I don't agree that teaching VC means not discussing
the history of art. If you understand VC, it is a way
of redefining art history and the world of art. It
looks at objects and object making with a new lense.
Our cultures place meaning on objects from other
cultures and call them art, that in their own
cultures, had no such disignation. VC is a way of
bringing latest information about visual processing
through a new lense of meaning making and culture, in
all of its forms, not just the museum and fine art
format. As a teacher, you select what to teach.
Bringing VC into the curriculum is a way to enhance,
There are many Visual Culture curricula and programs
in the world, especially in Australia and England. The
University of Birmingham in Central England has
published many resources on the topic. I recently did
searches in WorldCat and ERIC and found hundreds of
citations. There is alot out there to look at to calm
fears. If we have perspective, remember when people
were lamenting that DBAE would take away from ART
PRODUCTION time. We are shifting in our field and new
to bring in the latest information into our practice.
> 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.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more