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 getty.edu! GettyGames

Re: RE: Visual Culture art ed questions

---------

tortolitascom_at_TeacherArtExchange
Date: Sat May 04 2002 - 19:46:02 PDT


Dawn

   About a year ago Vivian Komando covered VCAE here
   http://www.getty.edu/artsednet/hm/Jun01/0418.html
   Its in Grad-Speak but not too inaccessible.

   What VCAE comes down to is framed by Laura Chapman in this way:
   "Who benefits most when artistic skills are widely deployed by a few, in ways not critically
   fathomed by the many?"

   Meme theory would identify this as the "hook". i.e. Someone benefits. Someone else gets the
   shaft. Something needs to be done. Chapman's question is based on a fairly accurate
   assessment.

   In Duncum's recent writing VCAE would seem to overlay DBAE; adding a little and revising a
   little. The major additions and revisions seem to be:

   1 a focus on Image-as-Text
   2 expansion of the canon beyond fine art to include commercial media and popular culture
   where ever benefit (ecnomic or social profit)accrues in a zero-sum (un-balanced or winner
   take all) manner.
   3 the use of semiotic "critique" derived from Chapman's question to explor and examine the
   "visual culture" as represented by 1 and 2 above.

   Visual Literacy and Vision appear to be possible extensions coming from outside the NAEA

   I'll be here though the summer and VCAE is what I came to explore, little enough comfort in
   that I suppose. ;-)

   >my classmates came up with
   >were graffiti, cereal boxes, magazine covers, soda
   >cans, toys, ads and movies.  Is this what “we’re”
   >talking about in this correspondence?

   Pretty central to the NAEA crew's vision I'd say.

   >It seems to me, these topics are fall-out from
   >outsider and pop art traditions.  

   It would be better if they were I think. A useful association to draw but not the one
   intended perhaps.

   >seems like the remainder approach advertising issues to me.

   a reasonable characterization. This IS where the real money is being spent in "art" these
   days sure an individual Picasso can bring down big bucks but commercial advertising media
   eclipse that regularly. Not that the artists themselves are getting obscenely rich...just a
   steady paycheck. The big buck are being spent becaust its a profitable investment. Its a
   concern because its a big influence on our culture and values. A thousand years and more ago
   art was much more democratically accessible and didn't look so much like what we think of as
   fine art today. a thousand years ago everyone in the community participated in the areas
   marketing plays in today. back then everyones ideas were in play today they pull in a focus
   group, figure out what they can sell then what they can make profitably and then offer a
   much smaller selection bac to us to vote on with our purchases.   ..and try to persuade us
   that the market is obviously meeting our demands and reflects our desires. The fac!
   t that our interests are interfered with by decision makers concerned almost exclusively
   with a corporations profit and bottom line elludes them.

   VCAE's concerns are valid but I think short-sighted and they tend to come from outside of
   art and to USE art in ways that aren't quite in keeping with what art evolved as culturally.
   Art, whatever it is, exists to serve some survival function. it evolved along with us. So
   far we've managed to avoid exploring that much. Only Dissanayake so far seems to be looking
   that way. I was hoping the VCAE was going to pickup more along that line but so far no luck.
   Art (aesthetic making) is a wonderful thing it would be nice to cooperate with it.

   cheers
   henryDawn

   About a year ago Vivian Komando covered VCAE here
   http://www.getty.edu/artsednet/hm/Jun01/0418.html
   Its in Grad-Speak but not too inaccessible.

   What VCAE comes down to is framed by Laura Chapman in this way:
   "Who benefits most when artistic skills are widely deployed by a few, in ways not critically
   fathomed by the many?"

   Meme theory would identify this as the "hook". i.e. Someone benefits. Someone else gets the
   shaft. Something needs to be done. Chapman's question is based on a fairly accurate
   assessment.

   In Duncum's recent writing VCAE would seem to overlay DBAE; adding a little and revising a
   little. The major additions and revisions seem to be:

   1 a focus on Image-as-Text
   2 expansion of the canon beyond fine art to include commercial media and popular culture
   where ever benefit (ecnomic or social profit)accrues in a zero-sum (un-balanced or winner
   take all) manner.
   3 the use of semiotic "critique" derived from Chapman's question to explor and examine the
   "visual culture" as represented by 1 and 2 above.

   Visual Literacy and Vision appear to be possible extensions coming from outside the NAEA

   I'll be here though the summer and VCAE is what I came to explore, little enough comfort in
   that I suppose. ;-)

   >my classmates came up with
   >were graffiti, cereal boxes, magazine covers, soda
   >cans, toys, ads and movies.  Is this what “we’re”
   >talking about in this correspondence?

   Pretty central to the NAEA crew's vision I'd say.

   >It seems to me, these topics are fall-out from
   >outsider and pop art traditions.  

   It would be better if they were I think. A useful association to draw but not the one
   intended perhaps.

   >seems like the remainder approach advertising issues to me.

   a reasonable characterization. This IS where the real money is being spent in "art" these
   days sure an individual Picasso can bring down big bucks but commercial advertising media
   eclipse that regularly. Not that the artists themselves are getting obscenely rich...just a
   steady paycheck. The big buck are being spent becaust its a profitable investment. Its a
   concern because its a big influence on our culture and values. A thousand years and more ago
   art was much more democratically accessible and didn't look so much like what we think of as
   fine art today. a thousand years ago everyone in the community participated in the areas
   marketing plays in today. back then everyones ideas were in play today they pull in a focus
   group, figure out what they can sell then what they can make profitably and then offer a
   much smaller selection bac to us to vote on with our purchases.   ..and try to persuade us
   that the market is obviously meeting our demands and reflects our desires. The fac!
   t that our interests are interfered with by decision makers concerned almost exclusively
   with a corporations profit and bottom line elludes them.

   VCAE's concerns are valid but I think short-sighted and they tend to come from outside of
   art and to USE art in ways that aren't quite in keeping with what art evolved as culturally.
   Art, whatever it is, exists to serve some survival function. it evolved along with us. So
   far we've managed to avoid exploring that much. Only Dissanayake so far seems to be looking
   that way. I was hoping the VCAE was going to pickup more along that line but so far no luck.
   Art (aesthetic making) is a wonderful thing it would be nice to cooperate with it.

   cheers
   henry

__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

---