Freedman and Visual Culture
IPTS 2: The competent teacher has in-depth understanding of content area knowledge that includes central concepts, methods of inquiry, structures of the disciplines, and content area literacy. The teacher creates meaningful learning experiences for each student based upon interactions among content area and pedagogical knowledge, and evidence-based practice.
Having Kerry Freedman as my professor has hugely influenced my perspective as a teacher. A close study of her book Teaching Visual Culture reveals a lot about the new directions in art education as well as informs and supports a lot of what I believe as an art educator. Using the knowledge I have formed from her arguments will guide and fuel a lot of my pedagogical practices and as a support for a meaningful learning experience. The following is a detailed synopsis of each chapter as well as my personal take on these chapters.
IPTS 6: The competent teacher has foundational knowledge of reading, writing, and oral communication within the content area and recognizes and addresses student reading, writing, and oral communication needs to facilitate the acquisition of content knowledge.
As a teacher I understand through Freedman's writing the ways in which students are engaging with topics. With this knowledge I can support strong oral and written conversations that are more fruitful because of the knowledge I have gained from this book.
IPTS 8: The competent teacher builds and maintains collaborative relationships to foster cognitive, linguistic, physical and social and emotional development. This teacher works as a team member with professional colleagues, students, parents, or guardians, and community members.
As a preservice teacher it is important for me to maintain and engage with experts in the field of art education such as Freedman. She is not only an experienced educator but also allows me to form into a more competent teacher. Alongside Freedman I hope to contribute to the greater community of art education.
Chapter Two: Finding Meaning in Aesthetics
Over the years art education has adopted several ideas about what aesthetics are regarded as “correct”. It is important to critically review the historical ways in which curricula have addressed the issues of aesthetics in order to ensure that students are not only prepared to engage their visual culture, but are not swayed by only one view of what is accepted as aesthetically pleasing.Freedman argues that K-12 Schools have integrated a strong emphasis on teaching aesthetics in the art classroom and that one should critically analyze the ways in which we are teaching these ideas (2003, p. 23). It is important that educators pay particular attention to the ways they teach aesthetics because the have the power to “seduce us into adopting stereotypes, convince us to accept unrealistic body images, and persuade us to buy products without critical reflection” (2003, p. 24). Freedman then reviews the various current and historical schools of thought regarding aesthetics, starting with Modernist views. Modernist aesthetics were born out of industrialization and asked audiences to view artwork though purely formalist measures by considering all art to be a product of the elements and principles of design (Freedman, 2003, p. 27). The problem with integrating a purely modernist view of aesthetics in curricula is that it rejects the larger social meanings of the artwork (Freedman, 2003, p. 27). Freedman states, “At one level, formalism enabled nonobjective art, ‘primitive’ art, and children’s art to be seen as art. But at another level, it closed off symbolic interpretation as a foundation of art education. It became the definition of aesthetics in education and in the process reduced the importance of social and cultural meanings of art in education” (2003, p. 30). She then discusses how postimpressionist symbolists reject the scientific approaches of art in favor of art that expressed a “social mediation between the internal, subjective and the external, objective realms” (Freedman, 2003, p. 28). Expressionists also generate meaning, by means of abstractions rather than symbols, though it is built on the notion that art is created in response to emotional states that are separate from social life (Freedman, 2003, p. 31). Freedman then refocuses on how these morphing views of aesthetics relates to the average grade school kid. She argues that education as banked heavily on formalist views of aesthetics and that imagination and creativity are derived from the social contexts that are relevant to our visual culture (Freedman, 2003, p. 32-33). She further argues that it is not appropriate to use the same model of aesthetics to discuss all art because the complexity of the visual culture and contexts of that art piece prevent a singular viewpoint (Freedman, 2003. p. 38). She finishes her argument by suggesting that a more democratic view of aesthetics that John Dewey suggests is the combination of the material, process, and idea as people interact with their environments, therefore binding the body and the mind and not separating them as previous aesthetic views have argued (Freedman, 2003, p. 38-41). Freedman concludes be claiming that it is essential to teach from multiple aesthetic viewpoints and to include one’s experience as well as formal investigations when considering artwork (2003, p. 42).
As an art educator it is always important to consider what art I am teaching and how I am teaching it in my classroom. While reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but think of my own art education and how my grade school tended to focus on the formal qualities of art with little regards to the social context. Many of the activities were about simplistic explorations of mediums and how to achieve certain compositions. For example, in the first grade we made flowers that were crafted in the style of Van Gogh paintings. While time prohibits me from recalling all aspects of the lesson, I can clearly remember the point of the activity was to show whether we could create our flowers using analogous colors and whether or not we could arrange our flowers in an appealing way. In no way were we asked to consider the artist’s context, the reason for the subject matter or even the contexts of the art world that allowed this painting to become well known. To me, exploring art through purely Modernist viewpoints and only examining the objects formal qualities is reminiscent of “banking style of education”. That is not to say that technical skill and knowledge of the elements and principles of art are not of worth. Rather, I argue that a focus on only those aspects of art making prevent a personal connection or deeper understanding of how artwork functions in our visual culture. I think Freedman would agree with this point because she asserts that art has a social function that goes beyond a scientific breakdown of elements and principles. As an educator I will need to craft ways for students to not only engage the elements and principles of art (for they still are the foundation of making art and need to be understood and practiced) but to also consider how past artworks, media, advertising and other imagery functions using those formal qualities in addition to the social contexts in which the creator has made these images. By the nature of methods of this type of investigation, you are asking students to go beyond the basic recognition of elements and principles, but are looking to analyze greater social mechanisms, cultural backgrounds and to create multiple personal connections to the artwork, which exemplifies the higher order thinking that students are able to achieve. Additionally, as an educator, it is important for me to be aware of the art education and the aesthetic schooling I have received. As demonstrated in clinical activities, our own interests and education about what art should be is heavily influential in what we teach. So by constantly evaluating my personal views and thoughts about visual culture I can attempt to ensure that students are not missing any important information or skills that can be lost to a closed-off education that focuses merely on art production and formal qualities. As a teacher we must be responsive to accept or deny current and past theories of how to teach art in the best interest of students. For me, I believe a heavy focus on the historical contexts of art and the mechanisms of how society functions should underlie all lessons to not only give students tools to navigate the complexities of media and advertising, but to also support the formal qualities and how they are used in the art examples that I am presenting.
Chapter Three: The Social Life of Art
Historically art education has focused on what was considered “fine arts” or “high art”. The contemporary movements of art require that art education consider the everyday visual culture as a crucial part of the complex relationship social life and artistic expression, and how the past and future are existing in the present day. Kerry Freedman argues that in order for students to understand their present visual world, they must be able to deeply investigate how the past and future affect the present day through cultural traditions and the social and daily life in our current visual culture (2003, p. 43). Historically, art history has studied artworks as secluded objects with little attention to social, political, economic or cultural contexts in which they were created (2003, p. 44). Out of the three major perspectives in the field of art history, the social historian, the connoisseur, and the iconographer, it is the connoisseur’s careful task of delineating artworks that is emphasized in education, and can be considered as the source of the exclusion of popular media or non-Western art in education (Freedman, 2003, p. 44-45). Freedman argues that to combat the “art in the dark” lecture methods that focus on a single canon of art (which often excludes popular art, women and artists of color) that we must look outside the professional field of art history and draw our curricula from a more interdisciplinary mode (2003, p. 45-46). Additionally she argues against the purely linear and chronological view of art history, for a wider perspective that is focused “on long periods of time as historical structures of consciousness” and as a result time can have multiple dimensions where multiple cultures and “ideas can coexist and collide” (Freedman, 2003, p. 48). In order to understand these various contexts one must consider the production context and the viewing contexts of these artworks. The production context is the environment and artist’s experience or influences that are included in the formation of an artwork, it is the social context of the time it was made (Freedman, 2003, p. 50). The viewing context is the imagery and experience of the viewer that allows them to connect to and make new meanings of the artwork in the present context (Freedman, 2003. p. 50). From this kind of viewing of art, one unravels the boundaries between what is considered “high” or “low” art. Freedman cautions that because the definitions of what good art can be has changed, that one should be wary of teaching that all art is inherently good because some art can be harmful and even manipulative to certain audiences (2003, p. 53). Freedman then returns to the larger ideas about understanding the present as a result of the past and the future. She claims that the increasing interest in popular culture of science fiction and fantasy create a collection of possible visions for the future that directly influence the cognitive and aesthetic development of students (Freedman, 2003, p. 58). She claims that by the breaking down of traditional methods of linear art history in favor of a multi-layered social art history that connects to the everyday life of students is the best way for them to understand how art images are made and the multiple meanings that are layered in these images (Freedman, 2003, p. 62).
One might figure that history is history, and that it is
all set in stone, never to change. That does not mean that they ways we look at
and teach history are stagnant and solidified by one means of teaching it. From
my point of view, history of art is closely linked with the history of the
world. If images can say what words cannot, then what do paintings have to say
about the condition of the world at the time it was painted? In my experience,
art making has always been a response to our environment and has never been
about the internal expression of the self. I have always followed what Kit
White (2011) has said so elegantly about art history,
Art is a continuing dialogue
that stretches back through thousands of years. What you make is your
contribution to that dialogue. Therefore, be conscious of what has come before you
and the conversation that surrounds you. Try not to repeat what has already
been said. Study art history and stay alert to the dialogue of your moment.”[1]
Again I recognize how historically art history has
supported a “banking style” of education where one individual, the teacher or
art historian, is the expert and feeds the knowledge to the student in a
one-way track. I want to create a classroom that supports a dialogue between
art and the student, one that not just holds value to the greatly accepted interpretations
of that particular piece, but one where students are allowed to investigate the
historical context and relate the current contexts to it. To me this is
essential to learning from our past. How can we avoid history’s mistakes, or
repeat history’s successes if one cannot engage and connect it to our current
times? I agree with Freedman that our present consists not just what we
consider here and now, but was formed by past contexts and our vision of the
future. It would make sense that a multilayered view of art is greatly needed
to combat the sways of advertising, as students must consider higher-order
thinking methods to critically look at these images. I fear as an educator that
many students have been trapped by a “banking” education that makes it all too
easy for students to passively receive advertising images and persist the
economic, political and social issues that are perpetuating in American
culture. I believe that by rediscovering the complexities of cultural
differences, studying the structures of consciousness of our predecessors and
responding to those discoveries, that students will be better equipped to
handle the visual culture that we have created. This will challenge students
and create critical thinkers that are so desperately needed in American
society.
[1]
White,
K. (2011). 101 things to learn in art school. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chapter Four: Art and Cognition
In order to create a classroom setting where students can
engage with and understand their visual culture, educators must be aware of the
historical theories of how children learn as well as the current ideas of how
knowledge is formed and attained in order to best guide students to creating
their own meanings about art.
Knowing the way one creates art is something I have always
been incredibly conscious of. Again, Kit White (2011) heavily influences my
knowledge about how surroundings affect art making:
Art is not self-expression. It
is the self expressing all of the elements of the culture that has shaped it.
We filter the ambient information that surrounds us—from our families, from our
communities, from the information that bombards us every day from myriad
sources. We do not create this information; it helps to create us. We in turn
start to interpret it and describe it to ourselves and to others as a means to
understand it. This is the art impulse. Even works of pure imagination have
sources outside of ourselves. Know your sources. [1]
My goals in the classroom would be to have students
recognize how they process information and make their own images. It is the
best defense against the allure of advertising. Additionally I think that by
including a dialogue between multiple disciplines not only give students a
better view of the realities of art making, but also encourages community and
understanding of other’s viewpoints. I think classrooms that support singular
viewpoints and means of learning are perpetuating ideas of intolerance of
others and self-centeredness.
Additionally
I, in my own experiences, challenge the notions of stage-by-age methods of
teaching art education. While this theory can be helpful in generalizing the
artistic ability a kid can achieve at a certain age, it limits artistic possibilities.
In my lesson plans from the last clinical experience I asked students to
consider abstract art as a form of “high art” and to conceptualize it as a
means of modern communication. In the stage-by-age model, abstraction of form
and lines might be linked to earlier stages, rather than a means of
communication using formal qualities and using social and cultural signals to
communicate across borders. To me, abstraction is not primitive, but a step in
understanding how elements and principles, such as color or repetition, are
understood by wider audiences based on cultural similarities or differences. I
think by taking Freedman’s ideas of how to recognize how knowledge is created
is essential the shifts in education that I aim to create.
[1]
White,
K. (2011). 101 things to learn in art school. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chapter Five: Interpreting Visual Culture
With kids today growing up in a saturation of
images and powerful visuals able to manipulate and form whole cultures of
thoughts and behaviors, it is essential that educators recognize the mechanisms
in place that allow these images to have such power and the ways that we can
educate children to interpret and critically think about these images. Because of the increase of visual images in advertising and
media, Freedman argues that it is essential that curricula be adjusted to focus
on skills in interpreting and critically thinking about these images (2003, p.
86-87). She emphasizes (as she did in previous chapters) that the context of
production is critical to understanding the influx of images and especially advertisers
who utilize the multilayered common social experiences and cultures of its
target audience in order to sway them to consume product (Freedman, 2003, p.
88-90). She further claims that understanding suggestiveness is key to
understanding our current visual culture, stating that “suggestiveness refers
to the associative power of visual culture to lead to emotional, cognitive
responses and interactive, multileveled meanings” (Freedman, 2003, p. 90). In
case studies, students often take their visual images as reality and truth
unless specifically taught to critically analyze and interpret them (Freedman,
2003, 93). To combat this, Freedman suggests that students should be taught to
“become conscious of associations and connections they develop that go into
building their knowledge and judgments” and build complexity from a personal
standpoint rather than that of a singular expert interpretation (Freedman,
2003, p. 93.) It is important to consider that we construct images that in turn
construct our culture and that students can be defined (positively or
negatively) by these constructions if not taught to critically analyze them
(Freedman, 2003, p. 95-98).
It is also important to
recognize the mechanisms in place that allow these images to be so powerful. The
relation of an image (particularly an advertisement) to an audience illustrates
how signals and signs create a didactic hyperreality where the contextual
meanings of one object (i.e. fine art) is juxtaposed with another arbitrary
object (i.e. detergent) in order to suggest they carry the same cultural value
(Freedman, 2003, p. 100). Even viewpoints of artists are driven and skewed by
media and advertising to support stereotypes of disorganized, sexually promiscuous,
genius artists who are working for “higher forces” (Freedman, 2003, p.
101-4). Freedman concludes by claiming
“cultural knowledge is reconstituted in a classroom through curriculum” (2003,
p. 104). She argues that teachers should emphasize complex and personal responses
to global visual culture, to recognize the conceptual space that exists between
objects, images, text and art, that curriculum should be based on
suggestiveness as a means of knowledge construction, that knowledge comes from
a variety of sources and that a good art education should help students
navigate the seductive and manipulative images they experience on an everyday
basis (Freedman, 2003, p. 104-5)
This chapter resonated especially deep with my personal
studies surrounding my McAmerica series and my investigation of how advertising
in America provides contradicting ideas of how one should behave in society.
Freedman’s analysis of the functions and mechanisms that allow advertising to
be so seductive was both familiar and enlightening for me.
Once again it seems that
Freedman, though she is not explicitly stating it, is fighting against the
grain of “banking style” education that is perpetuating in American society. In
this case I suspect that students have a severe deficit in the ability to focus
because of the way advertising is structured. Freedman, as mentioned above,
points out how advertising is able to relate the values of one object by simply
juxtaposing it to another, and therefore suggesting that object contains the
same values. In my personal studies I have seen many advertisements that signal
wealth such as a large home, two cars, big family with pets, a stay at home
mother and a working father (usually both white) within the context of
detergent. By juxtaposing the images of a stable home life, where a family is
obviously comfortable with their living situation, with images and information
of detergent, the consumer is pressured to think that this brand of detergent will
support a similar atmosphere in their own home. The reality is, that no matter
what detergent you are using, your economic situation, race and family size
will remain the same. In my mind these juxtapositions are nonsensical and kids
these days are flooded with false expectations and associations of products
that can lead to disillusionment and lack of focus in their lives.
As an art educator it is critically
important for me to recognize how any image, not just advertising can affect
the student population and to always refer back to the social contexts in which
these images are created. For example, in my classroom I will always include a
variety of artworks beyond what typically is seen in an art classroom. I want
to include artworks from multiple movements, eras and cultures outside of the
typical western cannon. This will diversify what students are typically experience
and give them a means of recognizing the redundancy and the adverse effects of
many images they are exposed to through media and advertising. I think in order
to be more democratic and to encourage habits of equity, as Freedman argues,
educators should be heavily conscious of the tools and perspectives we are
giving our students and constantly check on whether we have presented biased
information or limited points of view. For example, a lesson segment that looks
at the culture of Disney could be beneficial for students to understand how to
navigate their visual culture. While seemingly benign, Disney historically has
perpetuated many cultural stereotypes. By having students see multiple
viewpoints from various experts, non-experts, cultures and other students, they
may begin to see how these images affect our current behaviors and students can
then critically consider how they consume similar media. It is essential that
Disney not be demonized, but that students understand that there is a multitude
of meanings and effects that images can have and that they must be careful and
critical consumers, even if its is seemingly harmless imagery.
Chapter Six: Curriculum as Process
Curriculum design reflects the hopes, dreams and ideas of the teacher and society, so it is essential that the curriculum is designed to promote democratic values, equality and social justice. Freedman argues that contemporary curriculum requires the teaching of conflicts in order to accommodate understanding for visual culture (2003, p. 107). Curriculum is not something that is neutral, but is charged with the interests of educators, social groups, political groups and the community (2003, p. 108). The reconceptualization of the curriculum process happened with five conditions: curriculum is a representation of the values and knowledge of people, it is a collage of ideas from multiple groups or cultures, it is a creative production that is crafted and revised, it suggests possible “likely stories” rather than “objectified or disembodied truths”, and it should be transparent (Freedman, 2003, p. 109-11). She also mentions that when planning “important learning outcomes cannot always be predicted and, in art, education, the best outcomes are often those that are beyond ‘the box’ of the objectives in their creativity, imaginativeness, and originality” (Freedman, 2003, p. 112-13).
Curriculums come in several different kinds of structures. A sequential curriculum that builds on previous knowledge and can be subcategorized as linear, building blocks, and spiral (which she claims as the best fit for teaching visual culture because it both advances new knowledge while reinforcing learned knowledge) (Freedman, 2003, p. 113). Interactive curriculums allow students to take ownership of their learning by extending activities outside the typical classroom experience or including event experiences that peak student interest (Freedman, 2003, p. 114). Since art is “inherently interdisciplinary” she also argues that curriculums should be built around key concepts rather than technical skills to support a vast range of knowledge (Freedman, 2003, p. 115). She also promotes starting a lesson with engagement of the context to allow students to learn beyond the art object itself (Freedman, 2003, p. 119). Freedman further argues that to equip students to handle the visual media, curriculums should directly address the “powerful and seductive qualities of visual culture” instead of mystifying it (2003, p. 123).
Chapter Six: Curriculum as Process
Curriculum design reflects the hopes, dreams and ideas of the teacher and society, so it is essential that the curriculum is designed to promote democratic values, equality and social justice. Freedman argues that contemporary curriculum requires the teaching of conflicts in order to accommodate understanding for visual culture (2003, p. 107). Curriculum is not something that is neutral, but is charged with the interests of educators, social groups, political groups and the community (2003, p. 108). The reconceptualization of the curriculum process happened with five conditions: curriculum is a representation of the values and knowledge of people, it is a collage of ideas from multiple groups or cultures, it is a creative production that is crafted and revised, it suggests possible “likely stories” rather than “objectified or disembodied truths”, and it should be transparent (Freedman, 2003, p. 109-11). She also mentions that when planning “important learning outcomes cannot always be predicted and, in art, education, the best outcomes are often those that are beyond ‘the box’ of the objectives in their creativity, imaginativeness, and originality” (Freedman, 2003, p. 112-13).
Curriculums come in several different kinds of structures. A sequential curriculum that builds on previous knowledge and can be subcategorized as linear, building blocks, and spiral (which she claims as the best fit for teaching visual culture because it both advances new knowledge while reinforcing learned knowledge) (Freedman, 2003, p. 113). Interactive curriculums allow students to take ownership of their learning by extending activities outside the typical classroom experience or including event experiences that peak student interest (Freedman, 2003, p. 114). Since art is “inherently interdisciplinary” she also argues that curriculums should be built around key concepts rather than technical skills to support a vast range of knowledge (Freedman, 2003, p. 115). She also promotes starting a lesson with engagement of the context to allow students to learn beyond the art object itself (Freedman, 2003, p. 119). Freedman further argues that to equip students to handle the visual media, curriculums should directly address the “powerful and seductive qualities of visual culture” instead of mystifying it (2003, p. 123).
In my own teaching I hope to use curriculums that are based
on key concepts that better students’ lives. In some ways it relates to the big
ideas we created for the St. Mary’s lesson plans and the Saturday school was
more based on key concepts such as how to be emotionally well, why recycling is
important to personal and community health rather than focusing on the media. For
my St. Mary’s lesson I purposely thought and created a lesson plan revolving
around young people dealing with personal emotions in a time when students had
intense emotional responses with little experience on how to release those emotions.
I then decided that in order for students to be able to express their emotions
without the complication of directly sharing with others, that abstract art
would be the best to teach. Only then did I decide teaching wax-resist and
watercolor would be the technical skill that would best fit the main idea of
expressing emotions nonobjectively. As Freedman points out, this not only
allowed engagement with a history of abstract artists, different media, and the
current culture of expressing emotions through emoticons.
Additionally
I think it is extremely important to stand up for and include conflicts in the
curriculum as Freedman points out. In my own art and teaching I am particularly
interested in giving students the connections and knowledge about the ways
advertising works. Even though my art classes had a cursory look at popular
media, advertising and television by means of copying and creating our own
advertisements. When a student brought in an ad from Vogue, which the teacher
immediately shut down as inappropriate (and honestly, the women was in shorts
and a tank top, so it wasn’t even seriously nude) rather than addressing the
power and social critiques of that image.
Overall, if curriculum is designed well, I believe that
students will not only be able to combat advertisements on a personal scale,
but eventually diminish the power of corporations and big businesses overall. If
many of our nations problems root in the power of large businesses, national
debt, and the military industrialization of our nation, then preparing our kids
to think critically for themselves and to not be swayed by the convincing
images provided by motivated sellers. Only then can we return to an ideal
democracy where power isn’t consolidated into the elite few.
Chapter Seven: Art.edu
Today’s kids are immersed in video games, computer,
Internet memes and televisions shows. It is essential to include these forms of
visual culture as not only a lesson about our current cultural experience, but
as another form of modern art making. The visual arts have a unique power in that they
“quickly enable us to cross conceptual borders, providing connections between
people, places, objects, ideas, and even professional disciplines” (Freedman,
2003, p. 128). Technology and digital media are both truth and fiction in that
it creates a hyperreality that is distorted from the reality we exist in
(Freedman, 2003, p. 129). There are a lot of negative critiques against
television and videogames as harming students, but she argues that some games
create problem-solving scenarios that blend education and entertainment
(Freedman, 2003, p. 131). She also argues that these games “promote the
development of many alternative answers to questions and various routes to
establish a narrative (Freedman, 2003, p. 132). Digital art, unlike traditional
mediums, have a really forgivable aspect and allowed for trial and error
(Freedman, 2003, p. 138). In many ways television became the national
curriculum, which is dangerous because children now take fiction as a part of
their own personal realities (Freedman, 2003, p. 143). Overall digital media
and digital visual culture is fairly democratic because it is not yet own by a single
entity and is open to many people and students (Freedman, 2003, p. 146).
As a near digital native myself it is interesting to see
how these ideas about visual culture play out in my own life. As someone who
grew up playing video games with my dad, watching TV shows and creating my own
simplistic digital creations. Since my time as a child, I have seen both the
pros and cons of being immersed in a visual culture. When used wisely I saw
fantastic creations and original creations, but at its worst it creates lies
and deception. For me, digital media is closely linked to many of the problems
in our nation. Because advertising holds the attention of so many children,
they manipulate how our society defines what is popular or beautiful. On one
hand it can be good to know how to be persuasive with images, because it can
perhaps promote democratic or healthy behaviors. For example, some of the most
compelling images I have ever seen were clever antismoking ads such as this: http://www.designer-daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Top-Creative-Anti-Smoking-Ads-11-e1351772429625.jpg
This image to me has many purposes in an art classroom. I
would not only teach about the composition of this image, the lack of color,
the symbolism, and movement that is present in this image. It would also be a
springboard for the purposes and methods of graphic design and the conflicts
between professionals in that field. It would also raise other
interdisciplinary issues such as the harmful nature of smoking, or the social
stigmas or supports for smoking. Also students can easily make their own
combatant ads with the ease of image processing software today.
Though
investigations like that of the smoking ads, once again we can begin to tear
down and undo a lot of the harmful advertising that is driving our society to
consume more. As educators we cannot only prepare students to live in the
world, but to challenge the world they live in. I think all too often, teachers
focus on giving students “coping mechanisms” for dealing with the issues that
exist in society. I believe that by giving students critical thinking skills
and understanding of their visual culture I am instead arming them to challenge
and recreate the future of our society.
Chapter Eight: Contributing to Visual Culture
Chapter Eight: Contributing to Visual Culture
Assessing artwork is just as important to learning as
actual art production and supports democratic ideas in the classroom. Artistic
production does not occur alone, but rather in a group setting and “is a
critical path to understanding, partly because the process and the product of
art-making enables students to experience creative and critical connections
between form, feeling, and knowing” (Freedman, 2003, p. 147). Freedman argues that assessment is an
important way to model how students should interact with art in the world and
that students will form an understanding of art beyond aesthetic appreciation
(2003, p. 148-49). The form of assessments should be appropriate for art and
she argues that judgments should not be made “solely on personal preference,
but rather on community debate and consensus” (Freedman, 2003, p. 150). Because
of the recent push for standardized testing, a push for alternate forms of
assessment are required to fulfill the need of authentic, holistic assessment
(Freedman, 2003, p. 152-53). Freedman promotes the use of group critiques
because they model how art is formed in response to community and societal
pressures and these methods become a catalyst for higher order thinking (2003,
p. 157). She presents several models and method of group assessment that are
valid for the arts (Freedman, 2003, p. 155-67). She concludes by arguing that production and assessment of
art validates the field of art because it proves that art is a way of knowing
(Freedman, 2003, 167).
In my
own classroom assessment will always strive to be appropriate for art. In my
youth I remember taking paper and pencil tests about how to do art, and looking
back, it is an atrocity and insult to the field of art education to assess artworks
this way. One should not bubble in an answer to determine what a student knows about
art; rather, one should make, talk about and reflect on art to test what
students know about art. It just makes sense. Portfolios and group critiques
are well equipped to fight against the banking style of education and produce higher
order thinking in the classroom. I plan to implement many kinds of critique and
portfolio assessment in my classroom as well as advocate for its validity in
the field of education.
I
think modeling this kind of assessment for students is another way to equip
students in our very commercialized world that is currently trapped in the
military industrial complex. By asking students to move outside of a learning receptacle,
and becoming a learning creator through critique, you are asking them to make a
value judgment about the visual and to critically think. In fact critique, once
established, could be a very intuitive way for students to exercise their
critical thinking skills in a way that is relatively painless, possibly even
fun. It also puts the power of learning into student hands as they judge and
put value to their own work and their peers. This is a huge contrast to
standardized testing, where much of the power is left to the graders and
testing companies. I also think that this form of assessment can help with
student engagement in the classroom. Because kids are engaged and taking
ownership of their education, they will not have much time to become distracted
in the classroom or to cause trouble. This kind of critique can foster a
healthy learning environment where difficult social issues can be broached and
dealt with. Overall
this method of educating through research, community interaction, group
critique and art production is going to be key to combating the autonomous
society and to promoting democratic behaviors.
No comments:
Post a Comment