A short posting ruminating on, and extending a definition of visual culture by art and art history theorist W.J.T. Mitchell. Visual culture is not just the social construction of vision, of what we see. Visual culture is also the visual construction of the social, our way of mapping who we present ourselves to be and how we interface with the social territory we have staked out as our position. And because personal and public identity is fleeting—or nomadic at best—our visual culture is ever a thing in flux.
JHRolling
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Identity Wars
In an identity war, hostilities sometimes flare up in the most unexpected places.
Just as can happen in any major conflict, the contest over the identity of a nation can appear on the map as a cold war far from the primary battlefront. Since the election of President Obama, an identity war has steadily escalated in national politics over whose tribe best represents the nation—Conservative, Progressive, Tea Party, Libertarian. But there are other fronts in the war over which identity characterizes America at its best.
I am part of an unmoderated but generally collegial professional listserv in a prominent art education organization. Recently, one of my colleagues circulated a draft of an organizational position statement seeking discussion and feedback before officially submitting it for consideration by our delegates and board. It proposed that our national organization adopt a position calling for “an end to the ongoing blockade of the Occupied Territories by the State of Israel” and a condemnation of Israel for the destruction of Palestinian schools and the “murder” of nine humanitarian aid workers aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. The core argument was that our organization should take this stand because a social justice platform allows art educators to promote the freedom of expression necessary in a democratic society. However, this argument was framed within inflammatory charges of state crimes that were sure to spark intense debate as to its overall merit.
Unfortunately, the colleague who initiated the proposal also took the least collegial approach imaginable in a follow-up email that included a blanket indictment of some who reacted strongly to her proposal as doing so because of their inability to overcome “their ethnocentric racism.” The feedback from that point on was dramatic and vehement. But most revealing in the many listserv responses was the resistance not to the label of “racist” but to the label of art education as a vehicle for “social justice.” The most far-reaching of such responses was recently published as a June 25, 2010 Opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal titled “The Political Assault on Art Education” by Ms. Michelle Marder Kamhi. A cold war had erupted.
One thing that stands out in the clamor—identities are often shaped in opposition to what we most adamantly claim not to be. There are those who will only recognize a conservative as a great American, or a liberal as an open-minded American. Yet just as there is more than one model for defining yourself as an American, there are a number of contrasting models for defining what art is and, by extension, what art education is. Ms. Kamhi’s claim that art education is under assault by intrusive politics also implies a singular definition of art or education that is apolitical, socially inert, and powerless to alter the status quo. On the contrary, definitions of art and art education abound, as do ideas of America, and the proliferation of new interpretations has important consequences. Some define the arts as practices generating beautiful forms and objects crafted through carefully honed techniques and observation; others define the arts as interpretive, communicating cultural meanings and allowing self-expression; still others define the arts as critical interventions interrogating our common beliefs and social structures through acts of appraisal, agitation, and activism.
Competing definitions sometimes overlap and are just as likely to confound. There are conservative art educators who are elitists and who indoctrinate in and out of the classroom; likewise, there are social justice advocates who are anti-Marxist and have no interest in overthrowing American traditions. In truth, the diversity of the art education field reflects the diversity of our nation.
By labeling others as dangerous merely because they do not belong to the tribe we associate ourselves with, we can drum up quick support to expel anyone who threatens the gates of our identity’s home. People will fight to the death to maintain an unassailable identity because they think they will die if they don’t. Thus, there are some who will never accept an African American who has a name like Barack Hussein Obama as the President of the America they have defined for themselves. There are others for whom any “social justice” initiative is read as an assault on capitalism. But so what? Resistance to opposing ideas is not unexpected and isn’t even necessarily a bad thing. Art ever reinterprets itself and thrives on the resistance of ideas worth rethinking. So does the American identity. At the end of each reinterpretation, there is a new possibility. So assail away.
Just as can happen in any major conflict, the contest over the identity of a nation can appear on the map as a cold war far from the primary battlefront. Since the election of President Obama, an identity war has steadily escalated in national politics over whose tribe best represents the nation—Conservative, Progressive, Tea Party, Libertarian. But there are other fronts in the war over which identity characterizes America at its best.
I am part of an unmoderated but generally collegial professional listserv in a prominent art education organization. Recently, one of my colleagues circulated a draft of an organizational position statement seeking discussion and feedback before officially submitting it for consideration by our delegates and board. It proposed that our national organization adopt a position calling for “an end to the ongoing blockade of the Occupied Territories by the State of Israel” and a condemnation of Israel for the destruction of Palestinian schools and the “murder” of nine humanitarian aid workers aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. The core argument was that our organization should take this stand because a social justice platform allows art educators to promote the freedom of expression necessary in a democratic society. However, this argument was framed within inflammatory charges of state crimes that were sure to spark intense debate as to its overall merit.
Unfortunately, the colleague who initiated the proposal also took the least collegial approach imaginable in a follow-up email that included a blanket indictment of some who reacted strongly to her proposal as doing so because of their inability to overcome “their ethnocentric racism.” The feedback from that point on was dramatic and vehement. But most revealing in the many listserv responses was the resistance not to the label of “racist” but to the label of art education as a vehicle for “social justice.” The most far-reaching of such responses was recently published as a June 25, 2010 Opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal titled “The Political Assault on Art Education” by Ms. Michelle Marder Kamhi. A cold war had erupted.
One thing that stands out in the clamor—identities are often shaped in opposition to what we most adamantly claim not to be. There are those who will only recognize a conservative as a great American, or a liberal as an open-minded American. Yet just as there is more than one model for defining yourself as an American, there are a number of contrasting models for defining what art is and, by extension, what art education is. Ms. Kamhi’s claim that art education is under assault by intrusive politics also implies a singular definition of art or education that is apolitical, socially inert, and powerless to alter the status quo. On the contrary, definitions of art and art education abound, as do ideas of America, and the proliferation of new interpretations has important consequences. Some define the arts as practices generating beautiful forms and objects crafted through carefully honed techniques and observation; others define the arts as interpretive, communicating cultural meanings and allowing self-expression; still others define the arts as critical interventions interrogating our common beliefs and social structures through acts of appraisal, agitation, and activism.
Competing definitions sometimes overlap and are just as likely to confound. There are conservative art educators who are elitists and who indoctrinate in and out of the classroom; likewise, there are social justice advocates who are anti-Marxist and have no interest in overthrowing American traditions. In truth, the diversity of the art education field reflects the diversity of our nation.
By labeling others as dangerous merely because they do not belong to the tribe we associate ourselves with, we can drum up quick support to expel anyone who threatens the gates of our identity’s home. People will fight to the death to maintain an unassailable identity because they think they will die if they don’t. Thus, there are some who will never accept an African American who has a name like Barack Hussein Obama as the President of the America they have defined for themselves. There are others for whom any “social justice” initiative is read as an assault on capitalism. But so what? Resistance to opposing ideas is not unexpected and isn’t even necessarily a bad thing. Art ever reinterprets itself and thrives on the resistance of ideas worth rethinking. So does the American identity. At the end of each reinterpretation, there is a new possibility. So assail away.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
What Does Studio Thinking Look Like?
I recently had the opportunity to work with art education professor Lois Hetland to draft a statement of the benefits of studio thinking, the kind of thinking young learners develop when they do their learning in the art studio. Lois is an Associate Professor of Art Education at the Massachusetts College of Art and a Research Associate at Project Zero. Here is what we agreed on:
GOAL 1: Literacy
A studio-based visual arts education puts making at the center of learning experiences, supported by perception and reflection. Making is akin to thinking in the body; it motivates learners to communicate meaning symbolically both in speech/writing about their creative works and through the use of multimodal signs that ‘stand for’ other things. As learners navigate symbol systems, they must invent connections among the different forms of symbolizing—drawing, storytelling, dramatizing, using sound effects, gesturing, moving expressively. As students make personally meaningful images, marks, and models, their artmaking scaffolds their developing literacy.
GOAL 2: STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math)
A studio-based visual arts education aids learners in thinking visually—for example, by visualizing and mapping models of conceptual and real-world objects and systems. The ability to visualize what cannot be directly seen is a critical skill in mathematics and sciences, and mathematics and science education organizations emphasize the importance of visual representation and reasoning capacities in K–12 instruction (and beyond). The NCTM Standards, for example, explicitly describe visualization as a tool for problem-solving and also recognize the essential role of representing and interpreting mathematical ideas and problems in visual forms, including graphs, sketches, and diagrams. The importance of model-based teaching and learning in science, technology, engineering, and math education is being increasingly recognized in STEM education reform movements. Students who learn studio-based approaches to thinking develop strong skills in visualization. Given the importance of visualization in STEM fields, strong visualizers are likely to be more successful in STEM fields and therefore more likely to continue to pursue STEM studies in high school, college, and professionally.
(I would insert this addendum: that in rethinking science, technology, engineering, and math education in relation to the studio arts, STEM gets converted to STEAM. -JHR)
GOAL 3: A Well-Rounded Education
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)