HUNTER COLLEGE
ADSUP 722 - ISSUES IN CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION

on line with Lincoln Center Institute

About Lincoln Center Institute

Title III E.S.E.A.: 1965
In 1965 a program called the Lincoln Center Student Program was
established. The purpose was to bring live performances of music, dance,
and drama to New York City students "to inculcate in the young an
understanding of the performing arts and the positive values they
represent." The program was described as a "two-way street" whereby LCI
took performances to the school, and also brought students to Lincoln
Center to see performances in their "native habitat." Beyond mere
exposure to art, this program also focused on showing students what
artists did, and this was done by involving them in all the processes
involved. Teachers subsequently prepared curriculum ideas under the
guidance of LCI artists to reinforce students' aesthetic and artistic
understanding. LCI also produced newsletters that contained information
about the different arts forms and included an interpretation of the
emotional and personal impact they may have, along with a description of
the elements that gave the art its expressive meaning. This process of
'unpacking' an artwork focused on one work at a time and gave
suggestions about ways of gaining access to the piece and distinguishing
its unique qualities.

From the available documentation, it is clear that LCI was committed to
developing its educational role and saw the principles of aesthetic
education as providing a suitable vehicle to achieve this end. As a
former Dean of the Juilliard School and the Director of the Institute,
Mark Schubart articulated many of the original program goals and
features. The central goal of Lincoln Center's educational program in
1970 was stated as:

The development among young people of the ability to perceive and
respond to the artistic experience and, on this basis, to determine what
kind of artistic expression and activity- formal and informal-are to be
part of their lives. 

It was believed that the best way to provide young people with authentic
arts learning experiences was to reach them through their teachers.
While students could be taught about art, Schubart felt that such
"approaches fail to focus specifically on the essence of the artistic
experience" . This, he believed, was mostly because teachers did not
know enough about the arts themselves. In response to this a group of
educators and artists met around 1970 in New York as part of the
'Carnegie Study' and helped frame the basic structure of the aesthetic
education program. Two key concepts were decided on, the notion of
participatory experience, and the observation of high quality
professional artistry, and these remained central to the philosophy of
LCI.



The LCI Canon
As a touchstone from which to build this cross-site research, we sought
a concise summary of program philosophy and pedagogical practice.
Lacking a prepackaged statement, the following LCI canon has been
constructed from interviews conducted by PZ researcher Steve Seidel of
personnel who has been involved in the LCI program since its inception,
as well as more recent administrators: Mark Schubart; Maxine Greene;
June Dunbar; Scott Noppe-Brandon; Christine Goodheart, and Lanny Lasky.
Where available, additional writings and forms of documentation produced
by those listed were consulted.

Definition: Aesthetic education is the cultivation of a discriminating
appreciation and understanding of the many forms of art and experience.
It involves direct encounters with selected works of art experienced
under optimal conditions, e.g., visual art should be original;
performances should be by leading artists and performing groups. The
concern, then, is to draw personal, social, cultural or aesthetic
meaning from the work. It is understood that such works do not reveal
themselves automatically, nor is there a single correct meaning inherent
in them. Rather, meanings emerge through an active, personal encounter
with the work by a receptive and informed observer. The process of
coming to personal meaning, however, is not necessarily a solitary one.
Rather, it is a facilitated sharing of multiple perspectives and
responses.

Means: These reflective encounters with works of art are mediated and
facilitated by teachers working in conjunction with teaching artists.
Teachers acquire experience in aesthetic education through summer
institutes which provide opportunities to interact with works of art
guided by teaching artists. Ideally, this initial relationship becomes
increasingly collegial allowing for a real collaboration during the
school year.

To this collaboration, teachers bring their pedagogical expertise and
knowledge of the educational context and teaching artists contribute
their authentic connection to forms of artistic inquiry. Together, they
create optimal conditions for experiencing works of art and curricular
units which stimulate understanding and personal response to these
works. Such units typically involve:

· reflective dialogue: questioning aimed at helping students reflect on
the meaning of the work of art and leading them to understand how it
conveys its message.

· art making: creating works of art which solve a problem related to
those identified in the work under study.

· discussion: conveying knowledge about the work, enabling students to
analyze its form and structure, and eventually make critical evaluations
of the piece.

Goals: Over time, such experiences contribute to the development of
aesthetic literacy: the capacity to perceive and respond imaginatively
to works of art; an openness to aesthetic experience; knowledge of the
forms of artistic expression; and the ability to draw personal meaning
from and critically evaluate works of art. Ideally, aesthetic literacy
may, in turn, lead to a what Maxine Greene calls 'wide-awakeness,' in
which individuals, "from their own distinctive vantage points, (can pay)
'full attention to life'."

These broad issues have, we believe, remained largely constant
throughout the evolution of LCI and should meet general agreement. There
have, however, been some changes in strategy which are to be noted as
well as specific points which remain subject to debate. Among the
changes in strategy, we note an early "formalistic approach," concerned
with elements uniting diverse artistic disciplines which has given way
to a more "interpretive approach" based on personal feelings about the
specific work in question. From a curricular point of view, the emphasis
was, at one time, on the development of materials for teachers. Current
attitudes favor the development of flexible curricular frameworks within
which teachers and teaching artists can create their own units of study.
Continuity for such units may take the form of a spiral in which
concepts and ideas are returned to in a progressively more detailed way.

Questions still subject to debate focus on the art object, the
strategies for approaching it, and the broader educational concerns
related to aesthetic education. In reference to the art object there
seems to be some disagreement on the necessity of providing
"significant" works of art and "quality" performances. There are, in
addition, questions about how "significance" and "quality" are to be
defined. Specifically, concern has arisen around the extent to which
these terms are applied primarily to Western art.

As to means for addressing the art object, a question arose as to the
art of the role of reflection in aesthetic experience, whether it is a
distinct state, or an integral part. Much more controversial, however,
is the role of making art in fostering the aesthetic experience: the
degree to which it is necessary, the moment in the unit when it may be
best employed, the relevance of practical skills for art making, the
value of integrating modes (like drawing to music).

This in turn raises broader questions such as the degree to which
learning in the arts should transfer to other disciplines, and the
extent to which the arts should serve other disciplines or purposes,
i.e., are the arts a means or are they an end in themselves? Additional
questions refer to relative roles and preparation of teachers and
teaching artists, as well as the qualities and skills the latter should
have.

In considering such questions and related issues, LCI sought out
information about diverse arts in education programs across the country.
A review of this survey follows in the next chapter, providing a means
to situate LCI and the other affiliated sites involved in this research
in relation to the field.

Lincoln Center Institute