You know, you have a great suggestion - perhaps we SHOULD all have to
take an oath - like doctors - to heal the masses and teach the truths of
art ed (just a joke!!) - but I like thinking about it anyway - anyone
care to pen the oath???
Also - about pumpkins and Christmas trees - oh, my heart almost fails me
- too many times I have seen them done using the cookie cutter method -
so I try to run the other way ---- but, as you suggest (at least as I am
willing to think you suggest) - we could use these cookie cutter images
to develope aesthetic discussions around high and low art - thanks for
What do you think, Fred??
Now I only halfheartedly disagree
Artfully (or full of art)
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Lynn Foltz wrote:
> My dearest Fred
> 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
> > toes!!
> > 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?
> > -Fred