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.
<< Well, for goodness sakes - all I want to do is uphold and keep the
integrity of art education at a high standard and REALLY TEACH ART rather
than lose the real teaching of art by teaching students that art is a
salt map or a pumpkin or a Christmas tree - I have been a supervisor and
state presenter and Board Member of our state association and attending
NAEA conventions for years and years and years ----- and what I have seen
and observed so very many times is that people think they are teaching
art by using patterns and season to motivate students.... this is not
truly a DBAE approach------------- I also believe and live in a way that
other subject areas become a part of teaching art WHEN IT IS A NATURAL
AND REAL CONNECTION - I have fought this fight for most of my teaching
career and I hate to see new and experienced teachers fall into the
danger of creating sloppy and shallow programs - all for the sake of
integration ---of course I integrate many, many, many times - but I truly
make sure that it is APPROPRIATE for the goal or measure I am teaching
for art. I hope I am making myself clear......Sorry to step on so many
Most humbly and respectfully,
My toes are fine. How are yours?
1. What exactly does the "integrity of art education" mean? Is there some
kind of oath that I was supposed to have taken when I started? A secret
handshake perhaps? Just being a smart ass. Sorry. But with kids coming to my
room for 45 minutes one a week, I'll shake hands with the devil if I have to
in order for my students to engage in as many forms of art making as
possible. If I can be there, all the better. But most of the time they are
talking too much and writing too much when creating a visual image would be
as or more valuable an experience.
2. I don't know about salt maps, but pumpkins and Christmas trees are art!
Not only wonderful starting points for explorations of rituals and icons, but
a form of people's art in their own right. The relationship between high art
and low is a great issue for students to explore (in fact, a subject of an
exhibit organized I think by the Museum of Modern Art a few years ago). Great
even for our youngest students to think about.
3. Why pit the "integrity of art education" against intergrated curriculum by
characterizing the intergrated curriculum as salt maps and seasonal art, as
if that is the form an intergrated curriculum might take? "Natural and real"
vs "sloppy and shallow." Oh, ok, lets hear from the defenders of sloppy and
narrow on the list serve. Its a straw man. We have seen great exchanges going
on regarding art and science, mandalas and kaliedoscopes (did I spell it
right?). Were those sloppy and narrow or real and natural?