Upon reading the Kamhi article I found myself becoming so agitated, frustrated, and alarmed at the thoughts and remarks of this particular individual. She is so caught up in criticizing the art world that she seems to be failing to take the time to learn from it. After finishing her article I felt bogged down by her negative perspective on art, how it is taught, and how it is "meant" to be viewed. In contrast, I found myself mentally cheering on Gude throughout the process of reading her thoughts typed out on paper. Her fresh insight and motivation for change are not only refreshing but inspiring. The emotional differentiation between Kamhi's article vs. Gude's article has greatly to do with their dramatically opposed views on what indeed is art, how it should be taught in schools, and what is wrong with todays art classes.
What is art?
Kamhi specifically defines fine art as art that has "concretize ideas and value in an emotionally compelling form", but then rejects photography and commercial art. She does not believe art should serve a purely psychological or spiritual need thus rejecting religious imagery and forms. Kamhi see's postmodernist work as failed art for it requires one to discuss the art and decode its meaning(s). So then stands the big question, what is acceptable art to Kamhi? Painting, drawing, and sculpture that requires little to no decoding that has an obvious connection to its maker may be considered art?
Gude recognizes imagery that uses "artistic methodologies to experience and interpret the world in fresh ways" as art. She also acknowledges works relating to politicized issues, stereotyping, and exaggeration as art.
How should it be taught?
Kamhi believes that "visual culture studies has no place in art education" for visual culture and fine art are two completely different subjects. She believes students should look at shared human values and concerns when creating art and NOT at politicized issues that divide society. I feel that her perspective on what is acceptable subject matter is nearly all rainbows and butterflies. The problem is thats not reality. If Kamhi had it her way she would have students go through the process of asking "What aspect of human experience do I regard as important? What is worth remembering? What do I value--or abhor?" in order to decide what their subject matter should be. What I don't understand is what happened to creating from the heart without overly analyzing and allowing the work to build upon itself??
Gude however believes that students should learn art by recreating the creation process used by artists in the real world. I agree with her that "students are researchers who learn by doing" and it is the job of the teacher to create the opportunities/environment for students to complete this artistic research of processes and experimentations. Gude also thinks that students should be viewing art that is being created in today society and also look at HOW it is being created. She stresses the importance of the process over the product instead of Kamhi's concentration on final product. Another daunting difference occurs with Gude's idea of creating art about the artists current self or emotional state instead of Kamhi's idea of creating something "important and worth remembering". I agree with Gude's love of expression for the purpose of expression.
As much as they disagree, there is at least one point they feel the same about and that is that they both believe the "...maker [should] feel a personal connection with the subject.." of which I could not agree more. Art is not worth creating if you feel no connection to your piece.
How should it be assessed?
Gude commented that the student could use art vocabulary to express their piece and ideas for a portion of their assessment. Can they talk about why they did what they did? The expectation of being able to talk about why you chose to do what you did, why you used the processes you did, why you chose to express what you did are all questions you have to answer in High School and College classes...so why are we not prepping our younger students by asking them to talk about their art as well? Why are we collecting it, grading it, and returning it without discussion? This just seems preposterous.
I came up empty handed when looking for what Kamhi would use for assessment so if anyone else was able to better read between the lines I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.
What is the problem with todays art classes?
Kamhi believes our art classrooms are wasting time by looking at "failed art" and decoding works. She believes there is no place for visual culture within an art room and that art educators need to put a higher concentration on the Fine Arts aka traditional painting, drawing, and sculpture. My thoughts on this are how on earth do we innovate if we stay the same?
Gude on the other hand believes that our classrooms are to "...ritualistic...[and]...rule-governed" and I couldn't agree more. Gude goes on to comment on all the restrictions we put on students through the use of rubrics, limited processes, and too many guidelines. She also comments on class sizes being too large to accommodate what is really needed, which is a studio space for students to work freely in. One of my favorite ideas she brings up is that teachers are currently "mis-teaching the meaning, intentions, and processes of the original artists" because we are researching them and their processes but never taking the time to create as they created.
What is art?
Kamhi specifically defines fine art as art that has "concretize ideas and value in an emotionally compelling form", but then rejects photography and commercial art. She does not believe art should serve a purely psychological or spiritual need thus rejecting religious imagery and forms. Kamhi see's postmodernist work as failed art for it requires one to discuss the art and decode its meaning(s). So then stands the big question, what is acceptable art to Kamhi? Painting, drawing, and sculpture that requires little to no decoding that has an obvious connection to its maker may be considered art?
Gude recognizes imagery that uses "artistic methodologies to experience and interpret the world in fresh ways" as art. She also acknowledges works relating to politicized issues, stereotyping, and exaggeration as art.
How should it be taught?
Kamhi believes that "visual culture studies has no place in art education" for visual culture and fine art are two completely different subjects. She believes students should look at shared human values and concerns when creating art and NOT at politicized issues that divide society. I feel that her perspective on what is acceptable subject matter is nearly all rainbows and butterflies. The problem is thats not reality. If Kamhi had it her way she would have students go through the process of asking "What aspect of human experience do I regard as important? What is worth remembering? What do I value--or abhor?" in order to decide what their subject matter should be. What I don't understand is what happened to creating from the heart without overly analyzing and allowing the work to build upon itself??
Gude however believes that students should learn art by recreating the creation process used by artists in the real world. I agree with her that "students are researchers who learn by doing" and it is the job of the teacher to create the opportunities/environment for students to complete this artistic research of processes and experimentations. Gude also thinks that students should be viewing art that is being created in today society and also look at HOW it is being created. She stresses the importance of the process over the product instead of Kamhi's concentration on final product. Another daunting difference occurs with Gude's idea of creating art about the artists current self or emotional state instead of Kamhi's idea of creating something "important and worth remembering". I agree with Gude's love of expression for the purpose of expression.
As much as they disagree, there is at least one point they feel the same about and that is that they both believe the "...maker [should] feel a personal connection with the subject.." of which I could not agree more. Art is not worth creating if you feel no connection to your piece.
How should it be assessed?
Gude commented that the student could use art vocabulary to express their piece and ideas for a portion of their assessment. Can they talk about why they did what they did? The expectation of being able to talk about why you chose to do what you did, why you used the processes you did, why you chose to express what you did are all questions you have to answer in High School and College classes...so why are we not prepping our younger students by asking them to talk about their art as well? Why are we collecting it, grading it, and returning it without discussion? This just seems preposterous.
I came up empty handed when looking for what Kamhi would use for assessment so if anyone else was able to better read between the lines I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.
What is the problem with todays art classes?
Kamhi believes our art classrooms are wasting time by looking at "failed art" and decoding works. She believes there is no place for visual culture within an art room and that art educators need to put a higher concentration on the Fine Arts aka traditional painting, drawing, and sculpture. My thoughts on this are how on earth do we innovate if we stay the same?
Gude on the other hand believes that our classrooms are to "...ritualistic...[and]...rule-governed" and I couldn't agree more. Gude goes on to comment on all the restrictions we put on students through the use of rubrics, limited processes, and too many guidelines. She also comments on class sizes being too large to accommodate what is really needed, which is a studio space for students to work freely in. One of my favorite ideas she brings up is that teachers are currently "mis-teaching the meaning, intentions, and processes of the original artists" because we are researching them and their processes but never taking the time to create as they created.
What an elegant way to discuss their differences! I don't even want to imagine the way that Kamhi would assess her students work. I am having nightmares of her tearing something up!AAHH!! But, i am certainly with you that Gude's Dreams will come true, because we can make it so for her. And, I believe that the nightmares that Kamhi has created will stay just that, a brief interlude with an unpleasant throught. Keep fighting the good fight to help realize Gude's Dream!
ReplyDelete