DBAE
Discipline-Based
ARt Education
“It [creativity] flows from a confluence of developed representational and interpretive skills and analytical…encounters with the real and imagined world” (Silverman, 1988, p. 15).
This statement successfully summarizes the motivation for the discipline-based art education (DBAE) movement. This approach to teaching was a continued departure from the mentality of the child as a self-taught artist (Greer, 1984). Instead, the art teacher was responsible for exposing students to the content of art, through the structured means of four disciplines. These four disciplines were aesthetics, studio art, art history, and art criticism, and each played an essential role in a balanced art curriculum.
This statement successfully summarizes the motivation for the discipline-based art education (DBAE) movement. This approach to teaching was a continued departure from the mentality of the child as a self-taught artist (Greer, 1984). Instead, the art teacher was responsible for exposing students to the content of art, through the structured means of four disciplines. These four disciplines were aesthetics, studio art, art history, and art criticism, and each played an essential role in a balanced art curriculum.
DBAE OriginsIn 1982, administrators of the J. Paul Getty Trust formed the Getty Center for Education in the Arts (GCEA) with funds from Getty’s estate. Forefathers of this foundation wished to fund their own programs, rather than those of others (Duke, 1988). They believed that a study of the arts was fundamental to understanding “human experience and transmitting cultural values” (p. 7). Prior to school implementation, members of the foundation closely studied art education programs for over a year. Their findings were alarming. On average, less than 1% of school instruction time was spent in studying the arts, and approximately 80% of graduating seniors have little knowledge of the arts. Most of students’ art activities had little connection to the past or present. Students were under the impression that art did not relate their lives and was an elitist activity.
Advocates for this program recognized that certain things needed to change in the education system for acceptance of DBAE. Firstly, the overall perspective of art needed to change. Support from the community, administrators, parents, and teachers was also deemed essential. Finally, district art teachers would need to commit to its implementation. For such a program to have value, art classes would need to compare with other subject classes, in worth and value. They worked to develop programs for teacher trainings and model DBAE units for teacher reference. As the GCEA focused its efforts on funding and supporting DBAE, this approach to teaching grew in its influence. |
The president of the J. Paul Getty Trust reported:
"…art education is valued almost exclusively as a means for enhancing self-expression and creativity, rather than as an organized body of knowledge requiring the same kind of substance and intellectual rigor we expect in the sciences and humanities" (p. 8) |
Today's relevance
Although this approach to teaching is several decades out of date, remnants of DBAE concepts still permeate the school environment. Duke (1988) describes the professional development of teachers preparing to implement DBAE into their art classrooms. In-service and preservice training were intensive and several weeks in length. This onset of intensive teacher preparation is still reflected in today’s schools. Educators must succeed in a preservice program and maintain a minimum number of in-service training hours. Although these efforts are not identical to those of the 1980s, they draw inspiration from the initial programs of teacher betterment.
In addition, the DBAE approach was a departure from the self-expression of the 1940s and 1950s (Duke, 1988). Through a more structured means of instruction, students grew as critical thinkers, problem solvers, and observant participants in their visual surroundings. Although contemporary art courses are typically not as structured as the DBAE framework, art teachers still expect their students to utilize these skills. In a time of diversity in schools, art education programs certainly are not consistent or uniform nationally. Despite different methods of teaching, art educators hope to instill the same core values and beliefs as DBAE. Through the teachings of any art program, students ought to learn to self-assess their own work, talk about art in an intelligent manner, and create works that demonstrate their knowledge and experience.
In addition, the DBAE approach was a departure from the self-expression of the 1940s and 1950s (Duke, 1988). Through a more structured means of instruction, students grew as critical thinkers, problem solvers, and observant participants in their visual surroundings. Although contemporary art courses are typically not as structured as the DBAE framework, art teachers still expect their students to utilize these skills. In a time of diversity in schools, art education programs certainly are not consistent or uniform nationally. Despite different methods of teaching, art educators hope to instill the same core values and beliefs as DBAE. Through the teachings of any art program, students ought to learn to self-assess their own work, talk about art in an intelligent manner, and create works that demonstrate their knowledge and experience.