ABSTRACT
In the Introduction to this book two broadly different uses of ‘understanding’ were described. One sees the concept more as a single event, in the sense of coming to perceive something clearly. The other sees understanding more as a process of refining and deepening, making connections and seeing things in new ways. The terms ‘analytic’ and ‘synthetic’, which were used as a shorthand way of referring to these different types of emphasis, have been relevant to a number of the discussions in subsequent chapters in this book. The challenge of justifying the arts in education can be attempted in a rational, analytic way by listing reasons for teaching the arts. Alternatively, a holistic vision that attempts to show links between art and life in a more foundational way may offer a perspective that is missing from the more discursive formulation. The search for necessary and sufficient criteria for defining precisely what art is, has, in the past, given way in art theory to a less precise formulation. This is more in keeping with the way language has meaning. Classic distinctions between science and art, often conceived as analytic and synthetic approaches, were addressed in Chapter 4. It is more appropriate to speak of the ‘histories’ rather than the ‘history’ of art and art education, a view which is compatible with understanding as refining and deepening rather than seeing things unambiguously. The chapter on assessment put agreement in judgement rather than technical precision at the heart of the process, without underestimating the value of constantly seeking ways of making judgements more reliable.
