Miguel Corella

In this chapter I explore the impact of the educational turn in the arts—first proposed by Irit Rogoff in her 2008 article “Turning”—and that of its counterpart, the artistic turn in education. Inspired by the linguistic turn of 1970s philosophy, Rogoff called for a Kantian shift in perspective that invited us to see art as education and vice versa, with the aim of integrating both views into a new conceptual horizon. This approach sparked a significant debate on the relationship between art, education and democratic politics, which this chapter reviews in detail. I will analyse the conceptual foundations of Rogoff and authors such as Claire Bishop, setting their philosophical influences (Foucault, Deleuze and Lacan) against the contributions of Jacques Rancière, who stressed the political and educational potential of aesthetic autonomy. I also trace the affinities between Rogoff and Bishop’s educational turn and other theoretical approaches to the link between aesthetics and politics, such as the contributions of Rosalind Deutsche, Chantal Mouffe and Oliver Marchart in relation to the concept of agonism. Drawing on this analysis, this chapter draws up a comprehensive map that probes more deeply into the connections between art, education and politics, offering a critical reflection on their theoretical and practical implications.

Art has been connected to a wide panoply of processes that, explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, involve educational qualities. However, the sheer number of interpretations this connection has inspired across philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, and the many subfields of education—including art education—is too vast to be covered in a single book. That is why, in preparing Educational Implications of Artistic Practice: Permeating Practices and Discourses, we chose to privilege the idea that art itself is an educational process. From this starting point, we then derived theoretical and practical implications that allowed us, ultimately, to rethink education more broadly. More concretely, we found the first leitmotif for this volume in the pedagogical turn that took place in art-related fields during the turn of the twenty-first century. Alternatively, and in accordance with Irit Rogoff’s original move, we also focused on the artistic turn that we believe has continued to unfold within the field of education, through which certain strands of educational research, institutions, and practices have veered toward art to define their ends. The chapters in the book offer evidence of the mutual affectation of artistic and educational practices and discourses across the fields of art and education in some of its representative institutions in society.

This collection draws on a range of frameworks from the fields of aesthetics, philosophy, and political theory to discuss how art has been characterized across the humanities. It derives consequences for educational institutions, pedagogy, and teachers of specific curricular areas. The book addresses issues such as how art has been defined, what its affordances are for educators, whether artistic practice is an intrinsically educational process, whether museums and galleries are educational institutions and, conversely, whether schools may also qualify as artistic laboratories. Through these and more questions, the book approaches the education-art nexus from both sides of the relationship with chapters that either look at education through art, or at art through education. The contributors belong to education, aesthetic, and arts university departments and report on a variety of interdisciplinary research projects. As a result, the volume provides both theoretical insights into the distinct means and purposes of art, and lively illustrations of the affordances that art holds for educators in different institutions and contexts. Although rooted for the most part in the Spanish-speaking world, the volume embraces a glocal perspective whereby contemporary tendencies and discussions are embodied and transmitted through rich and textured qualitative case studies.

El artículo estudia, por una parte, la génesis del concepto de lo barroco en Eugenio D’Ors en relación con sus referentes intelectuales inmediatos. Desde la perspectiva europea se analiza el influjo de la oposición establecida por Worringer (1908) entre Abstraktion y Einfühlung, así como la impronta del concepto de romanticismo político de Carl Schmitt (1919). Por otra parte, se analiza la historia del concepto de lo barroco en dos momentos. De un lado en el denominado neobarroco americano, impulsado por autores como Lezama Lima, Alejo Carpentier y Severo Sarduy. En este ámbito se muestra el modo en que el concepto sirvió para dar cuenta de lo que desde las posiciones colonialistas de D’Ors representaba la crisis de la cultura clásica europea y que, desde la perspectiva americana, definía en sentido positivo la identidad cultural hispanoamericana. Para estudiar una segunda deriva del concepto, se examinan las similitudes y diferencias entre el sentido que la categoría tiene en D’Ors y su reinterpretación en el pensamiento posmoderno de la década de los ochenta, de la mano de Calabrese, Jenks y Deleuze. Finalmente, se recurre a metáforas musicales para esclarecer las diferencias entre el barroco histórico de los siglos XVII y XVIII y el barroco posmoderno.