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.
On Thu, 9 May 1996, Suzanne M. Harp wrote:
>
> On Tueday, May 7th, Henry asked:
> < How is it
> >that learning, especially the learning of Art, begins to lose value almost
> >simultaneously with a child's dawning awarness of the word itself?
>
> Could you also say WORLD?
>
> >Is it related to generic projects applied genericly to a class as a whole
> >and not made pertinant to the individual at a point where self-identity
> >is just beginning to become conscious?
> >
> >Could it be related to some separation or divorcement of learning knowledges
> >and skills from practical needs, interests, and opportunities for
> >application? Does a "pre-emptive" approach to the process of "education"
> >(as a prescriptive input) somehow degrade the child's inate involvement in
> >learning?
> >
> >I just don't know... any suggestions out there?
>
>
> No, henry, no answers, just more questions: like Have you ever read any of
> Suzi Gablic's work? Specificly THE RE-ENCHANTMENT OF ART? I've been
> researching a way to teach a new art apprec. class to high school aged
> kids. I'd like to talk about the meaning of art in our culture. Perhaps,
> until we answer what meaning art has for us RIGHT NOW, we won't be able to
> answer your question:
>
> >Could it be related to some separation or divorcement of learning knowledges
> >and skills from practical needs, interests, and opportunities for
> >application?
>
> Gablic's view is that art needs to speak to the issues of a dieing planet.
> If a kid's soul is dieing in response to his/her environment, that might be
> a place to start. (?)
>
>
>
> Suzanne Harp
> smharp
>
>
>