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.
I too suffered as an "art major" having to take "art ed" courses
teaching us "six ways to decorate a Clorox bottle" and how to analyze a
Cezanne painting. Nothing has changed since the 1950's. In Prague (1966)
at an international art conference where all notable "art educatores"
congregated, nothing was mentioned about "art training" either!
I have come to the conclusions: 1) Art Educations has little to do with
art training, 2) Most Elementary classroom teachers have no training in
art, 3) College arted professors are dealing with issues other than art
training, and 4) Four generations of "non-art" teaching has left not
only the students, but their teachers and parents with a misconception
of what art training can be!
One current example is the interest in the Betty Edwards book with a
Robert Ornstein psychological twist. These concepts go back as far as
the 1919 German Bauhaus School of Design, and formulated again with the
publication of Kimon Nicolaides' (1941) "The Natural Way To Draw."
Moholy-Nagy published his visual arts curriculum in "Vision in Motion"
in (1961). Apparently, this material was not part of the "frames of
references" in current doctoral dissertations, let alone reaching
teacher candidates. If so many art teachers are working on advance
degrees, who is going to fill the role of the elementary level art
specialists in the future? There are precious few left today!
As long as elementary school teachers find "projects" from art magazines
and crafs catalogues, little art training is going to transpire. As I
said, art education" is not the same as "art training." They are miles
apart in concept and development. Administrators love these programs
because they cost nothing - but words!