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)
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:29:38 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


--------------D49B506AB69DC425214720A3 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <34C8FD7C.6DABB958> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:28:44 -0800 From: Robert Beeching <robprod> Reply-To: robprod Organization: Robert Beeching Productions X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Antoine Labadie <labadie> Subject: Re: ART ED. EYEBALLED BY PROFS... References: <10FA56DD3E43> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

John Antoine Labadie wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:24:50 -0800 > > From: Robert Beeching <robprod> > > Reply-to: robprod > > Organization: Robert Beeching Productions > > To: "artsednet" <> > > Subject: ART ED. EYEBALLED BY PROFS... > > > Picasolovr wrote: > > > > "Interesting...maybe our discussions throughout the two months have been > > eyeballed by > > college professors" (of art?)... > > > > You must remember that many of these professors have been away from the > > classroom working > > on their doctoral theses. Unfortunately, these degrees are based on > > "oral" and "written" > > examinations with much reading and writing; not on art production! It is > > natural that the shoe boxes they have filled with all those "frames of > > references" will have to eventually end up in curriculum guides, text > > books, and class lectures. It is far easier to talk about art than it is > > to produce it. > > > > SEE: <> > > -----------------------rb > > RB: > > I very much appreciate the "way" your discussions/newsletter, etc. > are headed. I am one of those doctoral folks who strayed from > production into "oral and written" equivalents for art and art > education practice. > > See some of my current digital efforts at > "> > > And let me know how i can be of assistance in getting this > flow alternative and non-traditional art education out to those who > most need it. > > Regards, John > > Dr. John Antoine Labadie > Department of Art > University of North Carolina - Pembroke > > wphone: 910.521.6618 > fax: 910.521.6688 > URL: > > "Anyone who has begun to think places some > portion of the world in jeapordy" > > John Dewey

How true, John!

In my estimation, the doctoral requirement for teaching art at the college and university levels of instruction has hindered more than fostered legitimate art instruction. Teachers College at Columbia was the flag ship of art education in the late 40s and early 50s. It is only now that it has risen to the occasion once more with lesson plans on how to teach drawing skills. All one has to do is look at what goes up on the walls of elementary and secondary school buildings to assess the quality of instruction and output; absolute disregard for the basic principles and elements of design; little knowledge of typography. School posters, in the main, have become the flagships of visual illiteracy.

Until art education joins the ranks of legitimate art instruction, we will continue to dilute the potential contributions of the arts in our society. If music, dance, and drama teachers followed the precepts of current art education practices, they would be in the same boat.

Art is neither science nor psychology, it is a non-verbal visual language which we can learn and apply. Visual Arts has been plagued by "Puritan" ignorance since the late 1800s, and we still think of art training as some type of "decorative" adjunct to society rather than the essential core subject

it could be in an age of high visual impact. As a former television art director, I know what it takes to design and to produce a visual statement. Those statements are not based on theory alone, but on continuous practice and production.

If looking at art alone could produce a visually conscious and aware populace, there would be no need for art education. This is not the case. We need people who can draw, paint, and construct with craftsmanship and purpose. It is our job as teachers of the visual arts to share our hard-gained experiences with our students, and demand from them the best that they can learn and contribute to their society in the clothes they wear, the furniture they sit on, and the cars they drive as well as what they sculpt paint; what they choose to put on their home and office walls. Art is a process, not a subject. And the sooner we realize that, we may begin to dig ourselves out of this plebeian rut. -------------------------------------rb