Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
>Subject: Re: Take 5--Art and Mathematics - long long long
>Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:11:31 EDT
>"As a former would-be academic, I hesitate to take Eisner's
>Education through Art seriously.
>For example, how would Mr. Eisner teach . . .
> . . . line, shape, form, symmetry/asymmetry without teaching
>least some rudimentary geometry?
> . . . Color theory without science?
> . . . Art history without discussing cultural, political,
>intellectual history. (ie. Impressionism makes more sense to
>placed within the context of the invention of the camera and paint in
>That is exactly the point Mr. Eisner is trying to make. The academics
>already a part of Art. I like to tell my kids that in many instances
>applied Physics. what Eisner is trying to say is that we should not
>our existence by teaching the other subjects in Art class but rather
>showing how they come alive in our classes. Whenever I teach
>always talk about the clay in terms of geology, the chemistry of the
>the physics of the kiln and firing process. To me that is
integration. As a
>matter of fact, I constantly pressure them to take physics not only
>it will help them so much in Art but also because I consider Physics
>survival science. We also discuss the history of the process, as well
>process, also how to critically evaluate the forms, and hold
>discussions on trends over the years as well as explore possible
>trends on the part of the students.
>I cannot imagine discussing the Impressionists without discussing the
>invention of the camera or paint in tubes. That is Art information as
>I am concerned.
>When the art teacher has her class make dinosaurs when the "regular"
>studying that period in history, it is fine to make dinosaurs with
>class as long as design, theory, process, technique, art history, and
>criticism are what is actually being taught. But frequently we read
>this list that read as if the Art teacher is just making dinosaurs to
>the other teacher's curriculum without teaching Art and calling it
>integration. I like to think that they just don't mention that part
>for granted that we are taking it for granted that Art was taught.
>"I think the point of Education through Art is to engage kids in a
>dynamic form of learning. Perhaps that places art on a level that is
>"secondary" to "academic" subjects like English; however, we must ask
>ourselves whether DBAE has significantly enhanced the status of art
>public schools. "
>I cannot comprehend how understanding that studying Art engages
students in a
>more dynamic form of learning could possibly place Art in a secondary
>position to any other subject. And I fail to comprehend your
>between this and DBAE. Are you saying that only when Art is taught in
>manner that it is dynamic learning? Well, actually, when DBAE is
>properly and in the manner that the founders of the theory intended,
>truly a dynamic form of learning. It means that Art students do not
>process in a vacuum. It means that they get the information on the
>of the camera and paint in tubes, the color theory, the design
>process of production as well as the opportunity to critically
>own work, and to discuss what they are doing philosophically. Perhaps
>people who are losing their jobs or space are the victims of
>misinterpretation of DBAE and/or Art class being nothing more than an
>activity class or "inside recess." I am not saying that the DBAE
>be adhered to to provide dynamic learning in the Art class. I am
>if Art is being taught dynamically and for in depth art learning,
>method of the teacher is going to be pretty close to that of the DBAE
>So DBAE is not the criminal but the victim. The scapegoat.
>"If I understand the 'learned scholar" Mr. Eisner, here, I am hearing
>that art education needs to exist for its own sake. Well, I beg to
>When ANY subject exists for its own sake it becomes vapid and
>The specialization route is EXACTLY what so many English, Math,
>History teachers are doing WRONG.
>It frustrates me when social Studies teachers teach about ancient
>fail to even discuss the basics of Greek art.
>I hated history in high school because I didn't give a damn about
>who fought what wars and who was in power. That's not all there is
>Mr. Eisner, a truly learned scholar, is not saying that Art should be
>without the mention of these other subjects. You're exactly right.
>precisely what many English, History, etc., teachers are doing wrong.
>there are many teachers of these subjects who understand that what
>is only one piece of the puzzle and that they must show the
>is one of the major connectors. However, that does not mean that we
>start teaching those subjects in our room, but that we should also
>connections. And that is what Eisner is saying. Teach Art. Do not
>dinosaurs for the History teacher to display in his/her classroom.
>integration would be the History teacher and the Art teacher
designing a unit
>of study in which the students learn about the time period in terms
>social/chronological history and art history, discuss the period in
>philosophical and scientific terms and create a related art form
>learning the related design, process, technique, etc., information.
>kind of integration is difficult at the secondary level simply
because my art
>students do not all have the same history class let alone the same
>However, it can be done in a modified form, if there are "academic"
>who are not threatened by the concept.
>I am fortunate where I teach in that many of the science teachers are
>aware of the connection between art and the sciences and without any
>on my part just naturally incorporate art information into their
>fact I have a "lab" that I do when introducing color courtesy of
>science teachers. Not because I am trying to teach physics in my art
>but because I am trying to give one more piece of evidence that black
>presence of all colors. And it is a little bit different twist and
>attention. They appreciate that I push the study of science as a
>for study in art and I appreciate what they do. Our plan is to get
>and identify more ways that they can tie art in and vice versa.
>Physics is a little rusty. :-))
>But one thing that we have to remember when maligning the "academic"
>for not making the connections more often, is that we have taken all
>subjects. Frequently they have had little or no art. It is difficult
>even when they are willing.
>Eisner is not saying to teach art in a vacuum. He is just saying art
>be studied because it is important to know art. Making the
>important, in fact impossible to avoid, given the nature of art.
>Boy talk about having a lot to say!
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com