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 find this discussion fascinating. I love questions from outsiders. (I am
assuming Tom is in someway outside of the art ed field) I think this question
forces us to look at ourselves and question. It makes us a bit uncomfortable.
I mean, look at the stir he caused.
I think its really important to look at. I question sometimes if my lessons
are too Art History based; if I provide too much structure. I try to create
a balance by interceding with less history/cultural lessons. Last Spring I
used a lot more process/discovery based units. I dont know if certain
students would have had difficulty anyway, but I noticed a number of kids
kind of freaking out without the structure, the guidelines. They didn't know
what to do without an example of a Master to go by. I worry that this is part
way my fault. Does this Art History based programming damper my students'
problem solving and creative ability? Am I sacrificing the opportunity to
foster creative problem solvers to teach them Art History? I know this sounds
very Lowenfeldian, but I think we should all be asking ourselves this. I
think I am going to try to construct my units around this issue more this
Thanks Tom. It takes an outsider to rock our paradigm! -Dawn in