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

Fwd: Different Philosophy

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
RWilk85411 (RWilk85411)
Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:49:58 EST

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-ID: <>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Content-ID: <>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

From: RWilk85411 <RWilk85411>
Return-path: <RWilk85411>
Subject: Re: Different Philosophy
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:49:02 EST
Organization: AOL (
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Just because Fran had a student teacher who nearly killed her students with
art history lectures doesn't mean that must be the new thing. Perhaps his/her
background as a student did not prepare him/her to teach studio with
confidence. We had a post on here from an about to be student teacher or new
teacher in which she indicated that she felt confident with art history but
very weak in studio. She was looking for help to keep from doing all art
history. Nobody wants all art history in their classes. That is not the
objective of DBAE. DBAE simply is intended to insure that students are not
subjected to nothing but hands-on. That leads to students who cannot use the
technique unless they are doing exactly what they did in class. That is where
you teach crayon etchings instead using crayon etchings to teach using value
to create form.They have no foundation for application. They have not studied
the design principles or not studied them in context with the creation of art
by others or in a manner that allows them to make creative decisions using the
priciples as their guides.
DBAE emphasizes the importance of all parts of art being taught. I do not know
where it has come from that DBAE is about never doing studio work. Studio work
is an important part of DBAE. I was doing DBAE before the term ever surfaced.
It just didn't make sense to have students create art in a void. They need to
know the roots, the philosophy, and the analysis as well as the how-to. Maybe
that's why I embraced DBAE so willingly.
And every lesson does not have to have all of the four parts. It is enough to
make sure that the over all curriculum addresses all four parts. Teaching that
curriculum can easily involve studio in greater percentages than the other
three parts.
I have a student who announced to me that he was in no way an artist at the
beginning of the year. We did a learning exercise involving line value. He did
some beautiful compositions. Many more than the other students. Everyone
agreed that Josh was really good at creating compositions with nothing but
line. When we moved on to another design principle, he objected. So I
introduced him to Piet Mondrian. He is doing his exam research on Mondrian. He
is becoming a young "expert" on Mondrian. He can point out other artists who
worked similarly. He is seeing extensions of the style of expression and
expanding his own work. He is also doing the assignments in class that are far
removed from Mondrian without complaint.
I think that is what DBAE is good for. It was a convoluted way of doing DBAE.
But that is my point. It is not this rigid step by step formula that some have
made it out to be.
So to those who are so upset with DBAE. Loosen up. Embrace the concept. Make
it work for you. Just as if you were learning another medium. Put your twist
on it. Or just ignore it. But please don't trash it.
Ok I'm preaching. It's Sunday, what can I say?