Contemporary music education practices are guided by the formation, examination, and implementation of various philosophies. As Reimer (1989) states, music education philosophy helps to form insight for “more pertinent objectives for teaching and learning” (p. 25). From developing state standards to selecting lesson repertoire, philosophy is involved in decision making at all levels of music education. Given this, it is in the best interest of music educators to examine the philosophies that inform our best practices.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the philosophy of music education as aesthetic education. Included in this examination are the goals, critiques, and applications of aesthetic education as forwarded by Bennett Reimer and others.

Background

It was not until the 1950’s that music education as aesthetic education became more explicit with the publication of two books: Basic Concepts in Music Education (Colwell, 1958) and Foundation and Principles of Music Education (Leonhard & House, 1958). As Reimer (1989) states, “their significance in history stems from their premise that music educators can better understand the values of their subject if they seek guidance from aesthetics, the branch of philosophy that is especially devoted to studying the values of the art” (p. 25).

Before this time, musical training was the sole focus of music education. Guided by the premise that music education lacked the “attention to matters of mass aesthetic literacy and sensitivity to music”, Reimer and others called for a change to the status quo (Schwardon, 1973 p. 38). As Reimer (1980) suggests himself, there was a need for a “dimension of subjectivity and creativity to what had become a coldly intellectual curriculum” (p. 31) Moreover, the phonograph, while introduced nearly a century earlier, was only beginning to be understood for all of it artistic and educational implications (Reimer, 1989). The phonograph allowed students to experience music without having to perform. These implications further justified and enabled a shift from music education as musical training to music education as aesthetic education.

Given these developments, music education as aesthetic education set out to form, examine, and implement a new philosophy. As Colwell (2015) suggests, Reimer called for a “content base for a curriculum in music that is consistent with the nature of music as understood by those who use and know the subject best, basically, the aesthetic philosophy of absolute expressionism” (p. 121). From here, Reimer and others would create goals to which classroom practices could be formed.

 Primary Goals

The goals of music education as aesthetic education have been examined and implemented since its formation in the 1950’s. From curriculum to advocacy, the functions of these goals are as expansive as they are extensive. The purpose here is to focus solely on the description and goals of aesthetic education with aims to apply them to the classroom.

Aesthetic education, as Reimer describes, is the “development of sensitivity to the aesthetic quality of things” (1972, p. 29). Reimer is explicit in his choice of words, and his justification provides further insight to the goals of aesthetic education as he sees them.

Beginning with ‘things’, Reimer suggests it is necessary to include the word to emphasize that the ‘aesthetic realm’ is one that is grounded in real ‘objects’ or ‘occurrences’. These objects are made up of non-aesthetic and aesthetic qualities. Those that are aesthetic are “perceptible attributes that, in and of themselves, give a sense of being expressive” (p. 29).

Subsequently, Reimer proposes that ‘aesthetic qualities’, as demonstrated through melody, rhythm, harmony, tone color, and form, are those that are “so rich with import, so effective in presenting conditions, that [they] can arouse a sense of significance [and] constitute a treasure of materials that can help people feel more deeply” (p. 30). Non-aesthetic qualities may also hold a role as long as the music does not “abandon its status as art” (p. 30).

‘Sensitivity’ refers to the ability to discern (by those with ‘normal senses’) the ‘conditions’ of aesthetic qualities such as relationships and tensions, balances and imbalances, and expectations and deviations. Further, Reimer suggests that aesthetic sensitivity is demonstrated through perceptive response and responsive perspective behaviors; “the person must perceive the expressive conditions being present…[and] he must respond to what he perceives” (p. 30).

‘Develop’ refers to the role of the educator as they cultivate a student’s ability to “perceive and respond to the aesthetic qualities of things” (p. 30). From this, the fundamental task of music education is to foster the behaviors necessary for developing sensitivity to the aesthetic quality of music. These tasks or behaviors, as Reimer puts forth, involve quality interactions with music through the production, conceptualization, analysis, and evaluation of music.

Speaking directly to the goals of aesthetic education, the Education for Aesthetic Awareness Project (E.A.A.) provides an example of how the creation and implementation of aesthetic education can be carried out in practice. Reimer (1980) lists the guiding principals from the E.A.A.’s curriculum as outlined in the table below:

Table 1     E.A.A. Project: Guiding Principals for Aesthetic Education
(1) Many styles included	(2) Focus on qualities that makes it artistic
(3) Non-aesthetic are contributory and not emphasized	(4) Goal of instructions: Develop Aesthetic “Awareness” or “Literacy” or “Sensitivity”
(5) Non-aesthetic outcomes are bonus not program goals- not perceived as motive to better learning in other subjects	(6) Immediate aesthetic enjoyment
(7) No attempt to make students “like” or “love”. Will not legislate taste. Make choices of own.

To address the fourth principal more explicitly, the E.A.A. defines aesthetic awareness as the “ability to perceive artistic quantities keenly and respond to them deeply” (p. 40). Given this, the role of instruction is “aimed toward the improvement of artistic perception, in contexts that provide for and encourage deeper personal reaction” (p. 40). Perception, response, and reaction are critical components to fostering aesthetic understanding and growth within students.

Finally, these guiding principals provide a basis for developing a comprehensive aesthetic curriculum and are intended to reach students of all levels. As the E.A.A. project suggests, the scope of aesthetic education is all encompassing and provides “the widest possible opportunities for special involvements to satisfy the differing interests and talents of each of the children” (p. 41).

Critiques      

Aesthetic philosophy in music education, as understood today, was explicitly established with the publication of Reimer’s first edition of A Philosophy for Music Education (1970). The initial response to this book was not one that Reimer had intended. As Colwell (2015) suggests, “[Reimer] hoped that his work would trigger other philosophies and he publicly expressed that the title of the book was “A” philosophy, not “The” philosophy. The reaction did not happen” (p. 120). Additionally, Reimer (1989) expresses in his own concerns that “transforming it into one more methodology tamed it, reduced it, categorized it, and sent it out as another prescription” (p. 26). Despite these intentions (and perhaps a testament to Reimer’s own philosophical acumen), A Philosophy for Music Education subsequently became a critical centerpiece for debates and critiques. With this, the focus here will be to introduce two critical responses to Reimer’s initial philosophical perspective: (1) the feminist critique and (2) the praxial alternative.

First, Julia Eklund Koza (1994) provides an assessment of Reimer’s philosophy that, with critical social and historical frameworks, reveal trends of exclusion and oppression. Included in these frameworks is the post-structural feminist viewpoint in which Koza argues “aesthetic education’s adherence to traditional discourses and its evasion of history, politics, and context are among the philosophy’s major shortcomings” (p. 75). Within this Koza presents four ‘tendencies’ of Reimer’s philosophy:

Table 2

Post-Structural Feminist Critique

(1) A tendency not only to evade discussions of culture, politics, and context but also to represent such “neutrality” as good

(2) A tendency to seek and identify transcendent universals, whether in humanity, art, or education, and to attribute these supposed universals to a shared, essential nature.

(3) A tendency to construct classist and sexist inside/outside dichotomies that represent the outside as bad, or at the very least, as less important.

(4) A tendency to value rationality, objectivity, and the mind more than emotions, subjectivity, and the body, this tendency being especially evident in discussions of what constitutes musical understanding, and other marginalized claims.

The critiques proposed by Koza require us to rethink the role of aesthetic music education in the classroom. While Koza suggests that aesthetic music education is an “interesting historical artifact…with good points”, she warns against it as “inextricably bound to the dominant masculinity discourses of that time” (p. 89). Notably problematic from ‘that time’ is the “tendency to seek and identify transcendent universals, whether in humanity, art, or education, and to attribute these supposed universals to a shared, essential nature” (p. 78). Koza suggests that Reimer’s notions of universal truths are problematic in that they ignore ‘truths’ that may be culturally specific, multiple, or overlapping. More pointedly, Koza suggests that universal truths are harmful to women, and men of color; “the individuals or groups in the position to decide what is “universal” yield considerable power…Discourses of universality and transcendence, often have had devastating material effects and consequences, especially for women and for men of color.” (p. 78)

Further, Koza suggests that ‘art for arts sake’, an idea that is often associated with aesthetic education, is one that is built from bourgeois concepts of functionality and social class status; putting form and manner (aesthetics) before substance and function (cultural). In the aim to decolonize music education and make it more equitable for all, universalities and bourgeois concepts of function such as these must be deconstructed and replaced with the “complex relationships between philosophy, culture, and politics” (pg. 89). Koza summarizes that “by stepping into the wilderness, we may begin a journey toward more inclusive and equitable understandings of humanity, education, and the arts” (pg. 90).

Second, in a critique of music education as aesthetic education, Alperson (2010) suggests an alternative philosophy that expands upon Elliot’s foundation for praxial music education in what he terms ‘Robust Praxialism’. One of Alperson’s main contentions with aesthetic education is the lessening of musical functions that reside outside aesthetics. In his own words, Alperson believes that “music is itself best understood as an amalgam of overlapping forms of human activates” (p. 173).

Similar to Koza, Alperson suggests that the ‘refined’ bourgeois view of arts beginning in the 18th century is a problematic construct of its time. Before this belief or invention, art was understood as a skill, technique, or craft similar to that of ceramics or weaving beginning in the period of the Ancient Greeks. Given this, Alperson submits that both ideas can hold truth; “there is nothing to preclude the notion that useful productions of craft be beautiful…but the production of beauty can also be regarded as but one function among many (p.174). Further, Alperson contends that ignoring the central feature of musical production, gratification, seriously diminishes the praxial position (p. 185)

A philosophy for music education that includes both praxial and aesthetic principles is one that is more inclusive to both the participant and observer. The ‘sensuous, structural, expressive, and referential’ qualities of music combined with the ‘personal, cultural, and social’ qualities provide wholesome means towards musical understanding.

Application

As previously stated, the aim of aesthetic education is the “development of sensitivity to the aesthetic quality of things” (Reimer, 1972, p. 29). The ‘how’ and ‘why’ of this aim is where we form our own classroom practices. Using these interrogatives, I will reflect upon my own experiences while drawing upon the ideas of Reimer, Schwardon, Goolsby, and Hickey for best practices.

Perhaps the first thing I consider when writing a unit or lesson is ‘why’. Why are we composing a song? Why are we learning guitar chords? Why are we listening to 80’s pop? If I do not ask these questions, my students certainly will. Answers to these questions generally lead to the interests and needs of my students. As it is, my student’s interests are wide and their needs are specific, however, common among these is their need for social/emotional support, as communicated through their desire to express themselves. Developing the tools in which students can express and understand themselves is often the underlying ‘why’ in many cases. Aesthetically speaking, this means developing their perception and sensitivity to the ‘quality of things’. As Schwardon (1972) suggests, “if children were guided at various levels of, in the works of masters, and in world music, their perception of music and their responses to it would be enhanced. In education of this nature, children would not only learn to feel, but also come to understand aesthetically why and what it is they feel” (p. 89).

With the ‘why’ established, the next move is to develop a learning space that allows students to cultivate and refine their aesthetic sensitivities. As Reimer (1972) suggests, this space should include “rich opportunities to perceive and respond to a wide variety of compelling aesthetic objects and events” (p. 30). Within my general music classrooms, music composition provides these ‘rich opportunities’ for students. While listening and performance opportunities are incorporated, music composition is the primary focus for developing student understandings of musical and non-musical (i.e. social emotional) concepts. As Reimer (1972) says in his own words, “one of the most effective ways to sharpen aesthetic perception is through the production of art” (p. 31).

Maud Hickey’s book Outside the Lines (2012) has largely guided musical composition activities within my class. Alongside a litany of researched based lesson plans, Hickey presents comprehensive ideas on structuring, implementing, and evaluating music composition. Notable among these ideas is Hickey’s discussion on the elements of music. Referencing Cutietta (1993), Hickey (2012) suggests to “think about describing musical elements in the way music is perceived rather than the way they have typically been using them” (p.106). This can be demonstrated by replacing terms such as dynamics, melody, and rhythm with terms such as motion, energy, flow, and fabric. This is an opportunity to break a bearer for many students to understand and connect to music. Similar to the way graphic notation can replace traditional notation, describing elements as they are heard is removing obstacles to achieve a same if not deeper result. Further, in the mindset of avoiding ‘transcendent universals’ as suggested by Koza, redefining terms that are rooted in western musical traditions can perhaps give way to a more equitable and culturally specific experience of music. As a extension to this, Hickey’s lesson in which students are given a melody and must create rules to developing a melody, student are taking ownership of how they uniquely perceive music and are not subjected to rules that are often created by those in power.

Finally, Schwardon (1972) suggests that while the experience of music is complex it is not a “matter of magic, mystery, or alchemy” (p. 39). With that, the objectives and evaluations for the development for student aesthetic sensitivity is one that is measurable. Goolsby (1984) presents five general objectives in which aesthetic education can be measured:

Table 3

Aesthetic Education Objectives

(1) perceiving and describing the components of an auditory aesthetic object

(2) perceiving and describing the relations among the complexes of auditory aesthetic object    (regional qualities)

(3) perceiving and describing the organization of the complexes of an auditory aesthetic object

(4) interpreting vocal, program, or functional music

(5) perceiving the human regional qualities in an auditory aesthetic object

It should be noted that placing value on music using aesthetic judgments is not among these objectives. Placing value within the scope of developing aesthetic sensitivity can obscure understanding and promote cultural hierarchies. In the end, these objectives further help to solidify aesthetic education in the classroom by placing aesthetic principals in desired student outcomes.

Conclusion

Music education as aesthetic education presents a unique perspective for developing student’s musical understanding. While aesthetic perspectives may present problematic positions, there is room for educators to implement the goals as they see fit. Reimer (1989), comes to a general understanding of aesthetic education in perhaps a way that can be widely agreed upon:

They understand it’s history, its techniques, its many styles, and its major practitioners; they know where to go to her good examples of it, how to make discerning judgments about it, and how to respond to it appropriately and sensitively in its many manifestations. Such people can be considered musically literate in the fullest sense of that term: educated, perceptive, knowledgeable, sophisticated, and discerning about music (p. 28)

It is with this perspective that we aim to become more impactful and influential in our students life long journey with music.

References

Alperson, P. (2010). Robust Praxialism and the Anti-Aesthetic Turn. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 18(2), 171. doi:10.2979/pme.2010.18.2.171

Colwell, R. (2015). A Challenge from Bennett Reimer. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 23(2), 117. doi:10.2979/philmusieducrevi.23.2.117

Goolsby, T. W. (1984). Music Education as Aesthetic Education: Concepts and Skills for the Appreciation of Music. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 18(4), 15. doi:10.2307/3332624

Koza, J. (1994). Aesthetic Music Education Revisited: Discourses of Exclusion and Oppression. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 2(2), 75-91.

Reimer, B. (1972). Putting Aesthetic Education to Work. Music Educators Journal, 59(1), 28-33. doi:10.2307/3394105

Reimer, B. (1980). Building an aesthetic education curriculum: A model and its application. The High School Journal, 64(2), 36 – 49. doi:http://www.jstor.com/stable/40365225

Reimer, B. (1989). Music Education and Aesthetic Education: Past and Present. Music Educators Journal, 75(6), 22-28. doi:10.2307/3398124

Schwadron, A. (1973). Are We Ready for Aesthetic Education? Music Educators Journal, 60(2), 37-89. doi:10.2307/3394353