The necessary formation of the teacher-pedagogue in the field of Art

The different teaching methodologies, added to the various contents worked by educational institutions or teachers, also modify and/or (dis)qualify the teacher training process. ^{Cruz (2011}) presents the gap between the formation of subjects, called ‘primordial pedagogues’, who studied Pedagogy between the 1930s and 1960s, and those trained in preparation courses who came to work as teachers and researchers. In the reports of the pedagogues, the symptomatic loss of theoretical density is noticeable when they act as teachers, compared to the period in which they were academics. Cruz (2011) emphasizes that, over the years, studies of the classics of education have become secondary and, increasingly, students have been characterized by their little cultural knowledge.

In this direction, there is an impoverishment of the teacher training process in the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, a trend that has intensified. This is noticeable when we observe that academic formation is based on the conception of the teacher as a professional, that is, on a more practical and less theoretical training perspective. This is a notion that has been increasingly disseminated in recent years, based on the “[…] idea that the most important thing to be acquired through education is not knowledge, but the ability to constantly adapt to changes in the productive system” (^{Duarte, 2004}, p. 47).

In addition to the theoretical emptying in teacher education and in the constitution of the social subject, there is the gradual loss of the capacity for creation, in the words of ^{Kosik (2002}), or inventiveness, according to ^{Kastrup (2001}). Consequently, learning is dissociated from creation or invention. From the understanding that inventiveness is not the privilege of artists and scientists, Kastrup (2001) emphasizes the call for a new treatment of cultural and artistic issues of school education and, in particular, of teacher education, which does not occur in an isolated way, but surrounded and influenced by contemporary social and educational transformations.

Thus, in addition to enabling the realization of the human condition, here Art is understood as a human creation that appears over time in different spaces and cultures. Art is considered as a specific form of knowledge produced by the subjects and that carry answers to several questions they elaborated in some historical context. Hence, when dealing with human cultural formation, based on Art, it is observed that it has a purpose, which changes as historically inserted subjects change.

Therefore, one starts from the conception that every artistic activity is in dialogue with culture, whether recent or old. Art is created and recreated, and its understanding cannot be dissociated from historical reality. If we see in Art a form that makes it possible to reflect the social context, it is also an interpretation of this reality. Artistic productions are a reflection of the historical consciousness of humanity, the result of the historically developed human sensitivity (^{Costa, 2001}).

Through Art, subjects can understand the real conditions of existence more critically, representing it sensibly and bringing out its true essence. In this sense, Art enables the expression and creation of reality, as we see in ^{Konder (2013}) below:

Admitting the cognitive value of art, we will be forced to conclude that it provides particular knowledge that cannot be supplied by the knowledge provided by other different ways of apprehending the real. If we renounce the knowledge that art - and only art - can provide us, we mutilate our understanding of reality (^{Konder, 2013}, p. 25).

Human formation takes place insofar as the world of science, philosophy, and art are part of the daily life of the being in formation. When considering that the aesthetic dimension does not come only from the field of Art, other areas of knowledge are important in the formative processes. However, it is in the artistic field, with poetry, music, paintings, and movie scenes, that the awakening of sensitivity to human phenomena is provided, whether beautiful or tragic, reassuring or disturbing, as they reveal their own facets and characteristics of every human being.

Broad, sensitive, rigorous, critical, and, above all, unfinished education should be the goal of the proper training spaces. However, public policies aimed at the educational area reflect dimensions of the superstructure that design, decide and directly interfere in degrees in Pedagogy, in teacher education policies, and in the teaching of Art: “It is very rare that the educational reformers do not always want to make their own proposition of reform a general correction of the entire society” (^{Figueira, 1995}, p. 11).

The National Council of Education (^{Conselho Nacional de Educação - CNE}), in its Resolution n. 1, of May 15, 2006, instituted the National Curriculum Guidelines for the Undergraduate Course in Pedagogy - Licentiate, which caused the intensification of State interference in the teaching and in what concerns the curricular organization of courses and the obligatory nature of Art disciplines, among other insertions. This Resolution addressed the need for teacher education to be related to aesthetic issues and human education that is the result of political articulations of art educators. Art is now considered a mandatory curricular component in the Law of Guidelines and Bases of Education (Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação - LDB) n. ^9394/96.

The different pedagogical trends that characterize teaching in Brazilian schools permeate the teaching of Art in the 19th and 20th centuries. There was an essentially technical education, in which the art of drawing was seen as a way of improving techniques, aiming at the incipient industrialization of the 19th century. In the third decade of the following century, with characteristics of the Escola Nova, the concern with free expression and individual creation, added to the emphasis on development and ‘learning to learn’, were more important than learning the content (^{Iavelberg, 2008}).

Currently, through educational reforms, teaching prioritizes practice over theory, with an emphasis on learning to instrumentalize the teacher, oriented towards a ‘knowing how to do’ and ‘knowing how to teach’, linked to the productive world. Official documents, such as the current LDB, the National Curriculum Parameters for the Pedagogy Course (Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais para o Curso de Pedagogia - PCNs), the Pedagogical Project of Pedagogy Courses (Projeto Pedagógico dos Cursos de Pedagogia - PPCs), and the teacher education policies indicate which are the areas of activity of the pedagogue, outline the guidance on their profile and curriculum organization presents the principles that guide the institution’s pedagogical activities and reveal the characteristics of the pedagogue that the institution aims to train.

Art constitutes an area of knowledge for presenting specific contents (History of Art, Aesthetics, Art, and Politics and Artistic Productions) and the need for its teaching. Therefore, Art is linked to the History of Art, of Education, and of the child, according to contemporary curricular proposals.

Thus, we treat Art as knowledge in the formation of the pedagogue, as we understand that, both in terms of preparation in the formation of the teacher-pedagogue who will work in Early Childhood Education and the early years of Elementary School, as well as in the quality of the formative content, Art is fundamental since it intends to contribute to the construction of theoretical knowledge given its importance for human development and the obligation of Art as an area of knowledge that makes up the curriculum of the Pedagogy Courses.

Academics and artistic perception

In the selected institutions for the research, the focus was on unveiling the teaching of Art in the formation of the teacher-pedagogue in the Licentiate Degree Courses in Pedagogy. In the empirical research, with the purpose of collecting data, a semi-structured questionnaire was applied⁷ on the Teaching of Art in the Pedagogy Course to students of the courses in question⁸. The choice of this instrument is justified by understanding that it allows participants to express themselves freely and spontaneously. The application of the questionnaires is to bring to light the participants’ understanding of Art, to unveil the theoretical-practical conception of the teaching of Art in the training of the teacher-pedagogue.

The ITOP class had 16 (sixteen) students enrolled and, of the total, 11 (eleven) agreed to participate in the research. In Miracema, of the 25 (twenty-five) students enrolled, 18 (eighteen) participated in the survey, totaling 29 students. In order not to reveal the identity and not expose the research participants, the students were identified by the letters AC followed by a numeral, assigned after placing them in alphabetical order, during the systematization of the data.

During the development and analysis of the data, from the historical dimension, the movement and social and political contradictions, the limitations and possibilities regarding the complexity involved in the teacher education process were taken into account, especially in the area of Art in the Pedagogy Course. To identify the degree of interest in the discipline of Art, the data reveal that it is possible to consider that 91% of the total participants show interest or a lot of interest in the discipline of Art. In this sense, there was no expression of total disinterest, but of recognition. It is important to point out that the knowledge needed to be a teacher is a fundamental dimension in the training process, especially in the appropriation of historically produced culture.

It was found that the school reveals itself as an important locus of training in the field of Art, since most participants had contact and approximation with the area during their schooling process. In this sense, it was asked what understanding of Art they had, considering the possibility of selecting up to three alternatives. The alternatives were purposely indicated in order to verify whether the hegemonic conceptions of Art are present in school education and, therefore, in the understanding of academics (Table 1).

It is important to point out that the term ‘creativity’, present in the questionnaire, refers to one of the terms used in institutional documents and in the daily life of formative processes and which are immersed in the proposal of the neoliberal ideal, which employs creativity in the perspective of flexibility. It should be noted that the epistemological and pedagogical conception that this study adopts is the conception of another perspective: that of Art as creation and its possibility of training and humanizing subjects.

In this sense, ^{Kosik (2002}) emphasizes that the capacity for creation is inherent to the human being, therefore, among the different human capacities developed historically, such aptitude is fundamental in the process of human formation. Through Art, it is possible to develop imagination and the creative capacity (^{Barbosa, 2008}).

This idea proved to be different from the understanding that students had access to during their schooling, that is, the role of Art is to boost imagination and creativity, as indicated, both for ITOP students, in a total of 73%, and for Miracema, which add up to 78%. This attests to the liberal hegemonic understanding postulated and reproduced in educational processes in the country.

Due to the possibility of indicating up to three alternatives, 9% of the ITOP students and 78% of those from Miracema indicate the understanding of Art as an expression of the culture of peoples in the most diverse times and spaces. It is important to note that, according to ^{Maciel, Ramon, and Faustino (2017}), the material conditions of existence of the most different peoples cannot be excluded, especially those of the original peoples’ culture. This perception of students does not differ from another hegemonic liberal perspective postulated through the discourse of multiculturalism. As ^{Malanchen points out (2014}, p. 18)

The discourse of multiculturality is, therefore, situated in this process of disseminating a worldview that, apparently, defends social inclusion, democratization, respect for cultural diversity, etc., but which, in reality, has as its main function the ideological legitimation of contemporary capitalism.

Twenty-seven percent of ITOP students indicated the concept of Art as an instrument of relaxation and disinhibition, against only 11% of Miracema. As a way of disciplining the body and spirit in search of social harmony, 27% of ITOP students and 28% from Miracema indicated it. The highest index, that is, 55% of ITOP students and 39% of Miracema understand it as skill development: drawing, painting, and motor coordination. These data reveal that prior knowledge in Art, especially at school, led them to understand that:

[…] the arts have a utilitarian, merely instrumental character. Drawing, for example, would serve to ‘illustrate works in Portuguese, science, and geography’ and to ‘form habits of cleanliness, order, and attention’; drawing, music and dancing can develop ‘motor coordination’ and ‘auditory perception […]; music is also remembered for its disciplinary character - ‘it serves to keep children quiet’ - or to distract and calm students […] (^{Almeida, 2010}, p. 11-12).

The understanding of Art as a technique still remains strongly rooted in the school imagination and dates back to the traditional pedagogical perspective, which sees it as a set of activities developed to “[…] be fixed by repetition, seeking improvement and motor skills” (^{Ferraz & Fusari, 2010}, p. 27).

On the other hand, there is a significant percentage of academics who understand Art as a human manifestation that provides a perception of life, an understanding of oneself and reality. As shown by the data, 36% of ITOP students and 50% of Miracema agree with this concept. This percentage demonstrates that, during the education process of the teacher-pedagogue, it is essential that, through the disciplines of Art, the future teacher understands the meanings of Art in the process of human formation.

For ^{Luckás (1978}), with works of art, subjects recall the past, relive the present and do it not as external facts, but as the essence of life itself. If “Art is a particular way of totalizing the knowledge obtained in life […]” (^{Konder, 2013}, p. 137), the data shown demonstrate that at least half of a group of students has this perception. This is valuable if we consider that there is a percentage that adheres to the pragmatic perspective strongly rooted in the formative spaces where there is the teaching of Art.

Another question was about the importance of Art for the formation of the subject in Brazilian society and in the schooling process. By allowing the indication of an alternative, as shown in Table 2, 5% of the students of Miracema attributed the importance of Art only to the artistic class and another percentage indicated that it was important, but with little influence on the lives of the subjects in the social sphere: 18% of the students ITOP and 5% Miracema.

Although the percentage above is not so expressive, as the IESs are meeting the emerging social concerns, based on the theoretical framework they adopt and considering the traditional educational purpose of the university, its social function in the production of knowledge, for the freedom to research, of learning and teaching and for human formation, it is displaced and, therefore, needs to be rethought.

Despite the dismantling of the university as a space for the production of knowledge and humanization, in the process of teacher training in Pedagogy Courses, especially in the disciplines of Art, it is necessary to understand this area of knowledge and its fundamental role in everyone's life, to the extent that this knowledge interferes in their lives. Therefore, it is for academics to teach that Art is constituted “[…] as a dimension of human life, present in all subjects in their creative capacity, enabling critical thinking, as it has the potential to illuminate the dreams of subjects and help make those dreams come true” (^{Scherer, 2016}, p. 57-58).

Thus, Art, from the perspective of the formation of the subject, must be extended to each and every one. Furthermore, by understanding Art as an element that operates directly on the subject, it is also “[…] the reflection of social men in their reciprocal relationships, in their social exchange with nature” (^{Lukács, 1978}, p. 296) and, which acts in a movement of mediation between the subject and social life.

Regarding the contribution of Art in the educational and transformative process, we observed that there was an important growth in the percentage of academics who indicated this alternative: 46% of ITOP academics and 68% of Miracema. The contributions of Art in the formation of the subject, since Ancient Greece, have generated reflections on its social, educational, and humanizing role. Art as knowledge needs to be socialized during schooling and intensified in the teacher training process.

The pedagogical conception that moves towards humanization and that best responds to the desires and needs of an education that includes the appropriation of historically produced knowledge is contained in the proposal of historical-critical pedagogy, elaborated by ^{Saviani (2011}). This conception should guide the pedagogical work of the pedagogue formative process, nowadays, as the role of training and humanization of teaching institutions, from elementary school to university, has not yet been fulfilled.

This pedagogical proposal is contained in the understanding of educational work as “[…] the act of producing, directly and intentionally, in each singular individual, the humanity that is historically and collectively produced by all men” (^{Saviani, 2011}, p 13). Therefore, it is up to the school to promote the humanization of subjects, generating in each one a historically constructed humanization, and it is up to the teacher to do so “[…] through their systematic teaching of accumulated knowledge, as is the case with content and necessary forms for the enjoyment and production of artistic works” (^{Assumpção, 2018}, p. 25).

In the catharsis process, the moment of effective incorporation of cultural instruments and, consequently, of the transformation of the subjects’ consciousness, the school institution, from the curricular contents of the teaching of Art, with the purpose of contributing to the development of the subjects and of the society that defends itself, “[…] must be different from what is already in the daily life of each student” (^{Assumpção, 2018}, p. 136).

^{Duarte (2016}, p. 27) emphasizes that “[…] the more the actions carried out within schools are similar to the daily life of capitalist society, the more alienating school education becomes”. Teaching should be centered on the classics, on the theory that dialogues with practice, and not be reduced to a pragmatic conception of the educational processes that give everyday life the status of a guideline to be followed in teacher education processes, even because such a hegemonic conception does not contribute to rethinking and to pedagogical practice, as well as to the reflection that generates changes in the way of thinking about the real conditions of existence and the current mode of production.

Finally, the objective was to verify what expectations academics have about the contribution of the discipline(s) of Art to academic training, as they had not yet attended these disciplines. Given the possibility of indicating all the alternatives, the answers were arranged according to Table 3.

The data show that 73% of ITOP academics and 76% of Miracema expect the disciplines of Art to contribute to the formation to boost imagination and creativity.

It should be noted that the curriculum is the result of a process that reflects the interests of the ruling class and, therefore, it does not matter if the content is true, but who considers it true (^{Apple, 2008}). Therefore, if Art, understood as the knowledge that awakens and intensifies sensitivity and sensory perception, is contemplated, from the ideal perspective of academics, by less than half of the students (47%) of the Miracema Pedagogy students and, in the case of the ITOP, the rate is even lower, with 27% of students, this indicates that the concept of Art has the character of a more instrumental formation than of a human formation.

This perspective was identified as 37% of ITOP academics and 71% from Miracema believe that their teaching can provide specific technical training in one of the following languages: visual arts, dance, music, and theater. However, it is postulated that teaching should contemplate the understanding of Art as knowledge and not as a technique, since it constitutes a curricular component that has its own content, has history, and is political.

Many voices are echoing the necessity of rescuing a redefinition of curricular practices, what ^{Saviani (2011}) calls ‘scholar practice’, the classic form of transmission-assimilation of knowledge aimed at the production of humanity. The formation of subjects and human praxis were directed towards the perspective of adapting technical and behavioral training to the mode of production (^{Shiroma, Moraes, & Evangelista, 2000}).

In addition, a process of dissolution of thought was intensified with the pedagogy of ‘learning to learn’ (^{Duarte, 2004}, 2016), constituting a prescriptive model (^{Rossler, 2005}). Art, without political content, is no longer the engine that provokes critical reflection on subjects and society.

Regarding the expectation regarding the contribution of Art disciplines in academic training, 91% of the ITOP students and 65% of the Miracema ones pointed to the alternative of broadening the understanding of the world, political-cultural training, and changing the way of acting in the family, school and local community. These data reveal that the students also wanted an emancipatory education. Therefore, we observe an ambiguity in the students’ desire.

^{Heller (2008}) states that Art produces ‘lasting objectives’, and that the artistic reflection breaks with the spontaneous tendency of everyday thinking, which causes different ways to elevate thinking beyond everyday life. Thus, it can be ensured that Art, through its numerous forms of expression, allows the subject to exercise reflection and carries the ability to think about life, interfering in the way of acting in the social environment.

As for the responses of academics in view of the expectations about the Arts disciplines, they indicated the following items:

What I hope is that, during the course, I can clear up doubts about art, because, due to a lack of knowledge, I do not participate in cultural events that are present in society (AC3, UFT);

I hope that with the Arts discipline I can increase my knowledge in all the items I marked, that's why I marked the ‘5’ (AC8, UFT);

To understand the various aspects that involve the field of art and distinguish something that may exist in each person (AC4, UFT);

In the construction of emancipatory knowledge, forming a critical reflective subject and the study of art is important in this learning process that is for life (AC10, UFT);

Art has a transforming element, which makes the individual have an evolution through art in the educational area (AC12, UFT);

The study of arts will be able to help me to read my students, understand their world at that moment and/or the ‘emotions’. Of course, arts also help in the ‘motricity’ of students (AC10, ITOP - emphasis added);

It's always good to learn more and more, and new subjects are always welcome for our knowledge and learning (AC9, ITOP).

Therefore, the expectation is to better understand what Art is; its contribution to critical formation; from the perspective of psychology, ‘reading students’ emotions’; and its utilitarian contribution towards developing motricity. In this sense, it is worth emphasizing the analysis by ^{Iavelberg (2014}) about the training and role of the pedagogue who will teach Art in Early Childhood Education and Elementary School:

Initial training in pedagogy, bachelor’s and art degree courses should prepare teachers in the theoretical and practical fields to know how to teach, however, it is faced with the fact that the opportunity for internships is less than necessary […]. In addition, today more is required from the training of art teachers because they need to know the history of art from a non-hegemonic perspective, have creative experiences in the languages they will work with, and know the genesis of the art of children and young people to observe learning, the focus of contemporary guidelines, linking this knowledge to the school's PPP (^{Iavelberg, 2014}, p. 53).

According to ^{Iavelberg (2014}), the concern with the quality of training must be present at all levels and spheres of school institutions. It is vital to register that quality must center on the teaching of Art, but also on the attitude towards artistic achievements. The importance of Art and its teaching is defended by ^{Smith (2005}), who postulates the need for its teaching when this author states that:

[…] art deserves study as a particular subject, as a subject that has specific purposes, concepts, and skills. Art, as one of the human achievements whose power has been stressed since antiquity and whose strength is particularly attested to by totalitarian societies in their determination to control it, demands its own time and space within the curriculum (^{Smith, 2005}, p. 98).

Art, as knowledge, which deals with properly human issues, is a discipline that, in its purposes, enables the academic to perceive and understand the subjective and collective aspects of human life. Through artistic creation, humanity reveals and registers knowledge that deals with impressions, sensations, perceptions, and feelings that are properly human. This is the main justification for teaching Art in teacher formation.