CASE PORTRAITS of INNOVATION in UNDERGRADUATE STUDIO ART FOUNDATIONS CURRICULUM DISSERTATION Presented in Part
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BRAVE NEW BASICS: CASE PORTRAITS OF INNOVATION IN UNDERGRADUATE STUDIO ART FOUNDATIONS CURRICULUM DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jodi Kushins, M.S. ***** The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Patricia Stuhr, Advisor Dr. Terry Barrett Approved by Dr. Clayton Funk ________________________________ Alison Crocetta, MFA Advisor Art Education Program ABSTRACT By the end of the 20th century, many independent schools of art and art departments embedded in comprehensive universities required undergraduate students to complete a series of introductory courses commonly referred to as foundations. Interpreted literally, these foundations were perceived as the basic building blocks for all artistic practice. Regardless of a student’s future studies in fine or applied art forms, in tactile or digital media, she was required to start out with these fundamentals. Organized around drawing, color theory, and concepts in 2- and 3-dimensional design, the standard foundations sequence prioritized formalist concepts and technical proficiency. At the dawn of the 21st century, the goals and objectives of traditional foundations are actively being challenged. While some argue that beginning students still need to become fluent in a fundamental visual language defined by the elements of art and principles of design, others look at the diversity of practices, purposes, and contexts for making art in the early 21st century and wonder if it is possible or desirable to define a single set of commonly employed, fundamental skills and concepts. Amidst the pluralism and criticality of the contemporary art world, alternative foundations curricula have begun to emerge. Brave New Basics: Case Portraits of Innovation in Introductory Undergraduate Studio Art Foundations Curriculum describes two programs that reflect developments in ii postmodern artmaking and theories of critical pedagogy. This report is the result of my examination of introductory courses at Carnegie Mellon University and The School of the Art Institute of Chicago over the course of the 2006-2007 academic year. On my visits, I reviewed institutional documents, observed classes, and spoke with faculty and students. I used Lawrence-Lightfoot’s (1983) portraiture methodology to guide my observations, analysis of data, and eventual construction of contextualized narratives to describe these non-traditional foundations programs. I hope that my descriptions of these programs will provide those contemplating, embarking upon, and critiquing undergraduate introductory studio art curricular reform with models to consider. iii Dedicated to my grandparents. Sam, Sylvia, Paul, & Sarah whose lives served as lessons that with hard work, a little of love, and a lot of chutzpah you can do anything. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Though it’s been said many times in many ways, this dissertation would not have been possible without the support of the following folks: My fellow students, my professors, and the staff in the Department of Art Education at The Ohio State University past and present. Special thanks to Pat Stuhr, Terry Barrett, Kenneth and Sylvia Marantz, Clayton Funk, Alison Crocetta, Holly Longfellow, Savenda Fulton, Kirsten Thomas, and Melanie Buffington; Members of Foundations in Art Theory and Education (FATE) for encouragement and attention most doctoral students only dream of; Faculty and students at Carnegie Mellon University and The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Special thanks to Jim Elniski & Lowry Burgess for ongoing support and recognition; Amy Brook Snider for being my mentor and my friend; Mom and Dad, Stephen and Rebecca, my extended family and long-time friends who feel like family, for reminding me how to talk often and deeply about issues, for loving and worrying about me, and for asking when I’d be done with this project; Dan, George, and Rosa for pleasant distractions; My friends in The Salo(o)n—one good thing that came out of the 2004 election cycle—for support, inspiration, and commiseration. We are the future of academia. v Let’s never forgot what we learned in our interdisciplinary network. Special thanks to Vogel & Sons for your warmth and companionship and the Salo(o)nistas for the feminist discourse; My new comrades in ComFest University who provided me space and opportunity to keeping learning and to put knowledge I gained through this project to work in my own community; Joe at the gym for being that stranger who repeatedly asked, with genuine interest, how things were going and shared his own stories of survival; Avi for getting me into this in the first place; You, for taking the time to read and complete this text. vi VITA May 2, 1975…………………………………Born – New York, United States 2001…………………………………………M.S. Art & Design Education, Pratt Institute (Brooklyn, NY) 2000-2003…………………………………...Art Educator Tolland High School (Tolland, CT) 2003 – present………………………………Graduate Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Research Publications 1. With Kevin Tavin & Jim Elniski. “Shaking the foundations of post- secondary art(ist) education.” Art Education, 60 (5). (September 2007). 3. Book review of Rethinking curriculum in art by Marilyn G. Stewart and Sydney R. Walker. Studies in Art Education, 48 (3). (Spring 2007). 4. “Recognizing Artists as Public Intellectuals: A Pedagogical Imperative.” CultureWork, vol. 10, no. 2 (May 2006). http://aad.uoregon.edu/culturework/culturework34.html. 5. With Avi L. Brisman. “Learning From Our Learning Spaces.” Art Education, 58 (1). (January 2005). vii 6. “Making Meaning from Murals.” Visions: Connecticut’s Professional Art Education Magazine 13 (1). (Fall 2002). 7. “Making the BEST of it.” Visions: Connecticut’s Professional Art Education Magazine 12, no. 3. (Spring 2002). FIELDS OF STUDY Art Education Critical Pedagogy Contemporary Art viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………………...…iv Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..v Vita………………………………………………………………………………………..ix List of Figures.…………………………………………………………………………..xiii Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION Why Study Innovations in Undergraduate Studio Art Foundations?……..1 Background………………………………………………………………..2 Statement of the Issue……………………………………………………..6 Statement of Purpose……………………………………………………...9 Significance of the Study………………………………………………...10 Guiding Questions……………………………………………………….14 Overview of Research Design……………………………………….......15 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………….16 Conclusion: Overview of Chapters……………………...……………….18 2. CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH CONTEXT Framing Portraits of Innovative Undergraduate Studio Art Foundation Curricula………………………………...……………………………….19 Postmodernism: A Revitalized Context for Creation and Curriculum…..22 Post-Modernism………………………………………………….23 Blurry Boundaries……………………..…………………………27 Subcultural Considerations...…………………………………….30 Critical Pedagogy: A Call for Radical Revisions ……………………….31 Rethinking Relationships Between School and Society…………33 Whose Knowledge is School Knowledge?……………………....34 Cultivating Critical Consciousness………………………………37 Towards 21st century Art Foundations: Enacting a Dynamic and Critical Praxis ……..……………………………………………………..38 Thinking Thematically Across Media….…………..……………41 Connecting Studio Practice and Art Interpretation………………45 Introducing Digital Technology……………………………….....46 ix Collaborating in Context…………………………………………49 Attending to Identity Politics…………………………………….52 Conclusion: Embracing Postmodernism………….... …………………..53 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY On Becoming a Qualitative Researcher………………………………….55 Methodological Issue Interlude: Researcher Predilections and Theoretical Sensitivity………………….………………………..57 Methodology #1: Descriptive Case Study……………………………….59 Methodological Issue Interlude: Credibility as Transferability….60 Methodology #2: Portraiture……………………………………………..62 Methodological Issue Interlude: Participant Reciprocity and Institutional Support……………………………………………...64 Data Collection…………………………………………………………..65 Institutional Observations………………………………………..68 Institutional Documents……………………………………….....69 Faculty interviews………………………………………………..70 Student Focus Groups……………………………………………75 Methodological Issue Interlude: Credibility through Triangulation……..78 Data analysis……………………………………………………………..80 Identifying Themes………………………………………………81 Constant Comparative Analysis………………………………....83 Methodological Issue Interlude: Credibility through Member Checks……………………………………………………………84 Conclusion: Portraiture in Progress…..………………………………………….85 4. CASE PORTRAIT #1: CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY Contemporary Curriculum in Context Pittsburgh, PA: The Town Andrew Carnegie Built……………...86 Instructional Interlude……………………………………86 Carnegie Mellon University: A Comprehensive Academic Environment……………………………………………………...88 Educating Students, Benefiting Society…...……………………..92 Instructional Interlude……………………………………94 The College of Fine Arts: Respecting Tradition, Encouraging Innovation………………………………………………………..95 Considering Current Curriculum………………………………………...98 Foundation Media Studios: Multi-media Impressions………………….100 Instructional Interlude…………………………………..101 Concept Studio: Conceptualizing Artmaking…………………………..104 Instructional Interlude…………………………………..106 Conceptual Change Agents……………………………………..107 Instructional Interlude…………………………………..109 x Media and Concept: Two Sides of the Same Coin …………….111 Conclusion: Making Complexity Coherent…………………………………….113