Art Returns to Education
HE title of this paper may be misleading. Let me therefore explain that this discussion does not attempt to cover Thomas Craven's favorite topic, nor what Stuart Chase saw in Mexico, nor the themes of Keppel and Duffus regarding adult education. Even the Owatonna Art Project, which has so firmly gripped the attention of one of our leading educational scientists, is here neglected. Although educational literature has recently devoted generous space to all these aspects of art, it would be quite appropriate to offer another article on that subject, indeed, many more articles. This essay, however, is devoted to a more commonplace, perhaps more comprehensive, view of art; it is concerned with teaching. This teaching may consist of instruction in any subject at allin grammar or physiology, in mathematics, or in literature, or even in art. There was a time which the new generation of teachers never knew, but the older cannot forget, when teaching was generally referred to as an art. There seemed no other way to define what good teachers did or how they did it. Under this caption, Mark Hopkins and his legendary log have long occupied a niche of fame. David Starr Jordan in biology, David Eugene Smith in mathematics, Frederick Jackson Turner and Henry Johnson in history, Mark Jefferson in geography, and William Rainey Harper in Semitics are among the great teachers most often characterized as artists. It is true that attempted description of their methods by their former students has nearly always proved inadequate. There is usually a margin, covered by a wide gesture, that marks the decisive element in their teaching as their students recall it. Only the