Encounters: A Transactional Model of Art Education Curriculum

Rosenblatt:The Transactional Theory of Literary Experience

For more than fifty years Louise Rosenblatt’s (1938, 1978) transactional theory of the literary work has been a driving force behind theory and practice in literature education.  Her theory has been applied in the language arts in a variety of forms, mainly under the guise of reader response instruction.

          Rosenblatt’s notion of transaction is of integral importance.  The concept of transaction brings both the reader and the text under the spotlight simultaneously, thus highlighting the integral role of both in the act of reading.  Rosenblatt’s theory focuses upon response to literature, however in the discussion that follows we find that her theory is equally applicable to encounters with visual, environmental, or performing works of art.

          Rosenblatt (1982) suggests that students become involved in aesthetic transactions when they not only focus upon “the abstract concepts that the words [symbols/images] point to, but also what those objects or referents stir up of personal feelings, ideas and attitudes” (p. 269).  Wiseman and Many (1992) describe aesthetic transactions as occurring “when the reader’s attention is on the lived through experience . . . and the thoughts, feelings, images and associations that are evoked” as an artwork is encountered (p. 66).  Probst (1990) outlines the reader’s active role further, describing reading as “a process of creating rather than simply receiving.  It is active, not passive. It requires readers to attend not only to what is on the pages, but also to what they have brought with them to the page” (p. 29).

          Some Scholars in the field of art education have explored engagement with artworks from a transactional standpoint.  For example, Reimer (1992) discusses the active role of the viewer in a manner similar to Rosenblatt’s description of the reader.  He suggests “the active contribution of the percipient is . . . an essential factor in aesthetic engagements” (Reimer, 1992, p. 31).  McAdoo (1993) also highlights the role of the percipient in aesthetic response, suggesting that “at the heart of aesthetic creativity and appreciation lies an irreducible personal and spontaneous element” (p. 43).  He outlines further the integral role the percipient plays in breathing life into artworks, stating that the  “most fundamental of all features about any work of art is that it is nothing without an audience to appreciate it” (p. 44).  James Ackerman (1966) also expounds a transactional view of aesthetics.  It is his premise that “what a work of art communicates can be described only in terms of an interaction between an object and a subject; it communicates nothing at all unless someone is there to look at.  In other words, there are no aesthetic objects, only physical objects, which, when observed, are capable of stimulating an aesthetic event” (p. 391).  Novitz (1992) suggests that: 

            Reimer (1992) uses the term ‘percipient’ to describe the viewer/listener/reader and the act of perception that they are involved in encounters with art works. This is an appropriate term to describe one who is aesthetically engaged.  It embraces all of the senses that may be brought into play during aesthetic engagement.  Percipients not only evoke visual images, they may also be aware of smells, sounds, tastes and feelings associated with their evocation.  The term percipient is used to describe students in this curriculum.  This is based upon the assumption that they when they are involved in authentic encounters with works of art will be engaged in acts of perception.

            Transactional theory rests on the notion that a dynamic balance of interconnections is developed between percipient and artwork.  The next section explores a similar notion in a more global setting.

Capra: A Systems View of Life

Home