Esa, I completely agree that VCAE is very similar to DBAE in that making art
isn't the only thing we do. It seems to me that the biggest shift is that
we're not discussing the history of art and world art that we've been doing.
It includes all visual imagery such as industrial design of the cars we
drive to school, our clothes, the PlayStation games they play, and what
we're exposed to through the media. My supervisor said that others may
accuse our program as being too vocational focused like a drafting/graphic
design class rather than being a new school of thought in art education.
That's the biggest difference in my eyes.
I want to know what other red flags to anticipate before implementing this
into my curriculum from our community and fellow art teachers so (Esa and
all) please continue to tell me what you think about this. Michelle
From: Esa Tipton <email@example.com>
Reply-To: "ArtsEdNet Talk" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "ArtsEdNet Talk" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Visual Culture: Is a Paradigm 20 cents?
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
I don't see that there is any conflict between
shifting from DBAE to Visual Culture in one's approach
to teaching or in thinking. They are interconnected
and interrelated. If we teach history and criticism
and aesthetics, visual culture is an evolutionary leap
in thinking, not in practice.
We are living in an era where "both/and" thinking
supplants "either/or" paradigms. Embrace both, do
both. Find what fits.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more