Art instruction for lay students may be presented in two ways:
1. By the study of theory supplemented by the experimental application of theory to practice, as by drawing, design, etc.
2. By the study of theory supplemented by an application of theory to the analysis and estimation of works of art as they are presented in a systematic study of the history of art.
Consider now the relation of practice and history to theory:
First as to practice: Art instructors are divided into three camps on the question of giving to the lay student instruction in practice: (1) Those who believe that not only is practice unnecessary in the study of theory, but actually harmful; (2) those who believe that practice will aid in a study of the theory of art; (3) Those who believe that practice is indispensable and who would, therefore, require that all students supplement their study of the theory of art by practice. As may be surmised, by far the largest number of advocates is found in the middle division.
One form of practice is Representation. In this form the student begins by drawing in freehand very simple objects either in outline or mass, and proceeds through more advanced exercises in drawing from still life, to drawing and painting of landscape and the human figure. With the addition of supplementary studies, such as anatomy, perspective, modeling, composition, craft work, theory, history, etc., this would be, broadly speaking, the method followed in schools of art, where courses, occupying from two to four or five years, are given, intended primarily for those who expect to make some sort of creative art their vocation.
It is this kind of work which opponents to practice for the lay student have in mind. They claim that only by long and severe training can he produce such works as will give satisfaction to him or to others who examine his handiwork. They contend that the understanding of works of art is not dependent upon ability to produce a poor example. They offer many amusing analogies as arguments against practice courses for lay students. They maintain that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, rather than in the making; that to enjoy music one need not practice five-finger exercises; that other creatures than domestic fowls are capable of judging of the quality of eggs; that to appreciate the beauty of a tapestry it is not necessary to examine the reverse side. It will perhaps be sufficient, for the present, to point out that in so far as such alleged analogies can be submitted for arguments, they are equally applicable to laboratory courses in any subject which is studied with a non-professional or non-vocational purpose.
It is true, however, that such a course as that outlined above demands a large amount of time, compared with the results attained; and while successful courses in Representation are offered in certain colleges, the great mass of college students, who cannot hope to acquire a high degree of skill, would hesitate to devote a large part of their training to technical work, even if college faculties were willing to grant considerable proportions of credit for it toward the bachelor of arts degree.
Relative value of freehand drawing and design
It will be understood by the reader that the value of elementary freehand drawing as a means of discipline or as an aid to the technical student is not under discussion. The value of drawing as a fundamental language for such purposes is universally admitted. The questions are these: Can some form of practice in art be used to aid in the understanding of the principles of art? Is representative drawing the only form of practice available for the lay student who undertakes the study of art? Fortunately, the advocates of practice can offer an alternative; namely Design. Mr. Arthur Dow distinguishes between the Drawing method (Representation) and the Design method by calling the former Analytical and the latter Synthetical. In an article on "Archaism in Art Teaching"[[107]] he says: "I wish to show that the traditional 'drawing method' of teaching art is too weak to meet the new art criticism and new demands, or to connect with vocational and industrial education in an effective way; but that the 'Design method' is broad and strong enough to do all of these things."