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.

Lesson Plans


[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Robert Beeching (robprod)
Sat, 1 Aug 1998 07:48:04 -0700


Hi Reatha,

Thanks for the clarification. I'm afraid that the "dumbing down" of schools
of education since the 60s, and the Art Ed., Ph.D., and Ed.D. ; programs
that stress "verbal" over "visual" disciplines, most of those going into
elementary grades receive little if any practical knowledge or experience
applying "principles and elements" of art in their elementary credentialing
methods classes. Professors tend to "talk" theory rather than "teach" art
processes. Consequently, that is why there is so much "project art" in the
lower grades. I've been fighting this for over 30 years.

I don't know why elementary school visual arts practices are continually
separated from what is taught in music, dance, and drama at the secondary
levels of instruction. There was a CBS "Classic" on "Primestar" that
featured Julliard Music training. One comment struck me (paraphrasing): "We
stress principle, elements, and performance training because you can't hold
a job without them."

I come from an artist family: mother; opera: father; industrial design, and
I can't understood why visual arts training is outside of general elementary
education. I would guess that the majority of elementary level teachers have
never experienced "art school" training.

If visual arts training began in the lower grades along with the teaching
of: reading, writing, and arithmetic, we would not have this hybrid
"project art" permeating elementary education. Many Americans confuse "arts
training" with low level catalogue-type "crafts." Most Americans do not
seem to be able to differentiate between the two.


-----Original Message-----
From: RWilk85411 <RWilk85411>
To: robprod <robprod>
Cc: <>
Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: IN A NEW KEY?

>In a message dated 7/31/98 7:30:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>robprod writes:
><< was interested in your artsednet post re. your comment "it's a shame."
>Please clarify! >>
>Sorry, I didn't mean that we don't need to discuss the topic. If it sounded
>that way, I apologize. I just feel that it is a shame that we do need to.
>we didn't have so many teachers who are project oriented, then we wouldn't
>even have to discuss how important it is to teach the design principles.
>as it is we can't discuss it too much. Please believe me when I say that I
>behind you one hundered percent! In fact you use the same examples that I
>when I try to make the point. We need to rid our profession of the "monkey-
>see-monkey-do" teachers. You know, "This is how we make a paper plate
>mask.................", with no reference to a design principle or art
>element. And it doesn't take fancy equipment or supplies to teach a good
>foundation in art.