CUNLIFFE PAPER 2 Wittgom''s_therapeutic_projects_double_spaced_6_sep__

WITTGENSTEIN’S AND GOMBRICH’S THERAPEUTIC PROJECTS AND ART EDUCATION Leslie Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter, where he runs the PGCE art course His publications have appeared in Innovations in Education and Teaching International, the International Journal of Art and Design Education, The International Encyclopedia of Communication, the Oxford Review of Education, the Journal of Aesthetic Education, the Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, the Journal of Empirical Aesthetics, and the International Journal of Education through Art New articles have been accepted for the Journal of Curriculum Studies and the Journal of Aesthetic Education He has authored several chapters and exhibited at many venues including the Edinburgh Festival, Royal Academy of Art, and the Royal Exchange In 2009 he gave a keynote address at the M U S E conference on assessment and creativity in higher art education in Savannah, USA Contact address: Senior Lecturer, Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK L.Cunliffe@exeter.ac.uk Submitted to the British Journal of Philosophy of Education Abstract This article explores Ludwig Wittgenstein’s and Sir Ernst Gombrich’s therapeutic turn of thinking in relationship to art education The first section gives an overview of the therapeutic approach that hinges Wittgenstein’s and Gombrich’s work The second section explores some misconceptions as common themes that were the target of their therapeutic projects The final part extends the therapeutic insights to dissolve some current misunderstandings in art education, which could also open up the possibility of forming an alternative understanding WITTGENSTEIN’S AND GOMBRICH’S THERAPEUTIC PROJECTS AND ART EDUCATION Introduction Ludwig Wittgenstein and Sir Ernst Gombrich were arguably the most important twentieth century thinkers in their respective fields of philosophy and art This article explores their thinking in relationship to art education The first section gives an overview of the therapeutic approach that hinged Wittgenstein’s and Gombrich’s work The second section analyses some common themes that make up their therapeutic projects, which is done by highlighting Wittgenstein’s and Gombrich’s systemic thinking, as both tended to see a single issue as connected up to its multi-dimensional background The final part extends their therapeutic insights to dissolve some misunderstandings in art education, which might also open up a new understanding Although the article is mainly concerned with fine art, the therapeutic endeavour applies equally to other areas of art education The reader needs to keep in mind that the focus of the article is on art education as opposed to practices of art that are not accountable to reason or needing educational justification For example, one rationale for an educational process is that it should develop and refine a variety of skillful knowledge for use in practice This article condenses such knowledge into two components: skills for making a variety of art, and skills and insight for articulating an understanding of art from different cultures and times The Therapeutic Approach Although Wittgenstein and Gombrich were born and raised in Vienna and ended up living and working in England, they never seem to have met Had this happened it is likely there would have been some disagreement given Gombrich shared Karl Popper’s negative view of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy Even so, their work is hinged by what, after Wittgenstein, can be described as a therapeutic turn in thinking as both had the tendency to deal with problems “like the treatment of an illness" (Wittgenstein, 2001, #255) This aim has a double aspect: the first is curative or negative, that is, it removes misunderstandings rather than produces an original understanding; the second is preventative and could be positive, as clearing up misunderstandings can create a potential space to establish a more perspicuous understanding: “The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by rearranging what we have always known” (Wittgenstein, 2001, #109) Wittgenstein and Gombrich had unusual practices For example, Wittgenstein’s later work does not advance new theories but is concerned with eliminating misconceptions that cause confusion Gombrich was not a typical art historian His range and depth of knowledge across a variety of disciplines gets marshaled for the much bigger enterprise of exposing inadequate theorizing about culture, and the way art is made and can be justifiably understood (Gombrich,1996a) In this respect Gombrich’s work manifested a parallel therapeutic purpose to that of Wittgenstein’s Wittgenstein’s and Gombrich’s motivation to engage in a therapeutic turn in thinking for philosophy and art can be linked to their formative years in Vienna where there was an ongoing interest in reconceptualising practices McGuinness’ (1998, p.39) description of the emergence of psychoanalysis as a “vision of how a problem could (though with great difficulty) be taken up by the roots and put into a quite new way of thinking” reflects this wider concern to rethink academic disciplines Wittgenstein and Gombrich engaged the new way of thinking to map a more satisfactory understanding of mind for their respective disciplines For both thinkers, the operation of mind involved what Wittgenstein (2001, #415) described as “the natural history of human beings” that he tellingly contrasted with natural science, as the latter proves incapable of doing justice to what it means to be human The natural history of human beings is played out when a person acquires a culture’s picture of the world and its related set of judgments, as: “Commanding, questioning, storytelling, chatting, are as much a part of our natural history as walking, eating, drinking, playing” (Wittgenstein, 2001, #25) Such an entrance into culture can easily become a form of entrancement: “A picture held us captive And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably” (Wittgenstein, 2001, #115) Wittgenstein thought philosophy was not just a tool to be deployed against philosophers who have beguiled people with false, captivating pictures but also one that can usefully aid the philosopher in everyone (Kenny, 1998), as described in this statement: “Work on philosophy, - like work in architecture in many respects – is really more work on oneself On one’s own conception On how one sees things (And what one expects of them.)”(Wittgenstein, 1998, p.24) To break out of captivity, a given picture and its related practices have to be surveyed from an alternative aspect and more distant perspective (Owen, 2003) This form of perspicuity can be illustrated by Wittgenstein’s and Gombrich’s therapeutic rejection of Freud’s belief in psychoanalysis as a science of the mind, while retaining his deeper insight that problems are best surveyed from an alternative point of view Freud surveyed individual illusions from the wider perspective of unconscious conflicts (Heaton, 2000) Wittgenstein and Gombrich surveyed the illusions that beguile people from the wider perspective of cultural practices, principally by using genealogy and perspicuity Wittgenstein (1981, #273) described the role of genealogy and perspicuity for surveying the illusions ingrained in cultural practices in this way: “The aim is a …… complete survey of everything that may produce unclarity And this survey must extend over a wide domain, for the roots of our ideas reach a long way.” Wittgenstein’s description overlaps with Gombrich’s (1993, p.161) approach to art: “My ambition is to explain To look at the development of art from a slightly greater distance To see what is going on there.” Wittgenstein (2001, # 464) aimed “to turn latent nonsense into patent nonsense” To achieve this aim, he adopted several methods, not just one: “There is not a philosophical method, though there are indeed methods, like different therapies.” (Wittgenstein, 2001, P1, #133) When Gombrich was asked about his method, he replied: “I just want common sense! This is my only method”(Gombrich, 1991a, p.139) Moser (2001) states: “Never did Gombrich formulate a theory of art or hermeneutic”, a remark echoed by Gombrich: "There is no "ism" connected to my name I have never pledged myself to one theory,… My ambitions were limited to not writing any nonsense" (Lepsky, 1991, p.9) Wittgenstein’s and Gombrich’s use of genealogy and perspicuity to survey practices is analogous to the way crime gets investigated Like detective work, gathering the evidence can be a slow process (Blair, 2006) Gombrich spent over fifty years working on the content that eventually got published as The Preference for the Primitive and Wittgenstein at least sixteen years writing Philosophical Investigations Both books aimed to establish a better picture of mind for art and philosophy Overlapping themes Wittgenstein’s and Gombrich’s therapeutic projects were aimed at dissolving what they felt to be deeply rooted misconceptions that emerged in modernity but which continue to inhabit people’s mental furniture and practices The misconceptions belong to two kinds The first is to represent thinking and creativity as an inner process; the second is feeding only one side of an argument The ramifications of these two ways of thinking will now be discussed as a series of fallacies i Inner processes Psychoanalysis Wittgenstein and Gombrich admired Freud’s persuasive, elegant style of writing and deep learning For example, Wittgenstein respected Freud for “having something to say” (Rhees, 1997, p 41) However, they had misgivings about the way Freud’s work was used to explain the operation of mind in their respective disciplines (Gombrich, 1984; Bouveresse, 1995) Wittgenstein’s evaluations of Freud’s achievement are dispersed in letters and notes students recorded from lectures and conversations (Barrett, 1997) In a letter to Malcolm (2001, pp.100-101) Wittgenstein described Freud’s thinking as “fishy” and “charming” while simultaneously referring to “Freud’s extraordinary scientific achievement”, a statement at odds with the previous judgment that implies Freud beguiled people into believing psychoanalysis to be a science of the mind This view is corroborated by a comment of Wittgenstein’s recorded by Rush Rhees (1997, p.44): “Freud is constantly claiming to be scientific But what he gives is speculation – something prior even to the formation of a hypothesis.” Wittgenstein thought Freud confounded reasons with causes, which took the form of creating powerful myths Gombrich (1973) drew on psychoanalysis in a light touch way to explore the projective role of the beholder’s share in art including its erotic content, and to discuss the way taste and desire can influence artistic style However, he not only remained sceptical about psychoanalytic accounts of creativity, which will be discussed later, but was also dubious about psychoanalytic interpretations of works of art, the value of which needed further testing by applying Popper’s (1972a) “the logic of situations” to demarcate plausible from speculative accounts (Gombrich,1978, pp.1-22) For example, it might not be possible to understand all Leonardo’s motives for making art, but the logic of situations can be used to constrain implausible interpretations Physiognomic interpretation and understanding Gombrich (1984) used the logic of situations to critique Freud's interpretation of Leonardo's painting The Virgin and Child with St Anne This rests on the connection which Freud makes between Leonardo’s illegitimate birth that resulted in having ‘two mothers’ and the composition in which Christ is supported by the Virgin who in turn sits on St Anne’s lap Gombrich’s alternative explanation for the composition draws on the persistence of representational conventions in genres of art In this case, the figure composition follows the conventions used for the genre for depicting St Anne, who is also the patron saint of Florence, the city that commissioned the work The logic of Leonardo’s situation makes Freud’s interpretation implausible In failing to understand the significance of the logic of situations for interpreting Leonardo’s work, Freud succumbed to what Gombrich (1973) described as the physiognomic fallacy, as summarised by Summers (1998, p 134): “The gist of these arguments is that the meanings we simply see in works of art, although not without their own value, are not historical, and therefore not explanatory In order to gain such understanding we must actually history.” Gombrich’s emphasis on the importance of understanding for art history is consistent with Wittgenstein’s view that ‘understanding a sign is not, in any way, interpreting it’ (Tully, 2003, p 36) To act otherwise, interpretation would involve ‘a rule determining the application of a rule’ (Wittgenstein, 2001, #84), with each new application needing further interpretations With Wittgenstein, understanding is the normative feature of participation in practices: “It is not interpretation which builds the bridge between the sign and what is signified // meant // Only practice does that.” (cited in Tully, 2003, p 38) To engage in such practices requires training in the appropriate cognitive stock, in which success would be shown by the ability to justifiably demonstrate and challenge a use of understanding (Patterson, 2006) In this respect, Freud’s interpretation of Leonardo’s painting lacks the appropriate cognitive stock 10 when they privilege contemporary art in the curriculum at the expense of other practices Such a move effectively excludes students from understanding most of the art that human beings have ever made as “an entirely different game is played out in different ages” (Wittgenstein,1997, p 8, #23) The ritualistic game of art of the last 30,000 years is not understood by playing the individualistic, critical, ironic and subversive game of contemporary art The practice of art as mastery of autographic craft skills aimed at enchantment will not be grasped by using advanced technology to show disenchantment Such art games and the related use of creative grammar are played out against very different cultural paradigms (Cunliffe, in press, a, b.) The fallacy of the single cause is all the more pernicious because it can be self-validating: things are seen to be progressing in the right direction when this coincides with a practice the person who offers the judgment promotes (Gombrich, 1999, pp 240-261) Wittgenstein (2001, p x) thought such an idea of progress to be a by product of scientism, a wrongheaded, ungrounded, religious-like commitment to technological and scientific progress that he described as “the darkness of this time” Gombrich (1991b, p 71) also thought “the faith that history will take art and us forward, that new things will be revealed by the spirit of history……as a blind alley” Dissolving levelling 36 Current art education reflects the erosion of meaningful differences that is found in the wider trend of global nihilism (Dreyfus, 2001, pp 73-89) Levelling down in art education has the effect of undermining aspiration for real attainment and a willingness to show any commitment to tackling demanding problems One way to therapeutically dissolve levelling down is to ponder the significance of research in expert performance known as the ten year rule (Weisberg, 1999) The ten year rule offers an alternative, organic and normative way to conceptualise the unconscious journey of art education incompetence of young as children, moving from the to the conscious incompetence of older children, on to the conscious competence of adolescents and young adults, which might lead to the unconscious competence found in expert performance (Chapman, 2008) The last two phases of this journey into competence are those associated with the ten year rule, and are in keeping with Dreyfus’ (2001, pp.27-49) phenomenological account of the intuitive competence found in expert performers that engages the highest stage of practical wisdom Dreyfus’ phenomenological account of unconscious competence reveals that experts show and know more than they can often state However, a distinction needs to be made between an expert’s inability to give a full, verbal account of their expertise and a novice’s inability to express any insight The former is due to complexity running ahead of words while the latter reflects any insight Art educators have not always understood the significance of this difference 37 Dreyfus’ phenomenological, staged account of competence is consistent with Gombrich’s views on the organon and Wittgenstein’s emphasis on an orthographic conscience and admiration for organically created cultural artefacts To support the last point, it is instructive to realise that Mozart and Picasso exemplify the ten year rule They only began to make original art of lasting worth after the ten year period had elapsed (Weisberg, 1999) Art educators could adopt the systemic features of the ten year rule as a normative way to structure their teaching, learning, and curriculum design This would have the added benefit of cutting back on the fallacy of the single cause and the related rhetoric about creativity being located in risk-taking or forms of expressive individualism, as anybody can impulsively take misguided risks and indulge in incompetent expression The ten year rule could also address the ‘post-it’ shortcomings in postmodern art education by making it possible for students to add some organizational depth to their repertoire, which would enable them to go beyond clichéd, superficial and mechanical forms of transgression Conclusion Wittgenstein’s and Gombrich’s complementary therapeutic projects were aimed at dissolving deeply rooted misconceptions about mind that emerged in modernity This article has extended facets of their thinking to 38 dissolve misconceptions that continue to inhabit art educators’ mental furniture and practices As described at the beginning of this article, the therapeutic turn in thinking has a double aspect The first is concerned with removing misunderstandings rather than producing an original understanding; the second is preventative and could be thought as positive By dissolving the misconceptions that have prevailed in art education, opportunities can be opened up for teachers and students of art to establish a different understanding, one that gives more significance to the role of the organon for scaffolding responsible, strategic and fulfilling ways of dealing with mind in art education To paraphrase Wittgenstein (1998, p.24), “Work on philosophy, - like work in [art education] in many respects – is really more work on oneself On one’s own conception On how one sees things (And what one expects of them.)” 39 References ADAMS, EILEEN (2002) Power Drawing, Journal of Art and Design Education, 21.3, pp 220-233 ADAMS, EILEEN & BAYNES, KEN (2006) Professional Practices (London, Drawing Power, Campaign for Drawing) ADDISON, NICHOLAS & BURGESS, LESLEY (2000) Contemporary Art in Schools: Why Bother? in: R HICKMAN (ed.) Art Education 11-18 (London, Continuum) BARBER, BENJAMIN (2007) Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole (London, Norton) BARRETT, CYRIL (ed.) (1997) [1966] Wittgenstein: Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (Berkley, University of California) BARTLEY, WILLIAM (1985) [1973] Wittgenstein (La Salle, Illinois, Open Court) BEARDSMORE, RICHARD (1997) Art and Family Resemblances, in: K.S JOHANNESSEN (ed.) Wittgenstein and Aesthetics: Proceedings from the Skjolden Symposium (Bergen, University of Bergen) BERGER, JOHN (1972) Ways of Seeing (Harmondsworth, Penguin) 40 BEST, DAVID (1992) The Rationality of Feeling (London, Falmer) BLAIR, DAVID (2006) Wittgenstein, Language and Information: ‘Back to the Rough Ground!’(Doordrecht, Springer Publishers) BOURDIEU, PIERRE (1979) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (London, Routledge) BOUVERESSE, JACQUES (1995) Wittgenstein Reads Freud, C COSMAN (trans.) (Princeton, Princeton University Press) BŰHLER, KARL (1990) [1934] Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language, D.F GOODWIN (trans.) (Philadelphia, John Betjamin’s Publishing Company) BURKE, EDMUND (1990) [1756] A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful, A PHILLIPS (ed.) (Oxford, Oxford University Press) CHAN, TAK WING & GOLDTHORPE, JOHN (2007) Social Status, Lifestyle and Cultural Consumption: A Comparative Study, End of Award Report (Swindon, ESRC) CHAPMAN, ALAN (2008) Conscious Competence Learning Model: Stages of Learning – Unconscious Incompetence to Unconscious Competence, Available online at: www.businessballs.com/consciouscompetencelearning model.html, accessed July 4, 2008 41 CHI, MICHELENE (2006) Two Approaches to the Study of Experts’ Characteristics, in: K A ERICCSON, N CHARNESS, P J FELTOVICH, & R R HOFFMAN (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook to Expert Performance (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) CLAXTON, GUY (2005) The Wayward Mind: An Intimate History of the Unconscious (London, Little Brown) CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, MIHALY & ROBINSON, RICK (1990) The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter (Los Angeles, Getty Museum & Getty Education Institute for the Arts) CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, MIHALY (1999) The Study of Creativity, in R J STERNBERG (ed.) Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) CUNLIFFE, LESLIE (1998) Gombrich on Art: A Social-Constructivist Interpretation of His Work and its Relevance to Education, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 32.4, pp 61-77 CUNLIFFE, LESLIE (2005a) Forms of Knowledge in Art Education and the Corollary of Authenticity in the Teaching and Assessment of Such Forms of Knowledge, International Journal of Art and Design Education, 24 2, pp 199-208 CUNLIFFE, LESLIE (2005b) The Problematic Relationship Between Knowing How and Knowing That in Secondary Art Education, Oxford Review of Education, 31.4, pp 547-556 42 CUNLIFFE, LESLIE (2006) A Wittgensteinian Approach to Discerning the Meaning of Works of Art in the Practice of Critical and Contextual Studies, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40.1, pp 65-78 CUNLIFFE, LESLIE (2008) Using Assessment to Nurture Knowledge-Rich Creativity, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45.3, pp.309-317 CUNLIFFE, LESLIE (in press, a) Art Education as the Acquisition and Use of Complex Creative Grammar, Journal of Aesthetic Education CUNLIFFE, LESLIE (in press, b) Representing and Practising Meaningful Differences in a Well-Structured but Complex Art Curriculum, Journal of Curriculum Studies DANTO, ARTHUR (1981) The Transformation of the Commonplace (Cambridge, Harvard University Press) DEANGELIS, WILLIAM (2007) Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Cultural Point of View (Aldershot, Ashgate) DICKIE, GEORGE (1993) [1969] Defining Art, in: J A FISHER (ed.) Reflecting on Art (London Mayfield Press) DIFFEY, TERRY (2004) Wittgenstein, Anti-essentialism and the Definition of Art, in: P B LEWIS (ed.) Wittgenstein, Aesthetics and Philosophy (Aldershot, Ashgate) 43 DREYFUS, HUBERT (2001) On the Internet (London, Routledge) DRURY, MAURICE (1984) Some Notes on Conversations with Wittgenstein, in: R RHEES (ed.) Recollections of Wittgenstein (Oxford, Oxford University Press) EDGERTON, SAMUEL (2009) The Mirror, the Window, and the Telescope: How Renaissance Linear Perspective Changed our Vision of the Universe (London: Cornell) FERNIE, HUGH (1995) Art History and its Methods (London, Phaidon) FINCH, HENRY (1995) Wittgenstein (Shaftesbury, Element Books) FREEDMAN, KERRY (2003) Teaching Visual Culture (New York, Teacher’s College, Columbia University) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1972a) [1960] Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (London, Phaidon Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1972b) The 'What' and the 'How': Perspective Representation and the Phenomenal World, in: R RUDNER & I SCHEFFLER (eds.) Logic and Art: Essays in Honor of Nelson Goodman (Indianapolis, Bobs Merill) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1978) [1972] Symbolic Images (London, Phaidon Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1973) [1963] Meditations on a Hobby Horse: And Other Essays on the Theory of Art (London, Phaidon Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1979a) Ideals and Idols (Oxford, Phaidon Press) 44 GOMBRICH, ERNST (1979b) The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art (Oxford, Phaidon Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1991a) Topics of Our Time: Twentieth Century Issues in Learning and in Art (London, Phaidon Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1991b) The Knowing Eye: Interview with Martin Gayford, Modern Painters, 5.4, pp.68-71 GOMBRICH, ERNST (1993) A Lifelong Interest: Conversations on Art and Science with Didier Eribon (London, Thames & Hudson) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1982) The Image and the Eye: Further Studies in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (Oxford, Phaidon Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1996a) The Essential Gombrich, in: R WOODFIELD (ed.) (London, Phaidon Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1996b) Four Theories of Artistic Expression, in: R WOODFIELD (ed.), Gombrich on Art and Psychology (Manchester, Manchester University Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (1999) Uses of Images: Studies in the Social Function of Art and Visual Communication (London, Phaidon Press) GOMBRICH, ERNST (2000) Preface to the 2000 edition of Art and Illusion, Available online at: www2.ntu.ac.uk/nstad/research/gombrich/Leonardo/gom2000.htm, accessed April 7, 2005 GOMBRICH, ERNST (2002) The Preference for the Primitive: Episodes In the History of Western Taste and Art (London, Phaidon Press) 45 HARLAND, JOHN, KAY KINDER, PIPPA LORD, ALISON STOTT, IAN SCHAGEN, JO HAYNES, LINDA CUSWORTH, RICHARD WHITE and RIANA PAOLA (2000) Arts Education in Secondary Schools: Effects and Effectiveness (Slough, NFER) HEATON, JOHN (2000) Wittgenstein and Psychoanalysis (Cambridge, Icon Books) INGLIS, DAVID (2005) Culture and Everyday Life (London, Routledge) LABRON, TIM (2009) Wittgenstein and Theology (London, T & T Clark) LEPSKY, KLAUS (1991) Ernst H Gombrich: Theorie und Methode (Wien, Böhlau) LEPSKY, KLAUS (1996) Art and Language: Ernst H Gombrich and Karl Bűhler’s Theory of Language, in: R WOODFIELD (ed.) Gombrich on Art and Psychology (Manchester, Manchester University Press) McGUINNESS, BRIAN (1998) [1982] Freud and Wittgenstein, in: B McGUINNESS (ed.) Wittgenstein and His Times (Bristol, Thoemmes Press) MALCOLM, NORMAN (2001)[1958] Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir (Oxford, Clarendon Press) MOSER, SYBILE-KARIN (2001) The Art of Making Pictures Talk In Memoriam to Sir Ernst H Gombrich, Kunsthistoriker Aktuell, 18.4 46 NYĺRI, JÁNOS (1998) [1982] Wittgenstein’s Later Work in Relation to Conservatism, in: B McGUINNESS (ed.) Wittgenstein and His Times (Bristol, Thoemmes Press) OWEN, DAVID (2003) Genealogy as Perspicuous Representation, in: C.J HEYES (ed.) The Grammar of Politics: Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy (New York, University of Cornell Press) PERKINS, DAVID (1988) Creativity and the Quest for a Mechanism, in: R.J STERNBERG & E.E SMITH (eds.) The Psychology of Thought (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) PATTERSON, DENNIS (2006) Wittgenstein on Understanding and Interpretation: Comments on the Work of Thomas Morawetz, Philosophical Investigations, 29.2, pp.129-139 PETERS, MICHAEL, BURBLES, NICHOLAS & SMEYERS, PAUL (2008) Showing and Doing: Wittgenstein as a Pedagogical Philosopher (London, Paradigm Publishers) POPPER, KARL (1972a) [1957] The Poverty of Historicism (London, Routledge) POPPER, KARL (1972b) [1959] The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London, Hutchinson) RICHTER, HANS (1965) Dada: Art and Anti-Art (London, Thames & Hudson) RHEES, RUSH (1997) [1966] Conversations on Freud, in: C BARRETT (ed.) Wittgenstein: Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (Berkley, University of California Press) 47 RHEES, RUSH (ed.) (1984) Recollections of Wittgenstein (Oxford, Oxford University Press) RUBIN, WILLIAM (ed.) (1984) ‘Primitivism’ in 20th Century Art: Affinity of the Tribal and the Modern (New York, Museum of Modern Art) SAWYER, KEITH (2006) Explaining Creativity: the Science of Human Innovation (Oxford, Oxford University Press) SCHONBAUMSFELD, GENIA (2007) A Confusion of the Spheres: Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein on Philosophy and Religion (Oxford, Oxford University Press) SCRUTON, ROGER (2007) Culture Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged (New York, Encounter Books) SHUSTERMAN, RICHARD (1995) Breaking Out of the White Cube, in: S GABLIK (ed.) Conversations before the End of Time (London, Thames & Hudson) STONE, MARTIN (2000) Wittgenstein on Deconstruction, in: A CRARY & R READ (eds.) The New Wittgenstein (London, Routledge) STURKEN, MARITA & CARTWRIGHT, L.ISA (2001) Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture (Oxford, Oxford University Press) SWIFT, JOHN, & STEERS, JOHN (1999) A Manifesto for Art in Schools, Journal of Art and Design Education, 18.1, pp 7-13 48 SUMMERS, DAVID (1998) ‘Form’, Nineteenth Century Metaphysics, and the Problem of Art Historical Description, in: D PREZIOSI (ed.) The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology (Oxford, Oxford University Press) TAYLOR, CHARLES (2007) A Secular Age (London, Belknap, Harvard University Press) TILGHMAN, BEN (1984) But is it Art? (Oxford, Blackwell) TILGHMAN, BEN (1996) A Conceptual Dimension to Art History, in: R WOODFIELD (ed.) Gombrich on Art and Psychology (Manchester, Manchester University Press) TOPPER, DAVID (1996) Perspectives on Perspective: Gombrich and His Critics, in: R WOODFIELD (ed.) Gombrich on Art and Psychology (Manchester, Manchester University Press) TULLY, JAMES (2003) Wittgenstein and political philosophy: understanding practices of critical reflection, in: C.J HEYES (ed.) The Grammar of Politics: Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy (New York, University of Cornell Press) VYGOTSKY, LEV (1971) The Psychology of Art (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press) WEISBERG, ROBERT (1999) Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge to Theories, in: R.J STERNBERG (ed.) Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) WEISBERG, ROBERT (2006) Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts (Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons) 49 WEITZ, MORRIS (1956) The Role of Theory in Aesthetics, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15.1, pp.27-35 WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (2001) [1953] Philosophical Investigations, G E M ANSCOMBE & R RHEES (eds.), G.E.M ANSCOMBE (trans.) (Oxford, Blackwell) WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1998) [1980] Culture and Value G.H VON WRIGHT & H NYMAN (eds.), revised edition of text A PISCHLER, P WINCH (trans.) (Oxford, Blackwell) WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1997) [1966] Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief, in: C Barrett (ed.) (Berkley, University of California Press) WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1980) Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Volume 1, G E M ANSCOMBE & R RHEES (eds.), G.E.M ANSCOMBE (trans.) (Oxford, Blackwell) WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1981) [1967] Zettel, G E M ANSCOMBE & G H VON WRIGHT (eds.), G.E.M ANSCOMBE (trans.) (Oxford, Blackwell) WOODFIELD, RICHARD (1996) Introduction: Mapping the Ground, in: R WOODFIELD (ed.) Gombrich on Art and Psychology (Manchester, Manchester University Press) 50 ... expects of them.)” 39 References ADAMS, EILEEN (20 02) Power Drawing, Journal of Art and Design Education, 21 .3, pp 22 0 -23 3 ADAMS, EILEEN & BAYNES, KEN (20 06) Professional Practices (London, Drawing... Education, 24 2, pp 199 -20 8 CUNLIFFE, LESLIE (20 05b) The Problematic Relationship Between Knowing How and Knowing That in Secondary Art Education, Oxford Review of Education, 31.4, pp 547-556 42 CUNLIFFE, ... ERNST (20 00) Preface to the 20 00 edition of Art and Illusion, Available online at: www2.ntu.ac.uk/nstad/research/gombrich/Leonardo/gom2000.htm, accessed April 7, 20 05 GOMBRICH, ERNST (20 02) The