Aesthetic Education: Philosophy and Teaching Artist Practice

at Lincoln Center Institute

JUDITH HILL BOSE

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Urban Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

The City University of New York

2008

JUDITH HILL BOSE

This manuscript has been read and accepted for the

Graduate Faculty in Urban Education in satisfaction of the

dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Dr. Philip M. Anderson

______

DateChair of Examining Committee

Dr. Anthony Picciano

______

DateExecutive Officer

Dr. Mary Bushnell Greiner

Dr. Maxine Greene

Dr. Nicholas Michelli

Supervisory Committee

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

Abstract

Aesthetic Education: Philosophy and Teaching Artist Practice

at Lincoln Center Institute

Judith Hill Bose

Adviser: Professor Philip M. Anderson

Aesthetic education is the term used to describe the work of teaching artists who are employed by Lincoln Center Institute for the Arts in Education (LCI). Developed from the philosophical perspectives of Maxine Greene, aesthetic education at LCI has been practiced since the organization’s inception in 1975. To date, there are few thorough scholarly attempts to articulate both the philosophy and practice of aesthetic education at LCI. Within the larger field of arts education, there is also a dearth of material written about the actual classroom practice of teaching artists—professional artists who work in educational sites, and who are often employed by cultural organizations.

This qualitative case study documents the work of three LCI teaching artists (in music, visual arts, and theatre) through classroom observations and interviews. The teaching artists themselves are involved in the analysis of their teaching, and classroom examples are juxtaposed with Greene’s philosophy of aesthetic education so as to explore the relationship between teaching artist practice and Greene’s philosophical stance. The study also situates LCI historically and includes interviews with Greene and key senior Institute staff.

Greene’s ideas about an aesthetic experience, a transactional exchange between perceiver and work of art, are analyzed with respect to the influences of John Dewey, phenomenology, and existentialism, among other views. The study examines how teaching artist practice has been shaped by such philosophical perspectives, and how Lincoln Center Institute came to view nurturing students’ opportunities for aesthetic experiences as a central component of arts education.

Finally, the study discusses how educating towards an aesthetic experience actively involves students’ capacities for agency, choice-making, multiple interpretations, empathy, meaning-making, and imaginative expression, and furthers the project of a democratic and emancipatory educational approach. The study illuminates actual aesthetic education practice in classrooms, analyzes its transaction with Greene’s philosophical ideals, and explores aesthetic education as a vital approach in the wider field of urban education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Aesthetic Education Philosophy and Teaching Artist Practice

Philosophy versus Mission Statement or Methodology

Overview

Chapter 2: Context of the Study

Context: Three Layers

Macro Layer: Lincoln Center Institute

Micro Layer: The Teaching Artist

A Brief Historical Perspective: Macro and Micro in a Broader Context

Macro-Micro Bridge: The Meso-Layer

Meso-Layer: Full-Time Administrative Staff at LCI

Chapter 3: Aesthetic Education

Aesthetic Education: Clarity of Meaning

Aesthetic Education: Excavating the Term

Aesthetic Education and Other Types of Arts Education

Psychological/Cognitive Approaches to Arts Education

Aesthetic Education: Maxine Greene

Chapter 4: Philosophy—Maxine Greene

Two Stories

An Aesthetic Experience

Influences: A Disclaimer

The Influence of John Dewey

The Imagination

Existentialism and Phenomenology

Literary Influences

Reader-Response Theory

Chapter 1: Aesthetic Education Philosophy and Teaching Artist Practice

Aesthetic education is the type of arts education that has been practiced at Lincoln Center Institute for the Arts in Education since its founding in 1975. Throughout its existence, Lincoln Center Institute (LCI) has consciously endeavored to center its practice of aesthetic education around a particular philosophical view—that of Maxine Greene. Greene is the current “Philosopher-in-Residence” at LCI and was a central part of the organization’s creation from the outset. Today, she and her ideas are still actively articulating and guiding the philosophical purposes and intents of the Institute, as part of its continuing evolution. Teaching artists (TAs)—professional, practicing artists who work with students and teachers in educational sites—are the primary agents who enact the practice of aesthetic education at LCI. The relationship between philosophy and practice explored in this study is an account of the particular philosophical stance articulated by Greene, and how it has affected the teaching of LCI TAs.

Though it is too simplistic to state that philosophy shapes practice, the intent of this study is to explore the relationship between the two as it occurs in one particular educational context. As Freire described his notion of praxis, human activity is both action and reflection, both theory and practice, operating simultaneously towards transformation (Freire, 1970). The philosophy-practice interaction at LCI occurs between individual teaching artists and philosophical ideas, but also within the larger frame of an arts education organization for which these artists work. Uniquely, both the teaching artists and the Institute have regular contact with Greene; thus the philosophy exists both in idea and in the living presence of a philosopher who, herself, continues to evolve and develop. Greene is fond of saying, “I am what I am not yet,” indicating the way in which she sees herself as always in the process of becoming.

Just as Greene’s ideas can never be fixed in time, so the teaching artists and the practice of aesthetic education at LCI are in a constant process of developing, growing, and changing. As Scott Noppe-Brandon, the Executive Director at LCI, states in his recent introduction to an LCI publication (Holzer, 2007), “As an organization, LCI prides itself on being in a constant state of change and discovery.” Therefore, it is important to note that as an interpretive case study, this project will consider the work of LCI teaching artists from the perspective of a moment in time; the classroom observations and interviews that make up the qualitative research study all occurred in 2005. While Greene’s philosophical core is still at the heart of individual LCI teaching artist practice today, the Institute continues to shift in its thinking, its emphasis, and in the way it talks about its practice. This study’s attempts to articulate and describe both the philosophy and the practice are offered with the intent of clarifying and sophisticating understandings about aesthetic education at LCI, rather than defining either the philosophy or the practice for all time going forward. For, the organization is constantly moving and shifting its practices and programs in new directions—it is an institution that, like its Philosopher-in-Residence, is ever in the process of becoming.

It should be stated from the outset that this study does not include an exploration of one crucial aspect of the practice of aesthetic education at Lincoln Center Institute—namely, the contributions of classroom educators, whether primary, secondary or college-level. LCI is involved extensively in the field of teacher education through several pathways: (1) directly with K-12 teachers in the New York City area in whose classrooms teaching artists regularly work; (2) in New York City college and university departments of education where partnerships with professors bring the practice of aesthetic education to pre-service teachers; and (3) through summer workshops and special consultancies where the practice of aesthetic education is shared with educators both nationally and internationally. In short, teachers (many times in direct collaboration with teaching artists in their classrooms) are actively involved in and integral to enacting aesthetic education with students. However, it is beyond the scope of this particular study to thoroughly include teacher understandings, practice, and contributions.

It is worth noting that in each case of teacher education in which the Institute is involved, teaching artists are central in the process; TAs are the individuals who carry out trainings, workshops, and staff development with educators, and they also partner together with teachers in classrooms in the New York City area. Teaching artists collaborate with appropriate Institute staff in carrying out this work (see a full discussion of the interaction between teaching artists and Institute staff in Chapter 2). But a specific choice has been made here to focus exclusively on the interaction of philosophy and practice as it is enacted in the work of teaching artists—the primary individuals who breathe life into Greene’s philosophical ideas, with the caveat that educator contributions to the practice of aesthetic education are more than worthy of their own independent study.

Philosophy versus Mission Statement or Methodology

It is not unusual for many types of organizations to hold a philosophical perspective at the center of their work, if what is meant by philosophy is a kind of basic theory or viewpoint, or even a system of values out of which an organization operates. Mission statements often articulate these views and values and can serve as grounding for all institutional endeavors. It is a relatively more recent development, however, that arts education organizations have begun to think in this direction. The history of artists working with students in schools is rooted in the idea of individual artist residencies and performances, where artists have shared their particular areas of expertise (Remer, 2003). But in recent decades throughout this country, especially in urban centers, as arts organizations have begun to partner with schools, and as artists (often called teaching artists) are working for those organizations, the question of mission becomes an organizational, rather than a strictly individual, one.

Moreover, thinking about mission and values represents a shift for many arts organizations, given the long history of cultural institutions as “service providers.” Arts education itself (whether taught by specialists, classroom teachers or through arts organizations) has historically occupied a peripheral educational position, as has been widely documented (e.g., Eisner, 1998b). For decades, there was a struggle for the arts to simply to have a place at the table where education was discussed. Not until the 1970s were there widespread substantial conversations with the arts taken seriously as a core component of education (Remer, 2003). This was the first significant shift away from a “go in and do a show” mentality that had dominated the efforts of arts organizations and artists working in schools previously. Now that cultural organizations are unquestionably seated at the education table, many are asking significant and rigorous questions about educational purpose and practice. Certainly this type of purpose and mission statement, as well as the educational conversation that ensues, has a significant impact on the work that teaching artists do in classrooms. In fact, in many organizations the teaching artists themselves are central in the substance of these conversations (Remer, 2003).

However, I mean here to make a distinction between a statement of belief, or mission statement, and a complex body of philosophical thought. At LCI, Greene’s philosophy is a deep well of sustained and evolving thinking about the nature of arts education, rather than a short condensed statement of priority. She writes of the possible, of the challenges that we must take seriously, she questions purposes, and guides according to a sophisticated understanding of what it means to have an aesthetic experience with a work of art; she speaks of why every student deservesto have such an experience (or several) as part of his education. Clearly, the philosophical perspective at the root of the Institute is much more than a type of mission statement. The question, then, becomes even more complex for LCI teaching artists. What does it mean for a body of philosophical work to be at the center of a teaching practice? Namely, how does aesthetic education philosophy, as articulated by Maxine Greene, transact with the education practice of teaching artists who work at Lincoln Center Institute? How does a philosophical stance both shape and respond to what teaching artists do?

Another distinction is worth making. In a 2005 Dana Foundation publication that showcases the work of ArtsConnection, a long-term arts education organization in New York City, Carol Morgan addresses a point that she calls “philosophy” directly (Morgan, 2005). With a long and distinguished record of arts education in New York City behind it, Morgan describes ArtsConnection’s more recent move to adopt an “educational philosophy,” rather than be a booking agent for individual artists who wish to work in schools. The articles in the report that follows look deeply at ArtsConnection’s endeavors to build a community of artists committed to a reflective practice of inquiry-based learning. Educational ideas such as reflection and inquiry are at the heart of LCI’s and many other educational organizations’ practices as well. In fact, in 2005 Lincoln Center Institute published a document titled Aesthetic Education Practice and Traditions: Education Traditions, which highlights many educational theories and perspectives that have resonance with aesthetic education teaching practice (Holzer, 2005). While ArtsConnection and LCI are certainly tackling important educational thinking and having significant discussions, I still mean to make a distinction between such endeavors and the one undertaken in this study. The distinction here is between philosophy, a body of philosophical work, and other types of educational methodological theory. As at ArtsConnection, to have a faculty of teaching artists who are engaged in thinking together about teaching practice that includes reflection and inquiry, while unquestionably valuable, does not necessarily constitute a philosophically based practice. It should also be said that Greene’s work, itself, is not a discussion of educational practice in any concrete form. In fact, her writings do not take up classroom methodology or “how-to” approaches. Rather, the intention and primary work of teaching artists and staff at Lincoln Center Institute is to create a practice that is consistent with her philosophical ideas.

The arts today, like all areas of education, are currently feeling the pressures of standardization and restricted approaches to curriculum. It is especially easy for cultural and arts organizations to succumb to these pressures without consideration of their own purposes. Indeed, the arts, so long regarded as fringe or ancillary to “mainstream” educational efforts, are especiallyvulnerable to such pressures and their attendant funding implications (Eisner, 1998b). Amy Gutmann reminds us that without strong theoretical stances and ideas about purpose, education is subject to all manner of political and moral aims, some of which may be decidedly undemocratic (Gutmann, 1987). As she articulates, we need both philosophy and practice in education—one without the other is visionless. The field of arts education is often happy not to dwell in the realm of philosophy and theory. Methodology is a more comfortable place to focus, and, even more often, service-providing and justifying existence by way of literacy and numeracy is the modus operandi. This study may serve as an exploration of what it has meant for individual teaching artists from one organization to have maintained a commitment to a practice firmly rooted in a particular philosophical vision—a group who have for over 30 years consistently oriented themselves towards inventing a practice that brings to life complex philosophical ideas.

Aesthetic education practice at LCI has certainly grown, changed, and responded to its educational and political environments. Yet, without a philosophical core, the importance of the aesthetic experience may have long ago been washed away on the tides of budget cuts, public relations concerns, or other educational trends. It would have been easy for aesthetic education to become a simplified, more “school-friendly” term. “Philosophy” at LCI is not a mission and not a methodology. Instead, manifested in the work of many individual teaching artists and educators, it has remained a complex commitment, a constant intentional creation of a practice centered on uncovering Greene's sense of an aesthetic experience.

Overview

LCI was one of the nation’s first arts organizations to begin talking about philosophy overtly. This study is concerned with what it is about the philosophy itself that distinguishes, still, the practice of aesthetic education, and how LCI teaching artists embody this philosophy in their work. The Institute is in the midst of its own ongoing process of articulating aesthetic education history and practice. Recent LCI publications such as Aesthetic Education Practice and Traditions: Education Traditions (Holzer, 2005) and Aesthetic Education, Inquiry, and the Imagination (Holzer, 2007) reflect such an endeavor. While this study constitutes one more contributing voice in an already ongoing conversation at the Institute, it speaks from the very particular perspective of the teaching artist, while also bringing to bear philosophical, theoretical and historical perspectives outside the main purview of LCI.