Your position on the narrowness of the field reminds
me of the painting field at the university level -
when on the first day of class the professor says
something to the extent of - "if you plan to make
wallpaper, you should drop now." It's just something
understood - no portraiture, no landscapes, no nothing
your parents might think they're helping to pay for...
Contemporary, conceptual art. Or drop. Lucky for
me, I was into it, I just feel a little bit sorry for
those that didn't get the memo... As soon as I got
done, I signed up for upholstry classes, so I didn't
have to think for a while.
I'm a bit curious about your perspective on how
decisions are made, or perhaps trends develop, at the
I've been reading Brent Wilson's Quiet Evolution
Report on the DBAE initiative with the regional
institutes. The book talks about how the school
districts involoved had to commit to specific
implementations and how the district should have
devloped (but didn't) a sequential , district wide
curriculum, etc. He also talks about how individual
efforts are pretty unsuccessful. So, (finally the
question)Why are universities now using DBAE as a
model for educating art teachers in districts and
schools that are not inclined to make the leap?
Your answer may well lie in the reconceptualizing/
revolution statement previously made, but I'm still
--- Diane Gregory <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I am wanting to clarify what I meant in a recent
> regarding the death of art education.