An Examination of Theories of Aesthetic Development with Implication for Future Research

Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities & Social Science

1997, Vo1. 42 (New Version), 13-27

An Examination of Theories of Aesthetic Development

with Implication for Future Research

Jo Chiung-Hua Chen

Department of Fine A:r包

National Taiw祖 NormalUniversity

This study investigates theories of aesthetic development 企um1937 to 1995. These theories fall 旭­

to two categories: those which examine some specific elements of a developmental structure, and those which looked for a holistic stage structure of aesthetic development. This study shows that both of these theories indicate a universal scheme 曲創 aesthetic abilities are related to 組 individu祉's co伊拉ive de-velopment and experiences with art. Because these empirical findings of predicting developmental levels on1y reflect an educated Westemer's development in this domain, this implies a non-universal possibility that individual aesthetic growth might follow different paths and speeds. Therefore, cultural differences in developmental levels needs to be further explored.

Keywords: perception- cognition aesthetic judgment aesthetic ab血ty aesthetic development

Introduction

Aesthetic deve10pment has to do with the

pro-gressive growth of an individua1's ability in thinking about

,

and responding to aesthetic objects. This ability differs from the ability of producing a work,

which is the so called the ability of artistic expres-sion. On the one hand, the ability of making ∞n­ firms o~e's aesthetic ability. On the other hand,

one's aesthetic abi1ity goes through, and enhances the process of producing a work. In fact

,

these two kinds of _ abilities intertwine with individual's artistic deve10pment. Both these abilities dea1 with menta1 activities which are perceptua1 and cognitive. As

Goodman says," both depiction and description participate in the formation and characterization of the world; and they interact with each other and with perception and knowledge" (Goodman, 1968,

p.40). Nevertheless, in the history of art education,

aesthetic response has lagged behind the studio production and has had even less attention (Kern

,

1984, p.219; Taunton, 1982, p.94). However, a ∞n­ sensus has emerged over the 1ast few decades that production a10ne will not suffice (Gardn凹， 1983,

1989, p.76; Wo1f, 1992, pp.953-956). The cognitive

approach has affected educators in thinking about the arts and about issues of teaching, 1earning, and curricu1um (Gardner

,

1992; Parsons

,

1992). In order to be competent in thear臼， individua1s require the too1s of criticism to encode and decode the symbo1 systems that are rooted in a CHIturalcontext. Therefore, how to foster the aesthetic ability has become an important educational issue. A number of efforts call for art education which should in-clude discussion and analysis of art works. Some educators provide individuals' aesthetic develop-mental 1evels for understanding the individuals,

learning as wel1 as for improving teaching strategies f哇ldm徊， 1983, 1985, 1987, 1994; Gardner, 1990; Kerlavage, 1995; Housen, 1983; P缸so酌， 1976, 1978,

1987; Wo匠 1988). Other educators put their ∞n­ sideration into designing effective curricula or teaching strategies for aesthetic learning (Battin,

1994; Batt妞， Fisher，孔100re， & Silvers, 1989; Clark,

1991; Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987; Efland, 1995; Eisner, 1985a; Erickson, 1986; Gardner, 1989; Greer, 1984, 1987, 1993; Moore, 1994; Parsons & Blocker, 1993, pp.154-180; Smith, 1995; Stewa哎，