24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T54e,

This essay examines the aesthetics of Herbert Read, John Dewey and Plato, and their influence on contemporary aesthetic education.

The aesthetics of Read and Dewey have been extremely seductive to aesthetic educators for two reasons, the first of which is that they provide a “democratic” or inclusive aesthetic which appears readily integratible into school curricula. The other reason is that Read and Dewey are explicitly prescriptive and practical in their recommendations. Yet the democratic aesthetic is found to be philosophically untenable and inadequate to art. Plato's aesthetics, to which both Read and Dewey claim allegiance, are more philosophically astute and present the fundamental dilemma of aesthetic education: how to reconcile the intrinsically subversive nature of art with the conservative aims of education.

The essay contends that aesthetic educators must abandon their traditional arguments on behalf of the arts. They must confront the dilemma of conflicting aims and move towards a new basis for the inclusion of the arts in education. Concomitantly, education will be required to broaden its purposes so that what has hitherto been perceived as subversive will now be recognized as essential to the examined life — knowledge of complexity, paradox, and conflict which extend beyond “right answers. ”

26:T4db,

This paper examines the similarities and differences in the art of boys and girls aged six, seven, and eight. It is primarily concerned with the ways in which the subject matter of the children's art reflects sex differences in interests, introspective thought, and symbolic organization of the world. The methodology, based on the spontaneous art experience, seeks to establish that artistic activity is a viable medium through which information on the non-discursive aspects of children's thought can be obtained.

Over 1800 drawings, done by 26 children, were collected. The content of the drawings was examined for its range of subject matter and for thematic trends over time. It was found that girls and boys consistently portray very different subjects. The children's art did not present stereotypic images of sex roles nor could the contrasts be specifically attributed to genetic, social, or psychological differences between the sexes, although there was some correlation with the research findings in those areas. It was concluded that girls and boys have very different expressive interests and needs which are not fully incorporated into their educational environment and which affect all areas of school adjustment.