Art, Ambiguity, and Critical Thinking

As I began reading Outcome IV: Facilitating Critical and Aesthetic Inquiry, I thought it would be good to look for a companion article that would either refute or significantly expand my thinking with regards to Visual Thinking Strategies.  Engaging students with art objects is what VTS is all about and I am working very hard to anticipate various avenues of criticism and build a case against them.  The UMMAA docents have given me a great opportunity to examine VTS practice and rationale critically, but I think that ongoing investigations of criticism and supplementing the information I already have will help me grow as a VTS facilitator and teacher.  I thought Susan K. Leshnoff's Art Education article "Art, Ambiguity and Critical Thinking" (Sept. 1995) might either challenge or expand what I've come to know and firmly believe about how student "conversations" about art should look and be. It turns out that is endorsed what I know and believe and gave me some "juicy" quotes future writing.

One question/criticism that often arises when I present VTS to art educators is where the artist's message or intent fits into the whole scheme of things.  Many see works of art as having only one true message and are concerned that this message might take a back seat to the process of student discovery. (In education, is that such a bad thing?)  I try to explain that if THEIR intent is to teach factual art historical information about a work of art, VTS is not the tool they are looking for.  It doesn't satisfy their objective. If they wish to have students mine the work for information that is in not only in line with what the artist wished to communicate but also a product of student inquiry and reasoning, VTS is "their guy."  In my experience, students' observations are surprisingly accurate many times and even when not, increased knowledge and experience with the artist, the work, and art in general helps them approximate that "right answer" that art historians wish to share from the beginning. But this occurs over time.  It's a learning and growing process and it is always influenced by what the viewer brings to the viewing experience in terms of knowledge, prior experience, and beliefs.  I was VERY excited to read Leshnoff's statement that "Although the artist's way of seeing is reflect in choice of subject and the way that it is presented compositionally and stylistically, the reaction of the viewer might be entirely different from what the artist felt or had in mind during the process of creation" (p. 51). She clearly recognizes that art is interactive; viewers ENGAGE with art objects, they are not preached to by them.

Leshnoff explains that classroom art discussions provide venues for critical discourse that reveals whether teachers' assumptions about how students interpret works are correct or not.  Art educators bring a different knowledge set and range of experience to art viewing; a milieu not shared with them by most students.  To presume that students will therefore view the work through the same lens is a mistake.  To deny students opportunities to experience works through their own personal lenses is worse. Leshnoff illustrates stating "To the young child, the ideally proprotionaed, anatomically beautiful ancient Greek Classical statues, reflective of a perfected human temperament dominated by rational thought and controlled emotion can, upon first encounter, look simply like naked people, some of whom has lost their limbs" (p. 52).  In line with the thinking voiced by Principal Ben Tilley in our work with the Ridgeway boys, we need to allow students that one giggle which clearly comes from their own limited understanding.
 
Leshnoff explains that ambiguous meanings and messages in works of art set the stage for students to bring their own prior knowledge and experience into an art viewing experience and in so doing, help them connect with works of art in meaningful ways.  She further asserts that teachers should encourage art interpretations based on patterns of what Baron (citing Glatthorn & Baron, 1985) calls "good thinking." She goes on to explain Baron's assertion that when examining works of art with ambiguous messages,  good thinkers "will search for possibilities, based upon evidence."  When I read that, VTS as encouragement of "good thinking" came immediately to mind! Ambiguous messages can be found in historic as well as contemporary and post-modern art images and are encouraged as rich visuals by Yenawine as well as Baron and Leshnoff.

Leshnoff concludes by suggesting that classrooms be established in which problem-solving opportunities, questions, and "visual dilemas(LOVE that description!) be offered for students to grapple with. Free idea exchanges based in evidentiary support in a non-judgemental atmosphere will nurture maximum student learning and growth.  Works of art are perfectly suited to this type of teaching and learning.  She states, "The teacher should encourage and respect authentic student reponses, based upon a current set of circumstances, including the contextual framework of a student's beliefs....Artworks that present uncertainty regarding meaning...offer fine visual material to generate good thinking habits among students."

Under the subheading of "Orchestrating Conversations About Art," Carroll supports Leshnoff's thinking and adds to the benefits of student dialogs about works of art.  Citing Jeffers (2003), she asserts that dialogues about artworks "develop listening skills as well as empathetic social interactions among viewers" (p. 145).  She adds also that "Encouraging students to share the stories they can tell about artwork viewed together helps reinforce the idea that people can see things differently and find different meanings in artworks" (p. 145).  The isn't new information for me, but it is welcomed reinforcement!