Response to Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Rescuing Art from 'Visual Culture Studies"'
While I largely disagreed with Kahmi's article, I did not feel the need to make note of particular quotes until she said, "Many fine photographs are largely lucky accidents of this kind, whereas no true work of art ever is. No thoughtful viewer should ignore this distinction." HELLO? What would she have to say about the work of Jackson Pollock? Like him or not, he is one of the most famous artists throughout history and I don't think his paint splatters were as strategically planned as she would like to argue. She insults artists of countless mediums by discounting photography, art direction, and many others as "non-art". She is doing a disservice to her students by refusing to engage with 21st century artists and learners. We must equip our students with the ability to read visuals regardless of whether they are part of an art form or not.
Article that refutes Kamhi's arguments: "Visual Culture within Comprehensive Art Education and Elementary Art Curriculum" by Amanda J. Muirheid
http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=art_design_theses
The article listed above labels the developments in 21st century art education as a new renaissance where students are learning not only how to decode traditional fine art, but all types of visual language. Muirheid explains that art education will not be marginalized if it is seen as relevant information to the society in which we live. One way to make art education relevant to everyone is to emphasize the importance of being visually literate. In the 21st century, there are many types of literacy and we want our students to be literate across all areas to be the most successful.
Response to Olivia Gude's "New school art styles: The project of art education"
Gude's article resonated with me in that I want my classroom to be a free and encouraging environment where kids see their "mistakes" as "opportunities." I remember during field students often asking for new paper or materials because they "messed up". I do not want my students to feel they are being successful in my classroom because they have created an exact replica of my demonstration. I want the students to create individual, unique projects that are meaningful to them. I do not want the work produced in my classroom to be "ritualistic and rule governed" by any means. It is extremely important to me that students learn skills and work on projects that engage them and stimulate their creative minds.
I think one way to achieve a truly warm and experimental environment is to give kids the occasional open studio that Gude described. This gives children the opportunity to try new mediums and materials and experiment without risk.
I have seen that kids are almost always more passionate about what they are creating when they are creating work that is meaningful and personal to them. I want my influence over the students to be one that helps them grow their ideas and confidence as young artists. I do NOT want to "stifle individual creativity and meaningful exploration of content" by having students recreate step-by-step projects.
Gude clarifies that art making should be based off the actual methodology of artists making work. I love this point! If we are making clay pots with students, it is critical to explain the origin of this concept and how it was an important skill or trade in certain cultures.
While I largely disagreed with Kahmi's article, I did not feel the need to make note of particular quotes until she said, "Many fine photographs are largely lucky accidents of this kind, whereas no true work of art ever is. No thoughtful viewer should ignore this distinction." HELLO? What would she have to say about the work of Jackson Pollock? Like him or not, he is one of the most famous artists throughout history and I don't think his paint splatters were as strategically planned as she would like to argue. She insults artists of countless mediums by discounting photography, art direction, and many others as "non-art". She is doing a disservice to her students by refusing to engage with 21st century artists and learners. We must equip our students with the ability to read visuals regardless of whether they are part of an art form or not.
Article that refutes Kamhi's arguments: "Visual Culture within Comprehensive Art Education and Elementary Art Curriculum" by Amanda J. Muirheid
http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=art_design_theses
The article listed above labels the developments in 21st century art education as a new renaissance where students are learning not only how to decode traditional fine art, but all types of visual language. Muirheid explains that art education will not be marginalized if it is seen as relevant information to the society in which we live. One way to make art education relevant to everyone is to emphasize the importance of being visually literate. In the 21st century, there are many types of literacy and we want our students to be literate across all areas to be the most successful.
Response to Olivia Gude's "New school art styles: The project of art education"
Gude's article resonated with me in that I want my classroom to be a free and encouraging environment where kids see their "mistakes" as "opportunities." I remember during field students often asking for new paper or materials because they "messed up". I do not want my students to feel they are being successful in my classroom because they have created an exact replica of my demonstration. I want the students to create individual, unique projects that are meaningful to them. I do not want the work produced in my classroom to be "ritualistic and rule governed" by any means. It is extremely important to me that students learn skills and work on projects that engage them and stimulate their creative minds.
I think one way to achieve a truly warm and experimental environment is to give kids the occasional open studio that Gude described. This gives children the opportunity to try new mediums and materials and experiment without risk.
I have seen that kids are almost always more passionate about what they are creating when they are creating work that is meaningful and personal to them. I want my influence over the students to be one that helps them grow their ideas and confidence as young artists. I do NOT want to "stifle individual creativity and meaningful exploration of content" by having students recreate step-by-step projects.
Gude clarifies that art making should be based off the actual methodology of artists making work. I love this point! If we are making clay pots with students, it is critical to explain the origin of this concept and how it was an important skill or trade in certain cultures.
It is clear that your teaching philosophy is being defined and you are clarifying your own beliefs about what it means to be an art teacher.
ReplyDelete