Abstract
In 1959, when C. Wright Mills made the statement quoted above, the dominant pathway to insight about human behavior was psychological. This situation appears to have been as true in art education as in any other discipline. Our primary conception about what art could do for people was creativity and our pedagogy for attaining this bounty was studio production, uninterrupted by other activities. Writers such as MIlls provided us with another dimension for the study of human behavior, and specifically, behavior in art. It is not that the psychological approach was then or is now incorrect, but rather that it is incomplete. It might be said that art education has not even yet completely absorbed the implications of this alternative outlook.
Rights
© The Author