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.

Lesson Plans


Re: Generosity Repaid!

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Margaret Grosspietsch (Margaret.M.Grosspietsch-1)
Sun, 29 Jun 97 10:05:26 -0500


I must join in the dissenting opinions to Robert Beeching's post....

He wrote:
> After a month of logging on to the "artsednet" page, I have read genuine
> registered concerns and suggestions on ART EDUCATION ISSUES,
(...snip...) to be able to exchange ideas with
> other art educators on pressing issues which affect our proession in
> general, and not have to wade through what I call "junk" mail which has
> little if anything to do dirctly with our educational concerns.

One person's "junk" is another person's "treasure" and we'll never reach a
consensus regarding which is which. Art Educators have more than issues to deal
with, and some of the light-hearted "junk" is just the remedy for motivation to
keep plowing forward.

He also wrote:
> Education in general, and art education in particular, is in crisis
> throughout the states. We need solutons for teacher training at the
> university level, and a scope and sequence approach to the teaching of art
> "principles" and "elements" at the school site levels of instruction.

Yes, better teacher training is one area of concern, but I offer a challenge to
your statement regarding the "P&E's" -- I happen to think that art is SO MUCH
MORE than just P&E's. The primary emphasis on P&E's seems to come from a
formalist aesthetic stance, but not all art and artists share that stance. Not
to mention art of other cultures... it would be RUDE to cover them from a P&E
stance. Let's not forget the disciplines of criticism, history and
aesthetics--making art is only a fourth of the experience and learning many of
us provide in our art classes. P&Es are a nice starting point, but our
curriculums should cover more than that. How does one fill 12 years of
curriculum with just P&Es, anyway? There's so much more content to cover.

Finally he wrote:
> I seriously doubt that this page was designed for home-spun philosophers
> and chefs to vent their particular brands of nonsense. (...snip.)

Whoa, there! This listserv WAS designed for the everyday Joe and JoAnne with an
interest in promoting better art instruction and appreciation in education--the
page you refer to merely provides us the opportunity. Experts in their fields
are welcome to join the list, but moreso is the average-person's common sense
(and/or "nonsense"). So maybe some of us miss the mark from time to time.
Someone will surely let the person know if they disagree.... I believe others
will concur that debate/discourse/discussion that allows for a DIVERSITY of
viewpoints and topics is what this list is all about. Don't confuse the webpage
(put out by one organization with its own agenda) with this listserv (open to
all interested--and we all have different agendas, thank goodness).

As for this list and the offerings on it, we all have a delete buttons--we don't
have to read everything (kinda like a newspaper) and ultimately, we all have the
choice to unsubscribe if we don't find value in the offerings here. Many (all?)
of us highly value freedom of speech, and your post has an ugly tone of
censorship to it that really ruffles my feathers.

MG