Langer and the Claim for the Social Value of Art

Dorit Barchana-Lorand
{"title":"Langer and the Claim for the Social Value of Art","authors":"Dorit Barchana-Lorand","doi":"10.1093/jopedu/qhae015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Susanne Langer sees the ‘the public importance of art’ as one of ‘the ultimate questions in a philosophy of art’. Indeed, Langer is often referred to as an authority on the justification of art education and is cited as providing good reasons for incorporating the arts in the curriculum. It is therefore surprising to note, as Elliot Eisner does, that Langer’s theory has had little influence on actual art education. For while many theoreticians in the social sciences and education have found Langer’s contribution to the understanding of the arts highly significant, Eisner laments that ‘alas, the lesson Susanne Langer was trying to teach … in her remarkable book, never took hold in … American public schools’. It seems that policy makers outside of art education circles remain sceptical regarding the need for art education. The substantiation of art education requires firm ground against scepticism. It is therefore important to understand the ways in which Langer’s project fails to fulfil its promise. In examining Langer’s aesthetic theory, I will show that despite its philosophical acuity, Langer’s argument fails to persuade the art education sceptic who believes that art occupies a minor role in education and should therefore remain marginal in the school curriculum.","PeriodicalId":506406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy of Education","volume":"119 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhae015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Susanne Langer sees the ‘the public importance of art’ as one of ‘the ultimate questions in a philosophy of art’. Indeed, Langer is often referred to as an authority on the justification of art education and is cited as providing good reasons for incorporating the arts in the curriculum. It is therefore surprising to note, as Elliot Eisner does, that Langer’s theory has had little influence on actual art education. For while many theoreticians in the social sciences and education have found Langer’s contribution to the understanding of the arts highly significant, Eisner laments that ‘alas, the lesson Susanne Langer was trying to teach … in her remarkable book, never took hold in … American public schools’. It seems that policy makers outside of art education circles remain sceptical regarding the need for art education. The substantiation of art education requires firm ground against scepticism. It is therefore important to understand the ways in which Langer’s project fails to fulfil its promise. In examining Langer’s aesthetic theory, I will show that despite its philosophical acuity, Langer’s argument fails to persuade the art education sceptic who believes that art occupies a minor role in education and should therefore remain marginal in the school curriculum.
朗格与艺术的社会价值主张
苏珊娜-朗格将 "艺术对公众的重要性 "视为 "艺术哲学的终极问题 "之一。事实上,朗格经常被称为艺术教育合理性方面的权威,并为将艺术纳入课程提供了充分的理由。因此,正如艾略特-艾斯纳(Elliot Eisner)所指出的那样,朗格的理论对实际艺术教育的影响甚微,这一点令人惊讶。虽然许多社会科学和教育领域的理论家都认为朗格对艺术的理解做出了重大贡献,但艾斯纳却感叹道:"唉,苏珊娜-朗格在她那本杰出的书中......试图教授的课程,从未在......美国公立学校中扎根"。看来,艺术教育界以外的决策者仍然对艺术教育的必要性持怀疑态度。要证实艺术教育的必要性,就必须坚定地反对怀疑论。因此,了解朗格的项目在哪些方面未能实现其承诺是非常重要的。在研究朗格的美学理论时,我将指出,尽管朗格的论点具有哲学上的敏锐性,但却无法说服艺术教育怀疑论者,因为他们认为艺术在教育中的作用不大,因此在学校课程中仍应处于边缘地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信