The Arts and the Representation of Data

• In Event: 61.067 - Taking Elliot Eisner's Scholarship Forward

Abstract

The objective of this presentation is to examine the continuing influence of Elliot Eisner’s scholarship on a subset of the National Art Education Association’s (NAEA) Research Commission. Eisner’s advocacy for the arts will be woven together with NAEA’s commitment to data visualization as carried on by The Data Visualization Working Group (DVWG). The DVWG attempts to communicate demographic information visually and to find other applications of data visualization. DVWG believes: “data visualization can advance the understanding, meaning, and relevance of research results, all of which are necessary for building a culture of research and for demonstrating the value of art education to stakeholders” (Grodoski, 2013). Thus, connecting the importance of forms of representation (Eisner, 1982; Eisner, 1997; Eisner. 1998; Barone & Eisner, 2012) in the arts to the visualization of research, this presentation explores the usefulness of data visualization in research and the implications Eisner’s work has for DVWG and the future of research in the field of Art Education.
Specifically focusing on negotiating the constraints and affordances of each form of representation (Eisner, 1997; Eisner, 1998; Eisner, 2002; Barone & Eisner, 2012), communicating the cognitive underpinnings of research through qualitative reasoning (Eisner, 2002; Siegesmund, 2004), and using the visual to evoke and promote human understanding (Barone & Eisner, 2012) in Eisner’s work, this presentation articulates the need for, and complexity of, data visualization in research. Through the analysis of Eisner’s scholarship, questions that may point DVWG in future directions are explored. For example,
1. How does data visualization work as a part of our cognitive understanding of data as well as represent data?
2. How does the transmediation process in data visualization, from words to images, conflict with Eisner’s belief that “Humans have invented forms within a spectrum of sensory modalities in order to ‘say’ in that form what cannot be said in others” (Barone & Eisner, 2012, p. 1)?
3. How does the act of making data visible emphasize or negate the complexity of research and research findings?
4. Does data visualization provide opportunities to linger while experiencing the aesthetic (Eisner, 2002, p. xiii), or does it promote the efficiency desired in American Education?
5. What is the role of technology in data visualization? Does technology dismiss or discount the importance of the somatic knowledge (Eisner, 2002; Siegesmund, 2004)?
6. How can Eisner’s influences (Arnheim, 1969; Dewey, 1934; Goodman, 1978; Greene, 1995 etc…) advocate for, and complicate the vision of DVWG?
Understanding that art transforms consciousness, refines the senses, enlarges the imagination, and illuminates relationships (Eisner, 2002), as data visualization has the ability to do, how can Eisner’s legacy be connected to the stated ideals of DVWG and help the group move forward? Finally, how can Eisner’s legacy in Art Education continue to affect future research in the field?
References
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Barone, T. & Eisner, E. (2010). Arts based research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: The Berkley Publishing Group.

Author

• Libba Willcox, Indiana University - Bloomington