Having looked at historical perspectives of imagination, it is worth considering briefly, how and to what extent these manifest in contemporary life. Focusing on perceptions of childhood and imagination in the media, Machin and Davies point out the existence of what seems like an over-simplistic version of imagination which leans towards romantic interpretation.
‘What is referred to as imagination in public discourse is usually wrapped up with ideas like fantasy and make-believe…This imaginative mode of thought is implicitly contrasted to the rational, mature mode that characterizes adult thinking…The notion of imagination implies a boundlessness and freedom.’ (Machin and Davies, 2003, p.106)
Questioning this emphasis, they see imagination in a similar way to Kant, as a fundamental aspect of our thinking, arguing that we need to think about imagination
‘…not just associated with free creativity but as a capacity which facilitates our everyday business.’ (Ibid, p.107). Machin and Davies highlight a general leaning towards a ‘magical’ interpretation of imagination, as described in the introduction to this thesis. While not undervaluing the usefulness of the ‘magic’ which imagination enables, I have seen that in practice, this association can have negative impacts. I am thinking particularly here of the status of arts education, perceived as a highly imaginative activity and placed in dualistic opposition to activities which are seen as
91
objective, reasoned and measurable so that our education system, with its emphasis on accountability, relegates imaginative and subjective art to ‘none academic’ status (whatever that actually means). Of course there are worse and even less sophisticated attitudes and for some imagination is ‘just fantasy and pretend’.
While imagination is not limited to the arts, it is probably identified with art more than any other subject, so in considering contemporary perspectives of imagination in education it is relevant to consider imagination and art, even putting aside the focus of this thesis in the visual arts. In Chapter 5 we will discuss the relationship between imagination and art in detail but for now, suffice to say that perhaps art offers more opportunity for unrestricted imaginative development than any other subject. In Chapter 1 I outlined what I consider to be the current, dire state of arts education in England. If we are not supporting art, then we are missing a huge opportunity to support imagination and I would suggest that this is not being compensated for in the
‘core’ subject areas which schools are forced to focus on. If art suffers, so does imagination and if imagination suffers, so does all of our thinking and learning.
It is particularly concerning that by adopting a curriculum which requires us to study
‘great’ art and artists, those of us without the confidence to interpret this liberally are likely to neglect or reject contemporary art which is culturally and individually relevant.
As something which is new to culture, contemporary art pushes at the boundaries of our existing understandings, uncovering gaps in our knowledge which (following Hume’s theory), if the art engages us, we will strive to fill. This is likely to result in changes in our understandings which we might call ‘learning’. By neglecting contemporary art we lose potential for imaginative exploration which nurtures understanding and criticality in relation to pertinent aspects of contemporary life. This understanding could make us more ‘fit for purpose’ in a contemporary world, yet we are encouraged by the current government to stick with tradition. Why? Don’t they want us to be imaginative, autonomous learners?
Perhaps the persistence of a disregard for art is in part a consequence of the subjective, sometimes emotional and pleasurable aspects of it? Maybe for some, if learning is fun it isn’t proper learning. Its frequent identification as technical as opposed to a mental skill (stemming from Plato and Descartes) may reinforce it being seen as
92
an optional extra rather than as a necessity. Such a technical approach is reflected in the content of the current national curriculum.
The current policy attitude towards art in education emerges from a perspective which seems to omit or be afraid of the cognitive value of art. According to Bruner:
‘…tyrants so hate and fear poets and novelists…Even more than they fear and hate scientists, who, though they create possible worlds, leave no place in them for possible alternative perspectives on those worlds.’ (1986, p.54)
While it is never acknowledged or made explicit, we uncover a ‘suspicious’ view of imagination as embodied in art, due to its use in creating world views which may not be in keeping with that prescribed by authority. Indeed, it has the potential to disrupt the status quo. This would appear to lead to its suppression.
Art is not the only way to support imagination. Stories, play, pretend play, drama and other activities are all regarded as activities which generate imagination. Machin and Davies provide a critique of our beliefs as to how to support the development of imagination, on the basis that these are associated with a restricted and ‘magical’
model of imagination which fails to take into account its fundamental part in our thought.
‘Western culture represents children as being imaginative compared to rational adults. They are seen as being boundlessly imaginative and spontaneous. The journey to adulthood is one where the individual travels from imaginative make-believe to mature and concrete thinking. But we also think that children need to develop imaginative power.’ (Machin and Davies, 2003, p.110)
The introduction of fantasy stories and stimuli is a pre-requisite for the development of a child’s imagination, but ‘Exactly how children will develop is never clearly spelled out.’
(Ibid, p.109). We shall see in Chapter 4 that the nature of the development of imagination from childhood to adulthood is contested amongst psychologists but there are existing theories. The lack of definition which Machin and Davies describe reflects my personal experience of contemporary perspectives of imagination, as a magical quality which, when positively viewed, is the ‘key’ to good learning and happiness. This is very rarely unpacked. Perhaps this is because as teachers and artists we know
93
almost intuitively that this is the case, however; the lack of definition or full expansion of the process leaves imagination within education vulnerable and subject to neglect.
If we cannot say what it is, then how can we consider how to support it? In the current climate of accountability, if we cannot say what it is and how it works, how can we measure it, or, how can we argue that it should not be measured?