Jane, I agree that sometimes I feel that we're talking about the process of
talking about talking about art when we really need to just make stuff.
However, I feel it's wise to at least listen to these theories and
philosophies because they make me think and rethink what I teach and why
it's important. While I honestly believe the last Visual Culture thread got
a little too philosophical, I'm completely fascinated by these new ideas.
It's a teaching philosophy thing. It sounds like you you believe your job
is mainly in manipulation of materials and new techniques and that's your
personal opinion. That's okay- your personal philosophy. If you really want
to focus on the critical thinking behind the making, I think it doesn't hurt
learning from these "isms." Michelle
Jane Manner wrote:
> I am so glad that you people lost in the world of art theory are labeling
> your subjects so well. That way my delete button can just click away.
> Students take art to learn the techniques and manipulate the materials so
> they can eventually express their specific meanings. All these "isms" are
> art educators co-opting terms and theories from the philosophies of other
> This leads to new texts that kids seeking art ed degrees will have to
> purchase and to articles that can be published so the "ism"-heads can
> their jobs. Learning art still is the same: manipulation of materials to
> to self expression along with being exposed to the work of those who have
> used materials well.
> Didaction-a coined word-used to add more gobble-de-gook to the world.