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.
Thanks, Sandra, for your clarifications. Your comprehensive approach
certainly goes way beyond what some of the published materials include.
Maybe a way to check on ourselves is to try to sense whether our students
work seems overly derivative. Having all the other significant input in the
lessons, as you do, certainly lets the students know that you value their
own thinking. Please keep up the good work and continue to share your ideas.
I did make one error which I caught when I reread my original
message. I haven't "always felt" as I now do. When I started teaching I
used lots more examples because it was the way I had learned and I didn't
know about some of the other ways to build skills and get concepts across.
It was only after doing quite a bit of graduate study in Art Education, that
I became concerned about the excessive use of examples which might have a
tendency to preclude thinking based on the child's own life and experiences.
Discussing other artist's works at the end of a lesson seems to me to put a
greater emphasis on art history because the lesson has as a primary goal the
building of a frame of reference for the study of the historical (or other
Regarding Discipline Based Art Education, I support it
wholeheartedly. I am quite aware of the shortcomings of not including art
history, criticism, aesthetics along with production. I do feel it is
possible to go too far in the direction of encouraging derivative work
without realizing it, but I don't see your practices doing that. Derivative
work certainly needn't be an automatic outcome of DBAE.