maksartmusings - Tumblr blog

[maksartmusings]

Visual Interpretation Entry - Week 9

In Chapter 14 of the textbook, entitled “Teaching Art in the Contexts of Everyday Life” by Don H. Krug, he argues that it is best to teach kids art based on life-centered issues. This is what my visual interpretation is about. Krug tells a story in which he describes how his students reacted very positively toward one of their grandmothers coming in and teaching them how to spin and dye thread out of rabbit wool, while they had reacted nonchalantly toward Rothko’s abstract paintings. This led him to the conclusion that students will identify and respond better to lessons that relate to something in their everyday lives. Many of the students were from farms, so they were used to seeing animals like this and it was a fun and practical lesson that they could take home. My visual interpretation of this was to create a flyer of sorts for a practical and fun craft/art project for kids. It involves going out into nature, collecting materials, and creating something, and after the students can see how it interacts with their environment. I kept the style simplistic and childlike to appeal to the targeted audience of children, and I chose to depict a bird with the pinecone to suggest what might come of the project. The lettering is big, bold, and playful to encourage students that this is a fun activity. I kept it in black and white pencil to emphasize the simplicity and practical feeling of the project. This is something they can create and also use as a connection to the world around them.

Sources: 

Kruger, D.H. (2002). Teaching Art in the Contexts of Everyday Life. In Y. Gaudelius & P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education (180-197). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 

Pine Cone Bird Feeder. Funology. Retrieved from http://www.funology.com/pine-cone-bird-feeder/. 

[maksartmusings]

Personal Practice Entry - Week 12

In week 12, we were assigned two articles to read, “Fostering Positive Race, Gender, and Class Dynamics in the Classroom” by Lynn Weber Cannon and “Bridging: Feminist Pedagogy and Art Education” by Caryl Rae Church. Both had very interesting perspectives on ways to incorporate a greater sense of inclusivity in the classroom, and I identified with many of their main points. Overall, I think I will use their theoretical insights in my own teaching, but I took issue with some of the practical strategies they outlined. I hope to become an art educator like Church describes, who does more than just teach art and acts as a bridge between the community, the school administration, the students, and art. I want to not just educate but also be an advocate for the arts, and I will fight as long as I have to until they are recognized as an important part of an enriched education. In this way, I felt connected to Church’s argument. 

I identified very strongly to Cannon’s discussion of her classroom objectives. She describes how her goal as a teacher is to help her students establish a framework through which they can evaluate and question the social system and understand their own perspectives. This will help them be intelligent, open-minded citizens; as an educator, I do not believe it is my job to impart my beliefs onto my students, but rather to enable them to form their own authentic beliefs. Two practices Cannon discusses that I hope to employ myself are encouraging students to share personal experiences and avoiding name calling in debates and discussion. By sharing personal experiences and hearing the perspectives of their peers, students will be compelled to consider that every individual experiences their own forms of hardship and success, and they should consider what might be the underlying cause of an action before they judge another person too harshly. Additionally, it will help reinforce the idea that their insights are valuable and relevant, even if they are young, and they can get to the root of many issues by exploring what they already know. Making rules discouraging name-calling in discussion will encourage students to share their stories and prevent them from feeling marginalized within their own classroom.

However, I agree with hardly any of the practical applications of these ideas that Cannon outlines in her argument. First, she advocates limiting the amount of time “privileged” students can speak in discussion in favor of those who she considers less privileged. I understand wanting to prevent the same students from dominating the conversation every time, but her methods are grossly subjective. There is no definitive way to determine whether a student is privileged or not, because there is no set definition of “privilege.” A student who comes from a very wealthy family may have divorced parents who neglect them, making it so they never had stability in their lives. Likewise, it is not fair to assume privilege based on race; one of my personal friends in high school had one of the most difficult, unstable lives of anyone I have ever known, and he was a white male - arguably the most advantaged group in our society. Assuming anything about students devalues what they actually have to contribute, and favoring certain students over others creates the culture of marginalization that I believe Cannon is expressly trying to avoid. I think discussion can be facilitated more organically; if one student or group of students is dominating the conversation too much, then call on other students, or limit the number of times each individual can speak in a way that is based on quantity of participation and not abstract privilege. That being said, I appreciate her desire to establish the values of openness and inclusivity by avoiding victim-blaming, assuming that people are doing the best they can, and accepting responsibility for our own ignorance. 

Church’s philosophy about employing social issues in not only the content but also the process of education resonates with me. She mentions how she puts up controversial images and articles in her classroom for the students to ponder, which is the type of thing I would like to do as well. Little details like that can shape the environment of a classroom, turning into its own little microcosm of visual culture. Again, this helps the students become more active critical thinkers. I also appreciate how she integrates concepts and excerpts from literature into her lessons. I am attracted to both literature and art for their ability to express deep and critical reflections of society, and I think they have tremendous value in being paired together. As an art educator, I want to approach analysis of art this way with my students. Students are often asked to analyze literature for its connections to society and humanity as a whole, and art should be treated the same way, with the same attention and care. I also appreciated Church’s inclusion of the quote about how we are all victims of sexism, racism, and the oppressions that divide us. Obviously the group that is targeted is affected, but the people who form misconceptions based on these practices are also placed at a disadvantage; basically, she is emphasizing that we should all be angry about these issues and want change. There was nothing in Church’s ideology that I would expressly like to avoid. 

Sources: 

Cannon, L.W. (1990). Fostering Positive Race, Class, and Gender Dynamics in the Classroom. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 18, 126-134. 

Church, C. R. (2010). Bridging: Feminist Pedagogy and Art Education. Visual Arts Research, 36, 68-72. 

[maksartmusings]

Textual Analysis Entry - Week 10

In week 10, we were assigned Chapter 17 of the textbook, which is entitled “Issues of the Body and Contemporary Art” by Dan Nadaner. Nadaner begins by asserting that our view of the body is heavily influenced by the media we are constantly surrounded by, and reality itself is defined by the images and words of the media. Children grow up in a “forest of signs,” and they form ideas about themselves based on societal standards they glean from these signs. For example, the culture of thinness and fat elimination promoted by the fashion industry contributes to an overall culture of body-shaming and a prevalence of eating disorders. Contemporary art harnesses the power of imagery to explore issues like this in a critical way. Nadaner discusses three contemporary artists who use their work to address the issue of self-concept: Barbara Kruger, Cindy Sherman, and Lorna Simpson. Kruger was a former magazine editor, so she saw firsthand how media outlets fabricate the imagery we are exposed to. In her art, she created pieces in the style of magazine covers, critiquing societal standards through humorous images and witty sayings. Sherman explored the contrived nature of film roles for women by creating “film stills” in which she dressed up as different typical female characters in 1940s and 1950s movies. Finally, Simpson explored media stereotypes and representation of women in the media through her photographs of African American women. Artists have broadened their use of materials, using any medium necessary to convey their desired message. Nadaner concludes by outlining five elements of contemporary art; contemporary art emphasizes ideas over appearances, is formed through thinking, has materials that can take any form, involves the viewer, and takes a point of view. Thus, children could explore issues of the body in art by relying on their own thinking, learning about stereotypes, applying their knowledge to critical discussions, and learning to think about people without thinking about the body. 

Most of the ideas Nadaner introduced in his essay were already familiar to me, but each of the artists he highlighted and their specific approaches were new to me. Kruger’s method of recreating images in common media formats as a way to reflect flipped perspectives is very interesting. It plays with the idea of perception and how fabricated images distort people’s view of reality. Her use of humor is also quite compelling to me; humor can be a very useful tool in taking away the power of a serious issue while still acknowledging its gravity. Our societal ideals of the body are often quite ridiculous, and Kruger intelligently uses this to emphasize her message. Before reading this essay, I had never heard of Sherman’s work, and her idea to create “film stills” appeals to my interest in both art and film. Movies and television are an important part of visual culture, and the way characters are presented can have a huge effect on people’s perceptions of themselves. Characters in film are also indicative of the societal values of the time, because they represent both desirable and undesirable traits in a contained, oversimplified format. Sherman explores these ideas through her photographs, and her methods of staging and preparation were like nothing I had heard of. I had seen work similar to Lorna Simpson’s before that explored the same sort of issues (namely The Testament Project by Kris Graves here at the Joseph Gross gallery at U of A), but her combination of photographs and text created a powerful effect. Another concept that was new to me in Nadaner’s essay was his definition of “sign.” According to the text, a sign is anything that represents something else, including a word, a picture, a gesture, etc. I normally think of signs in terms of practical imagery to help us navigate the world. In a sense, this fits into Nadaner’s definition. 

Overall, I agree with Nadaner’s argument about the extent of influence the media has on our perceptions of reality. We cannot escape from media imagery, because we have constant access through the internet, social media, news, and the physical world, among other sources. As children learn about their world and form lasting impressions, it takes constant guidance to prevent them from being completely absorbed by the images and standards they are exposed to. When it is something as negative as unrealistic body standards, it can have transformative and dangerous effects ranging from lowered self-esteem to life-threatening eating disorders. Therefore, I agree with Nadaner that it is important to tackle and expose these issues as educators so we can help our students navigate through their world and see the images for what they are - fabrications instead of reality. However, his approach to the topic in the essay as a whole was somewhat limited. Nadaner only discusses the issue of body image in terms of women, and he only shows examples of contemporary art exploring the issue from artists who are cisgender women. I do believe the majority of negative imagery related to body image is targeted toward women, but men do have valuable perspectives and legitimate issues to share in regards to it as well. Men face unrealistic and damaging standards of height, muscle tone, and stereotypical masculinity that contribute to low self-esteem and bullying. In the reverse, the body standards for both men and women affect who people feel like they can be attracted to, shaming and marginalizing people if they choose to be with someone who society would deem in a different “league” of attractiveness than them. Finally, transgender people face extremely challenging body image issues, and their perspective would also be effective in realizing a fuller picture of the issue. We are all victims of body image in the media, and all sides should be explored. 

Source:

Nadaner, D. (2002). Issues of the Body in Contemporary Art. In Y. Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education, (pp. 226-237). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 

[maksartmusings]

Visual Interpretation Entry - Week 9

For this visual interpretation, I drew from the article “Chairs, Cars, and Bridges: Teaching Aesthetics from the Everyday” by Robin Vande Zande. In the introduction to the article, Vande Zande describes how a chair, which is a simple, everyday object, can have great social significance depending on its context and how it is designed. For example, if the chair sits at the head of the table, it might exude a sense of power and authority. In a classroom, a chair might be used as a tool to keep students focused by keeping them uncomfortable. If a chair is large and lavishly decorated like a throne, it shows that the person sitting in it is perhaps important or above others. We take objects like chairs for granted in our everyday lives, but design has the power to change meaning completely. I interpreted this idea by drawing a simple wooden chair. I wanted to keep my technique simple as well, using clearly blocked out shading, simplistic forms, and pencil as a medium to keep the image as universal as possible. This is a chair one might see at a dining room table, or in a classroom; it is the image I see when I think of the word “chair.” Behind my sketch, I arranged words and phrases taken directly from the article, revealing the varying possibilities and experiences this one object might have. I chose to use very bold lettering and vary the sizes of the words to show the respective power and extremity of each word. For example, “throne” is larger than "wood” because “throne” is much more definitive as an identifying characteristic; many different kinds of chairs can be wooden, but to say something is a throne is to suggest power and royalty of some sort. “Chair” is the largest word because that is the broadest and most important defining characteristic, and it is central to show that all of these possibilities stem from it. 

Source:

Vande Zande, R. (2007, Jan.). Chairs, Cars, and Bridges: Teaching Aesthetics from the Everyday. Art Education, 39-42. 

[maksartmusings]

Textual Analysis Entry - Week 8

During week 8, we were assigned two chapters in the textbook - Chapter 12 and Chapter 21. Chapter 12 is entitled “Tools for Exploring Social Issues and Visual Culture” by Carol S. Jeffers. In her essay, Jeffers argues that teachers of art and visual culture education must now build their professional identities around the context of society, using everyday life as the ‘key terrain’ of visual culture. She provides two categories of tools that educators can use to create cultural meaning in the educational process. The first of these is philosophical tools, which provide teachers and students the opportunity to question the meaning of their experience, existence, and place in the visual world. They also help teachers discover how they and their students come to know their world and construct knowledge. This assumes that knowledge construction is an active process. The second is theoretical tools, which are based in sets of beliefs, facts, and principles that explain the phenomenon of art itself. Jeffers argues the benefits of one of these theories, contextualism, which holds that the meaning and worth of a work of art must be determined by the context in which it was made and used. It involves communication and social responsibility. She advocates that students and teachers taking a contextualist approach must challenge four notions: the individual art-maker has a vested authority, each work is created as a unique expression and is valued for its originality, art is permanent and has an institutional value, and art is based on form instead of issues. After these explanations, Jeffers provides a real-world example, where preservice teachers tackled social issues ranging from immigration to school shootings to technological dependence by creating five different collaborative art pieces.

Chapter 21 is entitled “Exploring Culture and Identity Through Artifacts: Three Art Lessons Derived from Contemporary Art Practice” by Julia Marshall. Marshall believes that the process for creating curriculum and lessons is similar to the process required for art-making. They both employ creative strategies and stem from observation and questioning. In her chapter, she argues that the fundamental goal of today’s art lessons (much like contemporary art itself) is to provoke critical thinking about socially or personally significant issues; a lesson will be more meaningful if it connects to a student’s everyday life. Art education should be about preparing creators, not just consumers of culture, and it should be process-based instead of product-based. Marshall advocates that artmaking can be used as research, because drawing from areas in the social sciences and humanities can expand the boundaries of the artistic content, giving the artist access to issues outside of their direct experience. She reaches the conclusion that all artmaking is essentially a form of research and a learning experience. Artifacts from our visual culture, especially common manufactured products, can provide an avenue to cultural inquiry and criticism. Students can explore something that is familiar to them and learn how to critically analyze the culture in which they live. In order for a lesson to truly be meaningful, there must be a constant process of learning and questioning, and their imaginations must be engaged. Marshall suggests a limited role for the teacher in this, allowing the students to reach their own conclusions. She describes three examples of an artifact-based lesson. The first is having the students explore the different meanings and contexts of a common souvenir, like a snow globe. The second is having the students explore meanings in personal artifacts, things that have some sentimental value to them. Finally, teachers could have their students explore multiple approaches to an artifact. 

One new idea to me introduced in Chapter 12 was the idea of collaborative art. I had always thought of art as something that an individual has a creative relationship with, not something people can really work together to develop both conceptually and physically. Jeffers believes this idea must be challenged if we are to teach art in a contextual way, and the examples she gives prove that collaborative art can be very successful. Groups of people were able to come together and create pieces with clear and unified messages. I suppose I always felt that artmaking was a very personal journey for myself, and I have never been fond of collaboration on projects, but the inclusion of different perspectives actually brings in more context. We all have different experiences in the same visual world, so multiple voices creates a more unified picture of what the world is actually like and how the same social issues affect different people. There was some new vocabulary in this chapter. First, Jeffers distinguishes between aesthetics themselves and aesthetic theories. Aesthetics is the “study of concepts, issues, and practices related to art“ (Jeffers 159), while aesthetic theories are sets of beliefs/principles that explain the phenomenon of art-related concepts. She goes on to further describe another important vocabulary term, which is contextualism. This theory emphasizes context and holds that the meaning of a work of art/other aspect of visual culture is inseparable from the context in which it was created and used. I found Jeffers’ point about how teachers and students are constantly bombarded with social issues particularly interesting and quite relevant. We have constant access and therefore constant exposure to news and media, and it can be discouraging and even terrifying sometimes. If we are operating off of the warrant as educators that it is our duty to develop the awareness and critical analysis skills of our students, I believe it is important to provide artmaking as a tool to work through these issues. Students might be able to make sense of their chaotic world if they are given that outlet. However, I do not believe the individuality of art and artmaking should be completely disregarded. There is value in collaborative artmaking, but sometimes students might be better served exploring issues from their perspective alone. The individual creative process and subsequent sharing of the product would ensure that each student’s voice is heard, and no one feels like their perspective does not matter if their ideas are not selected. 

Chapter 21 introduced me to the idea of art as research. The concept is not completely foreign to me, but I’ve never seen it as clearly stated. In this way, art making can serve as a process for knowledge building just as much as writing a research paper can. If they are to explore issues outside of their immediate experience, the artist must conduct research to present an accurate perspective. This idea of art as research cements the importance of art as an intellectual process for students, because it goes beyond creative expression into the realm of academia. Through research and investigation, students are exploring the same issues they would in a social science course, just in a different way. An important piece of vocabulary for this chapter is “artifact” in the context of visual culture. An artifact can be any object or work of art that has some sort of meaning, whether it is personal, cultural, social, etc. Therefore, an artifact-based approach can draw from all aspects of visual culture, from common manufactured objects to objects of great personal significance. I find Marshall’s idea of the process of developing lessons being akin to the artmaking process very interesting and most adhered to my thought process. Artists and educators must concern themselves with many of the same questions when making choices about their work: what audience am I targeting, how will my work affect them, what message am I trying to convey, etc. In both cases, there is potential for great influence. I also found her idea about using everyday objects as lessons quite interesting, because it really helps the students become more informed cultural citizens, and that is what I want to do for my students as a teacher. I do not, however, agree with Marshall‘s statement that all art lessons should be in line with postmodern, contemporary art. I think there is still merit in teaching the art of the distant past, as it represents history and the values of the time. There is great potential for understanding how cultural values evolve with changing social structures, allowing students to then take a critical view of why we are the way we are today. We should never completely discount our past. 

Sources:

Jeffers, C. S. (2002). Tools for Exploring Social Issues and Visual Culture. Y. Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education (pp. 157-169). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 

Marshall, J. (2002). Exploring Culture and Identity Through Artifacts: Three Art Lessons Derived from Contemporary Art Practice. Y. Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education (pp. 279-290). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 

[maksartmusings]

Textual Analysis Entry - Week 6

During week six, we had to read Chapter 27 of the textbook, titled “Interdisciplinarity and Community as Tools For Art Education and Social Change“ by Mary Adams. Mary Adams is a teacher in Youngstown, Ohio, and in her chapter, she uses her program We Have Poipus! as an example of interdisciplinary education through the arts. The show, which she wrote with the help of her students and colleagues, addresses the issues of alcoholism and drug abuse through the use of larger-than-life papier-mache puppets. According to her, interdisciplinary education is important because students leave with a much deeper understanding of the subject matter than if each of the subjects were taught separately. In We Have Poipus!, art was used as the catalyst to link all of the other disciplines. The production of the show, including building the puppets and sets, recording the music, and preparing to perform, involved many members of the community, parents, other teachers at the school, and of course the students. Overall, her goal was to have the show blossom into a widely-used teaching tool for these issues.

The most important new concept I learned from this chapter was the integration of a whole community into what starts out as a school project. Adams found so many people willing to work on her project, from the man at the recording studio to the theater teacher at the other school. She really reached out and brought everyone together by forging contacts with organizations and individuals who might be interested. As a future educator, it is inspiring to me that people were so willing to offer their services at little personal benefit to them. The most important take-away of that specifically for me is that making connections and reaching out to the community will help move many projects forward. I also learned that exploring different aspects of the arts is still considered “interdisciplinary” education. Music is a different discipline that visual arts, which is still different from acting, and so on. This taught me that interdisciplinary education does not always have to be science and art or math and art, it can involve a more concentrated, focused approach on the arts as a whole. The different roles that were available to the students, whether behind the scenes or on stage, introduced them to possible careers and new skills. I would consider certain facets of the project as outside of the arts as well. For example, the script had to involve language and writing skills, the students had to use technology they were not familiar with, and the whole subject matter took a social science approach, taking the students’ reactions to these social issues and turning them into a story tailored to their needs. Beyond the broadened definition of interdisciplinary education, there were no new terms I needed defined. 

I appreciate and agree with many of the ideas presented in Adams’ chapter. I like her idea of implementing social change through a variety of disciplines, because each child has different strengths and responds to different approaches. She also describes how music and art have a broad appeal, so they should be appreciated as a valuable tool to teach social issues, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Music and art are entertaining, relatable, and understandable at some capacity for a very wide audience. I also agree with her that involving community is important, because the more people are passionate about a project, the more likely its message will be heard. Overall, I appreciate her emphasis on the interdisciplinary approach and her recognition of the importance of teaching young children difficult subject matter. However, there are certain aspects of her approach that I disagree with. The characters in her play meet very harsh fates as a result of their addictions and behavior; for example, one character has a deformed baby that gets taken away from her as a result of drug abuse, and another character ends up living in a box as a result of his alcoholism. These are only their “possible” futures in the play, and they force the characters to make changes in their lives, but I feel that they take too harsh and close-minded of a view. There is no direct cause and effect involving these issues, and showing kids the most disturbing possible fate is more of a scare tactic than an educational tool. If educators took a more scientific approach, showing students what happens to their bodies if they use drugs, or if Adams had incorporated something in the script about the characters receiving professional help for their addictions, I believe it would have more of an effect. I also disagree with her in that I do not believe the format of the show would be effective for a wide age-range. Puppets are an outdated and slightly creepy medium, and middle-school age children and above will likely not respond to the juvenile format. It might work for younger children, but the subject matter could definitely be altered slightly. 

I found it interesting that they chose to paint the puppets unnatural colors to avoid any racial stereotyping. I think this was a creative and well-thought out way of isolating the specific topic they were addressing and avoiding alienating any of the children watching the show. Race and inequalities in our country are important issues to address, but they could have a whole play of their own. Adams’ example was slightly flawed, but still very informative and interesting. 

Source:                                                                                               

Adams, M. (2002). Interdisciplinarity and Community as Tools For Art Education and Social Change. In Y. Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education (pp. 358-369). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

[maksartmusings]

Visual Interpretation Entry - Week 2

For this entry, I chose to focus on an idea presented in Chapter 1 of the textbook, titled “Ideas and Teaching: Making Meaning from Contemporary Art.” My art piece is centered around one quote in particular: “Rather than view children’s ideas as naïve, a more useful position is to consider what they do and say to only be a partial reflection of what they know.” This was very profound to me, because it challenges the accepted standards of behavior through which we interact with children, and it brings up an important point about communication. Basically, just because children lack experience and communicate in a different way does not mean their ideas are not just as valid as those of adults. They perceive things about the world that adults simply cannot, and they have a whole wealth of knowledge that they are often unable to express in a way we understand. This idea leads into my visual interpretation. In art education, children are traditionally praised when their drawing looks as realistic and well-defined as possible. We create this warrant that “good art” is art that is technically proficient, so the simplistic and free style of most children is not treated with much credence. However, we can learn a lot about an individual child by seeing how they express through art, so it should not be discounted. I attempted to show this through my piece. I drew two cats, one in a fairly realistic style and one in a very shaky, childlike style. Juxtaposed together, most people would say that the first cat was the “better” of the two, but I wanted to call this into question. As educators, who are we to say to young children that there is one right way to create art? That only discourages expression and creative freedom, which is something I want to avoid. The title, “Variations on a cat,” is meant to equalize the two images; neither one is better or worse than the other, they are merely different manifestations of the same idea. 

Note: I apologize for the quality of the image, it did not scan well onto my computer. 

Source: 

Sullivan, G. (2002). Ideas and Teaching: Making Meaning from Contemporary Art. In Y. Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education (pp. 23-38). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

[maksartmusings]

Personal Practice Entry Week 5

In Chapter 13 of the textbook, Eleanor Weisman and Jay Michael Hanes discussed the possible uses of thematic curriculum and the potential of education as a tool for social reconstruction. This chapter is a particularly good example of how we can use the knowledge we gain from this class in our own practice because it highlights multiple practical applications of its claims. They discuss subject based, art concept based, and social issue based thematic curriculum. Many of the readings we have had present very abstract ideas related to the theory of education, but this chapter places it into context. I have a better idea now of how to bring other subjects, like science, into my lessons of art. For example, Weisman and Hanes detail a lesson in which, by focusing on the subject of oceans, they taught science, art, history, and culture to their students. Likewise, they talked about a lesson centered around balance and symmetry showing up in cultural motifs throughout the world, introducing mathematical concepts alongside appreciation of other cultures.

I want to be a museum educator, and I feel like I can apply these types of lessons quite well into my own teaching style. Say I am teaching a group of elementary-age children: I could give them the lesson about oceans and have them draw the ocean as they see it, representing their own view of the world. With the balance lesson, I could have them create their own “balanced” design, a shield or something else, that again represents how they see the world. This particular lesson would be very fitting, because it discusses cultural artifacts like Apache shields that would likely appear in a museum. I could also use a lesson like their social issue based lesson on the American flag in a museum to tie in teaching about contemporary art; pieces like Jasper John’s Flag and the concept that meanings of symbols changing in different concepts would fit seamlessly, especially with a slightly older crowd of students. I hope to be an open-minded educator who allows for the full participation and engagement of her students, so creating thought-provoking yet structured curriculum like that seen in chapter 13 would be ideal.

One thing presented in the chapter that I did not totally agree with was their idea of “social reconstruction.” I appreciate the notion as educators that we want to impart a certain level of critical thinking skills onto our students and present issues outside the status quo, but I want to avoid promoting my own ideal of how I want society to be. It is up to the students to decide how they want their world to look, so all I want to do is provide them with the knowledge to make informed decisions. Overall, I appreciate the authors’ argument about using visual culture as a tool to teach social issues. So much of our perception and knowledge is shaped by reactions to what we see, so it is very important for all educators, whether in art or not, to acknowledge this. I know that after taking classes where we studied propaganda and rhetoric, I became a much more informed consumer and citizen; likewise, I have found that learning about other cultures through their art provides a true representation of identity and promotes understanding between people. Even though we share similar experiences and knowledge, every culture has a unique and important perspective to offer. I want my students to feel like their perspectives are valid and they are represented in the learning environment. The visual world provides a fair and relatively universal way to accomplish that. 

Source:

Hanes, J.M. and Weisman, E. (2002). Thematic Curriculum and Social Reconstruction. In Y. Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education (pp. 170-179). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

[maksartmusings]

Textual Analysis - Week 3

Note: This was the week of Labor Day, so there was only one reading we had that week. I am organizing my journals based on what was assigned on the specific weeks, not what was due. 

Efland’s “The Western Origins of Art Education” discusses art education in its social context. Efland argues that a sense of elitism is still found in today’s art education, and art education has historically been organized through a series of institutional settings. Arts were controlled in three ways: patronage, education, and censorship. Patronage involves the organization of resources for the production of art, and it includes relationships between the artist and the audience. Education is the theoretical and practical training given to artists and the audience. Finally, censorship involves what is expressed in art and who has access to it. These systems are controlled by the socially powerful in societies. Patronage can be dominated by one institution (church, state) or by a variety of sources. The greater the number of sources, the greater the number of methods for teaching art. It fosters more experimentation and individuality among artists as well. 

Arts reflect the society from which they come, and therefore so does art education. Elements to consider when looking at art and art education are social structures, ideas of reality, cultural policies that affect the educational system, institutions that implement policy, and instructional methods. Social structures involve ways of behaving in relation to other people. Ideas of reality are a general system of beliefs shared by a culture, embodied in the great works of the time. Cultural policy includes the way that arts are used to promote societal values, like the art of Middle Ages Europe promoted religious faith. In the reverse, it also shows how social beliefs prohibit certain forms of artistic expression. Finally, institutional systems carry out cultural beliefs. Methods of teaching serve as a direct reflection of societies as much as the art works they produce. 

One new fact I learned was that the arts only began to be introduced into public education when literacy became much more common in the nineteenth century. They were introduced as privileges, which established the idea that they were not necessities. I found it interesting that this concept, which is still held as true in our modern education system, was established so long ago. The roots run deep, and they stem from a time when most people had very little time for education or “frivolous” pursuits. In today’s society, we have the ability and the knowledge to appreciate the arts as a valid and worthwhile subject because we are not just struggling to survive. However, they are still given a secondary role; subjects like math and science provide more concrete statistics that allow us to compete with other countries, and they are seen as practical, money-making pursuits. I have to wonder whether we will ever reach a point in our technology-driven society where art is held in as high of esteem. 

I had learned about systems of patronage and social control in the arts before, but I had never heard of the correlation between the number of patrons and artistic expression. This, however, makes perfect sense; for example, in today’s society, we have an unlimited number of artistic patrons through the internet and a variety of community institutions, such as museums and art galleries. Likewise, we have an unlimited range of artistic expression, where almost anything can be considered “art” if someone out there gives it credence. This stands in sharp contrast to the Middles Ages, when art was patronized by the Church, and it only had religious themes. 

Overall, most of the ideas presented in the article supplemented and confirmed what I had learned previously. It is centered around Western art education, but I think the principles discussed in the text could also be applied to the arts in other societies around the world. Institutions still existed that controlled and continue to control the arts in non-Western societies, so perhaps the author could have discussed examples from them in addition. When I am an art educator, I want to draw from all parts of the world in how and what I choose to teach, because it creates a more accessible, comfortable environment for all types of students. Our reality in American art education is based on Western approaches, but perhaps that could change. I also slightly disagree with the notion that all art is controlled by the socially elite. In the early 1900s, society began to see movements that depicted and were patronized by working class peoples, and art became more accessible overall. The language in the article was not difficult to follow, and I defined the new terms in my summary paragraphs.

The article was very informative and interesting, and I appreciated how it shined a light on our society’s long history of discounting the arts. It is one of my main goals as an educator to work toward changing this in the education system and the general community. 

Source: 

Efland. (1990). Art Education: Its Social Context. In The Western Origins of Art Education (pp. 1-7, 47-48). 

[maksartmusings]

Visual Interpretation Entry - Week 4

I drew this mind map piece to illustrate the ideas presented in Chapter 6 of the textbook, “The Art Museum as an Integrated Learning Environment,” which was written by Debra Attenborough. In her chapter, Attenborough discusses the idea of art being the subject to link all subjects. Educators in museums and in schools can use art to teach a variety of other disciplines, creating a more engaging and analytical learning environment for their students. For example, educators can teach about polygons and symmetry - mathematical concepts - by teaching their students how to create tessellations. Art can be a central tool instead of a peripheral discipline. In my art piece, I drew a little version of myself in my cartoony style looking in awe at the possibilities of using art as a central discipline. This is truly how I felt when reading the chapter. Art is always touted as a frivolous subject that’s only for people with natural-born talent, but it can be and already is such a big part of childhood education. I chose to draw the very organic mind map structure because it most aptly shows the connections between disciplines that this idea embodies. Each subject has its own sphere and unique lettering/color scheme, but they are all linked to the large and prominent central figure, art. It is simple imagery, but I felt that it best represented the subject matter. 

Source:

Attenborough, D. (2002). There’s More To It Than Just Looking: The Art Museum as an Integrated Learning Environment. In Y. Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education (pp. 84-96). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.