Download - Critical Reflection through Aesthetic Experience: How could a wide range of learners gain access to the process?

Critical Reflection through Aesthetic Experience: How could a wide range of learners gain access to the process?

Alexis Kokkos, Hellenic Open University

Abstract The session approaches the following questions: What kind of artworks can unearth critical thinking?

Can all works of art, without exception, serve such a function? Moreover, to what extent can learners, especially those who might not be familiar with cultural habits, have an intellectual and emotional access to the meaning of artworks? How could the ideas of Adorno, Bourdieu, Dewey, Freire, Greene, Horkheimer, Mezirow, contribute to the exploration of these issues? The session will combine a theoretical approach with an application exercise.

Keywords Aesthetic value, artistic competence, familiarization, criteria, participation, critical reflection

A. Description of the theory that guides the practice of the experiential session

Introduction The contribution of aesthetic experience, as a means for the development of critical reflection on

various issues that we explore, has been portrayed by many scholars. Among them, Dewey (1934 [1980]), Efland (2002), the theorists of School of Frankfurt, such as Adorno (1970[2000]), Horkheimer (1938[1984]) and Marcuse (1978) explained that aesthetic experience provides us with thoughts and insights that are distinct from the dominant ones and contribute to the critical exploration of the norms of social life.

During the last years, the importance of this issue has been increasingly recognized by scholars who

developed the theoretical framework of transformative learning (indicatively: Cranton, 2006 Dirkx, 2000; Greene, 2000; Jarvis, 2006). They claimed that the exploration of artworks allows us to perceive various issues beyond the way that we consider as given.

However, what kind of artworks can unearth critical thinking? Can all works of art, without exception,

serve such a function? Moreover, to what extent can learners, especially those who might not be familiar with cultural habits, have an intellectual and emotional access to the meaning of artworks? These are the issues that will be approached in this text.

The contribution of great art I argue that, insofar as an adult educator frames his/her work into the theoretical context of

transformative learning, the criteria he/she would use for choosing the artworks could concern the level to which they stimulate critical thinking.

But which works of art could be considered to meet this function? This is an especially complex issue. Already from the end of 18th century, Kant (1790 [1995])

highlighted that the way we evaluate artworks is subjective. Our judgment cannot be based on evidentiary principles or rational arguments. It is not possible for a universally accepted norm to exist, according to which one is obliged to agree on the importance of a work of art or on the impact it could have on our thoughts and feelings. This Kantian argument is broadly accepted today by art theorists (e.g. Broudy, 1987; Efland, 2002; Perkins, 1994).

However, a way to approach this multidimensional issue is to search in the texts of the theorists who

connect aesthetic experience to the development of critical thinking, in order to determine which sort of artworks are believed to best serve this purpose. For instance, the convergence of the ideas of Adorno (1970 [2000]), Dewey (1934[1980]), Horkheimer (1938[1984]), Greene (2000), Marcuse (1978) is impressive. They state that our contact with works of Bach, Baudelaire, Beckett, Beethoven, Cézanne, Goethe, Goya, Picasso, Proust, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, van Gogh and others could trigger a critical mode of thinking. It is therefore obvious that important theorists who studied the emancipatory dimension of aesthetic experience believe that this could occur when learners come in contact with artworks of high-level aesthetic value. In particular, Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse believe that this sort of artworks enrich the process of critical thinking much more than the trivial ones, given that they have an holistic and unconventional nature, they are susceptible to multiple interpretations and, also, they explore the human condition in depth.

10th International Conference on Transformative Learning – San Francisco 2012 – Proceedings 262

The familiarization with significant artworks However, is it possible for the vast majority of learners to have emotional and intellectual access to the

aforementioned artworks or to others of high aesthetic value? Are Picasso’s or Beckett’s works as accessible as van Gogh’s or Shakespeare’s? Which are the artworks that are significant and at the same time can seem familiar to the learners who have been deprived of such an aesthetic experience?

Freire’s and Bourdieu’s ideas on the matter are particularly enlightening. Freire used sketches as

triggers for the development of critical reflection on various social issues (Freire, 1970). He insisted that there should be a close connection between the content of the object used as a trigger (sketch or text) and the level of perceptual capacity of the learners. He claimed that if there is too broad a divergence between those two levels, then the attempt to understand the object is futile (Freire, 1998, 1st letter). For this reason, he used sketches of a clearly representational character which portrayed everyday life situations (Freire, 1970, 1971, 1998). However, these sketches were not conventional artworks, but were painted by “significant Brazilian artists” (Freire, 1971:114), with the evident intention to create an aesthetic experience as deeply meaningful as possible.

Bourdieu’s contribution is also decisive. Through his works (1984, 1991) he highlighted the social

causes of aesthetic dispositions. He claimed that social groups with cultural qualifications obtained through education but also, imperceptibly, through similar engagement within the cultural environment, show a positive disposition towards works of art considered to be great, as opposed to other social groups. They acknowledge the aesthetic value of those works and have the will to approach them. At the same time, they have developed the capability to decipher the codes of the messages that emerge from such artworks. On the contrary, those who were deprived of educational qualifications in their childhood, usually form a negative or a neutral attitude towards significant works of art, as they find it difficult to comprehend their meaning. In the final analysis, the richness of the reception of an artwork depends on the (socially determined) competence of the receiver to master the code of the message:

Considered as symbolic goods, works of art only exist for those who

have the means of appropriating them, that is, of deciphering them. An agent’s degree of artistic competence is measured by the degree to which he or she can master all the means of appropriation of works of art available at a given time: in other words, the interpretative schemata which are the condition of appropriation of artistic capital, that is, the condition of deciphering the works of art supplied to a given society at a given time (Bourdieu & Darbel, 1991:39).

Therefore, those who do not possess the ‘artistic competence’ avoid coming in contact with works of

art of high aesthetic value1. Consequently, the use of this kind of aesthetic experience within educational settings is likely to discourage those learners who are not familiar with it.

On the other hand, Bourdieu did not formulate suggestions concerning the way in which the

educational praxis could contribute to rendering the works of art to be accessible to participants. However, in his texts referring to the processes through which various social groups can be attracted or repelled by the artworks, we find a significant convergence with the ideas of Freire.

Bourdieu’s reasoning concerning the attitude of those who have been deprived of a high- level aesthetic

experience towards the works of art has three basic parameters. First, this social group formulates the disposition to investigate an artwork only when its content is clear and representational, in order for them to approach it based on their perceptual abilities:

When the message exceeds the limits of the observer’s apprehension, he or she does not grasp the

“intention” and loses interest in what he or she sees as a riot of colours without rhyme or reason, a play of useless patches of colour (Bourdieu & Darbel, 1991: 38-39)… For the most deprived, a work of art from which they expect an unequivocal meaning, transcending the signifier, is all the more disconcerning the more completely it abolishes (as with non-figurative arts) the narrative and representational functions (ibid: 41-42).

1 For instance, museums in France were visited every year in the 60’s by 1% of farmers, 4% of

workers, and 45% of ‘higher social groups’ (Bourdieu & Darbel, 1991: 15). A recent study in the United Kingdom (Arts Council, 2008) verified this trend.


For instance, when workers and craftsmen had observed the following photograph, which did not correspond to their realistic expectations, they expressed comments such as:

“At first sight it’s a construction in metal, but I can’t make head or tale of it (…) I can’t make out what

it is, it’s a mystery to me.” “That is of no interest, it may be all very fine, but not for me. It’s always the same thing. Personally

that stuff leaves me cold” (Bourdieu, 1984:46).

Secondly, learners who are not familiarized with the cultural practice, usually approach an artwork

when they have an emotional interest. They seek human situations within the artwork which are drawn from social life and are related to conditions that they themselves face and thus stimulate the expression of their feelings. They seek, through the work of art, to taste the joys and sufferings of the heroes, to penetrate their lives, to become identified with it and to live it (Bourdieu & Darbel, 1991). For instance, when workers and craftsmen saw the following photograph they expressed comments such as:

“The old girl must have worked hard (…) I really feel sorry seeing that poor old woman’s hands” (ibid:

p.45).

Finally, those who are not familiarized with art, approach it with a practical interest. They seek messages in an artwork which are related to some social function and are of some usefulness. Two representative comments on the first photographs were:

“That is something to do with electronics, but I don’t know anything about that.” “It might be something used in an electronic power station.” (ibid:46)

The Method “Transformative Learning through Aesthetic Experience” All the aforementioned ideas led me to suggest a method termed “Transformative Learning through

Aesthetic Experience” (Kokkos, 2009, 2010), aiming to embody aesthetic experience in adult education, in a way that develops critical consciousness and involves a wide participation of learners. The method has been applied in several organizations in Greece, such as the Hellenic Open University, Second Chance Schools, Enterprises and the Therapy Center for Dependent Individuals. It was also applied in Denmark, Romania and


Sweden through the European Grundtvig Project ARTiT: Development of Innovative Methods of Training the Trainers.

In the next units I will present some suggestions as well practice examples from the project ARTiT,

which deal with two issues linked with the challenge of the open access of learners to artworks during transformative learning processes: a) criteria of selection of the works of art that should be used, b) ways of active participation of all learners in the process of this selection.

The criteria for choosing the artworks Based on what was mentioned earlier on the ideas of Freire, Bourdieu, Dewey, Adorno, Horkheimer

and Marcuse, certain standards could be proposed relating to the selection of works of art in the context of transformative learning in a way that favors the participation of a wide range of learners at the process: the works of art that are used should be of high-level aesthetic value; it is important that the chosen works are comprehensive and appealing to the participants: the less they are familiarized with art the more they prefer the contact with artworks which are rather representational, have a non-abstract function and could arouse an emotional and practical interest. Moreover, as adult educators we should bear in mind that the exploration of artworks is not an end in itself within the learning processes, whose aim is not arts education: as shown by Freire, the meaning that the learners could draw from the artworks should be connected to the content of the issue at hand, in order for the artworks to function as triggers for approaching the issue critically. Therefore, we select works of art which are connected thematically to the assumptions that the learning group is working on and could challenge the stereotypical and conventional habits of mind.

The dimension of active participation One of the basic principles of adult education is the active participation of learners throughout the

learning process. Specifically, regarding the selection of works of art as learning stimuli, the adult educators should avoid imposing their views for two complementary reasons. First, because there are no objective criteria for the evaluation of artistic creation. Secondly, because certain participants may belong to different cultural groups and adopt their personal criteria.

Should an educator, therefore, propose works of art for critical reflection, according to learners’ desire

and criteria? An indirect answer lies in the work of Mezirow. He believes that it is quite common for learners at the beginning of a learning process to experience difficulties in recognising as their need the critical investigation of an issue; therefore, they express their desire for a practical, low-range approach (Mezirow, 1997: 8). As an example, he refers to parents who, from the whole range of parameters included in the issue of their child's learning difficulty, they only ask to learn about helping techniques in the school courses (ibid.). But, says the American scholar, adult educators are not neutral. They create opportunities for the strengthening of critical reflection and propose discourse to the participants, aiming to enable the most suitable integrated approach of the issue (Mezirow and Associates, 2000).

So, if we transfer this debate to the field of the integration of aesthetic experience with an aim at

critical thinking, we can consider the possibility that some learners, using the criteria they adopted in the process of their socialisation, will not find attractive the works of art that their educators consider worth commenting. Therefore, they would prefer works from the cultural industry instead, incorporating and reproducing codes of the sovereign commercial cultural system (Adorno, 1970 [2000]). On the other hand, critically thinking adult educators are aware that the works of art that should be used should promote the critical mode of thinking. How could these two seemingly opposing, at a first glance, perspectives be combined without infringing the principle of learners’ active involvement?

To begin with, there is no need to make a point about whether an artwork is valuable or not within

adult education processes whose main objective is not arts education. Such an approach is sterile and could threaten the value system of the participants. It is therefore preferable to create a discourse which would focus on how the learning group could choose works of art that should spur critical exploration of the topic at hand.

Still, there is a great need to explain to the learners that works of art that can develop critical reflection

are not only those existing in galleries and museums or mentioned in encyclopaedias. Such significant works of art can also be chosen among those that they know very well, such as folk poetry and painting or song lyrics by poets.


In any case, adult educators need to involve participants in the process of selecting the works of art. Five ways for learners’ participation in this process are proposed:

§ Educators suggest to participants a variety of works of art for critical reflection and participants identify and choose the works of art they prefer and the final order in which they will approach them.

§ Educators suggest the sources where learners can find the works of art necessary to study different issues and learners identify and choose the works of art they prefer.

§ Educators provide participants with criteria for the search and selection of works of art. § Participants propose directly the works of art they prefer and then discuss their

selections with educators in order to decide which of them will be chosen. § Combination of the options a-d.

The final opinion on the selection of works of art and their meaning does not belong exclusively to educators or participants. A discourse takes place, examining all the arguments, the advantages and disadvantages. Educators support their views, but at the same time they are open to the ideas of the participants, encouraging the expression of alternative ideas and minimizing the use of their power.

Results from the method’s implementation The initial outcomes that spring from the implementation of the ARTiT project are encouraging (ARTiT,

2012). 212 people participated, coming from various adult educational settings, such as second chance schools, centres of popular education, rehabilitation units, prisons, vocational training units for unemployed people. At the beginning, participants were asked to answer the following question: “Do you like art?” The majority (57%) expressed a positive attitude, but another important percentage (43%) expressed a negative or unclear position.

At the end, project learners’ attitudes were radically transformed. They were familiarized with the

elaboration of works of art with high aesthetic value while enjoying the whole process at the same time: 81% expressed a positive attitude towards the method used.

Participants were also asked to further explain their answers. The results were as follows:

It is obvious that many learners recognized that their participation in the project offered them the possibility to become familiarized with art and to recognize its contribution to the critical approach of the issues at hand. Some characteristic phrases:

“I was not interested in art, but it was interesting to realize that there are many things that I can learn

from it.” “I was surprised to see how we can interpret a painting and how we can draw conclusions from this

very interesting subject.” “I like it because I understood the meaning of the artwork and I have discovered new ideas and

opinions.”


During the process, participants explored works by Baudelaire, Breton, Degas, Hopper, Kahlo, Kavafy, Ozu, Plath, Rabelais, Rembrandt, Raffaello, Rockwell, Taviani, van Gogh, Welles, a.o. Those who, until their engagement with the project, were deprived of access to great art may consider this experience as a creative part of their life.

B. Description of the sessions’ process

In the workshop, I will suggest to participants an application exercise, which includes the following stages:

a. Participants select an issue – from a variety of issues – to be explored.

b. Participants identify critical questions that should facilitate the exploration of the issue.

c. Participants select a painting– from a variety of paintings – which deals with the identified

critical questions.

d. The group explores the meaning of the painting and connects it with the critical questions of the issue at hand.

Next, we will reflect on the aforementioned experience and link it to the rationale of the theoretical

approach which was presented in this paper.

References Adorno, Th. (1970 [2000]). Aesthetic Theory. (Anagnostou, L., Trans.). Athens: Alexandreia. ARTiT (2012). Evaluation Report. Available at www.artit.eu. Arts Council (2008). Arts audiences: insight. London, UK :The Colourhouse. Bourdieu, P. (1984). The Distinction. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bourdieu, P. & Darbel, A. (1991). The Love of Art: European Art Museum and their Public. Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press. Broudy, H. (1987). The Role of Imagery in Learning. Los Angeles: The Getty Centre for Education in Arts. Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1934 [1980]). Art as Experience. USA: The Penguin Group. Dirkx, J. (2000). Transformative Learning and the Journey of Individuation. ERIC Digest, no. 223. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 6 448 305). Efland, A. (2002). Art and Cognition. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY.: Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1971). L’ `Education: Pratique de la Liberté [Education:The Practice of Freedom].Paris: CERF. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those who Dare to Teach. Westview Press. Greene, M. (2000). Releasing the Imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Horkheimer, M. (1938 [1984]). Art and Mass Culture. In Th. Adorno et al, Art and Mass Culture. (Sarikas, Z.,

Trans.). Athens: Ypsilon. Jarvis, C. (2006). Using fiction for transformation. In E.Taylor (Ed.), Teaching for change. New Directions for

Adult and Continuing Education, 109. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kant, E. (1790 [1995]). Critique de la faculté de juger [Critique of judgement]. Paris: Flammarion. Kokkos, Α. (2009). Transformative Learning through Aesthetic Experience. Proceedings of the 8th

Transformative Learning International Conference. Available at http://transfornativelearning.org. Κokkos, Α. (2010). Transformative Learning through Aesthetic Experience: Towards a Comprehensive Method.

Journal of Transformative Education, 80, 155-177. See also http://jtd.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/06/29/1541344610397663, 1-23.

Marcuse, H. (1978). The aesthetic dimension. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative Learning

in Action: Insights from Practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no 74. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. and Associates. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perkins, D. (1994).The Intelligent Eye. Los Angeles, CA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
