National Art Education Association

Letter to the EditorAuthor(s): John HicksSource: Art Education, Vol. 55, No. 5, A New Start (Sep., 2002), p. 5Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193951 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 20:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:01:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Do notfollow the path. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

anonymous

Do notfollow the path. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

anonymous

Dear Pat,

I went wherethere was no path, and 1 left a trail, but as far as visual culture and VCAE are concerned, everyone else who is writing about some relationship of art education to society is leaving a trail. Apparently there are no paths but many new trails.

After the 2000 NAEA conference, an NAEA member indicated to me that I would have been pleased about content being presented because "your ideas were all over the place." Later another member wrote that an issue of Studies contained content that directly related to my "stuff," but, surprisingly, there were no references to it. Most recently, after publication of the May 2000 issue of Art Education, I received a note mentioning that visual culture appears to be coming into its own as an art education movement. With tongue in cheek, the person said that I better get a book published right away and make a lot of money. His point was that I had been writing about visual culture for a long time based on social trends and their relation to the art world.

I started writing about art education and its connection to visual culture prior to the 1980s. I was influenced by various futurist authors going back to the 1960s: Capra, Ferguson, Theobald, and others. Naisbitt, Peters, and Gleick had a positive effect as did a few authors writing for the World Future Society. I can't remember reading any art education literature where these "outsiders" had any noticeable influence except on me. Of course, there were positive influences coming from the field of art education as well. Two influences directly relating to my interpretations about visual culture and art education include the Owatonna Study and June King McFee's work.

My writing about the relation between art education and contemporary social trends became more "visible" in the early 1980s. Prior to 1982, my work had only been local and at the state level. A 1982 article in Message, an Art Educators of Iowa newsletter, indicated that "Art must be thought of as inherent to a world of complex phenomena." Sounds a bit like Dissanayake in her book, What is Art For?, printed in 1988. Although Dissanayake was a keynote speaker at a national NAEA conference, her influence has been small. She did leave the door slightly ajar for movement away from Dow, Lowenfeld, 1950s Modernism, and the everlasting "form follows function" doctrine. For over two decades I have justified the idea that in our modern society "function follows form" but art world tradition is very strong.

My first article on a national level also was published in 1982. It was titled "The Visual Symbol Explosion vs. the Invisible Reaction: A Contemporary Dichotomy." The context was mentioned in my article in the March 2001 issue of Art Education. It seems the public, school officials, and art teachers were ignoring the growth of visual imagery and increasing aesthetic decision-making. At that time I coined the phrase 'socio-aesthetics," which was meant to define the growing aesthetic involvement throughout society. Obviously, "visual culture" is a more readable and understandable term.

Dear Pat,

I went wherethere was no path, and 1 left a trail, but as far as visual culture and VCAE are concerned, everyone else who is writing about some relationship of art education to society is leaving a trail. Apparently there are no paths but many new trails.

After the 2000 NAEA conference, an NAEA member indicated to me that I would have been pleased about content being presented because "your ideas were all over the place." Later another member wrote that an issue of Studies contained content that directly related to my "stuff," but, surprisingly, there were no references to it. Most recently, after publication of the May 2000 issue of Art Education, I received a note mentioning that visual culture appears to be coming into its own as an art education movement. With tongue in cheek, the person said that I better get a book published right away and make a lot of money. His point was that I had been writing about visual culture for a long time based on social trends and their relation to the art world.

I started writing about art education and its connection to visual culture prior to the 1980s. I was influenced by various futurist authors going back to the 1960s: Capra, Ferguson, Theobald, and others. Naisbitt, Peters, and Gleick had a positive effect as did a few authors writing for the World Future Society. I can't remember reading any art education literature where these "outsiders" had any noticeable influence except on me. Of course, there were positive influences coming from the field of art education as well. Two influences directly relating to my interpretations about visual culture and art education include the Owatonna Study and June King McFee's work.

My writing about the relation between art education and contemporary social trends became more "visible" in the early 1980s. Prior to 1982, my work had only been local and at the state level. A 1982 article in Message, an Art Educators of Iowa newsletter, indicated that "Art must be thought of as inherent to a world of complex phenomena." Sounds a bit like Dissanayake in her book, What is Art For?, printed in 1988. Although Dissanayake was a keynote speaker at a national NAEA conference, her influence has been small. She did leave the door slightly ajar for movement away from Dow, Lowenfeld, 1950s Modernism, and the everlasting "form follows function" doctrine. For over two decades I have justified the idea that in our modern society "function follows form" but art world tradition is very strong.

My first article on a national level also was published in 1982. It was titled "The Visual Symbol Explosion vs. the Invisible Reaction: A Contemporary Dichotomy." The context was mentioned in my article in the March 2001 issue of Art Education. It seems the public, school officials, and art teachers were ignoring the growth of visual imagery and increasing aesthetic decision-making. At that time I coined the phrase 'socio-aesthetics," which was meant to define the growing aesthetic involvement throughout society. Obviously, "visual culture" is a more readable and understandable term.

A Look at Trails There are many definitions available to those indulging them- selves in visual culture. To clarify differences, my VCAE model covers political scenarios but does not give them priority. I know most teenagers like malls, and I am not against mall coverage in an art classroom (Art Education, March 2001). In fact, my students may go to a mall to implement a lesson, but the mall, itself, is only a vehicle.

What is the priority for my Visual Society class? Over the years, I increasingly moved my curriculum and resultant lessons toward certain concepts that became more visible in a society where rapid change had become the norm. The starting points were the concepts. Art history, drawing, design, choice of media or materials, and creative expectations were interwoven with each of the concepts. In that regard, my model is more closely related to that of The Ohio State University TETAC mentors (Art Education, May 2002) than that of Duncum (Art Education, May 2002) or other VCAE directions.

The TETAC mentors structured an integrated curriculum around key ideas. I structured my curriculum around concepts repre- senting important contemporary social trends. Key ideas and key concepts appear to be similar. However, the mentors indicated that "Defining the role of art/visual culture in the school curriculum has been a particularly challenging task." I found that relating art to visual culture was a piece of cake, but perhaps that was because I reaffirmed my thinking over a decade of successful practice. The eight concepts given increased importance over the years in Visual Society are: abstraction, aesthetics, evaluation, fragmentation and synthesis, interactivity, metaphor, multi- dimensional communication, and transition and transformation. These concepts were among the starting points for the diversity of involvement and outcomes that were inherent to the class. Self-determined outcomes by students, self-evaluation by students, and group learning by students were emphasized as well as concept relationships to the art world.

I assume Eisner had a twinkle in his eye when he asked the question, "Can art education change?" (Art Education, September 2001), or was it, "Should art education change?". His point that art cannot, or should not, be taught with VCAE has been disproved by at least one successful model. It's not that we want to eliminate Dow, Lowenfeld, Eisner, or DBAE. What we want, I hope, is a model that will finally turn public attitudes away from "art is nice" to "art is necessary." For all the greatness of past art education heroes, heroines, and heroic movements, art programs are not considered "basic" in public school settings. It's way past time for a change. John Hicks Professor Emeritus, Drake University Jvisual@aol.com

A Look at Trails There are many definitions available to those indulging them- selves in visual culture. To clarify differences, my VCAE model covers political scenarios but does not give them priority. I know most teenagers like malls, and I am not against mall coverage in an art classroom (Art Education, March 2001). In fact, my students may go to a mall to implement a lesson, but the mall, itself, is only a vehicle.

What is the priority for my Visual Society class? Over the years, I increasingly moved my curriculum and resultant lessons toward certain concepts that became more visible in a society where rapid change had become the norm. The starting points were the concepts. Art history, drawing, design, choice of media or materials, and creative expectations were interwoven with each of the concepts. In that regard, my model is more closely related to that of The Ohio State University TETAC mentors (Art Education, May 2002) than that of Duncum (Art Education, May 2002) or other VCAE directions.

The TETAC mentors structured an integrated curriculum around key ideas. I structured my curriculum around concepts repre- senting important contemporary social trends. Key ideas and key concepts appear to be similar. However, the mentors indicated that "Defining the role of art/visual culture in the school curriculum has been a particularly challenging task." I found that relating art to visual culture was a piece of cake, but perhaps that was because I reaffirmed my thinking over a decade of successful practice. The eight concepts given increased importance over the years in Visual Society are: abstraction, aesthetics, evaluation, fragmentation and synthesis, interactivity, metaphor, multi- dimensional communication, and transition and transformation. These concepts were among the starting points for the diversity of involvement and outcomes that were inherent to the class. Self-determined outcomes by students, self-evaluation by students, and group learning by students were emphasized as well as concept relationships to the art world.

I assume Eisner had a twinkle in his eye when he asked the question, "Can art education change?" (Art Education, September 2001), or was it, "Should art education change?". His point that art cannot, or should not, be taught with VCAE has been disproved by at least one successful model. It's not that we want to eliminate Dow, Lowenfeld, Eisner, or DBAE. What we want, I hope, is a model that will finally turn public attitudes away from "art is nice" to "art is necessary." For all the greatness of past art education heroes, heroines, and heroic movements, art programs are not considered "basic" in public school settings. It's way past time for a change. John Hicks Professor Emeritus, Drake University Jvisual@aol.com

SEPTEMBER 2002 / ART EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 2002 / ART EDUCATION

LETTER LETTER

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:01:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions