Title: Music Education as Aesthetic Education: A Critical Inquiry Author(s): David J. Elliott Source: Elliott, D. J. (1991, Fall). Music education as aesthetic education: A critical inquiry. The Quarterly, 2(3), pp. 48-66. (Reprinted with permission in Visions of Research in Music Education, 16(2), Autumn, 2010). Retrieved from http://www- usr.rider.edu/~vrme Visions of Research in Music Education is a fully refereed critical journal appearing exclusively on the Internet. Its publication is offered as a public service to the profession by the New Jersey Music Educators Association, the state affiliate of MENC: The National Association for Music Education. The publication of VRME is made possible through the facilities of Westminster Choir College of Rider University Princeton, New Jersey. Frank Abrahams is the senior editor. Jason D. Vodicka is editor of the Quarterly historical reprint series. Chad Keilman is the production coordinator. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning is reprinted with permission of Richard Colwell, who was senior consulting editor of the original series. Music Education as Aesthetic Education: A Critical Inquiry By David]. Elliott University of Toronto ~~lVl usic education as aes- If it can be further demonstrated that the thetic education" (or source of this commitment is logically flawed, MEAE) 'is one of the then the need for critical re-examination be- most influential concepts in the history of comes even more immediate. Such is the our field. For decades its principles have case, I believe, with the philosophy of music been repeated, refined, and assumed in education as aesthetic education. countless publications. For years its as- Overview sumptions have been applied by curriculum planners and classroom teachers. Accord- In a previous review (Elliott, 1989a), I examined ingly, generations of music educators have several weakness in MEAE. Here I undertake a been reared on its beliefs. more through philosophical analysis. The most extended expression of these be- Indeed, it is important to emphasize that the liefs is Bennett Reimer's A Philosophy ofMu- intent of this effort is nothing more or less than to sic Education (1970) The range and depth "do philosophy" on behalf of music education. of Reimer's work has made MEAE an intellec- \Vhat "doing philosophy" includes is being "criti- tual hub for inquiries differing widely in pur- cal"-not in the vulgar sense of deliberately find- pose, motivation, and method during the last ing fault, but in the Greek sense of kritikos. being 20 years. In short, A Philosophy ofMusic a careful scrutinizer of reasons, concepts, and be- Education (APME) is one of music liefs to separate light claims from wrong. In sum, education's "classic" formulations. an uncritical philosopher is no philosopher at all. Given the stature of MEAE and the complete What the MEAE philosophy has taken decades reaffirmation of its underlying beliefs in the to develop cannot be fully examined in one essay. new edition of APME (1989), it may seem that Accordingly, the focus here is MEAE'sphilosophi- there is little to say at this point beyond noting cal foundations. Consider, however, that since new variations on old themes. Not so. J\lIEAE'spractical guidelines depend on these The "new" version of MEAE provides an im- foundations, the adequacy (or not) of the latter portant opportunity to remind ourselves that directly implicates the former. unexamined philosophical commitment is of To anticipate, I suggest that despite moditica- negative value where the health of a profes- tions and additions, the central weaknesses of sion is concerned. Viewed as rational prac- MEAE are not only repeated but deepened in tices, music, education, and music education APME (1989) Chief among these weaknesses are are dynamic, evolving systems. In contrast, the following: philosophical commitment is often static. 1. MEAE depends on a cluster of blurred distinc- tions and oversimplified dichotomies that undermine Hence guidance therefrom is likely to become its logical integrity; obsolete eventually. A<; a matter of principle, 2. the basic premises of MEAE depend on a reduc- then, our commitment requires regular review. tionist concept of "music;" and 3. at its core, MEAE is only a cogent explanation of David]. Elliott is Professor and Chair of Mu- Susanne Langer's illogical theory of alt. sic Education at the Uniuersity of Toronto, These weaknesses do not disqualify MEAE Ontario, Canada. completely. Nevertheless, they are sufficient 48 The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning in number and depth to aver that MEAEnot Although MEAE's basic equation (music = only fails to provide a plausible explanation of fine art) may seem quite natural and the nature and value of MUSIC, it fails to offer unassailable at first, it is neither. The assump- a defensible account of the uniqueness and tion that music is a "fine art" (or aesthetic) in necessity of music in education. In short, its nature and value is not only theory-laden, it while its place in history is not in dispute, is theory-generated. Accordingly, several phi- MEAE's status as a philosophy certainly is. losophers suggest that to embrace the "aes- This article has two parts. Part One addresses thetic" concept of music is to embrace a par- the first and second weaknesses listed above. ticularly limited notion. Indeed, the aesthetic Part Two addresses the first concept of music rests on and third. More specifically, the obsolete social and his- Part Two attempts to explain torical pronouncements of a why MEAE's central claim- Philosophy" is distant time and place (See that "music education is the Berleant, 1986; Sparshott, education of human feeling" not a conve- 1982, 1987; Wolterstorff, (Reimer, 1989,p. 53)-fails the nience store full 1980, 1987; Donougho, test of logical scrutiny. 1987; Subotnick, 1987; of theories ~wait- Danto, 1986). Part One ing to be pur- First of all, then, although The fundamental premises Reimer claims that "there of MEAEstate that "the essen- chased by rm.isic exists at present an ex- tial nature and value of music educators shop- tremely high level of agree- education are determined by ment about the nature of the nature and value of the art ping for the 'best music ... among those of music [italicsmine]" (Reimer, possible point of who have given serious 1989, p. 1).1 APME promises thought to this matter" (p. to explain the meaning of these view.' Rather, 3), much serious thought in premises through "reasoned, philosophy is an the contemporary philoso- careful, systematic statements" phy of music speaks against (p. 2). At first glance, every- active practice: it this claim. To explain more thing seems in order. Unfortu- is the critical fully, we must look care- nately, these premises blur fully at what "aesthetics" several important concepts and exarrlination of really means. distinctions. Let me explain. concepts, as- 1.2 "Aesthetics," says 1.1 Although the term "art" Reimer, is "the branch of saturates MEAE from begin- surnptioris and philosophy concerned with ning to end, Reimer does not beliefs. questions of the nature and explain that what he actually value of the arts" (p. 1). means by "art" is not art, but Furthermore, says Reimer, "fine art." The distinction is " Aesthetics is the study of that crucial. Why? Stated correctly, about art which is the essence MEAE's premises go as follows: The essential of art ... so among all the disciplines of nature and value of music education are de- thought that are interested in the arts, aesthetics termined by the nature and value of the fine is the one devoted to an explanation of their intrinsic nature. (p. 2) art of music. This distinction highlights two There are several reasons to question key questions: Reimer's notion of aesthetics. First, aesthetics 1. Who/What says that music is a priori a "fine art"? and is not the (only) branch of philosophy con- 2. How does the equation music = "fine art" cerned with the nature and value of music. restrict or expand our understanding of what Aesthetics (properly understood) offers only MUSIC is? one particular viewpoint on the nature and Section 1.3 below provides several answers. value of music. Hence it is arbitrary to im- First, however, a larger point must be made. ply, as APME implies, that aesthetics is the Volume II, Number 3 49 definitive philosophical source on what is ena. Aesthetics provided the required con- essential about music's nature and value. In cept. According to the "aesthetic concept," fact, as I argue next, it may be the reverse. music, painting, and so on are not "useless;" l.3 Western philosophical thought about rather, they all have one particular use: They art and beauty began with the Greeks. But it are "objects" which exist primarily to be con- was not until the eighteenth century that a templated "aesthetically," i.e., in abstraction particular group of theorists including from their contexts of use and production. Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, and Baumgarten The formalization of the "aesthetic con- founded "aesthetics" and, along with it, the cept" was aided by the social practice of con- notion of art as "fine art." ceiving and using "music" (and so on) as a "Aesthetics" was originally coined by a collection of objects or "works" in this fine young German philosopher, A. G. art way: of "that use itself coming into Baumgarten (1735), to designate a field of prominence among the cultural elite of the study that would accomplish for the emo- eighteenth century" (Wolterstorff, 1980, p. 7). tional effectiveness of nondiscursive symbols Theoretical norms of contemplation were si- what logic accomplished for the symbols of multaneously and subsequently codified. conventional reasoning. Most attempts to These norms included the overarching con- formulate a systematic theory of "fine art" cept of "aesthetic experience" and its con- based on aesthetic assumptions, including comitants: intrinsicality, disinterestedness, Susanne Langer's theory of art, duplicate psychical distance, and so on.