Technology and Ways of Knowing in Visual Culture Education
Since the inception of art education, theorists have considered how knowledge
develops in the visual arts; is it through hands-on activities or through the
study of art in its context/history? Or perhaps both? Although many other areas
of education have debated at length the impact of digital technology, art education
is in the early stages of considering how the use of computer technology affects
teaching and learning in the visual arts (Dunn, 1996; Gregory, 1996; Heise &
Grandgennett, 1996; Prater, 2001; Taylor, 1999; Taylor & Carpenter, 2002).
In this paper, I explore the current dialogue on the use of technology in art
education using two frameworks, pursuing an intriguing possibility of the use
of hypertext as a way to promote multiple ways of knowing and critical thinking.
I conclude that, although the use of hypertext in online learning communities
provides a promising use of technology in visual art education, this dialogue
is still in its infancy and more research needs to be done on what really happens
in online learning environments in visual art education.
Ways of Knowing in Visual Art Education
Art education has traditionally reflected the dominant cultural values of the
time (Chapman, 1978). Before 1920, the knowledge and skills valued were drawing
and art for cultural refinement. Between 1920 and 1940, art as self-expression
and art in everyday living were dominant. The era of 1940-1960 saw value in
experimenting with materials and media (hands-on) and creative behaviour. From
1960 onwards, we have seen the development of visual art knowledge as integrated
content from four disciplines; aesthetics, art criticism, art history, and art
production. As well, visual art has been re-constructed as 'visual culture',
to acknowledge the value of visual art as a social study (Duncum, 1999, 2001,
2002; Freedman, 1997, 2002, 2003; Stuhr, 2003; Tavin, 2000, 2002, 2003). In
this view, the visual arts are seen as part of a larger visual culture including
fine art, advertising, popular film and video, folk art, television, design,
and other forms of visual production and communication (Duncum, 1999; Freedman,
1997). In this contemporary view of visual art knowledge, multiple ways of knowing
and critical thinking, in addition to hands-on art-making, are valued. Educators
strive to link visual culture, works of art, content from various disciplines,
and hands-on art-making activities for the purpose of meaning-making. A plurality
of vision has the possibility of yielding multiple perspectives, discourses,
and understandings about cultural life (Garoian & Gaudelius, 2004). Tavin
(2002) explains that "art educators have an urgent and necessary responsibility
to help students develop critical, reflexive, and meaningful approaches to interpreting,
critiquing, and producing images, objects, and artefacts from visual culture"
(p. 47). If art education is to move students "beyond modes of passive
spectatorship and towards more generative and thoughtful forms of cultural production
and resistance" (Darts, 2004), visual art educators will need to promote
multiple perspectives of looking in facilitating students making meaning of,
and creatively responding to, their everyday visual experiences.
Technology in Art Education
Although many other areas of education have debated at length of the impact
of digital technology, art education is in the early stages of considering how
the use of computer technology affects teaching and learning in the visual arts
(Dunn, 1996; Gregory, 1996; Heise & Grandgennett, 1996; Prater, 2001; Taylor,
1999; Taylor & Carpenter, 2002). Two frameworks may be adopted to examine
this debate; the purpose of the technology itself (Bruce, 1991; Dunn, 1996)
and the dominant discourse (Boshier & Onn, 2000) of technology in art education.
Dunn (1996) proposes five purposes for technology in art education; as an educational
tool, as a creative tool, as a research tool, as a curriculum development tool,
and as an assessment tool. To this list can be added as a medium, and as a communication
environment (Bruce, 1991). Of the articles I have found, about half discuss
technology as a tool for creative projects (Dunn, 1996; Freedman, 1991; Gregory,
1996; Heise & Grandgennett, 1996; Marschalek, 2002; Taylor, 2000; Tomaskiewicz,
1997) and half discuss technology as a communication environment or medium for
critical thinking (Gregory, 1996; Heise & Grandgennett, 1996; Prater, 2001;
Stankiewicz & Garber, 2000; Taylor, 1999; Taylor & Carpenter, 2002).
If visual art educators are to incorporate technology into active, constructivist
curricula, technology will need to be not simply an add-on, but a communication
medium that promotes critical thinking and the development of new knowledge
or perspectives.
The second framework I will adopt to examine the discourse of technology in
visual art education is that of Boshier & Onn (2000), who argue that the
four discourses of techno-utopianism, techno-cynicism, techno-zealotry, and
techno-structuralism ("not interested in whether it is good, bad or neutral,
but in the social context of where the web is used") construct the realities
of educational practice. In the process of the review of the literature on technology
in art education, I have found that a majority of the articles are steeped in
techo-utopianism (Carpenter, 2003; Dunn, 1996; Gregory, 1996; Heise & Grandgennett,
1996; Prater, 2001), blindly adding technology to curriculum. Boshier &
Onn (2000) state that techno-utopianism dominates educational discourse by constructing
Web learning and education as a paradigm shift, demeaning earlier forms of education/distance
education, and impeding the continuing dialogue of teaching and learning with
computer technologies.
If technology in art education is to be dialogued in a balanced way, I argue
that the dialogue must move past technology as tool into technology as communication
medium, and from techno-utopianism to techno-structuralism. Only at this point
will visual art educators use digital interactive computer technology to construct
new knowledge about art.
Hypertext as new way of knowing?
One area that has been discussed as a communication medium (Bruce, 1991) and
leaning towards a techo-structuralist viewpoint (Boshier & Onn, 2000) is
that of hypertext as a new way of knowing/communicating in online learning communities.
Taylor (2004) argues that electronic linking (through hypertext-specifically
a software program called Storyspace TM) promotes not only connective thinking
and reader choice, but provokes a way of seeing from many and varied points
of view or perspectives. As students become accustomed to seeing and making
the choice afforded through multiple technological hyperlinks, their thinking
is "accelerated and/or changed" (p. 331). They become dissatisfied
with a single linear way of knowing; "a hyperaesthetics may point the way
to the need for more student choice than is seen in traditional art classes
as well as the inclusion of discussions, explorations, and connections to technologically
mediated visual culture" (p. 331). Semioticians refer to the term intertextuality
to indicate that a work of art is not simply the product of a single artist
or author, but of its relationship to others, referred to as texts (Keep &
McLaughlin, 1995, in Taylor, 2000). Because of the intertextual nature and multiple
possibilities for connection through hypertext, this way of knowing in art education
"liberates students and teachers to learn in ways that are not possible
through a traditional or teacher-directed approach to art education" (Taylor,
2000). This intriguing possibility for a technologically supported medium to
operationalize curriculum in visual culture is very exciting, but I argue that
visual art educators need to examine several issues as they begin working with
technology and/or hypertext.
Implications for Curriculum
First, educators need to be aware of the dialogue of techno-utopia. Technology
can be a useful vehicle in helping students gain control over their own learning,
but curriculum needs to be student driven, not technology driven. There can
be a multitude of ways to incorporate technology, on all points of the spectrum,
if we have the courage to look past the utopian discourse to make informed decisions
about what technology can and cannot offer.
Second, tools for online learning need to become transparent, almost invisible
means to learning rather than ends in themselves. Upcoming generations of students
are argued to be increasingly techno-literate (Tapscott) and educators do need
to consider how curricula will grow and adapt to meet the needs of this upcoming
generation.
Third, if knowledge from each of the four areas of aesthetics, art criticism,
art history, and art production are valued in visual culture education, online
curricula needs to be developed that reflects content from each that facilitates
the building of knowledge in a constructivist format. With the usual focus of
online learning communities on the dialogic nature of learning, coupled with
the challenging nature of hands-on skill development in virtual spaces, a balanced
curriculum can be difficult to develop in online learning communities. De Cosson
(2002) writes; "[visual] art learning is an embodied practice learned through
praxis" (where praxis knowledge is the in-between theory and practice).
If visual art learning is ultimately a bodily performance, is it possible to
fully teach visual art courses through online learning communities? Is there
space for embodied knowing?
Summary
Interactive computer technologies have the ability to provide the space, site
and tools for encouraging students to engage in an active and growing learning
environment. Through this change and growth can emerge a new way of knowing
that becomes a part of those involved, which could engage them in further learning.
However, educators need to tread into these waters carefully, being aware of
the multiple ways that technology can be incorporated into art education, and
avoiding the pitfalls of the language of techno-utopia.
In this paper, I have explored the current dialogue on the use of technology
in art education using the frameworks of Boshier & Onn (2000) and Dunn (2001),
pursuing an intriguing possibility of the use of hypertext as a way to promote
multiple ways of knowing and critical thinking. Although the use of hypertext
in online learning communities has the potential to facilitate new ways of knowing,
more research needs to be done on the lived experience of participating in an
online learning environment in visual art education.
References
Boshier, R. & Onn, C.M. (2000). Discursive Constructions of Web learning
and Education, Journal of Distance Education. Accessed July 2, 2004 at http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol15.2/boshieretal.html
Bruce, B. (1991). Roles for computers in teaching the English language arts.
In J. Flood, J. M. Jenson, D. Lapp & J. R. Squire (Eds). Handbook of research
on teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 536-541). New York: MacMillan Publishing
Company.
Carpenter, B.S. (2003). Toward non-linear curriculum design: Hypertext and the
preparation of teachers in art education. VCU Emerging Technologies Day. Accessed
July 18, 2004 from www.at.vcu.edu/etech/etday/papers/carpenter.pdf
Darts, D. (2004). Visual Culture Jam: Art, Pedagogy, and Creative Resistance,
Studies in Art Education, 45(4), 313-327.
Duncum, P. (1999). A case for an art education of everyday aesthetic experiences.
Studies in Art Education, 40(4), 295-311.
Duncum, P. (2001). Visual Culture: Developments, definitions, and directions
for art education, Studies in Art Education, 42(2), 101-112.
Duncum, P. (2002). Theorizing everyday aesthetic experience with contemporary
visual culture, Visual Art Research, 28(2), 4-15.
Dunn, P. (1996). More Power: integrated interactive technology and art education.
Art Education, 49(6), 6-11.
Freedman, K. (1997). Teaching technology for meaning. Art Education, 50(3),
7-11.
Freedman, K. (2000). Social perspectives on art education in the U.S: Teaching
Visual Culture in a democracy, Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 314-329.
Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching Visual Culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the
social life of art. New York: Teachers College Press.
Garoian, C.R & Gaudelius, Y.M. (2004). The Spectacle of Visual Culture,
Studies in Art Education, 45(4), 298-312.
Gregory, D. (1996). Art Education Reform: Technology as Saviour. Art Education,
49(6), 49-54.
Gregory, D. (1997). Art education reform and integrated art media, in New Technologies
in art education, 131-145. Reston: NAEA.
Heise, D. & Grandgennett, N. (1996). Perspectives on the use of internet
in art classrooms, Art Education, 49(6), 12-18.
Julian, J. (1997). In a postmodern backpack: Basics for the art teachers. Art
Education, 50(3), 23-24, 41-42.
Krug, D. (1998). Electronic learning communities and art education. Arts and
Learning Research: The Journal of the Arts and Learning SIG. American Education
Research Association. University of Stout - Wisconsin Press.
Marschalek, D. (2002). Building Better Web-based Learning Environments:Thinking
in 3's. Art Education, 55(4), 33-39.
Prater, M. (2001). Constructivism and technology in art education. Art Education,
54(6), 43-48.
Stankiewicz, M. & Garber, E. (2000). Cyberfaculty: An experience in Distance
Learning, Art Education, 53(1), 33-38.
Stuhr, P. (2003). A tale of why social and cultural content is often excluded
from art education-and why it should not be. Studies in Art Education, 44(4),
301-314..
Tavin, K. (2000). The impact of visual culture on art education, Journal of
Multicultural and Cross-cultural Research in Art Education, 18(1), 37-40.
Tavin, K. (2002). Engaging advertisements: Looking for meaning in and through
art education, Visual Arts Researcher, 28(2), 38-47.
Tavin, K. (2003). Wrestling with angels, searching for ghosts: Toward a critical
pedagogy of visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 197-213.
Taylor, P.G. (2000). Madonna and Hypertext: Liberatory learning in art education.
Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 376-389.
Taylor, P.G. & Carpenter, B.S. (2002). Inventively Linking: Teaching and
Learning with computer hypertext, Art Education, 55(4), 6-12.
Taylor, P.G. (2004). Hyperaesthetics: Making Sense of Our Technomediated World,
Studies in Art Education, 45(4), 328-342.
Tomaskiewicz, F. (1997). A Ten-Year Perspective on Visual Art Technology. Art
Education, 50(4), 13-16.
Wongse-Sanit, N. (1997). Inquiry-based teaching using the world wide web. Art
Education, 50(2), 19-24.