ECOLOGY OF MIND MIND-ING ECOLOGY

\| Von Glasersfeld's answers - September 2005 \|

Question:

Hello Professor von Glasersfeld. I am a visual artist, arts educator and

a new doctoral student hoping to survive the process of completing

doctorate in Education. Fortunately for me, I have recently been

introduced to your theory of knowing through a wonderful course at UMASS

Lowell. I am very interested in your way of thinking not only as an

educator, but as an artist. Historically I have faithfully used Piagetian

stage theory in my art teaching with children. However, I truly think

your theory of knowing, Radical Constructivism ( and I do hope you'll

tell me if I'm understanding incorrectly!) not only offers philosophical

clarity to the artistic process (we don't claim to know the truth, we

understand we can't know), but also a relief to many art educators such

as myself who struggle with the issue of how to acknowledge (measure?)

knowledge construction in the arts. A painting may have meaning, but it

may not be viable. Currently there is much talk about a new standardized

test for the arts in my state. I've just begun my studies, but I would

like to be able to approach the issue of knowledge construction through

the epistemological lens of Radical Constructivism. I find it to be

explicit, elegant and it cuts through much of the current fog surrounding

current postmodern feminist aesthetic socio/political agendas. I would

like to be able to know how knowledge construction in art looks through

Radical constructivism. Have you ever written anything regarding Radical

Constructivism's relationship to visual art? I'm very curious.

All the best,

Maureen C. Quinquis

Salem, Massachusetts

Answer:

Dear Ms Quinquis,

"Art" has a wider meaning in the United States than in Europe, where
technical drawings, quilt making, and pottery are not usually included. I
say this, because my spontaneous reply to your question would be: From
the constructivist point of view, art belongs to the domain of the
mystical and what can be rationally said about it does not get anywhere
near its core. A critic may say all sorts of intelligent things about
composition, perspective, color values, etc., in, say, Giorgione's
Tempesta, but none of that is relevant to the fact that the painting
takes my breath away every time I see it. I don't expect a mystical
experience from what is here in the US often referred to as "artwork".
The diviision is of course not always neat and there are indeed Chinese
celadon bowls, individual buildings, and even Ferraris that have a
rationally inexplicable effect. Radical constructivism, which is a purely
rational theory, has nothing to say about such mystical phenomena.

I have, however used the work of artists (e.g. Matisse and Francesco
Guardi) to suggest that they have the knack of incorporating in a few
lines the perceptual scan paths we ordinarily construct when we
"recognize" a specific flower or a person walking. There are line
drawings by Matisse, that are ridiculously simple squiggles and yet
immediately recognizable as a lily or some other specific flower. This,
of course, is technical mastery - it may become art when the artist uses
it in the service of some otherwise inexplicable intuition.

Best wishes,

Ernst von Glasersfeld: BACK | TORNA INDIETRO