What Do You Value about Visual Art Education?

Blog Reflection 1. What do you value about visual art education? Write topic reflection on a comparison of Kamhi’s and Duncum’s thinking about art and what they value or don’t value in the broad topic of visual art and design education. Where do you agree or disagree with the authors?

I chewed on this question for a day before reading the articles, determined to provide a true answer to the question before becoming influenced by the readings. These are the pre-readings thoughts:

Value means elevating the importance of something based on it's monetary worth or usefulness or it can mean holding something to a higher standard because of moral beliefs and principles. (Of course, in art it can refer to highlights and shadows). What I value about visual art education is rooted in these two notions of value.

In a very practical sense, I value the career opportunities visual art education provides. When I was working on my undergraduate degree, I almost changed majors - twice - mostly out of fear of not finding a (good paying) job when I got out of school. The director of my department laughed at my "I think I'm switching to nursing" talk, looked me dead in the eye, and said, "You know... we have a 100% hire rate in the art education department." I stayed, because I valued the art prospects visual art education offered. Course work became invigorating as I learned what it meant to be an art teacher.

When I started teaching, I began experiencing the all-too-familiar panic of will "they" cut the art program? when administrators and co-workers talked about budget cuts. That is when I began think deeper about what I value about visual art education. As a teacher I saw the joy, challenges, opportunities, and enthusiasm my students experienced in art class. I valued visual art education's impact on student growth.

"They" can't cut the art program, I thought. "Trouble makers" had an opportunity to excel; "outcast" students had a place to be accepted; aspiring artists had more opportunity to create.

One more point I want to note before I read and respond to the articles is this. I was once asked "what is the one burning question that always drives your research?" While I still don't have an answer to that question, at the time I responded something along the lines of : I consider myself a interested in knowing about a lot of different things and asking lots of burning questions. But I think the one thing I'm always interested in is telling the story of people through the objects they create. (I have a feeling this will influence my reading of the articles.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I just finished Michelle Marder Kamhi's Rescuing Art from 'Visual

Culture Studies.' First, I'd like to thank Kamhi (pictured right) for the laugh.

I disagree with almost every paragraph in this article, but I applaud her for so adamately arguing her point no matter how unenlightened. I could spend the rest of the blog arguing sentence-by-sentence, but seeing as she has pulled her entire list of "Exemplary Works of Art" from Gardner's Art through the Ages and all of her arguments from the white-male-cannons of art history and criticism. She is obviously not interested in any other voices being heard (or taught in the classroom).

Her primary argument of a distinction between high and low art is, at its core, a Western, elitist philosophy. She claims to value "high" art which she defines as:

1) figurative or at least recognizable

2) the artist considers research, history (a bit of a contradiction to her argument), emotion and "metaphysical values" (of which she cherry picks) during the creative process

3) not photography

It's why her list of "Exemplary Works of Art" has only a handful of works by artists of color and (what?) two women. I guess it's just because artworks by those people aren't as "joyous" or "technical" (please note the sarcasm).

Her unwillingness to see the relevance in material culture, historical context, or the societal influences of art viewer's gaze seems to stem from her own discomfort of accepting anything other than what "has always been" deemed as "exemplary" art shows her own biases and privledge. She doesn't want to see the merit of using art to talking about race, class, or gender, likely because she herself is uncomfortable with such topics (privledge of not having to discuss uncomfortable issues).

She claims questions on race, gender, and ethnicity to be "abstract" and not universal to the human existence. In what universe? She says the values embodied in art transcend politics, economics, and social status, but ignores that even the religious art that she adores was created as much for God(s) as it was for the former - if not more so. She says "decoding" art through visual culture studies "deprives children of the deep emotional enrichment that painting and sculpture can afford." Well, they do say ignorance is bliss.

Frankly, hers is a dangerous message. In a profession dominated by white women, a message to "stay the course" with the white-male cannons proven to be problematic perpetuates a cycle of elitism in which our students suffer.

Of course I think some works of art are more beautiful than others. Of course I believe in the aura (see Walter Benjamin). Of course technical skill is important, but so is historical context and its influence on ways of seeing. To deny it is perilous.

On the other hand, Paul Duncan's "Seven Principles for Visual Culture Education" in Art Education, v. 63, no. 1 (January 2010) p. 6-10. was a nice ending note. This guy gets it!

Duncan (pictured left) recognizes and values space for viewer interpretation. His seven principles guide students to explore and make meaning from their visual environments.

It's funny to read his principles and compare them to Kamhi's values. When Duncan discusses the principle "Power" it is to say the dominant group become the authorities and arbiters of culture and taste. (Kamhi provided a list to make sure her readers knew exactly what is good taste and she took it from an established cannon created by a hegemonic culture.) Duncan's approach is to provide students with the tools to discern messages in the form of media. Sometimes that media is art.

Teaching and studying visual culture is not to de-value art as Kamhi fears. It's to provide the tools for navigating a society saturated in visual media. Duncan's principles provide a road map. When viewers are able to articulate and understand what they see, the playing field becomes level.

#visualculture #values