JSTAE Number 14

1994

Editorial(s)

Charles Wieder, Elizabeth Garber, Michael J. Emme

 

This editorial is a model of the kind of collaborative process shared by Chuck, Elizabeth and myself throughout the growth of 1ST AE 14. In this instance, given a suggested structure, Chuck wrote his portion of the editorial focusing on issues arising from the two articles where he lead the editorial team. He then sent his work to Elizabeth who wrote her editorial with reference to the articles where she took the lead, but also in response to Chuck's writing. As the third in line I have the opportunity to comment on the articles for which I had final responsibility as well as being able to springboard off of both Chuck and Elizabeth's efforts in commenting on the journal as a whole. I know that we could easily continue to pass our comments around the circle until we had a book length editorial. Clearly, then, this is an unfinished work, which means that it, like the publication at large remains open to question. M.E.

 

Charles Weider

Taking my lead from the Gaudelhls article printed within these pages, I'd like to explore a couple of seemingly intractable questions-questions more about our methods of inquiry rather than any particular research findings. The kind of answers I'm seeking here are more for the sake of checking my bearings and how I go about sorting through all of the claims to knowledge and the grounds offered to support this body of information. It's not just a matter of my being uncomfortable with what are often rather basic inconsistencies of the knowledge claims in art and art education, its as much to do with my sense of a reluctance among many to reflect upon that body of information and tocheck out the assumptions on which it rests.

A year ago, in this same space, I wrote of taking a step back to try to see what needed further attention based on my reading of the articles that made up 1ST AE 13. In my stepping back an analogy to the art making process was drawn. That work, artful or not, continues. Except this time I think I'm ready to move foward in my effort to question the subject matter of the arts and the kinds of questions that we are asking and how. I want very much to know how different forms of art affect us personally and affect the forming of culture-but also who decides which forms will count most and how they know what will hold meaning for me and others who might see things differently. And above all I want to be able to raise questions concerning who this art education is for and for what purpose.

Guiding my inquiry, Gaudelius has pointed to some places to look that I hadn't thought of. The language at first appeared different, causing some apprehension. But the clarity and truthfulness were reassuring, and I began to find in the writing a means of gaining a new perspective on what I was looking for. Drawing upon the work of Luce Irigaray, Gaudelius not only raises the sort of core questions that I agree we all must face, it is her approach to inquiry that I found compelling. A fundamental part of the method entails probing "how questions...that questions themselves...shape our inquiry." It's .not a simple course that Gaudelius sets. But I felt I could trust that I wouldn't get (too) lost, (And to be honets, editorials aren't the riskiest sort of explorations anyway.)

Another compass for my journey came from the Lackey article also appearing in these pages, which seemed to be pointed in the same direction. The timing was right for me to get away, to step back from my day-to-day efforts observing student teachers in public schools working with certified, mentored, and re-reassessed master teachers teaching tried-and-tested, accredited, art-like courses. From the distant place that Lackey and Gaudelius had taken me I saw things that I'd never quite known to look for'. Lackey's probing into relationships between formal and non-formal educational approaches, between K-12 and lifelong conceptions of art learning, between standardized curriculum and community-based cultural values helped me see my own work with the Connecticut public schools more clearly. And upon returning from the excursion I feel I had gained a deeper appreciation for what's back home.

Others within the Social Theory Caucus ranks have written on the critical import of critical inquiry, of raising honest questions about what really matters to us. This, over and above my shared interest in theory, is what brought me to the caucus over a decade ago: The willingness to question what others take for granted, whether matters of practice or policy, curriculum design or the lates recipe for some computer graphics program. In the pages of this journal Caucus members have taken on the most nagging questions and more than a few sacred cows and bulls. In these uncertain times we were certain that this was not the time to be timid about the questions we asked. What was often most discouraging to many of us was the sense that so many others in the field seemed to have given up asking the hard questions, or had conceded that the problems were beyond our reach, and had preferred instead to work on damage control. What these individuals seemed prepared to give up on were the meanings and the visions that give our work direction.

What was the alternative?-conceding our status as educational frills?-or worse, that of unabashed romantic idealists? For the Caucus this complacency and being defined by others who don't know us very well became a call to action. We stood up to defend the fringe, the margin, the decorative detail; and try to bring renewed meaning and value to the educational process. Above all we sought to hold those accountable who have taken it upon themselves to set the policies and the goals against which they would assess us.

In a way being called a frill frees us up to take stock, to check our course, to seek more honest truths than those who relegate that stuff to presedential commencement speeches. We don't have to wait to be told when to bow and applaud, but can live daily with the images in and on the fringes and the frills of the decorative surfaces, which are probably closer to what matters in human life than the more traditional annual ceremonial symbols ritually paraded before us at conferences and on official holidays.

In our journeys through stormy seas and over mountains and across deserts and down the corridors to the offices of principals and department heads, let us continue questioning-questioning as we go our own efforts, assumptions, and tactics. Isn't that what we ask of our students? Asking not just for the sake of shaking others from their complacency, but because as teachers our concern is more to help others gain confidence in their questions and learn the skills of raising ever more incisive questions and the ability to check out their answers as well as those they've been given.

There is but one question that needs not be asked, and that is how much I've benifitted from having Mike and Elizabeth working alongside me (as close as a fax or phone call away) in putting together JST AE 14.

 

Elizabeth Garber

Over the course of the past two years of our collaboration as an editorial team for the Journal, Chuck, Mike and I have often exchanged our thoughts on what it might, could, or should mean to be a journal of social theory in art education. Does it mean that all articles published should be socially oriented? or that theory should always be present? Does it mean that the relationship of the contents of the journal to the field of art education must be integral? We have come to grips with the first question-that of social orientation, and the third question-that of educational relevance, not only because of our personal, professional, and political convictions, but because of the title of the journal and its stated purpose. It is the question of theory to which we returned again and again. Chuck particularly has kept the embers of this discussion alive in responding to the various manuscripts submitted not by drawing conclusions or definitions, but by bouncing off the manuscripts as possibilities of social theory.

Theory being nothing more than “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"1 it strikes me as curious to think only intelectuals in academia might be involved with theory. But then, who are our intellectuals? As many of you will recall, in his Prison Notebooks Antonio Gramsci distinguished between two types of intellectuals. He charged what he termed "traditional intellectuals" with reinforcing social hierarchies because they served as "experts in legitimation."2 Arguing that intellectuals are not characterized simply by the activity of thinking, which is intrinsic to all people, but by the function that they perform, he coined the term "organic intellectuals" to refer to individuals within groups who work to create a "counter-hegemony" to subvert the existing power relations. Out of every class, he argued, come intellectuals who function as agents of change3 These people actively participate in practical life' not simply as orators, but as organizers, persuaders, and constructors. Organic intellectuals must be part of the people and are important to the organization of constituent groups for change.

While I do not want to label the writers in our journal, I see them as acting in this capacity of organic intellectuals. Let me clarify by discussing the two articles I coordinated for JSTAE 14. In "The Green Quilt: An Example of Collective Eco-Action in Art Education" Doug Blandy, Kristin Congdon, Laurie Hicks, Elizabeth Hoffman, and Don Krug describe a kind of passion that developed as participants in their NAEA sessions on Green Quilts hung their squares on the NAEA quilt. As a participant in their project, I felt this rise of communal passion. Much later in his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci discusses how "feelings and passion become understanding and thence knowledge."4 I know (because I heard them deliver it at the NAEA Conference in Baltimore) that there is a more traditionally academic component in the development of their project,5 and yet I understand the Green Quilt project as an action that stands on its own, one that began the process of bringing constituents together to form the "historical bloc" that Gramsci talks about-a coalition of people who are both leaders and workers acting together for change. I hope readers of Doug, Kristin, Laurie, Elizabeth, and Don's article will find in the written word the excitement to join the coalition for change by producing their own quilts and working in the struggle for a just and sustainable world.

Carol Becker, in a recent talk at Penn State, extended Gramsci's organic intellectuals to activist artists.6 Among them I would include the artists Mary Wyrick describes in her article "Truth that Sells: Broadcast News Media in Video Art and Art Education." Mary communicates well the passion and conviction conveyed by these artists in their work, and begins herself to construct that bridge from passions and feelings to understanding and knowledge. Beyond reading Mary's overview as a catalogue introduction to the many artists working with the subject of broadcast news, I found myself making connections between Mary's implications of this catalogue for art educators and Stanley Aronowitz's and Henry Giroux's concept of teachers as “Transformative intellectuals" that relates to Gramsci's organic Intellectuals7 In seeing education as a site for cultural change they (and other radical educators) argue that teachers, rather than indoctrinating students into a system that is inherently undemocratic, should reject their roles as fascilitators of predetermined content and instructional procedures and work to understand the legacies of high culture as well as popular culture, leading their students to critique both and look for possibilities for change. This is how they conceive of teachers as transformative intellectuals. This vision is one that includes the relationship between theory and practice, with the intellectual being understood as the agent of change. Mary conveys an optimism that schools can be sites of social change and that teachers and artists can be agents in that change. Again, I am excited about the possibilities she presents us.

While I find room in the Journal for (and indeed welcome) what is more widely Accepted in academic circles as theory (some of which I have participated in here), I find the negotiated space of a more practiced theorizing has its place in the Journal as well. I fully hope that we are up to the challenge that such theory presents us with.

 

1 Random House Dictionary, 1992

2 Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks,eds. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971),9-10

3 (;ramsci used the Italian word commessi meaning agent or commercial traveler (Roger Simon, Gramsci's Political Thought [London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1982], 96).

4 (;ramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 418.

5 Don Krug, Doug Blandy, & Kristin Congdon,"Art Education and the Interconnectedness of Cultural and Ecological Restoration," paper presented at NAEA Convention, Baltimore Md., 8 April 1994.

6 Carol Becker, "Art, Pedagogy, and the Struggle for Life," paper delivered as part of the Waterbury Forum for Education and Cultural Studies, Penn State University, 16 February, 1995. George. Lipsitz has similarly developed the idea that Chicano popular musicians have acted as organic intellectuals in fonning an historical bloc to challenge the "ideological hegemony of Anglo cultural domination." He argues that they have been at least partially successful in influencing change in popular music (see George Lipsitz,"Cruising Around the Historical Bloc-Postmodemism Aned Popular Music in East Los Angeles," Cultural Critique, vol. 5 (Winter 1986-1987), 157-177.

7 Although these theories are laid out in several places, for a highly readable version, see Stanley Aronowitz &: Henry A. Giroux, Education Under Siege: The Conservative, The Liberal and Radical Debate over Schooling (South Hadley, MA: Bergin &: Garvey, 1985).

 

 

Michael J. Emme

One of the challenges of relating to the natural environment with a mind framed by the educational systems of the late 20th century is being able to acknowledge and even live comfortably in an environment that is complex beyond comprehension or control. In proposing ECO-TECHNO as a theme for ]ST AE 14 I hoped to draw together a wide variety of works that both reflected and explored this complexity. Three works in this journal explicitly pursue the theme. Daniel Collins and Charles Garoian's discussion of the art and issues of the Deep Creek School allows us to observe the melding of theory and practice, and of ecology and technology through the works of a number of young artists. Elizabeth has already commented on The Green Quilt: An Example of Collective Eco-Action in Art Education which draws further attention to the knowledge and passion that art making can bring. And finally The Gallery is an explicit acknowledgement tha t we can form questions and propose understandings on an issue as central to our continued existence as the relationship between our technologies and the environment through our experience of art.

Clayton Funk's exploration of the Committee on Public Information, and Paul Duncum's essay on the potential costs of intellectual nostalgia are more obviously anchored in more 'traditional' theoretical concerns. Funk describes in detail the ways in which early concepts of information management were used to frame the visual information and education in the US. Duncum revisits the elitist assumptions of theorist considered to be sympathetic references in our field and describes how these theoretical frames limit our capacity to engage our whole cultural environment. The concept of cultural geography proposed by Lucy Lippard and cited in this journal by Collins and Garoian makes it clear, however, that all of the work in JST AE 14 can be read with reference to the theme of ECO-TECHNO. This possibility suggests that there are two kinds of thematic readings of JST AE 14. The first, what could be called a production theme, must really be limited to the three collected works produced with the intent to explore the relationship between our technologies and the environment. The second, not unlike the idea of an interpretant proposed by semiotician C.S. Pierce (1955) and elaborated by Theresa DeLauretis (1984) allows us to bring the question "what is the relationship between our technologies and the environment?" to all our reading. All of this may be a rationalization for the fact that a truly 'structured' theme issue is probably impossible given the delightful feistiness of you, the caucus membership. On the other hand, I kind of like the idea that the task of defining theme issues be taken out of the hands of editors and put in the hands of the readers.

This is my fourth year working on the Journal. I worked down the hall from Harold Pearse when he took over editorial duties from jan jagodzinski for JSTAE 11. As a newcomer to both academia and the Nova Scotia Colege of Art and Design I was enthusiastic about the chance to get involved with the Journal. As I recall, my come-on to Harold was the fact that I knew how to run Pagemaker. What was essentially an initial offer to serve as galley slave for a publication I respected has evolved into a professionally challenging and enriching experience. By the time Harold stepped down after 1ST AE 12 I had moved to my current position in Washington State where I have been allowed closer access to the American approach to art education which sometimes seems to (but doesn't) dominate our field's thinking. Although there were pragmatic considerations (who is this Emme guy anyway?) the Caucus approved an idea hatched by Harold and me in Chicago to try a team approach to editing the JSTAE 13. Chuck Weider and Elizabeth Garber, both of whom put themselves forward as potential editors, graciously took up the challenge when the idea of a team approach was proposed. Like the form of the Journal, our relationships as editors have evolved with each publication. As a lone art ed. person in a fine arts department (and happily so) it has been important to find colleagues in my mailbox. Chuck and Elizabeth and all of you who have submitted manuscripts or images in the last two years have been the visiting scholars program in art education for central Washington. Thanks!

With JSTAE 14 Elizabeth, Chuck and I have moved very close to what I would describe as a truly balanced collaboration. Each of us has taken primary responsibility for individual manuscripts, but each has had substantial input with all of the writing in this publication. I think we have each come to understand the voices of our team members. Elizabeth has eloqently describe Chuck's attention to issues of theory. The passion he has brought to his reading of the manuscripts set a standard for angagement that guided me. I have also been grateful for Elizabeth's breadth of knowledge in our field as well as her editorial precision (she catches all the mechanical stuff that I miss!). She and I have also shared a growing passion for the gallery portion of JST AE 14 (see the Gallery introduction for more on this). And, in the end, I am still the galley slave who knows how to run Pagemaker. Anyone interested in taking up an oar?

 

De Lauretis, T. (1984). Alice Doesn't: Feminism,semiotics, cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Peirce, C.S. (1955). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In J. Buchler (ed.) The philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Press.