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


Re: DBAE ?'s long post

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
George Martin Rex (grex)
Wed, 02 Dec 1998 12:28:19 +0500


On 02-Dec-98, MarshArt wrote:
>In a message dated 12/1/98 2:58:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>lhb.edu writes:

>> 3) What Pro's or Con's do you see with a DBAE approach to art
>> education?
>> I also have student teachers who come in with strict guidelines for DBAE
>lessons that > are totally lacking in practicality. Some times I feel
>that the DBAE hard core
>> academics are totally out of touch with real classroom situations
>> I think it's excellent to learn a vocabulary to use when looking at,
>> thinking about or talking about art. But I also know how much Art History
>> and aesthetic scanning can happen before 30 first graders demand to know
>> what were going to do today. You can only get by with saying "were just
>> looking today", so many times
>>

>Hooray for you! I believe in the DBAE but not as a hard-core replacement
>for production as our primary goal. Kids find DBAE dry. They want to DO
art.
>DBAE may be more applicable to secondary education or colleges. Personally, I
>have found younger kids want to create. Art history and critique have to be
>cleverly woven into the lesson while production takes place or they lose
>interest.

>Yes, I believe children and adults have become art illiterate. Critique,
>vocabulary and art history background are needed to understand art but I find
>the DBAE is mainly in the academic left-brain arena and right-brain
>production is the minor thrust. It may satisfy the art history major but the
>practicing artist needs more freedom to create.

>Yes, critical thinking skills have to be applied to both aesthetics and the
>production. As a professional exhibiting artist as well as art teacher, I can
>tell you that creativity comes from somewhere within. It just "feels" right
>when a work is done. I don't go over and analyze it with a fine tooth comb
>but I DO critique my work according to basic principles of design. Do I have
>balance, unity, alternation, variation, dominance, etc.? Does it communicate
>what I am saying? Am I creating it just for my self-expression or to tell
>others something I care deeply about?

>I'd hate to see art reduced to academia like science or math. Van Gogh would
>turn over in his grave. Art is about DOING. We need a balanced curriculum of
>aesthetics, history and creative exploration. The word "production" makes
the
>creative process sound like a stoic, matter-of fact, zombie-like,
after-the-
>fact process. It is anything but that.

>Sorry, DBAEers, I don't want to rattle your cage. I only ask for BALANCE. We
>can study architecture "till the cows come home but creating is what art it
>is about! Students need to experience and do architecture to internalize it.

>Enough said. Whew! Don't hate me guys. I wouldn't be without this Listserv.
>Your help and thoughts mean a lot to me and I respect you for all your
views.

>Marsha

-- 

Sic 'um. Maybe 10% that other stuff as spice on productive hands on art. Art making does not have to justify itself. We need to become vigorous in our outreach to the public and administration, pointing out that art production is by deffination upper level thinking. Also our English teacher friends and history teacher buddies cover a lot of this so work in interdiscp stuff with them.

I\___/I I:Q:O:I I::V::I I:::::I \:::/ ===W=W=== Give a Hoot! Martin