20th Century and Stage Theory

 

 To understand the development of stage theory it is important to understand the man that developed the theory, Victor Lowenfeld. Born in Austria in 1903 he was of Jewish descent. His education was pursued at the University in Vienna where he graduated in 1928 with degrees in both art history and psychology. While studying in Vienna he became a member of the staff at the Institute for the Blind. He was to write many articles, which caught the attention of Sigmund Freud who personally came to visit him. The German invasion of Austria in 1938 forced his family to flee, eventually making their way to the United States. Lowenfeld taught psychology in Virginia at the Hampton Institute, eventually he also established an art department. Later, he was to teach at Pennsylvania State University becoming chairman of art education until his death in 1960. In the Encyclopedia of Education it states that Viktor Lowenfeld “experienced racial prejudice at the hands of the Nazis” (Efland, 2002). I believe this is a pinnacle moment for Lowenfeld that he was to be empathetic in developing psychologically based educational theories specifically for children, the blind, African-American, and the handicap. Germany being under a Nazi regime was to influence Viktor Lowenfeld’s perspective as to the mental health in a sociocultural context. Lowenfeld was to even comment in Creative and Mental Growth (1952),

 

Having experienced the devastating effect of rigid dogmatism and disrespect for individual differences, I know that force does not solve

problems and that the basis for human relationships is usually created in the homes and kindergartens. I feel strongly that without the

imposed discipline common in German family lives and schools the acceptance of totalitarianism would have been impossible.

(Efland, 2002)

 

I feel that this statement shows great insight into Lowenfeld’s development of his educational theories. His first concept theory is grounded in the psychological development of children through art in the context of “aesthetic, social, physical, intellectual, and emotional growth” (Elfland, 2002). The second concept theory states “stages of growth in art, which originated in German and Austrian sources” (Elfland, 2002) supports that Viktor Lowenfeld was not the first to develop these stage theories.

 

The publication of Viktor Lowenfeld’s book Creative and Mental Growth in 1947 was to shape art education practices through the latter half of the twentieth century. It is now in its eighth edition and is the most influential textbook for elementary art education using the stage theory for showing the development of child art. “The six stages are as follows: 1) The scribbling stage, two-four years: beginning of self-expression 2) The preschematic stage, four-seven years: first representational attempts 3) The schematic stage, seven-nine years: the achievement of a form concept 4) The gang age, nine-twelve years: the dawning realism 5) The pseudo-naturalistic stage, twelve-fourteen years: the age of reasoning 6) Adolescent art, fourteen-seventeen years: the period of decision” (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). Lowenfeld was also to identify two types of creative individuals. The first is visual, who interacts through the environment through their eyes and is an observer. The second is haptic, concerning “body sensations and subjective experiences, which are felt emotionally” (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). Since there were two creative individuals, Lowenfeld was to advocate for different teaching strategies before the implementation of the cognitive learning styles in the classroom. Despite intellectualizing developmental theories, his ultimate goal for the art of children was to have expressive freedom in their creativity. When a child is circumvented in their creativity, either by low self-esteem or adult aesthetics of art, the child can develop psychological issues. The goal is not the end product but the creative process of the art to develop a healthy individual. This take on the psychological/creativity aspect of art education is where Viktor Lowenfeld was to gain criticism, especially “with the onset of the curriculum reform movement, the importance of discipline-oriented forms of study began to challenge Lowenfeld’s ideas about creativity as the central purpose of art education.” (Elfland, 2002).

 

In the book, Creative and Mental Growth, Viktor Lowenfeld summarizes, he never intended to make delineation groupings, that the stages were more “midpoints, and the stages themselves as convenient labels for a study of children’s art and not as invariant categories” (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). He conjectured that just as the artist is influenced by their “culture, the artist’s intentions, society and environment” (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987), so is the child artist when taken in the context with their surroundings, home and school. He felt that the art classroom should not be a place of evaluation, like that of other academic subject areas, that art remains a place for personal growth. Uniquely, art is the only subject area that can claim this. 21st Century,

 

Stage Theory, and the Naysayers

 

In The Use and Uselessness of Developmental Stages by Brent and Marjorie Wilson, they wonder after fifty years why we are teaching art education in the same manner. Children today are being raised in different times, with different cultural influences. Secondly, instead of a natural unfolding of creativity this article points out that the “stages” simply ignore the existence of influenced or borrowed images, and yet we find that virtually all images are borrowed or influenced to some extent” (Wilson & Wilson, 1981). Lastly, the Wilson’s point out that the way the developmental stages are classified does not take account variables such as gender, narrative or emotions. The stage theories “are generalizations, concerning averages” (Wilson & Wilson, 1981). Indeed, the art teacher will find the stages inadequate when trying to assess a child’s artistic development. In fact, the Wilson’s poke fun at all the theorists who have come up with a variety of stage theories, “each one slices the graphic developmental pie differently” (Wilson & Wilson, 1981).

 

Vincent Lanier was to write in 1963, in his article Schismogenesis in Contemporary Art Education, that it was during the era of Lowenfeld and other current theorists, that the direction of art education was being written; from the state to the local level was it determined the course of study for art education. These documents were to reflect with past art education doctrine, that art was to pursue an aesthetic direction, “as a device for both correlating and integrating the school curriculum” (Lanier, 1963). Ironically, for all of Lanier’s dry wit he made an astounding comment about the direction of art education. That first, art education had lost a place of status in our culture, but subject areas that actively use research have been elevated. In order for art education to remain relevant, investigative research would secure our position in the academic field. It is also Vincent Lanier that writes, “the most prevalent concept of value in art education appears to be the concept of creativity, the belief that art activity, properly framed can develop creative behavior” (Lanier, 1963). Seems like an echo of Viktor Lowenfeld.

 

It is in Judith Burton’s article, Lowenfeld: An(other) Look, that she reaffirmed my belief that Viktor Lowenfeld was influenced by the Nazi totalitarian regime affects on art education. His wish was to protect children, so that they could “construct their own meanings and speak in their own voices” (Burton, 2001). Judith Burton expounds upon how the current data driven means of focus in the classroom would have been appalling to Lowenfeld. As educators, the voice of Lowenfeld’s urgings of creativity above all else seems lost in today’s educational flux. Burton says that creativity does not magically happen, but requires the educator’s guidance, “it is only through the personal expressive endeavors of individuals going beyond cultural norms that we have a culture at all” (Burton, 2001). It is within our own sociocultural history that creativity happens, expression with art products. Artistic expression was what Lowenfeld felt to be instrumental to a child’s well being. Judith Burton goes further and says, “we cannot standardize this, and, moreover, attempt to so at our peril” (2001).

 

Current day educator’s feel that Viktor Lowenfeld’s book Creative and Mental Growth is irrelevant in today’s art curriculum. The book is probably more relevant in our search to find methodologies to integrate into an art curriculum. He escaped from a totalitarianism regime and by all means he was very conscious of not creating an educational format that mimicked such. His desire in his stage theories was to set precedence for what to look for in children’s art. I believe Viktor Lowenfeld, at all costs, wished to avoid a regimented art education curriculum. The 21st century is in need of change, but not at the expense of Viktor Lowenfeld’s, Creative and Mental Growth.

 

“We are all better teachers when we remember, after Lowenfeld, that knowledge alone does not make people happy; a balance of intellectual and emotional growth is necessary to adjust properly to this world” (Delacruz & Dunn, 1996).

 

References

Burton, J.M. (2001). Lowenfeld: An(other) Look. Art Education, 54(6), 33-42.

Delacruz, E. M., & Dunn, P. C. (1996). The Evolution of Disciplined-Base Art Education, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(3), 67-82.

Efland, Arthur D., Lowenfeld, Viktor (1903-1960). Encyclopedia of Education. 2002. RetrievedFebruary 23, 2014 from Enclopedia.com:

        http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403200383.html

Lanier, V. (1963) Schismogenesis in Contemporary Art Education. Studies in Art Education,5(1), 10-19.

Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W.L. (1987). Creative and Mental Growth (8th ed.), EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1981), The Use and Uselessness of Developmental Stages. Art Education, 34(5), 4-5.