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! GettyGames

Re: RE: Visual Culture art ed questions


From: Patricia Knott (pknott_at_TeacherArtExchange)
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 18:34:02 PDT

Teresa writes:
> Part of the problem in understanding VCAE from my
> perspective is that people need to transcend the
> dualities of western points of view and thinking. It's
> not either/or thinking. VCAE redefines the museum,
> what isin the museum, how it got there, and what place
> it
> occupies. It questions the dialogue we have learned to
> repeat about what is important and from my point of
> view, let's our students engage with the material from
> new reference points.

Wow yeah!
What gets into museums, what is valued and regarded well what I observe is
that, that it is a less than democratic process and certainly intended to be
Take, for instance, the criticism of the Guggenheim for mounting shows that
will appeal to the not so traditional 'art' types. Is there art value in
motorcycles? I 'm not sure, but it brought people into the museum who
haven't been there.

I for one, would much rather see major museums taking chances on new and
emerging concepts than see, once again, another Impressionistic Blockbuster.

I believe part of the museum establishment's job is to educate as well as
preserve. I look to the museums to bring to me what I don't know yet. And
for the most part, I don't see it happening.

> He makes the point that if laypeople could really
> understand the objects of modern/post-modern art and
> what the aestheticians are saying, they would abandon
> it and develop another escoteric code for themselves.

It's risky business -- so long as old white money is the major benefactor.

I think the "lay" have established a standard.
It is I like it because I like it
We battle this -- we want them to like what we like but obviously have
failed at establishing the code to persuade over the gut.
I would like to see a philosophy that addresses just what is attractive and
why and how to use that attraction to the best benefit.

> VCAE calls for a "broader definition of art, one that
> makes art a way of making or experiencing things
> rather than a set of objects or genres or geniuses or
> institutions."
Yep, Esa
we are ignoring some real common gut stuff and still trying to shove down
the high horse.
This may sound truly off the wall but I'm thinking who is the genius
that got Michael Graves to design a line of house wares for Target.
Understand what I'm thinking? Somebody had some sense to bring high art to
the low end.

And if I'm understanding anything, it's that we need to bring that kind of
marketing sense to other areas of art.

I'm pondering