Prospective Teachers' Views on Beauty Criteria

Abstract

Art is one of the most powerful ways of expressing an individual's internal state, expectations and needs with an aesthetic attitude. Different materials can be used during the expression process including colour, line, sound, movement, word, object and so on. Although the materials used in these branches of art are different from each other, the path followed in the application process and the final results are the same “to reveal an aesthetic product”. In order for an artistic practice to mature and reach the beautiful one, the practitioner must have the art education discipline and acquire certain knowledge, skills and understanding of the art field concerned. The art of painting, which is one of the plastic arts, provides the ability to search for beauty through lines and colours on two dimensional surfaces, to create compositions and express the individual's self with this composition, also has its own beauty value criteria. From this point of view, it was aimed to determine the opinions of the prospective teachers studying in the Department of Painting Education in the study about the beauty criteria that should be in the picture. In this study, survey method which is one of the quantitative research methods was preferred. As a data collection tool, a five - point Likert - type scale was developed by the researchers, and 25 items were used. 110 prospective teachers from various grades participated in the study. The results of the research showed that the prospective teachers greatly contributed to the beauty criteria that should be in the picture.

Keywords

• Beauty criteria,painting,prospective teachers’ opinion,survey method.

References

1. Amirshahi, S. A., Denzler, J., & Redies, C. (2013). Jen Aesthetics—A public dataset of paintings for aesthetic research. Jena, Germany: Computer Vision Group.
2. Artut, K. (2007). Sanat egitimi kuramlari ve yontemleri [Theories and methods of art education] (5th ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Ani.
3. Atalayer, F. (1994). Temel sanat ogeleri [Basic art elements]. Eskisehir, Turkey: Anadolu University Press.
4. Augustin, M. D., Wagemans, J., & Carbon, C. C. (2012). All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139, 187–201.
5. Aykut, A. (2012). Sanat egitiminde estetik [Aesthetics in art education]. Istanbul, Turkey: Hayalperest.
6. Barrett, T. (2012). Sanati elestirmek gunceli anlamak [Criticizing art understanding contemporary]. Istanbul, Turkey: Hayalperest.
7. Beyoglu, A., & Ergin, Y. D. (2018). Guzel sanatlar egitimi bolumu ogrencilerinin mekan kavramina iliskin metaforik algilari [The metaphoric perceptions of the students of the department of arts education about the concept of space]. Humanitas International Journal of Social Sciences, 6(11), 71-90.
8. Bolat, Y. (2017). Perceptions of classroom prospective teachers to the Turkish education history course: A metaphor analysis. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 14(38), 12-28.

9. Buyurgan, S., & Buyurgan, U. (2012). Sanat egitimi ve ogretimi [Art education and teaching] (3rd ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Academy.
10. Cumming, R. (2008). Gorsel rehberler sanat [Visual guides of art]. Istanbul, Turkey: Revolution Publishing.
11. Deliduman Gence, C., & Istifoglu Orhon, B. (2006). Temel sanat egitimi [Basic art education]. Ankara, Turkey: Gerhun.
12. Eristi Bedir, S. D. (2017). The metaphoric perception of prospective teachers related ‘fine arts teacher’ concept. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18(1), 265-280.
13. Ertok Atmaca, A. (2014). Temel tasarim [Basic design]. Ankara, Turkey: Nobel Academic.
14. Fischer, E. (2015). Sanatin gerekliligi [The necessity of art] (4th ed.). Istanbul, Turkey: Sozcukler.
15. Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgement of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57–72.
16. Gompertz, W. (2018). Sanatci gibi dusun [Think like an artist] (S. Evren, Trans.) Istanbul, Turkey: Yapi Kredi.
17. Gokaydın, N. (2002). Sanat egitimi ogretim sistemi ve bilgi kapsami temel sanat egitimi [Art education teaching system and scope of knowledge basic art education]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Education Publications.
18. Hoenig, F. (2005). Defining computational aesthetics. Paper presented at the First Eurographics Conference on Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization and Imaging, Girona, Spain.
19. Kulka, T. (1989). Art and science: An outline of a Popperian aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 29(3), 197-212.
20. Locher, P., Gray, S., & Nodine, C. (1996). The structural framework of pictorial balance. Perception, 25(12), 1419-1436.
21. Marchenko, Y., Tat-Seng, C., & Irina, A. (2005). Analysis and retrieval of paintings using artistic colour concepts. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
22. McManus, I. C., Cheema, B., & Stoker, B. (1993). The aesthetics of composition: A study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11(2), 83-94.
23. McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2009). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.
24. Oztuna, H. Y. (2007). Gorsel iletisimde temel tasarim [Basic design in visual communication]. Istanbul, Turkey: Yorum Sanat.
25. Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107.
26. Say, N., & Balcı, Y. B. (2002). Temel sanat egitimi [Basic art education]. Istanbul, Turkey: Ya-Pa.
27. Sisman, A. (2006). Sanata ve sanat kavramlarina giris [Introduction to art and art concepts]. Istanbul, Turkey: Yaz.
28. Tepecik, A., & Toktas, P. (2014). Guzel sanatlar fakultelerinde temel sanat egitimi [Basic art education in faculties of fine arts]. Ankara, Turkey: Gece Kitapligi.
29. Timucin, A. (2008). Estetik [Aesthetic]. Istanbul, Turkey: Bulut.
30. Townsend, D. (2001). Hume’s aesthetic theory: Taste and Sentiment, New York and London: Routledge.
31. Tunali, İ. (2008). Estetik [Aesthetic]. (11th Edition). Istanbul, Turkey: Remzi Kitabevi.
32. Vessel, E. A., & Rubin, N. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 1-14.
33. Wallraven, C., Fleming, R., Cunningham, D., Rigau, J., Feixas, M., & Sbert, M. (2009). Categorizing art: Comparing humans and computers. Computers & Graphics, 33, 484–495.
34. Yilmaz, M. (2007). Gorsel sanatlar egitiminde uygulamalar [Applications in visual arts education]. Ankara, Turkey: Gunduz Education and Publishing.
35. Yolcu, E. (2009). Sanat egitimi kuramlari ve yontemleri [Theories and methods of art education] (2nd ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Nobel.