The question of whether art is a source of knowledge is a question of epistemic as well as of aesthetic interest which has significant pedagogical implications as well. This issue, both in its epistemic and aesthetic dimensions, is addressed here under the general perspective of the contemporary cognitivist - anti-cognitivist debate. Consequently, it is asked: a) can art be a means of knowledge and if it does, is knowledge obtained through art of the same kind with scientific knowledge? and b) (...) if we accept that art actually offers some kind of knowledge, is this knowledge relevant to its aesthetic value, does it constitute an essential part of its functioning as art? The paper discusses the plausibility and consistency of the answers given to these questions either from the cognitivist or the anti-cognitivist point of view and argues that the importance and role attributed to art within the educational praxis, as well as its educational value per se, significantly depends on the kind of approach we adopt in regard to these questions. (shrink)

Art education literature has not given great deal of attention to that which constitutes the very content of art education, i.e. art. This reluctance to deal with art seems justified, given that there exists no overall accepted definition or interpretation of what art actually is. In this paper, we argue that, despite the difficulty, it is absolutely necessary to try to understand and reflect on the multidimensional and polyvalent phenomenon of art. We claim that without a deep understanding of the (...) nature, the role and scope of art, the field of art education can not be adequately delineated. Without this understanding, questions about the kind of objects and values which should be studied within art education are held over, its content risks being hetero-defined and its special contribution underestimated. Beginning with an understanding of art as a complex phenomenon, deeply implicated in historical and cultural transformations and changes, this paper argues for the necessity of a critical rethinking of art. We try to show that the question “what is art?” is a key question in order to draw attention to the multiplicity and the open nature of the artistic phenomenon, upon which our educational choices will be found. Our object is not to impose one and only answer as a unique and unwavering option, but to describe an educational condition which recognizes the multiple practices and the many points of view as parts of the organized activity and knowledge about art, while putting them under critical examination . (shrink)

In this paper we argue that the arts (visual arts) constitute a kind of an expressive gesture (as conceived by the French philosopher M. Merleau-Ponty), and on the basis of this hypothesis, we shall try to show that they can fulfill the presuppositions required to be addressed in comprehensive and meaningful school programs. Our central argument is that artistic activity is an expressive activity par excellence: it is an “advent”, an original operation, i.e., which, constitutes a sign as a sign, (...) implants a meaning in that which did not have one and thus, inaugurates an order and founds an institution or tradition. Accordingly, this meaning is on principle a meaning in genesis, ever to be re-created and re-interpreted. Given that, we claim that just as the arts are an attempt to visually articulate meanings, to create meaningful forms, correspondingly art education is an attempt to cultivate children’s ability to grasp, understand and respond to such meanings available from art’s expressive forms. We maintain that the role of art education is to facilitate access to various artistic approaches and to help to the development of a reflective attitude towards their significance as expressive advents. (shrink)