I wonder how much exposure to "artist's styles" comes
as a by product of using known art works to explore
aesthetic issues, critical questions, etc. with
students. The work of at least 3 of my students in the
past couple of years has taken on a very "Van Gogh
meets someone" sort of look. I didn't do any "in the
style of" lessons on these folks but we did use their
works to explore other ideas. So maybe some sort of
subliminal thing going on here...
Also- I have been trying to read as much as I can get
my hands on about today's artists...like Chris Ofili,
Elizabeth Peyton, Barry McGee and others. So if I
teach an "in the style of" lesson about Chris Ofili do
I bring in buckets of animal poop for us to apply to
the canvas (I do teach in a rural area- so its not a
problem ;)) or do I teach about the content of Ofili's
work or the controversy, or ask the question about his
work remaining important over time? Or Barry
McGee...do I have all my students go out and tag walls
and train cars or do I talk about how McGee moves
between the streets and the fancy galleries?
Please don't take offense to my posts on this subject.
I did tons of "in the style" works as a high school
student in the 80's...they are the ones my mother
still proudly displays- not the "weird" stuff I did in
college or do now. I just think as art evolves and
hopefully art teaching evolves we must continue to
question what is important to teach and what is the
most effective way to teach for understanding. It
frightens me to think about how all our feets are and
will be held to the fire regarding what we teach and
why what we teach matters.
Amanda
=====
Somewhere in Texas there is a village without an idiot.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
