An Analysis of Lanier's Analysis of Beyond Creating

In the spring, 1986 issue of Studies in Art Education, a lead article appeared by Vincent Lanier expressing his dismay over the theoretical positions found in Beyond Creating: The Place of Art in American Schools. Lanier's article is titled "To Eat Your Cake and Have It, Too: A Response to Beyond Creating" (Lanier, 1986). Lanier finds two sections of the publication seriously flawed and concludes his article with the following paragraph: "I am disappointed that an organization as resourceful and sophisticated as the Getty Trust would endorse published materials with conceptual problems of the scale noted above. Insofar as the two sections reviewed here represent it, Beyond Creating is not an adequate statement of the discipline-based approach to art teaching being sponsored by the Getty program. It lacks clarity in its understanding of purpose in art education; it exaggerates beyond good sense its view of the benefits of the visual arts; and it persists in propounding ideas that should have been eliminated from our theoretical vocabulary. Fortunately, the central theme of the volume that art teaching should move toward DBAE is a thoroughly progressive direction. I have no doubt that the Getty program will, in time, deal with the issues raised here." (Lanier, 1986 p. 114) Despite the upturn in tone in Lanier's last two sentences, he leaves no doubt that he believes the errors in these statements seriously undermine Getty's good intentions. Since I authored one of the two sections that Lanier is concerned about, I would like to examine in some detail what worries him. My section, titled "Why Art in Education and Why Art Education", has, he believes, three serious conceptual errors. I shall quote him directly: "The first of these is that 'the arts represent the highest of human achievements'. The reader has no recourse but to take this assertion literally; it is stated somewhat bluntly and it is repeated three more times in the section. The assertion is repeated a fifth time in somewhat altered form: 'as a culture we regard the arts as among the highest of human achievements.' (p. 65, emphasis Lanier's). Since there is a significant difference between this statement and the four others in the section, the discrepancy is an error either in writing or in editing. In either case, it is confusing to the reader." (Lanier, 1986 p. 111) Lanier believes that "there is a significant difference" between the statement that says the arts represent the highest of human achievements and the four others which say they are among the highest of human achievements. Now I regard such a criticism as a quibble. But if one really wants to split logical hairs, it is Lanier who is confused. To claim that something is the best