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.

Find Lesson Plans on! GettyGames

Re: Is art education dead?


From: Patricia Knott (pknott_at_TeacherArtExchange)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 20:52:13 PDT

Good to have you back Henry, have missed your long windedness.
> I'm pretty sure it isn't dead (tho it should be) too many people out there
> capable of carrying the old ways over and unaware of the impending "death"
> or any of the "official" announcements that have come out in recent
> months.

And I'm pretty sure it died when we decided to become disciplined and
> the old was unbalanced: too Western, Too Modern in perception, too
> Fine art, too intellectual
> In its place we need to build an AE that is rebalanced and fairly reflects
> the practices and uses of aesthetic making in culture (art)around the
> planet and from the paleolithic to the present. If we were to be
> absolutely scrupulous about it
But I absolutely shiver when I see some of the abuses of "multicultural"
lessons and the disregard for the belief systems that led to the creations.
You are asking for a knowledge base that that I really don't see happening.
I see a lot of 'trinket' making, without the understanding.

> Art isn't just the "non-utilitarian" that's a Modernist intrusion and is
> probably only appropriate in a modernist western context.
> And definitely art is not primarily a professional practice. KIDS you CAN
> do this AT HOME!!!!!!

And that's the problem I grapple with. Art is first PLAY. It's about
wrestling with ideas and being given the time and freedom to do that
wrestling. We have become bound to curriculums that narrow that play and
wrestling with concepts. Narrow it to a western view and a western outcome
and ultimately narrow it to how are you going to make money out of this?
> I hate to say this 'cause I know just about everyone
> will choke on their teeth but aside from her narrow focus on Western
> Fashion Martha Stewart is closer to a useful model of Art Ed than anything
> the universities have come up with to date. (Are you done gagging yet?)
> Seriously If Martha's demographic niche was school kids and if she spent
> more time on the products of historical and traditional (non-western,
> non-metropolitan) cultures she'd have something. This is real art being
> used in peoples lives. No, not SIGNIFICANT ART or Significant Form, those
> are Modernist ideas and values. This is Aesthetic Making having a real
> impact on peoples lives.
As much as I think Martha is a little bit obsessive/complusive I don't
disagree. My only problem is that Martha has gotten herself into a position
to be able to "play" through means that I don't don't quite want to
represent as a model. But now that she is where she is she can play. And
play is what I want to talk about.

Is art ed dead? Yes. Because we don't play anymore. In our efforts to
legitimatize our program, we have forgotten that the art room is the place
to come and play. Play is not illegitimate.

Henry asks that we offer a model Anyone could offer a competing model and if
you can muster even a
> small one it would be a shame not to put it out here in the world
I suggest that we play a little more Everyone should play at it! Take a
little responsibility for what art
> education is evolving into.

yes I'm really tired tired and weary of seeing what I'm good at doing being
reduced to administrative objectives that I see little value in, little
value to what I think are the true values of art ed

two more weeks for me and maybe I will rejuvenate