I wholeheartedly disagree
On Wed, 9 Oct 1996 EVasso wrote:
> In a message dated 96-10-09 00:10:12 EDT, you write:
> << 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,
> Lynn >>
> Dear Lynn,
> 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?