Aesthetic Development 21!

Parson was more influenced by artists than by psychologists when creating the stages of aesthetic development. He focused on familiarity and expressions, such as beauty, when people talked about art. Like Piaget, Parson attributed age groups for each stage.

Table 3: Parson’s Stages of Aesthetic Development (1987)

Stage I Favoritism

(age 5)

- Intuitive delight to artworks but without any inquiry. - Strong attraction to color. - Freewheeling or associative response to subject matter.

- Assumption others will concur.

Stage II Beauty and

Realism

(age 10)

- Interpretation of the artwork through the subject (the artwork is not separate from the subject; "transparency"). - Technical skill admired.

- Realism preferred.

- Assumption others will concur (for example, beauty and ugliness are seen as objectively identifiable qualities).

Stage III Expressiveness

(adolescence)

- Artworks express a theme or an idea (beyond the subject shown).

- Interest in interpreting meaning of the work as a whole. - Looking at an artwork for what it expresses and as a source of personal experience; the expressive qualities are very important.

- Skepticism about the value of critical talk or contextual information in influencing their interpretation.

Stage IV Style and Form

(young adults)

- Recognition that significance of an artwork is a social as well as an individual achievement.

- Recognition that artworks exist within culture and an art world.

- Medium, style, and technique help convey the message. - A willingness to negotiate meaning, to spend time thinking about an interpretation.

- Interpretations and judgments are weighed against others.

Stage V Autonomy

(professionally trained adults)

- Capable of making independent judgments based on knowledge of art and culture.

- Using a sophisticated understanding of culture and history to interpret a work and its significance.

Concerning Parson’s stages of aesthetic development, in Stage I an artwork was considered pleasant, lacking of understanding about good or bad art; ‘It’s my favorite color’. In Stage II good and bad art is differentiated; ‘It looks just like the real thing’. Stage III is characterized by the empathy and the expressions of adolescents; ‘Distortion really brings out the feeling’ or ‘We all experience it differently’. In Stage IV style and form became important and the artwork is understood within a society; ‘See the grief in the tension in the lines, the pulling on the handkerchief!’ or ‘He’s playing with the eyes. They are more like cups or boats; it’s a visual metaphor’. Finally, in Stage V adults are more critical with artworks and artistic values and accept or change opinions following their understanding within a tradition; ‘In the end, the style is too loose, too self-indulgent. I want to see more self-control’ or ‘I used to think it too rhetorical; now I vibrate to it again’ (Efland, 2002, p.29).

In the 1970s, Housen started studying people looking at art; she wanted to discover what people think and say about art. She used the Aesthetic Development Interview (ADI), a non-directive interview in which participants were invited to talk about art saying whatever was coming their minds. Housen analyzed individuals’ thoughts and organized them into subcategories. Until today Housen and her researchers compared more than 6000 ADIs from individuals of different age, gender, economic status, art experience, education and culture. The result was the identification of a five stage theory (following developmental theories) applied to aesthetic changes in individuals. Every stage represented ways of thinking while looking at art and were listed from less (Stage I) to more (Stage V) level of growth when encountering an artwork. Interestingly, Housen did not relate stages with age, she confirmed that ‘exposure to art’ is the only way to enhance artworks understanding.

Table 4: Housen’s Stages of Aesthetic Development (1992)

Stage I Accountive viewers are storytellers. Using their senses, memories and personal associations, they make concrete observations about a work of art that are woven into a narrative. Here, judgments are based on what is known and what is liked. Emotions color their comments, as viewers seem to enter the work of art and become part of its unfolding narrative. Stage II Constructive viewers set about actively building a framework for

looking at works of art, using the most logical and accessible tools: their own perceptions, their knowledge of the natural world, and the values of their social, moral and conventional world. If the work does not look the way it is "supposed to"-if craft, skill, technique, hard work, utility, and function are not evident, or if the subject seems inappropriate - then these viewers judge the work to be "weird", lacking or of no value. Their sense of what is realistic is the standard often applied to determine value. As emotions begin to go underground, these viewers begin to distance themselves from the work of art.

Stage III Classifying viewers adopt the analytical and critical stance of the art historian. They want to identify the work as to place, school, style, time and provenance. They decode the work using their library of facts and figures, which they are ready and eager to expand. This viewer believes that properly categorized, the work of art's meaning and message can be explained and rationalized.

Stage IV Interpretative viewers seek a personal encounter with a work of art. Exploring the work, letting its meaning slowly unfold, they appreciate subtleties of line and shape and color. Now, critical skills are put in the service of feelings and intuitions as these viewers let underlying meanings of the work -what it symbolizes- emerge. Each new encounter with a work of art presents a chance for new comparisons, insight and experiences. Knowing that the work of art's identity and value are subject to reinterpretation, these viewers see their own processes subject to chance and change.

Stage V Re-Creative viewers, having a long history of viewing and reflecting about works of art, now "willingly suspend disbelief". A familiar painting is like an old friend who is known intimately, yet full of surprise, deserving attention on a daily level but also existing on an elevated plane. As in all-important friendship, time is a key ingredient, allowing Stage V viewers to know the ecology of a work-its time, its history, its questions, its travels, its intricacies. Drawing on their own history with one work in particular, and with viewing in general, these viewers combine personal contemplation with views that broadly encompass universal concerns. Here, memory infuses the landscape of the painting, intricately combining the personal and the universal.

If we compare Parson’s and Housen’s stages of aesthetic development (table 5) we can see that in both models, while progressing from one stage to the other, art viewers will reach higher levels of responses and understanding of works of art. As commented, Parson’s stages are listed by age, whereas Housen’s stages are independent of age groups. In Parsons’ case, as adults it is considered easy to reach the last stage. In contrast, Housen found that the majority of interviewees were in Stage I or II. In addition, she confirmed that interviewees that were frequent museum visitors did not exceed level III. Parson’s approach was more structured. Instead, Housen’s approach to scoring through categories yields reliable responses. However, it would be relevant to know if these stages could be generalizable to cultures beyond United States and Europe.

Table 5: Comparison of Parsons and Housen Models

Parsons Housen

Stage I Favoritism: This stage is associated with young children; paintings exist for pleasure.

Accountive: The viewer creates a narrative of the art. Evaluation is based on what the viewer likes. Stage II Beauty and Realism: Paintings

exist to represent things and should be attractive.

Constructive: Personal judgments of whether work of art looks like they are supposed to.

Stage III Expressiveness: The

expressiveness of the painting as it is personally understood is more important than beauty.

Classifying: Works described in art historical terms, using a school, genre, or period as a basis. Stage IV Style and Form: Medium, style,

and form are important. The work of art exists in public and in an artistic tradition.

Interpretative: Personal feelings and meanings guide interpretation of the work.

Stage V Autonomy: The individual can transcend traditional and cultural limitations on interpretation of the work.

Re-Creative: Personal meaning combines with broader

understanding and concerns.