroying that behavior.” (Harris, 1971)
Harris found that both viewing and making art call for psychological processes. In psychology the process is known as cognition and affect. Harris believed that the more an Art Educator knows about cognition and effect the more they will understand their own field in depth and breadth through new insights and perspectives of the “complexities and richness of the artistic enterprise”. (Harris, 1971, p. 2)
Despite the fact that learning transference happens when producing art, Harris did not feel that understanding normal information processing models would be affective since behaviors cannot be understood by focusing on a single moment. Instead he felt the humanistic and developmental approaches in psychology would be helpful, such as perception, cognition, imagery, communication and symbolic processes. ”. (Harris, 1971, pp. 2-3)
Additionally the philosophy of aesthetics and science will require certain assumptions both philosophical and psychological. They will help understand the field better but “your intellectual problems about your field may be insoluble except on a temporary, relativistic or pragmatic basis.” (Harris, 1971, p. 3)
The psychologist could learn extensively from the art educator about creativity, organizational processes, cognition, and communication. He then gives reference to the works of Kenneth Beittel to help the psychologist with “guidance of artistic activities, understandings and apprecireations.”6 (Harris, 1971, p. 3)
A Scientist, committed to psychological phenomena and operations, would have a difficult time when working with the field of art. Since art is only partially translatable and translating psychological phenomena and operations into words and numbers is futile. Art “draws on motoric and iconic processes… if they wish to study them the scientist may have to develop new methods, recording systems, concepts, and taxonomis.” (Harris, 1971, p. 3) The scientist will not be content with the “unconfirmed evidence” that comes from this study. He further explains that there is no standard to set a validated measure. (Harris, 1971, p. 3-4)
In his 7th article Harris discusses choice. He notes that the artist’s reaction and performance involves choice however; the psychologist’s
…models of choices or decision-making behavior may not be appealing to the artist and indeed may not be entirely appropriate, but they constitute a demonstrated, useful approach to ordering the phenomena of human choice. The art educator can well afford to learn about the psychologist’s approach to choice, liking, preference, and the like. (Harris, 1971, p. 4)
Harris stresses that the art educator would benefit from understanding the “psychology of perception” especially where compatible in both fields. (Harris, 1971, p. 4) He recommends looking into the works of Ernest Gombrich in art history and June McFee in art education. (Harris, 1971)
The study of systematic methodology would be beneficial to the art educator if they choose to employ research methods but will require the artist to develop “complete descriptions, or samples taken according to some prearranged plan”. (Harris, 1971, p. 4) He continues by explaining that the “single case” or “”single event does not fit the scientific systematic approach. Despite that an effort has been made by psychologist, no theories have yet been proven.
The art educator will benefit learning about situated cognition in “natural settings” in context of observation. Harris discuses discerning observations between art and behavior, a common ground for discussion between the psychologist and the art educator. (Harris, 1971)
“There is no ultimate psychology of art; there are only more or less useful and consistent psychological viewpoints which may be brought to bear on artistic phenomena…A theory holds only until another, more productive and effective one replaces it; there is no ‘final truth’ for which we may ultimately hope. Just so, there is no ultimate psychology of art; there are only more or less useful and consistent psychological viewpoints which may be brought to bear on artistic phenomena.” (Harris, 1971, p. 5)
He repeats himself in affirmation 13 by saying that there is no final “truth” and that the art educator should “select and utilize” from psychology that which advances their own theories of psychosocial concepts, research, and discussion. (Harris, 1971)
However the most interesting thing is the 14th affirmation handwritten at the end of the document. He notates five researchers in the field of psychology who are emerging with a new method from the general stance of the “participant observer”. It is unknown when he returned to write this in, but he believes that further research would be beneficial.
Almost a decade and a half after the catalytic movement started by President Eisenhower in the Conference on American Science Education and Sputnik, we have researched affirmations on the connections between Art and Psychology. This was one of the five broad areas of concerns expressed for the focus at The Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development.9 (Mattil, 1966) The journey of Kenneth R. Beittel and Dale Harris has concluded; yet almost a half a century later following the conference scientists and art educators are still following standards in curricula and seeking the connections along the path of psychology of Art.
Travel Log of my journey into history
Reference
All Students Electing Art Education 498, Psychology of the Visual Arts, Spring Term, 1971. (1971, March 30.) [Letter to registered students (not named) Addressed 269 Chambers Building, University Park Pennsylvania. The author is unknown.] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Beittel, K. R. (n.d.) Proposal for Art Ed 498, Psychology of Art (3 credits) [Typed proposal for the course with short description and outline] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Beittel, K. R. (1965, September 9) [Correspondence from Kenneth Beittel to Dale Harris] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM04.01/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Beittel, K. R. (1971, June 18) [Correspondence from Kenneth Beittel to Dale Harris] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 35) State College Pennsylvania
Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Radio and Television Address to the American People on "Our Future Security."", November 13,1957. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10950.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Statement by the President Upon Signing the National Defense Education Act.", September 2,1958. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=11211.
Harris, D. B. (1965) [Handwritten note on yellow lined paper with Assumptions underlined on first line] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM04.01/Folder 35) State College Pennsylvania
Harris, D. B. (1971, Spring n.d.) WORKING REFERENCES FOR ART EDUCAITON 498 [Enumerated list of books, articles, and chapters in books to support the course] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Harris, D. B. (1971, July 2.) PSYCHOLOGY IN ART: SOME TENATIVE AFFIRMATIONS [Typed affirmations, hand dated July 2, 1971with introduction and 14 Affirmations] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM04.01/Folder 43) State College Pennsylvania
Harris, D. B. (1971, June 14) [Correspondence from Harris to Beittel reviewing the students work] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Horvath, W. J. (1964). Jerome S. bruner. the process of education. cambridge: Harvard university press, 1960. Behavioral Science, 9(1), 56-57.
Kay, S. (2013). America's sputnik moments. Survival, 55(2), 123-146.
Mattil, E., & Beittel, K. R. (1966). A seminar in art education for research and curriculum development. 1997. Opening Remarks in History of art Education: Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium, Ed. 2 University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University.
Mattil, E., & Beittel, K. R. (1966). A seminar in art education for research and curriculum development. 1997. Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium, Ed. 2 University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University.
Marche, T. (2002). Discipline before discipline-based art education: Federal support, curricular models, and the 1965 penn state seminar in art education. Arts Education Policy Review, 103(6), 25.
Memorandum of Conference with the President on American Science Education and Sputnik, October 15, 1957 (dated October 16), DDE’s Papers as President, DDE Diary Series, Box 27, October ‘57 Staff Notes (2), available at http://www.eisenhower. archives.gov/research/online_documents/sputnik/10_16_57.pdf.
Notes
1. Further Reading on The Process of Education by Jerome Bruner: Download the PDF version: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjudzrun-children.googlecode.com%2Ffiles%2FThe%2520Process%2520of%2520Education%2520(Bruner).pdf&ei=_uqhUv2pFsX1kQeejoHQDA&usg=AFQjCNEbDu9Pd9IH5muaS6TYKQLEdnn4VQ&sig2=gDUUO9NkGxS9GWMYQQp1KA&bvm=bv.57752919,d.eW0
2. Francis T. Villemain, Professor of Education University of Southern Illinois. Philosophic inquiry into Education in the Arts
3. Matil, E., 1996. A Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development, Excerpts from the Discussion with Mr. Beittel, pp. 218-221
4. Beittel’s insecurities are referenced in both the First (1965, September 9) and Final Correspondence (1971, June 18).
5. In the Art Ed. Proposal (Beittel, n.d.) it is referenced that Dale Harris composed the Working Reference List (1971).
6. Beittel (1971,June 18) references Affirmations written by Harris, the Psychology of Art: Some Reflections and Tentative Affirmations copy in this file was hand dated July 2, 1971.
7. For additional reading see: Matil, E., 1996. A Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development, Sketches Toward a Psychology of Learning in Art – Kenneth R. Beittel, pp. 173-218.
8. Handwritten addition at the end of the Psychology of Art: Some Reflections and Tentative Affirmations (Harris, 1971, July 2): “New method emerging from the general stance of the “participant observer” – capture a model – an ideal type to stand from a class of phenomena, which has certain invariant properties.”
1. Robert Coles
2. Robert J. Lifton
3. Kenneth Kensington
4. Applied somewhat differently by Erik Erickson
9. Matil, E., 1996. A Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development, PREFACE, p. 1
All Students Electing Art Education 498, Psychology of the Visual Arts, Spring Term, 1971. (1971, March 30.) [Letter to registered students (not named) Addressed 269 Chambers Building, University Park Pennsylvania. The author is unknown.] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Beittel, K. R. (n.d.) Proposal for Art Ed 498, Psychology of Art (3 credits) [Typed proposal for the course with short description and outline] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Beittel, K. R. (1965, September 9) [Correspondence from Kenneth Beittel to Dale Harris] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM04.01/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Beittel, K. R. (1971, June 18) [Correspondence from Kenneth Beittel to Dale Harris] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 35) State College Pennsylvania
Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Radio and Television Address to the American People on "Our Future Security."", November 13,1957. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10950.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Statement by the President Upon Signing the National Defense Education Act.", September 2,1958. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=11211.
Harris, D. B. (1965) [Handwritten note on yellow lined paper with Assumptions underlined on first line] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM04.01/Folder 35) State College Pennsylvania
Harris, D. B. (1971, Spring n.d.) WORKING REFERENCES FOR ART EDUCAITON 498 [Enumerated list of books, articles, and chapters in books to support the course] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Harris, D. B. (1971, July 2.) PSYCHOLOGY IN ART: SOME TENATIVE AFFIRMATIONS [Typed affirmations, hand dated July 2, 1971with introduction and 14 Affirmations] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM04.01/Folder 43) State College Pennsylvania
Harris, D. B. (1971, June 14) [Correspondence from Harris to Beittel reviewing the students work] Paterno Library Pennsylvania State University, Dale B. Harris (Paterno/GST/AM05.22/Folder 42) State College Pennsylvania
Horvath, W. J. (1964). Jerome S. bruner. the process of education. cambridge: Harvard university press, 1960. Behavioral Science, 9(1), 56-57.
Kay, S. (2013). America's sputnik moments. Survival, 55(2), 123-146.
Mattil, E., & Beittel, K. R. (1966). A seminar in art education for research and curriculum development. 1997. Opening Remarks in History of art Education: Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium, Ed. 2 University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University.
Mattil, E., & Beittel, K. R. (1966). A seminar in art education for research and curriculum development. 1997. Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium, Ed. 2 University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University.
Marche, T. (2002). Discipline before discipline-based art education: Federal support, curricular models, and the 1965 penn state seminar in art education. Arts Education Policy Review, 103(6), 25.
Memorandum of Conference with the President on American Science Education and Sputnik, October 15, 1957 (dated October 16), DDE’s Papers as President, DDE Diary Series, Box 27, October ‘57 Staff Notes (2), available at http://www.eisenhower. archives.gov/research/online_documents/sputnik/10_16_57.pdf.
Notes
1. Further Reading on The Process of Education by Jerome Bruner: Download the PDF version: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjudzrun-children.googlecode.com%2Ffiles%2FThe%2520Process%2520of%2520Education%2520(Bruner).pdf&ei=_uqhUv2pFsX1kQeejoHQDA&usg=AFQjCNEbDu9Pd9IH5muaS6TYKQLEdnn4VQ&sig2=gDUUO9NkGxS9GWMYQQp1KA&bvm=bv.57752919,d.eW0
2. Francis T. Villemain, Professor of Education University of Southern Illinois. Philosophic inquiry into Education in the Arts
3. Matil, E., 1996. A Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development, Excerpts from the Discussion with Mr. Beittel, pp. 218-221
4. Beittel’s insecurities are referenced in both the First (1965, September 9) and Final Correspondence (1971, June 18).
5. In the Art Ed. Proposal (Beittel, n.d.) it is referenced that Dale Harris composed the Working Reference List (1971).
6. Beittel (1971,June 18) references Affirmations written by Harris, the Psychology of Art: Some Reflections and Tentative Affirmations copy in this file was hand dated July 2, 1971.
7. For additional reading see: Matil, E., 1996. A Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development, Sketches Toward a Psychology of Learning in Art – Kenneth R. Beittel, pp. 173-218.
8. Handwritten addition at the end of the Psychology of Art: Some Reflections and Tentative Affirmations (Harris, 1971, July 2): “New method emerging from the general stance of the “participant observer” – capture a model – an ideal type to stand from a class of phenomena, which has certain invariant properties.”
1. Robert Coles
2. Robert J. Lifton
3. Kenneth Kensington
4. Applied somewhat differently by Erik Erickson
9. Matil, E., 1996. A Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development, PREFACE, p. 1