An interesting question.

At our arts school we believe in teaching all curricula through the arts.  However, such a belief can put the arts into a 'second class' instrumentalist role.  Nonetheless, it works very well, and I'm constantly telling this to parents, media, etc..  Therefore, I find myself in the conundrum of wanting aesthetics in education for the sake of aesthetics on one hand, and on the other arguing for instrumentalist aesthetics because it serves a useful function – the “second order” knowing to which Stefan refers.

What helps me out a bit with this dilemma is the idea that although research points towards arts-informed education as improving student achievement, this relationship is not cause-effect (at least not in the research that I’ve seen).   I think that it is a positivist fallacy to look for cause-effect relationships between aesthetic study/practice and non-aesthetic study/practice.  Social science has shown that these can be correlations at best. To do such positivist research is truly to put aesthetics in an instrumental (second order) role.  Unfortunately, I expect that some managers go to organizational aesthetics workshops with this positivist attitude, wanting ‘proof’ that this study will help their leadership, business, etc. - hence Jurgen's comments.

Aesthetics in general education, aesthetics in business, and aesthetics in management education are still highly successful.  If we look at research in these areas with an aesthetic way of knowing, rather than a positivist way, we will discover the first order knowledge that enhances the second order learnings in leadership, management, engineering, etc.

I think that this first order aesthetic knowledge is to BE more fully human – self-reflective, feeling, sensitive, perceptive, etc.  Therefore, painting, singing, photography will  make you a better theoretician…or engineer, or whatever.  Just don’t ask me to PROVE it -  doing so becomes positivist again, and relegates aesthetic knowing back to second class again.

John Churchley
[log in to unmask]

Principal
Beattie Elementary School of the Arts
Kamloops BC CANADA
[log in to unmask]

>>> stefan meisiek <[log in to unmask]> 11/19/04 3:39 PM >>>
Dear all,



Lately, I read an article by a professor in aesthetics. He complained
that aesthetic activities are only regarded as a support for "serious"
activities. It is so to say a second-order way of knowing (painting,
singing, photographing, etc), which supports the development of
first-order knowledge (social theory, engineering, medicine, etc).



It seems to go back to the origins of humanistic education, where
practicing painting, composing, etc was supposed to develop and
cultivate the individual's mind. By no means was everybody supposed to
become an acclaimed painter or composer.



I am interested in how far academics actually use aesthetic techniques
to support their activities.

Do painting, singing, photographing and so on make you a better
theoretician?



Best/Stefan



Stefan Meisiek

Assistant Professor

Nova University, Lisbon

Rua Marques de Fronteira 20

1099-038 Lisbon, Portugal

Tel: +351 21 382 2723

Fax: +351 21 387 3973





This message has been scanned but we cannot guarantee that it and any
attachments are free from viruses or other damaging content: you are
advised to perform your own checks.  Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.