The article "New School Art Styles: The Project of Art Education" encourages educators to break away from traditional art projects and to reevaluate their curriculum. Gude argues that current art classrooms do not create real or true meaning making. Instead we are more concerned with the finished product when we should be focused more on the process of how the work was created. By doing so students will more efficiently learn art processes, while also putting more meaning into their work.
Gude also encourages us to actually teach the actual practices of other arts/cultures to avoid facsimiles. The example used was the Impressionist landscape created by a student from multiple photographs. However the problem was that because the assignment was about Impressionism, they never truly completed the criteria for the work to be Impressionist. However at the same time its hard to even think about blaming the student! They were never shown how Impressionist actually painted their work. While the guidelines, looking at photographs, also countered what impressionism was about because by looking at photographs you are not able to see the change in light that is required.
Gude's ideas about are education don't seem to be far from my own personal views. I have no desire to create a classroom of X amount of identical pumpkins, and honestly that thought gives me the hebbie jebbies! Personal meaning making from the individual student is also an absolute must. If a student has no emotional weight invested in it then why would would or should they create it. Without it the craftsmanship will be lacking and be forgotten quickly, therefore the project becoming meaningless. I also believe that "playtime" is an absolute must. If you have no experience with a material then how can you truly create something with it. Playtime encourages risk taking, and risk taking can bring both success and "failure". Those little "failures" in lots of ways have taught me much more than the instant successes have. In turn, I know that I am a stronger artist because I have learn the limits of a particular medium. "Playtime" allows students to work through these issues before working on an "assignment", and if they do run across those issues then they will be more prepared to handle them when the time comes.
My only possible issue with Gude was what I perceived as a lack of parameters when it comes to work. I will use this moment to admit I possibly misunderstood or just plain misread this before I go any further.However it seemed as if she was asking ups to demonstrate skills or techniques to students but then not require students to use them. My issue is if I teach the photography concepts of framing, vignetting, or shutter speed how do I know if my students truly learned or understood it? Do I have to wait till the end of the year to possibly actually see them use a technique in a piece. Am I not allowed to give some assignments with certain parameters to see if they understand an important technical aspect, while still trying to give them as much creative freedom as possible? Perhaps someone can clarify this for me if I did just misunderstand what was being said. Otherwise my question to ponder on is how many parameters are to many?
No comments:
Post a Comment