i get really frustrated sometimes hearing about all the old standards or old
master-centered art lessons, too. i don't intend any disrespect and realize
of course that there is a lot to offer and be learned there. BUT i thought
with the internet and access to gazillions of art resources and the
"acceptance" (?) of artistic diversity and the incredible range of materials
now available to make art out of and the not so new notion that art
education should be somehow related to kids lives, that our lesson plans
would have become a little more varied. every once in a while i think i'm
going to gak if i see another lesson on matisse papercuts or picasso still
lifes in crayon and tempera (not that i'm guiltless of ever teaching them!).
there are so many fabulously interesting and inspiring artists who are
working now, how come we don't use them for lesson plans more? like romero
britto, for example? http://www.britto.com/ check out this site and tell me
if you don't think of too many things to do with him? NOT things like "make
a picture just like Britto's" but like, "analyze/describe the nature of "pop
art" style and put forth one's own interpretation ( ie could pop not
encompass pixelated imagery today?)". i love to see art lesson plans that
are about thinking and making connections and transforming, not just
a great topic for summer discussions, i submit!
>This seems like a very strange question for someone in art education to
>ask. Or perhaps you are not an art teacher. Let me know and I will try
>to formulate a good answer for you.
> Later, Woody
>Tom Johnsen wrote:
>> I see a number of lesson plans which culminate in a student painting
>> like some other dead artist. Why is this valued?
>> tom johnsen