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


Art Education and Technology

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
RVOYLES
Mon, 04 Mar 1996 00:05:30 -0500 (EST)


From: IN%"tatc" 3-MAR-1996 10:54:24.33
To: IN%"artsednet", IN%"naea-emig"
CC:
Subj: RE: Mark Larson

Return-path: <owner-naea-emig>
Received: from cythera.unb.ca ("port 64426"@cythera.unb.ca)
by UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU (PMDF V5.0-5 #9050)
id <01I1WE25QCSI006WNK> for RVOYLES;
Sun, 03 Mar 1996 10:54:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: (majordomo@localhost) by cythera.unb.ca (8.6.12/8.6.5)
id LAA06484 for naea-emig-outgoing; Sun, 03 Mar 1996 11:40:40 -0400
Received: from tab.com (root [205.198.215.10])
by cythera.unb.ca (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA06479 for
<naea-emig>; Sun, 03 Mar 1996 11:40:37 -0400
Received: from [205.198.215.232] (pm232.tab.com [205.198.215.232])
by tab.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA08517; Sun, 03 Mar 1996 10:09:15 -0600
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 09:40:09 -0600
From: tatc (Diane C. Gregory, Ph.D.)
Subject: re: Mark Larson
Sender: owner-naea-emig
To: artsednet, naea-emig
Message-id: <v01510101ad5f68625b82@[205.198.215.230]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Precedence: bulk

Dear fellow artsednet posters and EMIG members from Diane C. Gregory: (this
could get long)

This is in response to Mark Larson's recent posting on Artsednet that was a
reply to something I posted earlier. He said in reply to my Artsednet
posting,

[major snip]
" I can relate first hand to legitimacy issues over the past five years
>entering computer artwork and photography into student art shows. I think
>that misconceptions and to some degree a technological bias exists with
>some of the art teachers charged with jurying the shows that my students
>have participated in. A lot of people still believe that somehow a
>computer/software platform does "all the work" for an artist and the tasks
>are all somehow automated so that anyone can do it. While there are some
>simple tricks that the layperson can use to create computer art, digital
>painting or image processing can also be a sublime synthesis of many
>related and unrelated software functions as well as classic artistic skills
>in manipulating marks and "virtual materials". There is all the difference
>in the world between someone at a carnival creating a "spin painting" or
>Jackson Pollack's hypnotic and atmospheric gesture paintings."

Wow that is a great statement and I appreciate what you say. A controversy
about computer generated art work is being raged in the Texas Art Education
Association. I too have run into art teachers who have misconceptions
about computer generated art. I agree with what Mark Larson is saying and
I think Mark Larson's following statement says it all for me:

>that misconceptions and to some degree a technological bias exists with
>some of the art teachers charged with jurying the shows that my students
>have participated in. A lot of people still believe that somehow a
>computer/software platform does "all the work" for an artist and the tasks
>are all somehow automated so that anyone can do it. While there are some
>simple tricks that the layperson can use to create computer art, digital
>painting or image processing can also be a sublime synthesis of many
>related and unrelated software functions as well as classic artistic skills
>in manipulating marks and "virtual materials".

I am often surprised when I encounter this attitude among art educators.
In Texas, some are wanting a statement concerning creativity and computer
generated art work. I am resisting such a movement, because it would
unfairly single out a medium of expression. I believe that issues of
creativity apply to all areas of artistic production and to unfairly single
out computer generated art, is to reveal one's true intent, that is to
censor a new artistic medium. I do not think it has anything to do with
creativity, the real reason behind these kinds of attacks are a desire to
eradicate computer generated artwork, because of a general lack of
understanding and knowledge of what it takes to make a work of computer
generated art. I believe some people fear technology and feel excluded
from technology and therefore they lash out and want to do away with it. I
support their right to speak their own opinion and I support my right to
expose their true intent. I think what is at the core of this issue is
fear. I do know that when people become afraid they make rash judgements.
I am hoping that a larger percentage of art educators will control their
fears and listen to the issues involved, before attacking computer
generated art.

Thank you Mark Larson for what you said. Thank you also to your kind
response to my reply to your earlier posting.

I enjoy this kind of professional dialogue that is fair, reasoned and
respectful. Way to go Mark!

Diane C. Gregory