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.
>...they will contradict what I am teaching, because of what they learned
> in humanities.
Interesting, isn't it? But clearly, in order to contradict they must be
paying attention, which is a good thing. It seems like an opportunity to
be a tad pre-emptive and to explore the discrepencies and disputes in the
world of history as well as how "hard" and firm our current knowledge is.
Some of your assessment might develop towards exploring their
understanding of the "contradictions" rather than their recall of one
particular perspective. Those contradictions also might make an
interesting jumping off point for a project or paper: Which argument
appears to have better support? What information might the weaker
argument need to develop to better make its case? etc.
> My question is should I cover less of the art history next year..
I'd vote no. Is the humanities perspective the same as an art perspective?
In fact, is the formal "art history" perspective the same as the studio
artist's perspective on the history of art? Maybe not.
You could choose to frame a specific alternative perspective for the
history portion of your cirruculum or coopt the students into an
exploration of their own concerning the alternatives to the standard
humanities P.O.V. in a process of developing a curriculum unique to their
Maybe that notion doesn't appeal to you. How about a concentration on the
"unofficial" arts and the art makers who don't usually make it into the
If any idea of alternatives is unappealing, you could also work out a deal
with the humanities instructor to use the two classes together to expand
the amount of material that will be covered. Work out a co-curriculum.
just some possibilities that I see.