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.
Fw: artist as teacher
[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]Linda Kelty
Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:47:57 -0400
This is an interesting topic for discussion, both for it's value
educationally and for the disparity between the old and the new teachers. I
think what us "oldsters" felt was similar to what Wendy expresses now. If
you're an "oldster", do you remember wanting to change things for the
better? I do. We repeat this process generationally, and we each add to
the growing validity of art education through our perception of purpose and
function. This should be welcomed by all of us. Just a word of caution.
It's too easy to throw out the old to make room for the new. The more
challenging task is to winnow out that which is truely good from both the
old and the new and to create an effective blend. This bridging of
knowledge, process and technique is the foundation for internalized change
that will remain effective instead of a "flash in the pan" approach that
quickly consumes itself. It requires patience to practice this and a
rational rather than emotive approach. The spirit of compromise between
both the old and new approaches benefits all of us. Remember that all of us
were new teachers at one time, and most of us will become old teachers.
There is something to be learned from both "camps" and if something is
retained by a caring teacher it is more likely to be because of the success
ratio for the student than the ease of use for the teacher.
Wendy Sauls wrote:
i think this is a very seductive question!
>i get really frustrated sometimes hearing about all the old standards or
>master-centered art lessons, too. i don't intend any disrespect and
>of course that there is a lot to offer and be learned there. BUT i
>with the internet and access to gazillions of art resources and the
>"acceptance" (?) of artistic diversity and the incredible range of
>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
>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
>if you don't think of too many things to do with him? NOT things like
>a picture just like Britto's" but like, "analyze/describe the nature of
>art" style and put forth one's own interpretation ( ie could pop not
>encompass pixelated imagery today?)". i love to see art lesson plans
>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
Reply: Fran Marze: "Re: H. S. Curriculum"