EXPERIENCE-BASED ART EDUCATION: HOW PREJUDICES ABOUT CONTEMPORARY ART CAN LEAD TO ENRICHED EDUCATION IN MUSEUMS

Year 2010, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 137 - 145, 01.06.2010

Eva Van Moer

Abstract

Every form of communication, even every culture, is depending on the interaction between
expectation and perception. Every perception is related to anticipations and therefore to
comparisons. What we understand or see is not simply a given, but is the product of past
experiences and future expectations. When understanding fails, expectations become prejudices.
A big stumbling-block in interpreting artworks in a museum of contemporary art is having
confidence in the concept of multiple interpretations. Because contemporary art is characterised
as ‘open-ended’, understanding does not always occur and viewers are confused or even
disappointed.
In this study we investigate the process of understanding contemporary art and focus especially on
the formulation of prejudices during a museum visit. We underline that the prejudiced nature of
understanding does not have to lead to negative or empty experiences but creates openness to
future experiences. Prejudices send people back to re-inspect the initial experience. It is important
to bring museum visitors to understand their own constructed meanings by reinvestigating their
initial interpretation through inquiring. Museum educators should develop tools which allow
visitors to position themselves and make them think from various contexts. This kind of education
leads to enriched (re)interpretation and experiences.

Keywords

museum education, experience-based art education, prejudices about contemporary art

References

• Arnheim, Rudolf (1969), Visual thinking, Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Beardsley, Monroe (1982), The aesthetic point of view, Ithaca: Cornell.
• Bourriaud, Nicholas (2002), Relational aesthetics, Paris: Press du Réel.
• Carroll, Noël (2002), “Aesthetic experience revisited”, British Journal of Aesthetics, No. 42, pp. 168.
• Charman, Helen and & Marc Ross (2006), “Contemporary art and the role of interpretation:
• Reflections from Tate Modern’s Summer Institute for Teachers”, The International Journal of Art & Design Education, No. 25, pp. 28-41. Collingwood, Robin George (1938), The principles of art, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Costantino, Tracie (2007), “Articulating aesthetic understanding through art making”,
• International Journal of Education & the Arts, No. 8. http://ijea.asu.edu/v8n1/, [Accessed 04.2007]
• Csikzentmihalyi, Mihaly and Rick Robinson (1990), The art of seeing: An interpretation of the aesthetic encounter, Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Trust.
• Danto, Arthur Coleman (1981), The transfiguration of the commonplace: A philosophy of art,
• Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dewey, John (1958), Art as experience, (16ed.), New York: Capricorn Books (Original work published 1934). th
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg (2000), Wahrheit and Methode: Grundzüge einer Philosophischen
• Hermeneutik, (J. Weinsheimer & D.G. Marshall, Trans.) (2 Continuum (Original work published 1960). nd ed.) Truth and Method, New York:
• Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss (1967), The discovery of grounded theory, Chicago: Aldine.
• Gombrich, Ernst (1980), Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictoral Representation, Oxford: Phaidon;
• Gooding-Brown, Jane (2000), “Conversations about art: A disruptive model of interpretation”,
• Studies in Art Education, No. 42, pp. 36-50. Goodman, Nelson (1969), Languages of art: an approach to a theory of symbols, London: Oxford University Press.
• Kesner, Ladislav (2006), “The role of cognitive competence in the art museum experience”,
• Museum Management and Curatorship, No. 21, pp. 4-19. Matravers, Derek (1998), Art and Emotion, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurcie (1945), Phénoménologie de la Perception, Paris: Gallimard.
• Muhr, Thomas (1997), Atlas.ti for Windows, Berlin: Scientific Software Development.
• O’Neill, Marie-Claire and Colette Dufresne-Tassé (1997), “Looking in everyday Life / gazing in museums”, Museum Management and Curatorship, No. 16, pp. 131-142.
• Parsons, Michael (2002), “Aesthetic experience and the construction of meanings”, Journal of
• Aesthetic Education, No. 36, pp. 24-37. Page, Tara et al. (2006), “Teaching now with the living: A dialogue with teachers investigating contemporary art practices”, The International Journal of Art & Design Education, No. 25, pp. 155.
• Shusterman, Rechard (1997), “The art of aesthetic experience”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, No. 55, pp. 29-41.
• Stedelijk Museum voor Actuele Kunst (n.d.),Collection, http://www.smak.be/collectie_geschiedenis.php, [ Accessed 23.08.2006]
• Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1994), Basics of qualitative research, London: Sage Publications.
• Van Moer, Eva (2007), “Talking about contemporary art: The formation of preconceptions during a museum visit”, The International Journal of the Arts in Society, No. 1, pp. 1-8.