Arthur Lismer: Visionary art educator

McGill Journal of Education, Winter 2003 by Spicanovic, Vladimir

Further, Lismer's practice of a museum educator was also influenced by the works of John Dewey and Lewis Mumford. In fact, Grigor draws important parallels between Lismer's teaching philosophy and Dewey's philosophy of education. On one side, she suggests that Lismer accepted Dewey's criticism of traditional teaching methods, insisting on experimentation and the idea of all encompassing aesthetic experience that is inseparable from life. On the other, by focusing on inner self and spirituality, he might have been opposed to Dewey who saw these as rather trivial and also capable of perpetuating the further alienation of self from society. By embracing both his theosophical beliefs in spirituality and his awareness of society, Lismer's teaching somehow compromised conflicting theories of individualism and collectivism. As Grigor says, "for Lismer, who worked with both individualist and collectivist notions in his teaching practice, there appeared to be no conflict in the way he applied opposing theories" (p. 292-293).

Grigor also writes that Lismer was regularly assigning readings for his teaching staff. Some of those included Lewis Mumford' s books Technics and Civilizations (1934) and The Culture of Cities (1938). This suggests that Lismer wanted his staff also to be critical of modern society and aware of its underlying moral values. Further, Lismer was also aware of Bauhaus teaching. According to Grigor, he became a friend with Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, who was a leader of New Bauhaus in Chicago, established in 1937. Lismer's openness to innovation was also reflected in his teaching at Teachers College, Columbia University. Grigor indicates that while teaching his "Teachers' Course" at Columbia he developed a unique approach in dealing with students. He encouraged students to reflect on their backgrounds, teaching interests, and their social life, fostering the inseparability of art and life. "His approach, which encouraged non-linear thinking, included an exploration of diverse topics ranging from concepts and ideas to symbolism, design structures, and interrelationship in art and life" (p. 317).

In spite of being socially aware, Lismer continued to see art as expressive and emotional rather than as intellectual pursuit. "The inventive self is the creator - exhilaration and joy. The intellect is the watchdog - critical, suspicious" (p. 324). As opposed to the growing intellectualization of art education in 1940s and 1950s, Lismer stated once that "art education has been distorted by intellect for century" (p. 324). Grigor also discusses various influences of child-centered theories of art education on Lismer. I found her insights into Herbert Read's Education Through Art (1943), Victor Lowenfeld's Creative and Mental Growth (1947), Wilhelm Viola's Child Art (1944) and Marian Richardson's Art and the Child (1948), very nicely developed. These works, according to Grigor, strengthened Lismer's commitment to child-centered education and expressive experimentation in art. Even though he initially distanced himself from the Jungian psychoanalytic legacy, during the 1940s, Lismer started to be more analytical and looked at children's drawings as expressions tied to their dreams and childhood experiences, perhaps trying to grapple with their inner selves. Grigor seems critical of this tendency towards psychoanalytic approaches in art education, which according to her turned many art educators at the time into "amateur psychologists." Lismer's opposition to the intellectualization of art education grew even stronger in the 1940s and 1950s - the decades that were marked by the emergence of university art education departments. Grigor reminds us of the problematic segregation between art teachers trained in art schools and those trained in universities.