--------------15C3C51B83917D61F9411085 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <34CB2402.8D68CA43> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 03:37:38 -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: ttipton.tz Subject: Re: What's Anti-Intellectual About Thinking? REPLY! References: <199801251035.NAA27314> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> I personally am an "abstract-random" in my learning style and hence > my teaching style. I believe in developmentally-appropriate > instruction
SO DO I!
> and see learning as a spiral which repeats and transcends > to new levels. I, myself, however, may not be able to rattle off a > series of warm colors or cool colors because when colors are next to > each other they change, and what seemingly in the book is warm may > look cool next to a different color, but when it comes to producing > art, I select colors by pure spontaneity and aesthetics.
I WISH CHILDREN WOULD. THEY SEEM TO WANT TO MIMMICK "LOCAL" COLOR BY USING A LOT OF "GRAYED" (BROWN) COLOR AFTER 2ND GRADE!
> All my > theory classes never impacted my art. Experience in the studio did. > I do not need to know p&e to enjoy making art, as witnessed by 1 1/2 > year olds who love the feel of the movement of a tool across the page > before they learn to ascribe meaning to the marks they make.
THEY ENJOY MUD PIES TOO!
> Look at > all the artists in the world who never had instruction in their lives.
REALLY? I WONDER WHAT A KLINE, POLLOCK, OR A MOTHRWELL WOULD SAY TO THAT?
> They > produced art because it's an innate urge which they gave form to. Theory, > background, P&E, and the like enhance and extend an exploration which > is innate and natural but I can't ascribe to the belief that > fundamentals are necessary to produce art.
SO WE PRODUCE PERFORMANCE ART AND LICK AT THE CHOCOLATE ON OUR BODIES, OR THROW A BUNCH OF PEBBLES DOWN THE GUGGENHEIM RAMP?
> That doesn't mean I don't > teach them, but it's always in context to exploring concepts, > materials, and methods
AH! "CONCEPTS," "MATERIALS," AND METHODS. BETTER WATCH YOUR Ps and Es HERE!
> that may have no apparent sequence to the > outside viewer but fit an organic and non-linear approach to the > regular classroom curriculum, current events, and topics of personal > interest.
DO I HEAR "SEQUENCE ORDER" HERE?
> > > I have been in education for nearly twenty years as a teacher, > administrator, curriculum specialist, consultant, teacher trainer, > and am trained as a printmaker/visual artist. I do workshops on > developmental stages in art for the classroom teacher so they will > widen their perception and expectation of the kinds of things they > want students to produce in art.
I BEAT YOU ABOUT 10 YRS.
> I believe in scope and sequences on > paper, but personally in practice, I think art has less to do with > sequence than involvement and engagement.
TO ENGAGE IS TO CONFRONT. CONFRONT IS TO ACT, AND SO THE SEQUENCE GOES!
> Kids connect in with > concepts at different rates and different levels according to their > learning styles, predilection, and experience.
DON'T WE ALL? "EXPERIENCE" I THINK, IS THE KEY WORD HERE!
> It's a completely > non-linear process.
SO IS SKIING AT TIMES!
> I personally don't believe that a linear model > can be imposed on this non-linear process.
YOU'VE GOT ME HERE! IF YOU ARE GETTING BACK TO A SEQUENCE ORDER OF EVENTS AS OPPOSED TO RANDOM SELECTION, WE MAY HAVE A MESS ON OUR HANDS?
> You may as a teacher for > your own sense of organization create a scope and sequence, but the > reality is, the kid may not get it the way it is taught.
THEY RARELY DO. BUT THEY GET THE HANG OF IT IN NO TIME!
> I'm not sure > I can say that at this point in time I have any student in any of my > classes who is linear in their learning process. I may introduce > concepts and methods and processes I think is appropriate for this > age level but I let the kids take off with it and create.
AH! THE WORD "CREATIVITY" LIKE THE WORD "LOVE" IS AN UMBRELLA WORDWHICH OFTEN GETS LOST IN TRANSLATION!
> "Rules" are > arbitrary cognitive structures
SO ARE WORDS, AS WE ARE FINDING OUT!
> which provide a temporary organizing > system but in and of themselves are only constructs, which have no > other basis in reality except how they are believed.
I DO BELIEVE IN CONSTRUCTS, AND THE REALITIES THEY SUPPORT!
> > > I do all the DBAE "stuff"
AND THAT IS WHAT?
> but in the end, it's not me that sequences the concepts as much as > the brain of the student. They are going to organize and sequence > data in their own self-organizing mode.
THE STUDENTS OF WHICH YOU SPEAK, ARE RARE IN THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THINGS. I CAN'T SEEM TO GET MY EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD GRANDSON IN THAT "MODE."
> > > If we are moving from either/or thinking to both/and in the > "post-modern" era,
NOW I AM CONFUSED. IF THE WORD "MODERN" MEANS OF THE DAY, HOW CAN IT BE THAT WE CAN PROJECT AHEAD OF OUR TIME?
> then let's not get stuck on linear models which > really are more a reflection of the person than the profession.
ARE WE USING THE WORD "PROFESSION" AS AN "ENTITY" HERE? PERSONS MAKE UP PROFESSIONS. NOT THE OTHR WAY ROUND - DON'T YOU THINK?
INCIDENTALLY "ANTI-INTELLECTUAL" WAS NOT A QUOTE OF MINE.
> > > Regards, > Teresa Tipton
AND THE SAME TO YOU. ENJOY THE SUPER BOWL IF YOU WISH.
> > > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:53:27 -0800 > From: Robert Beeching <robprod> > Reply-to: robprod > Organization: International School of Tanganyika Elementary > To: "artsednet" <artsednet.edu> > Subject: RE: ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM! > > James Linker wrote: 01/24/98 > > "...I imagine my life would be much easier if I were so certain just > what art is..." > ---------------------------------------------- > "Art is a non-verbal language of human expression." Otherwise, there is > no issue here! > ---------------------------------------------- > > In reference to teaching basic skills and art appreciation... > > "Just how are they to do this without the intellectual tools and > background knowledge necessary to make such comparisons of the arts to > our society?". > ---------------------------------------------- > > Are we putting the cart before the horse here? Are we talking about > stages in development? Undergraduate studies are quite different from > graduate studies. Most classroom teachers never attain a Ph.D. or an > Ed.D. They rarely are confronted by courses in "Epistemology", > "Aesthetics," or "Theories of Learning." But they do need to understand > how to present children with a scope and sequence approach to learning > art process and skill development. What is so "anti-intellectual" about > that? > > Esoteric language is fine for a dissertation, but why muddle up > undergraduate education with issues which do not directly affect the > teaching of the Visual Arts in the classroom? Beginning reading, > writing, and mathematical skills are taught in a direct fashion with > little if any intellectual inferences. Why not basic Visual Arts? All > the talk of aestheticism in the classroom where children don't even > know how to manipulate a pen or brush does little to further the cause > of art appreciation. > ----------------------------------------------rb > > -- > MZ