A praxial philosophy of music education highlights the action of music, and, “that music ought to be understood in relation to the meanings and values evidenced in actual music making and music listening in specific cultural contexts.” (1) Elliot further explains that, “Without some form of intentional human activity, there can be neither musical sounds nor works of musical sound. In short, what music is, at root, is a human activity.” (2)Therefore, when looking at music education philosophy from a praxialist thought, one understands the musical experience as, “explained completely in terms of cognitive challenges.” (3)
There are notable positive outcomes for embracing a praxial philosophy of music education - mainly the result of the integration of multi-dimensional musical aspects. Elliott suggests the high cognitive use of “performance-interpretation, the standards of traditions of practice, expression, musical representation, and cultural ideaological information,” (4) for music learning. Based on the understanding of music as a performance-experience, praxialism suggests promotion of high quality musicianship since the music student is involved in the various action-guided aspects. Highlighting action-based objectives, Elliott states that, “By itself, formal musical knowledge is inert and unmusical. It must be converted into procedural knowing-in-action to achieve its potential.” (5)
A second notable positive aspect of the praxial approach to music education is that it includes more inclusion of, “social, historical and cultural conditions and forces in which practices of music production arise and have meaning.” (6) It should be noted, that although, aesthetic music education did not originally give much attention to the social and cultural condition of music, revised understanding of aesthetic music education currently uphold the importance of the social and cultural conditions of music making.
Many challenges for Elliott’s praxial philosophy suggest that the core experience of praxialism is purely challenge at the cognitive level. Such challengers of praxial thought include Constantijn Koopman who stated, “There is no reason to believe that the enjoyment one derives from musical activities is exclusively a function of the magnitude of the cognitive challenge they involve.” (7) Praxial thought does not permit an explanation for those music experiences that do not provide high challenge opportunities. Taken further, this thought can lead to the assumption that if there is lack of challenge in performance, and therefore lack of true musical experience, one can also assume that the actual performance itself would be void of musical experience. This type of thinking can invalidate the performance of common, traditional works that perhaps do not require demanding facility solely on cognition of the performer and exclude the listener as well as the social traditions that the music may hold for society.
Therefore, it can be suggested that pure praxialism does not constitute a successful music experience. It explains the concepts of knowing about, and why a concept exists, however, it generally cannot give precise explanation on the reasoning for existing feelings brought forth from the music experience itself.
-----
1. David J. Elliot, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 14.
2. Ibid., 39.
3. Constantijn Koopman, “Music Education: Aesthetic or "Praxial"?” Journal of Aesthetic Education 32:3 (1998): 9.
4. Ibid., 11.
5. David J. Elliot, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 61.
6. Philip Alperson “What Should One Expect from a Philosophy of Music Education?” Journal of Aesthetic Education 25: 3, (1991): 236.
7. Constantijn Koopman, “Music Education: Aesthetic or "Praxial"?” Journal of Aesthetic Education 32:3 (1998): 8.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment