sign in sign up
<<
Home , Design education, Visual culture

36 CurriculumChange for the 21st Century:Visual tn ArtEducation

KerryFreedman Northernlllinois U niversity PatriciaStuhr The OhioState Universitv

CURRICULUMAND VISUAL CULTURE

Nationaland internationalart educatorshave begun to move awayfrom the emphasison tradi- tional fine artsdisciplines toward a broaderrange of visual artsand culfural issues (Ballengee- Morris & Stuhr,2001: Barbosa. 1991; Blandy, 1994; Congdon, 1991; Duncum, 1990; Freed- man, 1994,2000; Garber,1995: Garoian, 1999; Hern6ndez, 2000; Hicks, 1990;Jagodzinski, 1997;Neperud, i995; Smith-Shank,1996:Tavin,2000). These contributors to the field have arguedfor a transformationof art educationin responseto changingconditions in the contem- porary world where the , includin-epopular arts and contemporaryfine afi, are an increasinglyimportant part ofthe largervisual culture that surrounds and shapes our daily lives. In the processof this transformation.art educatorsare replacing older views of curriculumand instructionwith an expandedvision of the placeof visual artsin human experience. The changein art educationhas historicalroots. From the beginningof public school art educationin the late l9th century,a rangeof designforms havebeen included in the field. For example,early art educationfocused on industrialdrawing and handicrafts; children's interests becameatopicofarteducationbythe 1920s: artindailyiifewasasloganof the 1930s;dunng World War II, visual propagandawas taughtin school;and during the 1960s,crafts increased in popularity.In the following 2 decades,a few art educatorsaddressed important issuesin the usesof popularculture and mass-mediatechnologies, contextualizing these in relation to students'lives (Chalmers, 1981;Grigsby, l9ll;Lanier,1969 1914 McFee& Degge,1977; Neperud,1973lWilson & Wilson, 1977;Wilson,Hurwitz, & Wilson, 1987). Substantialdifferences exist between those roots of a generationor more ago and the contemporarymovement. This is the case.in part, becausethe global virtual culture only suggestedby theoristsbefore the availability of interactive,personal computers in the early 1980shas now becomea realitywith its associatedproliferation of imagesand designed objects. The current transformationof art educationis more than just a broal:nrng of curriculum contentand changesin teachingstrategies in responseto the immediacyand mass distribution

815 816 FREEDMANANDsTUHR

of imagery.It incluilesa new of theorizingabout art in educationthat is tied to emergent postmodernphilosophies based on this growingenvironment of intercultural,intraculfural, and transculturalvisualizations. The shift to visualculture not only refersto expandingthe range of visualarts foms included in thecurriculum but alsoto addressingissues ofimagery andartifacts that do not centeron form per se.This includesissues concerning the power of representation,the formation of cultural identities,functions of creativeproduction, the meaningsof visualnarratives, critical reflection on technologicalpervasiveness, and the importanceofinterdisciplinary connections. The focus in recentdecades on fine artsdisciplines in U.S. art curriculum and standardizedtesting have resultedin the exclusionof suchcritical aspectsof visual culturein art .In fact, these aspectsof the visual arts havebeen given more attentionin "nonart" school subjectssuch as anthropologyand sociology and feminist, cultural, and (Collins, 1989;Mirzoeff, 1998;Scollon & Scollon, 1995;Sturken & Cartwright,2001). If the intentionof educationis to preparestudents for personalfulfillment and to constructivelycontribute to society,then art educationmust deal with newly emergingissues, problems, and possibilitiesthat go beyond the constraintsof leaming offeredby a discipline-basedcurriculum and standardizedforms of assessment. The purposeof this chapteris to discussart educationin terms of the broadeningrealm of visual culture and to theorizeabout curiculum change.The developmentof a conceptual frameworkfor postmodernvisual cultureis vital to any contemporaryteaching with a goal of critical reflection.Although scholarsin art educationand other fields havebegun to develop theoreticalunderpinnings for understandingvisual culture,the topic from an educationalper- spectiveremains severely undertheorized. As a result,much theoreticalwork needsto be done in orderto promoteappropriate interpretations and applicationsof visual culturein art educa- tion. In this chapter,we havedrawn on scholarshipfrom inside and outsideof the field to lay a foundationfor curriculum theory.In the following main section.we supportthe argument for broadeningthe domainof art educationby presentingthe visual artsin their contemporary, socioculturalcontext. After discussingthis contextof visualculture, we addressshifts in recent theory and practiceof arl educationin the secondmain section.

BROADENINGTHE DOMAIN OF ART EDUCATION

A globaltransformation of culturehas occurred that is dependenton visualimages and artifacts rangingfrom what we wearto whatwe watch.We live in an increasinglyimage-saturated world where televisionnews may control a person'sknowledge of current events,where students spendmore time in front of a screenthan in front of a teacher,and where newbom babies are shownvideos to activatestill-developing neurons. Visual cultureis pervasiveand it reflects,as well as influences,general cultural change. The pervasivenessof visual culturalforms and the freedomwith which theseforms crossvarious types of traditionalborders can be seenin the use of fine art icons recycledin ,computer-generated characters in films, and the inclusionof rap videosin museumexhibitions. The visual artsare the major part of this larger visual culture that includes fine art, advertising,folk art, televisionand other performance arts,housing and appareldesign, mall and amusementpark ,and other forms of visual productionand cotnmunication.Anyone who travels,watches rock videos, sits on a chair, entersa building, or surfsthe Web experiencesthe visual arts.Visual culture is the totality of humanly designedimages and arlifactsthat shapeour existence. The increasingnumber of visual cultureobjects and imagesshapes not only art education in the 2lst century but also the intergraphicaiand intertextualconnections between visual forms (Freedman,2000, 2003). The conceptualand physical interactionsof various and artif'acts,forms of representation,and their meaningsare fundamental to the way in which

:;tm 36. CURRICULLTMCHANGEFORTHE2lSTCENTURY817

the visual arts are interpretedand understood.Art now crossesmany old bordersof culture and form. For example,advertising photography,body fluids, and Star Wars paraphernaliaare all exhibitedin art museums.As a result,knowledge of what hastraditionally been considered f,ne art objectsand "good" tastecan no longer be seenas the only visual to serveelementary, secondary, or higher educationstudents. Fine art is still of great in educationand an imporlant part of historical and contemporaryvisual culture; however,the broader,creative, and critical explorationof visual culture, and its local, state,national, and globalmeanings is a more appropriatefocus if we want studentsto understandthe importance of visual culture. In this sectionof the chapter,we discussfour conditionsof the contemporaryworld that contextualizeart educationand lead to changesin the productionand study of visual culture by students.First, imporlant characteristics of personaland communal identities are discussed in terms of representationsconstructed in and through the range of visual culture. Second, increasingdaily interactionswith newermedia, particularly visual technologies,are addressed as a major part of contemporaryhuman experience.Third, the permeablequality of disci- plinary boundariesand the significanceof interdisciplinaryknowledge to the complexity of visualculture are discussed. Fourth, the importance of criticalprocesses of interpretationin un- derstandingthe complexityof visual cultureis presented.Although, we havedelineated these conditionsinto sectionsfor thischapter, the contents ofthese sections actually blur andinteract.

Sociallssues and Cultural ldentities At one time, sociologiststhought popular forms of visual culturemerely reflectedsocial life. Contemporaryimages and artifacts.however, are a major part of social life. Visual culture teachespeople (evenwhen we are not consciousof being educated)and, in the process,we recreateourselves through our encounterswith it. As we learn, we change,constructing and reconstructingourselves. Global culture functions through visual culture (television,radio, newspapers,telephones, faxes, World Wide Web,etc.) to producehegemonic, virnral realities, including our socialconsciousness and identities. The influenceof visualculture on identity occurson personaland communal levels. Various aspectsof personalidentity are made up of many cultural bits. Culture is a collage of many cultural identitiesthat are selectedand translatedon a continuingbasis (Clifford, 1988).Far from being a unifiedwhole, anyparticular identity is a combinationof others,with its resulting contradictionsand incongruities.These identitiesinclude age, gender,and/or sexuality,so- cioeconomicclass, exceptionality (giftedness, differently ab1ed,health), geographic location, language,ethnicity, race, religion, and political status. All we can everunderstand of a cultural group is basedon individual,temporal experience aslived or expressed.Fragmented knowledge of identity is all that canexist, making it difficult to understandeven our own culturesand socialgroups. However, the morethat is learnedabout visual culture, ihe better we can grasp the conceptof identity; and the more that is leamed aboutthe various members of a particulargroup, the morerichly we canunderstand their visual culture (Stuhr, 1999).A recognitionof our own socioculturalidentities and biasesmakes it easierto understandthe multifacetedidentities of others.It alsohelps us to understandwhy and how studentsrespond to visual cultureas they do (Ballengee-Morris& Stuhr,2001; Freedman & Wood. 1999). Communalidentity is constructedby socialgroups at the international,national, regional, stateor province,county, and local community levels where institutions,laws, and policies interact and change.These communal levels are continually being cot,itructed and recon- structedin accordancewith sociopoliticalpositions. Con.munal identity is an importantcon- ceptual site where cultural beliefs and values are formed, sanctioned,and/or penalized as it mediatesthe uncertaintyand conflict of daily life and change. 818 FREEDMANANDSTUHR

Global visualcuhrrre is createdthrough commodification and distributed at an international level. The merchandiseof global visual culture has expandedbeyond productsto ideology, spirituality,and .This merchandizingcan be a usefultool when cooptedfor positive educationalpurposes, such as for saving endangeredspecies, protecting the environment, or promoting human rights; however,it can have negativeeffects as well when it colonizes, stereotypes,and disenfranchises. As a resultofthe expanding,global influence ofvisual culture in the formationof identity and lived experience,art educationhas a new global significance. Through lived experiencewith the increasingrange, availability, and speedof visual forms, many art educatorshave come to understandthat visual culture is in a continual state of becomingand shouldbe taughtas such.

VisualTechnologies

A cntical issue of visual culture is the place of visual forms producedthrough the use of computerand other advancedtechnologies. Computer technology is not only a medium but also a meansthat hasenabled people to seethings previously unimagined and to crossborders of form from the flne arts to the massmedia to scientificvisualization. Visual technologies allow peopleto create.copy, project, manipulate, erase, and duplicateimages with an easeand speedthat challengesdistinctions of talent,technique, and the conceptuallocation of form. It could be arguedthat many of the issuesthat are seenas critical to postmodernvisual culture haveexisted historically in otherforms; however,the global technologicalpresence of images and objects,the easeand speedwith which they can be producedand reproduced,and the power of their pervasivenessdemand serious attention in education' Contemporaryvisual technologieshave promoted the collapseof boundariesbetween ed- ucationand entertainment. Advertisements, Web sites,and eventhe news,combine education and entertainmentto promote the sale if products and/or ideas. Consumers are approached as audiencesthrough the instantaneoustransmission of soundand imagery to even the most remote areas.Goods and ideasare pitchedunder the guise of enjoyableand addictingenter- tainment.This edu-tainmenthas fictional qualities that have become an importantpart of daily reality and the sensualqualities of the imagery are as seductiveas they are didactic.It is the wide distributionof this interactionof seduction,information, and representationthat makes newervisual technologiesso powerful. Although experienceswith visual technologieswere once consideredan escapeinto a fictional, virtual world, studentsusing technologytoday are understoodas engaging with complex, global communitiesat multiple cognitive levels. We now experiencetechnology as reality and appropriatevisual culture as life experience,turning it into attitudes,actions, and evenconsclousness (Rushkoff, 1994). While we arebeing shapedby technologicalvisual culture,we shapeit throughour ,toy, music,and other preferences.Corporations and advertisingagencies videotape students in teen culture focus groups,who act as informants on the next "hot" or "cool" thing, which are then developedinto products.The productsare subsequentlyadvertised and sold inside,as well as outside,of schoolto their peersthough global visual technologies.The processillustrates one of the parts visual technologiesplays in the fusion of educationand entertainmentas well as in the collapseof boundariesbetween studentculture and corporateinterests. Visual culture forms are merging. Rarely do contemporaryartists specializein painting on canvasor sculptingin marblel paintersdo performanceart; actorsdo rock videos; video artistsrecycle film clips; filmmakersuse computergraphics, which are adaptedfor toys and T-shirt advertising;and advertisersappropriate paintings. Today's visual arts have moved beyond painting and sculptureto include computer ,, ' environmentaldesign, television, comics and cartoons,magazine advertisements, and so on' 36. CURzuCULLMCHANGE FOR THE 21ST CENTTIRY 819

Visualculture also overlaps with artsnot usualiycategorized as visual, such as dance and theater. Performanceartists of many typesuse cornputerized lighting and soundto createatmospheric and dramaticeffects. The performing arts are part of visual culture.Even music has become more visual throughthe increaseduse of rock videosand complex technologicallyproduced light showsduring concerts.Through the use of technology,such as computergraphics and audio software,art objects have increasinglybecome recycled bits of other objectsthat are collaged,reconstructed, and reproduced. In the processof changingthe visual arts, advancedtechnologies have changedwhat it meansto be educatedin the arts.In the contextofpostindustrialized culture, the visual artscan no longer be seenas isolatedfrom generalculture, the productsof a few alienated,individual artistsworking in a small fine art community of museums,collectors, and galleries.Museum or gallery exhibition contactwith original fine art objectsis now only one of many possible experienceswith the visual arts.Newer technologieshave enabled encounters with the visual artsto becomeembedded in all aspectsof our daily iives.

Permeable Arenas of Knowledge It is becoming more difficuit to distinguishthe fine arts from other aspectsof visual cul- ture becausethe qualitativedifferences among these forms havebecome less discrete. Visual culture is a mode of experiencethat connectspeople through many and varied mediators. The variety and complexity of the experienceare dependenton the possibility of a range of quaLitl,relatedto form, none of which shouid be inherentlyexcluded from the investiga- tion, analysis,and critique enabledby aft education.Even conceptsand objectspreviously consideredfairly stable are in flux. Truth has sh,rftedfrom an epistemologicalto an on- tological issue:That is, it becomesiess about what we know than who we are. Time has lost its neat linearity, spaceappears to expandand contract,and boundariesof various sorts havebecome blurred. Perhaps most important,postmodern visual culturemakes imperative a connectednessthat underminesknowledge as traditionally taught in school. It involves in- teractionsamong people,cuitures, forms of representation,and professionaldisciplines. As suggestedearlier, this condition has been particularly promoted through the use of visual technologies. In light of thesecontemporary conditions, it seemsless important than it oncewas to focus determinationsof eitherworthiness of studyor quality of objectin educationon distinctionsof tasteor between"high" and "low" arts.Such distinctions may be importantto understanding someaspects of artisticpractice, such as private collecting, museum exhibition, and the useof fine art in advertising.These distinctions ofvisual form havelong beenbased on socioeconomic differences and are therefore contral)' to the democraticpurposes of schooling' Although such distinctionsmight be understandableas boundariesof professionaltraining in a period of increasingspecialization, we now live in a time that includesimportant challenges to extreme specialization.Such challenges are made by evenhighly specializedprofessionals who realize that solving the most seriousand importantproblems of the world demandinterdisciplinary and cross-disciplinaryknowledge. The realm of the visual arts inherently overlapswith other disciplinary domains.Artists andother culturalproducers draw on all typesofknowledge andcognitive processes to create. Recentresearch on cognition,and evenpredictions by iabor leaders,suggests that learningin thefuture will havemore to do with developinga rangeof knowledgethat involves disciplinary' interdisciplinary,and interpersonalrelationships than with the boundariesof professionaldis- ciplines (Solso, 1997).Connecting content typically consideredPart cfother schoolsubjects irrthe curriculum helps sfudentsto understandthe importanceand power of the visual culture and their placein the world. 820 FREEDMANAND STUHR

Processesof Un,:lerstandingComplexity As a pafi of the processof conceptformation in education,the arts have often been dichoto- mously categorized,inhibiting understandingand reducingthe complexity of visual culture. The processof learningnew conceptsdoes involve dichotomousdistinctions. For example, childrenwith petsmay begin to learnthat a cow is a cow by learningthat is not a dog or a cat; theylearn to discernone style of paintingby learningits differencesfrom otherstyles (Gardner, 1972).However, if attemptsto understandvisual culture are successful,the dichotomiesof early conceptformation are overcome,the complexity of conceptsbecomes increasingly ap- parent,categories blur, and hard and fast distinctionsbecome less discrete.At this level of understanding,oppositions become dualisms ("two sidesof the samecoin"), multiple perspec- tives are valued,and oversimplifications(such as stereotypes)are replacedby more complex representations. Contemporaryvisual culture is too complex to be representedin a dichotomousfashion. The complexitiesare illustrated by practicessuch as imagerecycling, the difficultiesof defin- ing creativity as originality,and the effectsof maintainingconceptual oppositions (including distinctionssuch as fine vs. populararls and male vs. femalecapabilities). As discussedearlier, it is not easy to view culturesor their creationsas totally separatebecause they interacton many levels and through many media. Fine artists borrow imagery from , men borrow from women, and artistsin one country borrow from thosein other countries.These intersectionsare revealed and supportedin and throughvisual cultural forms. An increasingbody of contemporarytheory and artistic practicerepresents the seductive infusionof meaningin aestheticsas the power of visualculture (e.g., Ewen, 1988;Shusterman, 1989).The integral relationshipbetween deep meaning and surfacequalities is one of the reasonsthat visual culture is so complex. It is not the surfacequalities of form that make art worth teachingin academicinstitutions; rather, it is the profound and complex qualities, basedon their social and cultural contextsand meanings,that are attachedto forms. In part' postmodernvisual culture producersof various types reflect and enable this refocusingof aesthetictheory. They often rejectformalistic usesof the elementsand principlesof designin favor of symbolicuses that suggestmultiple and extendedsocial meanings. Making meaningfrom complexvisual culturalforms occursthrough at leastthree overlap- ping methods:(a) cornmunication,(b) suggestiort,and (c) appropriation (Freedman,2003)' Communicationinvolves a fairly direct line of thought betweenthe maker and the viewer' The makerhas a messagethat sheor he intendsfor viewersto understand,and the messageis conveyedin asdirect a manneras possible to an intendedand understood audience. Suggestion involvesa processby which associationis stirnulatedin viewersby a maker(whether intended or not), resulting in the extensionof meaningbeyond the work. Appropriation involvesthe creativeinterpretation by a viewer who encountersa visual culture form in which the maker has intentionallydiffused meaning. In a sense,viewers cornplete any work of art by drawing on their prior knowledgeand experiencesas they constructmeaning. However, contemporary visualculture is oftencomplex because postmodem artists deliberately confound the construc- tion of meaning.These conditionsillustrate the importanceof teachingvisual culture as a processof creativeand critical inquiry.

NEW APPROACHES TO ART EDUCATION: VISUAL CULTUREINQUIRY

In part, visual culture inquiry challengestraditional forms of art educationbecause it is sen- sitive to the social and cultural issuesdiscussed in the previous section.The foundationof art educationconceptualized as visual culture inquiry is a matter of teachingfor life in and 36. CURRICULUMCHANGEFORTHE2ISTCENTURY821 through the visual arIs. It helps studentsto recognizeand understandthe ambiguities,con- Tlicts, nuances,and ephemeral quaiities of socialexperience, much of which is now configured throughimagery and designedobjects. In part,freedom in contemporarydemocracies is reflectedthrough the ways in which visual realitiesare constructed, cutting acrosstraditional artistic and socialboundaries. Students and teachersare becoming aware of the power of visual culture in the formation of attitudes, beliefs. and actions.ln dynamic ways, visual culture shapesthe ways we look at ourselves and perceiveothers, often portraying individuals and groups in ways contradictoryto the democraticpurposes of schooling.At the sametime, educationis oneof the last public forums for a potentiallyfree critiqueof the productsof massdistnbuted visual technologiesthat make up the media and visual culture and for thoughtful studentreflection on their own production and usesof visual culture.The critical necessityof teachingvisual culture in this context is seenin the lack of seriousdebate even in the "free" mediaas it becomesincreasingly focused on entertainment(e.g., Aronowitz, 1994;Morley,1992). Perhapsthe peoplemost influenced by visual cultureare children and adolescents. Students incorporatethe socialcodes, language, and values ofvisual cultureinto their lives (Freedman& Wood, 1999;Tavin, 2001). Visual cultureinfluences students' knowledge, affects their identity construction,and shapestheir aestheticsensibilities. In the following sections,we flrst arguethe importanceof moving from a schoolfoundation of modernistaesthetic policy basedon industrialtraining to a more meaningfuland relevant art education.Second, we discussproblems of atomizingvisual culturein curriculum.Third, we focus on teachingas a processof helping individualsand learningcommunities to make meaningthrough the fusion of creativeand critical inquiry.

ReconceptualizingModernist Aesthetic Policy: Art Education Respondsto IndustrialTraining

An uns.tatedaesthetic policy hasdeveloped through the educationalapplication of an aesthetic canonthat underliesall of what we do. As policy,the canonhas calcified and reproduced itself, throughcentury-long practices of schooling.Like any educationalpolicy, this aestheticpolicy implies a socialcontract that is revealedthrough the modernist,industrial cuniculum andstan- dardizedtests taken by studentsand teachers.It is a historicalartifact that was importantin its time for the developmentof the visual artsin the United Statesand, in public schoolart educa- tion, hasbeen based on industrialdesign at leastsince Walter Smith's work in the 1870s.Times havechanged, however, and the contractis being renegotiated.The new perspectiveofart edu- cation respondsto contemporarychange in what studentsneed to know in and through the arts. The industrialtraining model of educationcarries with it regimented,mechanistic training and the reproduction of traditional forms of knowledge through group . As a result, studentsworking within this model often make arl that looks very much alike. Theseassembly- line-lookingproducts, such as color wheels,are produced by roteand repeated in multiple grade levels.The emphasison this modelhas enabled the developmentof the schoolart style(Efland, 1916, 1983) and has cramped teacher and student freedom in the exploration of conceptual complexityin both making and viewing. Of course,some technical exercises are important to art education,but to emphasizethis model of instructionconfounds the importanceof art. Like other school subjects,art educationadopted industrial training as its basic approach in the late 19th century.Today, the businesscommunity has changedfrom a focus on modem, industrial production techniquesto postmodernmarket information and services,in which home loansand vacationscan be boughton the Web,children learn about outer ri)acethrough role-playcomputer games, and people access through satellite connections in their cars. As discussedearlier, the educationis replete with examplesof the inclusion 822 F'REEDMANAND STUHR of popular culture lrnagesand objects.The current movementleaves behind the technical emphasisof industrialtraining that alienatesproducers from the larger meaningsassociated with their production.Instead it givesattention to the multiple connectionsbetween form and meanlng. The industrialmodel in art educationis basedon analyticalaesthetics. This aestheticper- spectivehas been treated in curriculumas ifit is objective:That is, analyticalaesthetics is not generallytaught as if it werea sociallyconstructed and culturally located philosophical stance. In curiculum, the analyticemphasis is formalism.Formalism is a pseudoscientificconception of aestheticsthat developedin the late 19thand early 20th centuryat a time when sciencewas gainingcurrency in applicationto all areasof sociallife. Other conceptionsof aestheticsexist but havelargely beenignored as philosophicalanalysis in art education. Even when the focus of instruction is not formal per se (that is, when formal qualities are understoodas supportsfor ideas)the educationalpresentation of formal qualities is not always responsiveto social and cultural issues.Consider the example of frontal views of authority figures,which is often included as part of the aestheticcanon studentsmust learn. Not only is this conceptrelatively trivial in the big picture of the small amountof time we haveto teachstudents, but alsoit is Eurocentric.In certainAfncan ,authority has been representedtraditionally in femalerelief form in which its femaleness(protruding breasts and buttocks)is intendedto be viewed from the side.Another instancewhere the Westerncanon of pictorial frontal views of authoritydoes not hold up is in the context of traditionalPlains NativeAmerican shields and teepees where authority f,gures are represented as part of symbolic narratives.Their authoritymight be recognizedby headgear,size, and so on. Evenin European art,the authorityof malefigures has been symbolically shown by uniforms,weapons, and even by connectionto a spouseas in a pair of profile portraits.These examples illustrate that the focusof curriculummust change if studentsare to developan understandingof the complexity of thoughtconcerning visual imageryand artifacts. The traditionalfocus on historical,flne art exemplarshas tended to suggesta single line of Westernstylistic development.Formal and technicalqualities have been representedin cur- riculum as the most importantconnection between art objects.Even the educationalemphasis of content,such as the figure,landscape, or still life, has often becomeformal and technical when teachersassign students to "make a Van Gogh sunflowerpainting" with paperplates and dry markers.In the past,the rich conceptualconnections among images,objects, and other forms of culture,which are often their reasonsfor being, havebeen missed or hidden in such endeavors.The complex,interdisciplinary reasons we value suchartists' ideasare neglected. Under theseconditions, visual cultureobjects are transformed through education, often losing importantattached cultural meanings.

Curriculumas Process:Challenging Atomistic Content andAssessment Recently,general curriculum theoristshave been struggling with the project of reconceptual- izing curiculum from postmodernperspectives (Giroux, 1992;Pinar, 1988;Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery,& Taubman,1996). This projectis a responseto the many socialand cultural changes that are now influencingstudents' lives. The project of developingappropriate educational responsesto suchchange is increasinglyimportant as societiesand culturesleave the secure thinking of modernisticforms of education,where knowledgeand inquiry methodsare rep- resentedas stableand curriculum is intendedto be reproductive.For example,postmodem curiculum theoristspoint out that curriculum is not a neutralenterprise; it is a matterof se- lection. As a result, curriculum containsand reflectsthe interestsof individuals and social 36. CURRICULUX4CHANGEFORTTIE2lSTCENTURY823

groups.Patrick Slattery(1995) has arguedthat curriculum expressesautobiography because it is createdby human beings who leave parts of themseh'esin their teachingand writing. He has suggestedthat curriculum should focus on issuesof the self, becausethat is where learning takesplace, and he arguesthat educatorscan use the conceptof autobiographyto better understandeducational conditions. A postmodernunderstanding of the personaland socialprocesses of curriculum planning and enactmentexemplifies the aestheticcharacter of educationand the importanceof consideringindividual learningin relationto socialcontexts. The modernistproblem of curriculum may be thought of as havin-qallowed a veil to fall over such social issues,hidrng or obscuringthem. Thrs veil has coveredthe complexity and connectionsof artisticrelationships as modernistcurriculuur has soughtto continuallybreak down knowledgeinto minute bits of infomation. As the curriculumhas become more focused on smallobjectives and traditional, fine art exemplarsare used over and over again,art hasbeen transformedfrom visual expressionsof multiple and complexideas to oversimplifieduses of formal and technicalqualities. The postmodernproblem of curriculum is to lift the veil and thus make art educationmore meaningfulthan mere sensory experience. This couldbe accomplishedby challengingstudents with inquiry basedon creativeproduction and critical reflectioninvolving deepinterrogations of images,artifacts, and ideasthat approachthe compiexity of visual culture as experienced. This often requiressome school subjectintegration. The major issueof curriculum integrationnow can no longer be whetherto integrate,but rather what, when, and how to teach studentsmost eft-ectivelythrough the constructionof integratedknowledge. Schools are adoptingintegrated approaches to curriculum in an effort to teach studentsthe conceptualconnections they need to succeedin contemporarylife. Art educationshould help studentsknow the visual arts in their integrity and complexity,their conflicting ideasas well as their acceptedobjects, and their connectionsto socialthought as well as their connectionsto other professionalpractices. As discussedearlier. confining the visual artsto narrow learningobjectives and assessment strategiesbased on traditionalnotions of excellencein fine art disciplinesis highly problematic. The old constructsof knowledgeabout the visual arts haveincluded at leastone other set of boundariesthat hasresulted in difficultiesfor an art education.lt involvesthe question:Where do the boundariesof art stop and other schooisubjects begin? Reproducing nalrow constructs of knowledgeshould not be the purposeof contemporaryart education.Not only is finding a perimeter for the open concept of art difficult. but also it may be an ineffective way to approachcurriculum. From a contemporaryeducational standpoint, our goal is to make as many connectionsas possibiebecause connections produce integrated learning. In orderto reconceptualizecurriculum in this way,it is necessaryto understandcurriculum as a processrather than as a single text. The processof curriculum is its product.Curriculum is not a unified whole. It is a collage of bits of information basedon knowledge(Freedman, 2000,2003). It is flexible,at sornetimes sequential and at othertimes highly interactive,making connectionsnot only to the previouslesson but also to life experiences. An integralrelationship exists between assessment and curriculum. Both mustbe of quaiity in order to havea successfulprogram. An authenticperspective of assessmentand curriculum is to developboth through community discourse.Criteria for assessmentmust be developed throughcommunity debate, but not allowedto be trivializedthrough excessive fragmentation and overassessment(Boughton, 1991, 1997'). Art educationis no different in the dissolution of its boundariesfrom other areasand disciplines.Postmodernism and advancesin computerand media technologieshave enabled boundaryerosion that has prompted new ways of conceptualizimgsubject areasand what constitutesimportant drsciplinary knowledge. As a result,new methodsfor investigationand 824 FREEDMANANDsTUHR data elr- continually being invented and developed.The arts figure prominently in thesenew methodologicalconfigurations (Barone & Eisner, 1997; Gaines& Renow, 1999: Prosser,1998; Rose, 2001).

ArtisticProduction: Making Meaning Through Creative andCritical Inquiry

In the past,the focus on formal and technical attributesof production haslimited our conception of curriculumand has been constrained by at leastfour interconnecting,historical foundations. First, there has been a focus on realistic representationas a major criterion for quality in student art. Teachersoften cite parent and administrative pressure for this focus. A focus on realism,without conceptualfoundation, addresses only oneform of artisticproduction and ignoresthe importanceof abstractand symbolic representationsof ideasthat arevital to human experience.Creative and critical probleminvestigation and productionbased on variousforms of abstraction,fantasy, science-fiction, and so on can only be promotedthrough open-ended, independentinquiry leadingto connectiveforms of representation. Second,in conflict with the focus on realism,but coexistingwith it is an emphasison ex- pressionisticcharacteristics and maintaining childlike qualitiesin studentart. This hasresulted in productsthat haveformal and technicalqualities that look somewhatlike young children's art regardlessof the conceptualsophistication of the student.The painterly quality of child art is valuedas evidenceofindividual self-expression(in part,based on fine art stylessuch as abstractexpressionism) and is a foundationof the aestheticof late modernism.However, these expressionisticqualities are not necessarilyevidence of individuality becausethey havebeen socially constructedand havebecome a criterionfor group assessment. Third, as discussedearlier, the industrialtraining model has led to a focus on formal and technicalqualities, but theseare also easy to teach and assess.Curriculum contentis often selectedand configuredto be efficiently handledin the instirutionalizedsettings of class- rooms.With the emphasison standardizedcurriculum and testing,the relianceon simplistic, easily observedproducts or resultsand proceduresis convenient.Although thesepractices often trivialize art and are generally irrelevant to students' lives, they are consideredefficient and effectiveby administrativeand governingbodies, and teachershave beenencouraged to perpetuatethese practices. Fourth, art teachersare forced to compete for funds and advocatefor programsthrough art exhibitions for parents and administratorswho are not well educatedin the arts. As a result, teachersare often placed in a positionof defendingtheir placein the schoolcommunity based on the successof exhibitions,which dependon a studentart aestheticthat demonstratesa high degreeof formal and technicalskrll, but is not intellectually demanding.Rather than acknowledgingthat art involvesa rangeof life issues,abilities, and concepts, art teachershave beenpressured to think that their worth is basedon students'technical production skills and knowledge of a few art historical facts. The new conceptionof curriculumand studentartistic inquiry opens up the possibilityof moving away from theseproblems. A curriculum basedon visual culture takesinto consid- erationstudents' daily, postmodernexperiences and their future lives. Most studentswill not be professionalartists, but all studentsneed to becomeresponsible citizens of the world. In a democracy,an aim of educationis to promotethe developmentof responsiblecitizens who think cntically, act constructivelyin an informed manner.and collaboratein the conscious formation of personal and communal identities. ln order for art curriculum to fulfill this aim in the contemporarycontext, students' studio experience must be thoughtof as part of visual cultureand as a vital way to come to understandthe visual mrlieu in which thev live. Student 36, CURRICULUMCHANGE FOR THE 21STCENTURY 825

studio experienceis essentialto teachingand learning about visual culture becauseit (a) is a processof creative/criticalinquiry, (b) helps studentsunderstand the complexitiesof visual culture,and (c) connectsand empowerspeople.

Artistic Production ls a Process of Creative/Critical inquiry

Creativeproduction and critical reflectionare not separatein art; they aredualistic and mutu- ally dependent.Creative production is inherentlycritical, and critical reflectionis inherently creative.When we look at an imageor artifact,we createit in the sensethat we give it meaning. It is important to conceptualizethese processes as being interconnectedif art educatorsare going to teachin ways appropriateto understandingvisual culture. Many differenttypes of studios(i.e., commercial arts, fine arts,, video and film production)and studiopractices exist. Studio practices include concepfualizing, viewing, analyzing,judging, designing,constructing, and marketing visual forms.An importantparr of studiopractice is participationin the discoursesof variouscommunities (professional, student, ethnic, gender,environmental, etc.) to developcontexts through which connectionscan be made betweenproduction and social life. As discussedearlier, a critical aspectof teaching visual culture is making connectionsand crossingborders. This is accomplishedthrough conceptuallygrounded processes of creative/criticalinquiry that promote synthesis,extend knowledge,and enrich relationships. These are the powers of the artsand vital aspectsof studio production.Conceptually grounded production processes cross over traditionalboundaries of form, breaking down old borders of media-driven curriculum, and turning curriculum upside- down,so that the development ofideas aregiven attention first andthe techniques and processes emergeas the expressionof thoseideas. In this way, techniqueand media are relatedto and enhancethe making of meaning in creative/critical inquiry. Visual culture is an expressionof ideasthrough the use of technicaland formal processes,but theseprocesses are not the main purposeof artisticproduction. Creative/criticalinquiry is not only for secondarylevel students;in fact, it should begin at the elementarylevel. Young studentsare already adoptingpostmodern visual culture as a framework for understandingreality outside of school. For instance,elementary students analyze,role-play, draw, and constructenvironments based on the Harry Potterbooks, films, and toys from interdisciplinaryperspectives of casting,acting, designing,costume styling, narration,and mechanization.

MakingVisualCulture Can HelpStudents Grasp Complexitiesof Culture

Traditionally, aft hasbeen represented in educationas inherently good. The term arr hascarried with it assumptionsof quality,value, and enrichment. However, the visual arts are not inherentl-v good. The greatpower of the visual artsis their ability to havea varietyof effectson our lives; but that power can make them manipulative, colonizing, and disenfranchising.The complexity of this powerneeds to be consideredas part of educationalexperience. For example,advertising images are produced by artists and are thought of as good for the companieswhose products they are intendedto sell, but, they often representstereotypes and culturalbiases that damage viewers' self-concepts.Another example is the astronomical amount of money paid to sports starsand forhistorical fine art,which seemsinconsistent with theideals of moral responsibility. As a resultof suchcomplexities, investigations of issuesof emporve:-:nent,representation, and social consciousnessare becoming more importantin art education. 826 FREEDMANAND STUHR

Cultural Productioi; Connects and Empowers People

Visual culture connectsmakers to viewers through communication,identity formation, and .Addressing aspects of ,identity formation,and cul- tural mediationhas become a vital issuein art education(e.g., Ballengee-Morris, & Striedieck, 1997;Freedman, 1994; Stuhr, 1995).Studio productioncan aid studentsto understandthat visual cultureinvolves personal and communalcodes of symbols,images, environments, arti- facts,and so on. Investigatingthe relationshipbetween makers and viewersof visual culture can help them to identify and recognizeethnocentric perspectives at the national,regional, state,and local levels.This processis importantbecause it createspossibilities for the critique of visual culture at all levels to achievedemocratic educational goals intendedto guide the preparationof reflectiveand responsible citizens, consequently leading to a more sociallycon- sciousand equitablesociety. From a visual cultureperspective, production empowers makers and viewersby promotingcritique throughthe processof making, encouraginganalysis dur- ing viewing, and enablingmakers and viewers to claim ownershipof images and designed objects.

CONCLUSION

Art educationbased on teachingvisual culture requires new curriculumand instructional roles, content, and strategiesto shift the focus of the field fiom nanow, conventional approachesto openprocesses ofcreative and critical inquiry. A new languageis necessaryfor art education thatdoes not solelydepend on fine artsdiscourse. Ideally, it shouldinvolve discourses on all the visual arts,such as media studies, design education, cultural critique,and visual . Art teachersshould be educatedto becomeinvolved citizens in the various communitiesin which they live and work. They should strive to enrich the communities to create pride in and addresscontemporary problems through artistic solutions. Art should be approachedas an equallylegitimate school subject and conceptually integrated with therest of the schoolcurriculum. All educatorsshould teach the conceptsand skills necessaryto function effectivelyin a democraticsociety now and in the future. New instructionalstrategies include teachersbecoming role modelsof leadershipin their professionalcommunity. To conceptualizeart educationas different from otherschool subjects inadvertentlydisengages it from the legitimate school curriculum. In the larger sense,art teachersfocus on what other teachersconsider important: the conceptsand skills necessary to function effectively in a democratic society now and in the future. But, art teachersdo this throughvisual culture,which is asprofound in its effect as written texts. Teachereducation programs need to prepareteachers to act asfacilitators of studentcreative and critical inquiry. As part of teachingvisual culture,we must shifi from a focus on didactic instructionto an educaiionthat promotesstudent responsibility. When studentsare allowed to investigatethe range of visual culture with the guidanceof a teacher,they can acdvely and discovercomplex meanings, multiple connections,and enrichedpossibilities for creation and critique. Art classroomsshould be conceptualizedas multitaskingarenas where images the objectscross over and are producedand discussedto lead studentsand teachersthrough investigationof ideas,issues, opinions, and conflicts. and Throughtechnological advancements. visual culture is becomingincreasingly pervasive affecting the lives of studentsand teachersworldwide. The professionalfield must respond to the challengeof this significantsocial change by educatingnew art teachersand retrarntng live current art teachersto use technology to create studentswho are aware ofthe world they in and to take an activeresponsible role in improving life for all. 36, CURRICULUMCHANGEFORTHE2ISTCENTURY827

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authorswish to thank Ron Neperudfor his carefulreading and thoughtfulcomments on this chaoter.

REFERENCES

Aronorvitz.S. (199;l).Tcchnolog,v- and the luture of rvork. In G. Bender& T. Druckley (Eds.).Crllure on tlrc brink: Ideaologiesof tethnologt (pp. l 5-301. Seattle:Bay Press. Ballengce-Mitrris.C. B., & Striedieck.L M. ( 1997).A postrnodemfeminist on visualart and visual cuiture in elementaryteacher education. In D. R. Walling {Ed.). Llnder C(tnslruL :irtn; Th? n,le L'f'theurt antl visuttlt ulture ttndhunrtttrities in postnndemst-hooling (pp. 193-215.)Indianapolis: Phi DeltaKappa. Ballengce-Moris.C.. & Stuhr.P L. (2001).Multicultural art and visual cultural education in a chatrsinsworld. Arr Educatiot. 54(,+).6 13. Barbosa,A. M. (1991).Art educationand environment. Jountal of Multiculturulund CrossCullural Reseurtlt ln Art EdLtcatirut.9(I ). 59-6,1. Baronc,T.. & Eisner,E. (1991). Another exampleof arts-bascdresearch. Contplententan' Methtils.fbr lleseartlt in Edw utiut. Washington,DCI: Antcrican EducatitlnalRcscarch Association. Blandy. D. (199.1).Assuming responsibility:Disability rights and thc pfeparatiotrol art educators.Strulies in Art Edut'utiort.-t.5(3 ) I 79 187. Bgughton,D. (1994).Evuluatiort ruttl assessrnent in t'isuul drts (duLutiul. Geelong, VIC: DcakinUniversity. Ilouglrton,l). ( 1997).Reconsidering issues of asscssmentantl achievetnent standards in arl sducatioll.Studics in Art Education.-16(.1). 199 2l-1. Chalmers.F. G. ( l gUl ). Art educationas cthnology.Studies in Art Educatiort.22(3). 6 l 4 Clilf ord, J. ( lgull). Thepredicarnent t,f culture: Ttt'entieth-t'enturtellmogrupht, lileralurc, nnrl arl. Carnbridgc.MA: FlarvardUnivcrsity Prcss. Collins. J. (1989). IJnconntuttrtultures: Ptryulortullure urul posl nuxlentisnt.New York: Routlcdge. Congdon.K. G. (1991).A fblk art ibcus.Journal o.l'Multiutltural anLl Crcss'tulturul Resean-h in Art Educutittt,9. 65 72. I)uncurn.P ( 1990). Clcaring thc dccks f'ordorninant culturc: Somelirst principleslbr a contcmporaryart cducatlon. Studiesiil Art Educatitnt:A Jttunrul tt.fIssues and Resean'h'-l/('1). 207-215 Elland.A. (1976).'fhcschool art style:A lunctionalanalvsis. Stutlie.s irt Art Edrcttlirtrt,17.37 !4. Efland.A. ( 198.1).School art and its socialorigins Studie:in Art l:duttttiot,21.19 57 Ewen.S. (l9Utt).A/1 r'tnswninginn.qes: The ytliticsof s^le in totilenryxtrantultLtre. New York:Basic Books. Freedrnan.K.(1994).Interpretinggenderandvisual cultureinartclassrootns.StudiesinArtEducolirn,.i-5(3). l-57 170. Freednian.K. ( 1995).Educational changc within structuresol history.culture. and discourse. In R. W. Neperud(Ed.). Conte.ril.((nleill, and tomntrutilt in art educalion.Ncw York: TeachcrsColiege Prcss. Frccdman.K (2(n0).Social pcrspcctives on an cducationin thc U.S.:Teaching visual culturc in a dcmocracy.Stadies in Art Education.11(1).311379. Freedman.K. (2003).Tenching visttttl tulture. New York: TeachcrsCollege Prcss. Frecdman.K.. & Wood.J. ( 1999).Student knowledge ol'visual culture: Images inside and outside ol school.Studies in Art Edttcation,2(10). 128-112. Garber.E. (1995).Tcaching ar1 in rhccontext ofculture: A studvin theborderlands. Slrrdies in Art Education,36(4|,. 2 18-232. Gardner.H. (1912). The developmentof sensitivit),to ligurai and stylistic aspectsof paintings. British Journal of Pstclutlogt,6J. 605-6 I 5. Gaines.J.M..&Renow.M.(Eds.).(1999).Collectittgvisibleet,idente. Minneapolis.MN: Universityof Mintiesota Press. Garoian.C.(1999).Perfitrningpedagttgt:Tt*+ardanarto;f politics. Albany: SUNYPrcss, Giroux.H. (1992).Bordercros.sings:CulturalworkersandthepoliticsrtJ'educatlort.NewYork.London:Routledge. Grigsby,J. (1917). Art & ethnics.Dubuque. Iowa: Wm C Brown Hemandez,F. (2000).Educati1n t culnrra yisrai. Barcelona:Octacdro. Hicks. L. (1990).A f'eministanalysrs of empowermentand community in arts education.Sadies in Art Edtrctttiot, -12(r).36-46. Jagodzinski.I (1997).The nostalgiaof art education:Reinscribing the master'snarrative, Studies in Art Education. 3B(2).80-95. 828 FREEDMANANDSTUHR

Lanier,V ( 1969).The teachin-eoi art as socialrevolution. Phi Delra Kappan,50(6). 314-3 19. Lanicr. V (1.974).A plagueon all your houses.NAEA Joumal,27(3), 12-15. McFee,J. K.. & Degge,R. (1971).Art, utlture, and environment;A catalystfor teacfting.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mirzoefi, N. (Ed.). (1998).Vsual culture reader.New York: Routledge. Morley, D. (1992).Television, audiences, and cultural studles.London: Routledge. Neperud,R. (1973).Art education:Towards an environmentalaesthetic. Arl Education,26(.3). Nepenrd,R. (Ed.). (1995).Conren, (ontent, and commwtityin art education.New York: TeacherCollege Press. Parsons,M. (1998).Integrated curriculum and our paradigmofcognition in the arts.Studies in Art Education,39(2), 103-11 6. Pinar,W F. (Ed.). (1988).Contemporam curriculum discourses.Scottsdale, AZ: GorsuchScarisbrick. Pinar,W. F., Reynolds,W. M., Slattery,P, & Taubman,P M. (1996). Understandingcurriculum. New York: Peter Lang. Prosser.J. (Ed.). (1998).Inruge-based researcl't: A sourcebookforrlualitative researchers. Bristol: Falmer. Rose,G. (2001). Visualmethodologies. London: Sage. Rushkol1,D. ( 1994).Media virus: Hidden agendasin popular culture.Sydney: Random House. Scollon,R., & Scollon,S. W (1995).Intercultural comnunication. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Shusterman,R. (1989).Pragnntist aesthetics:Living beauty,rethinking at't. Oxfbrd: Blackwell. Slattery,P ( 1995). Postmodernismas a challengeto dominantrepresentations of cuniculum. In J. Glanz & L. Behar- Horenstein(Eds.). Paradign debtttesin curriculum and supervision.New York: Greenwood. Smith-Shank.D. (1996). Microethnographyof a Grateful Dead event:American subcultureaesthelics. Joumal of Multicultural ond Cross-culturalResearch in Art Education,14,80-91. Solso,R, (1997).Mind antl brain sciencesin tlrc 2lst century Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Stuhr P L. (1995).A socialreconstluctionist multicultural art curiculum design:Using the powwow as an example. In R. W. Neperud (Ed). Context, content, and cotnmunity in art education: Bel,eni p)t\^odernisnr New York: TeachersCollege Press. Stuhr,P L. ( 1999). Response to Brian Allison's article,"Colour. culture,language, and education." Jountal of Multi- cultural and Cross-culturalResearch in Art Education./8(1). 1'1-15. Sturken,M.. & Cartwright,L. (2001).Practices of looking:An introductionto visualculture. Oxfbrd, England:Oxford UniversityPress. Tavin. K. (2000). Just doing it: Towards a critical thinking of visual culture. In D. Wiel & H. K. Anderson (Eds.). Perspectivesin critical tlrcory,: Essal'sby teachersin theon' and practice (pp. 187-210). New York: PeterLang. Tavin.K.(2001).Teachinginandthroughvisualculture.Journaltl'MulticulturalandCross-CulturalResearchirt Art Education.18( l ), 37-40. Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1977).An iconoclasticvrew of the imagery sourcesof the drawing of young people.Art Education,J0( I ), 5-1 1. Wilson, B.. Hurwitz. A.. & Wilson. M. (1987).Teaching drav,ing.front drt. Worchester,MA: Davis.