2014

Alexandra DeStefano

Contemporary Art/
Education:!
!
Bringing Contemporary Art and Contemporary Art Practice into K-12
Education!
!
Alexandra DeStefano!
1
Maryland Institute College of Art !

Introduction!
!
! The pedagogy termed “Contemporary Art and Art
Education” can be used as an umbrella phrase for a
variety of educational approaches. More specifically, it
can refer to a few key ideas regarding contemporary art in
the K-12 classroom. I propose two main claims:!
K-12 art education should be in the process of becoming, or in
a decentralized, diverse, and rhizomatic space, like art
education at the postsecondary level, which is considered
now to be the conventional preparation of contemporary
artists. !
Contemporary art should be investigated in the K-12
classroom as an impetus for learning about the world we
currently live in.!
! ! I will attempt to substantiate these claims by arguing
that contemporary art is defined by a lack of a
uniforming ideology as a result of the Internet;
contemporary art education also lacks an all-
encompassing rationale or conceptual center; both art
and education can be considered the same thing;
differentiation between art education at the primary,
secondary, and postsecondary level is not necessary
because all are enterprises of artistic preparation; the
parallel timelines of the art academy and art education in
schools are now converging to form one academy; the
ideas that contemporary artists work with are part of a
web of themes, big ideas, issues and enduring concepts
which can be used art making; and artistic behaviors
cultivated through the art making and looking at
artworks can be nurtured in the K-PostSecondary
classroom. I will also provide a comparison of my K-12
education and my undergraduate education at the
Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA). The
concluding section of this paper presents the rhizome as
a metaphor in visualizing the complexities of
contemporary art/education. !
Contemporary Art !
! McKean whose work can be called multi or interdisciplinary,
! How can we define contemporary art? This
question demands an answer that is both simple and complex,
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
which is that the art of today and over the course of recent
decades can be categorized as having no clearly defined
parameters. Contemporary art does not exist in the context of
one uniforming ideology. Arguably, when looking even at a
highly nuanced history of art, we can separate blocks of time
in particular places across the globe and assign a certain a
regional style, cultural aesthetic, movement, or rationale
regarding the purpose of art production. For example, we can
infer that Dutch Baroque painting made during the 17th
century was predominantly ‘quiet’ scenes of everyday life, with
a religious focus on morality and an internal relationship to
God in line with the aims of the Protestant Reformation.
Italian Baroque art creating during the same time was much
more fantastical, theatrical, and ostentatious, in an effort to
seduce the church-goer back into the arms of the Catholic
church. !
! Similarly, we can deduce that the advent of
modernist art beginning in the mid 19th century in Europe
was a reactionary shift from Neoclassicism and the French
Academy. It was caused by a combination of changes in
technology, the discovery of the unconscious, cultural
relativism, and scientific reduction. The advent of
photography was liberating within the need for pictorial
realism; artists focused on inner psychological states; a
growing interest surfaced in the art of non-western cultures;
and abstraction was perceived a means to express the idea of
universality and inner truth (Efland, 1989). These examples are
only two of countless others. In addition, within different
periods and movements of art history, we can also make the
claim that artists working within these times are known for a
body of work which constitutes a particular style, subject
matter, or signature. As an example, this is how we can tell the
difference between a Cassatt and a Dürer. Both artists, albeit
influenced by the culture and society of their times, can be
viewed as two individuals who created art using particular
methods in a distinctive aesthetic. !
! Today, we have artists like John Baldessari, Ai Wei
Wei, Janine Antoni, Marina Ambramovic, and Michael Jones
in that it is not characterized by one aesthetic or made using a
particular medium. Some artists may call themselves
specifically a painter, installation artist, collage artist, or
filmmaker whose work explores consistent themes in a
2

distinguished aesthetic (ex. Jenny Saville, Tara Donovan,
Wangechi Mutu, John Waters, respectively), and others do
not. What caused this shift from a micro view of what art is to
a macro and pluralistic view? When asked this question, some
might cite Marcel Duchamp’s work, Fountain, a urinal signed
“R. Mutt”, that was submitted and rejected for the Society of
Independent Artists exhibition in 1917, as the moment when
art ceased to be only vision (Wilson, 2003). Others may cite
the symbolic event in 1966 when a St. Martin’s professor, John
Latham, along with his students, chewed up the pages of the
library’s copy of Clement Greenberg’s Art and Culture,
emptied the pulp into a jar and returned the text, which
resulted in the instructor’s dismissal. Greenberg was an art
critic who believed art was either painting or sculpture, and
that the criteria for both was based on the art’s adherence to
its ‘pure form’ (de Duve, 1993). But, I posit the unraveling and
loosening of the definitions regarding what art is and what it
looks like in this contemporary climate can be most clearly
attributed to the invention of the Internet and the World
Wide Web. !
! Although the seeds of
the Internet’s blossoming were In navigating the Internet through the
planted in the 1960’s through
research commissioned by the
World Wide Web, we can collectively
US government to form a construct knowledge and share our stories.
network of computer to
computer communication, what
we now know as the Internet had its roots in the mid 1980’s
and has grown exponentially since (The Internet). In
navigating the Internet through the World Wide Web, we can
collectively construct knowledge and share our stories. Before
the Internet, knowledge in its most formal iteration was
housed in printed materials like books, which were not, for
the most part, globally distributable. Now we can ship books
across the globe, and even download or read them instantly
and directly on digital screens. We can access an endless
amount of information. The Internet, is, in a way, The Book.!
! In Italo Calvino’s Six Memos for the Next Millennium,
published in 1988, he writes on six ‘values’ or literary
principles regarding the making of literature that would
anticipate the next 1000 years. The last lecture, or memo,
written before his death in 1985, was Multiplicity. In this
lecture Calvino cites authors such as Gadda, Joyce, Musil, and
Flaubert to illuminate different epistemologies in the
contemporary novel, being “a method of knowledge, and
above all as a network of connections between the events, the
people, and the things of the world” (Calvino, 1988, p).
Exemplars referenced in his lecture address diverging and
converging concepts of encyclopedism and nothingness, or an
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
‘open encyclopedia’ that is emergent rather than exhaustive.
In short, writers like Novalis and Goethe set out to write ‘the
ultimate book’, which can be viewed generally as the concept
of a vessel that contains infinitely expanding knowledge, or
the futility of generating a complete picture of the universe.
In addition, this concept lends itself to the inevitable shift
from the objective to the awareness of the subjective
perspective. Calvino writes that “the grand challenge for
literature is to be capable of weaving together the various
branches of knowledge, the various “codes,” into a manifold
and multifaceted vision of the world” (Calvino, 1988, p. 112).
Essentially, in literature an ever expansive context can be
provided, and it can emerge not only from the centralized
view from the author. This concept of knowledge as
multiplicity can be used to describe what the Internet has
become today. If the Internet can be considered, ‘the book’, in
which all traces of past literature are woven into, then we can
also use this view to think about art and in what capacity
contemporary art exists today. !
!Among the many
parallels we can draw
from the Industrial
Revolution to the age of
the Internet today is the
increasing existence of
art in the form of
reproduction, or now as
digital documentation. In his 1935 essay, “The Work of Art in
the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin
articulates some repercussions of new developments in film
and photographic reproductions of artworks, in addition to
anticipating the ubiquitous visual and image-saturated culture
of today. Benjamin writes about how the ritualistic functions
of art are undermined by its mechanical reproduction; the
depreciation of a work of art’s original aura is a result of its
accessibility by way of reproductions. “By making many
reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique
existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the
beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it
reactivates the object reproduced” (Benjamin, 1935, p 3). !
! In today’s digital age, the reproductions of art once
afforded by photographic and industrial printing can be
considered as the instantly and infinitely reproducible images
on the Internet. The purpose of tangible facsimiles was to
reach a larger audience, and now one can argue that the
absolute need for the physical art object, and its physical
reproductions, is no longer necessary because of the access to
this material via the Internet. In the contemporary art world,
documentation is crucial, as is an artist’s presence on the Web.
3

Notably, Benjamin also acknowledged this: “[the] work of art
reproduced becomes the work of art designed for
reproducibility” (Benjamin, 1935, p 5). With the accessibility of
art existing primarily in documentation on the Web, as well as
art forms that exist only in digital form, this notion of
transparent, immediate reproduction can be observed. Works
exists for the purpose of documentational reproduction.
Although as viewers of we can still behold art in its ‘original’
form, or collect physical reproductions of it, in today’s digital
age we mostly view artworks through images housed on the
Internet. And, if this is the primary channel for researching
artworks, then inevitably this emergent network of art, artists
and contextual information has led to a globalization of the
art world. In terms of the Internet’s resources as a democratic
platform for artists, “the artworld can no longer be defined
solely by the works that find their way into museum
collections. The existence of digital art and the Web make
artworld boundaries increasingly difficult to fix” (Wilson,
2003, p 218). !
! Contemporary artist Pablo Helguera shares his
sentiments on contemporary art in a recent interview with
The Pedagogical Impulse: “Art, for better or for worse,
continues to be this playing field that is defined by its capacity
to redefine itself. You cannot say, “This is not art!” because
tomorrow it could be, or “It can be art,” because I say it is. Art
is a space, which we have created, where we can cease to
subscribe to the demands and the rules of society; it is a space
where we can pretend. We can play, we can rethink things, we
can think about them backwards” (Reed, 2013, p. 1). Helguera’s
work addresses pedagogy, cognition, politics, history, fiction
and memory through a range of formats including public
interactive artworks like The School of Panamerican Unrest
(2003-08), as well as exhibition and museum-based
interpretive materials, installations, publications, and the
creation of fictional artists. Helguera’s work is an excellent
example of the importance of context in the contemporary art
world, and the diminishing emphasis on the physical art
object itself: “I started creating fictional museums, fictional
artists, and those fictional artists started having biographies
and bodies of work and interpretive materials. I was much
more interested in the peripheral components of an artworks
than the artwork itself ” (Reed, 2013, p. 1). Mock Turtle,
Helguera’s 2001 installation of an empty box accompanied by
labels of contradictory information about an object that could
not be seen but assumed to be present, was an experiment in
the conventions of interpretive materials. In the Pedagogical
Impulse interview, Helguera talks about the piece: “It’s this
idea of how the object is basically unnecessary; it’s really more
the stories around the object and how the contextual
framework, the interpretive framework of the object is what
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
really matters in the end, and that this is what really
influences our perception of it” (Reed, 2013, p. 1). This
contextual writing that dives into the meaning of the work, as
well as the installation’s documentation, exists most easily
accessible on the Internet through interviews and information
provided by Helguera’s website, pablohelguera.net/2001/03/
mock-turtle-2001/. !
! Another well-known informational source of
contemporary art is PBS’ Art21. Writers from Art21 define
contemporary art as “both a mirror of contemporary society
and a window through which we view and deepen our
understanding of the world and ourselves- a rich resource
through which to consider current ideas and rethink the
familiar. The work of contemporary artists is a dynamic
combination of materials, methods, concepts, and subjects
that challenges traditional assumptions and definitions.
Diverse and eclectic, contemporary art is distinguished by the
absence of a uniform organizing principle, ideology, or label.
Contemporary artists give voice to the varied and changing
landscapes of identity, values, and beliefs in the increasingly
global culture of our diverse and technologically advancing
world.” (Art21, 2001-2014). Art21 also provides a concise list of
what the characteristics of contemporary art could be:!
Art can be produced using many different working methods
and processes. !
Art can serve as a form of critique. !
Art often references or appropriates elements from multiple
disciplines and sources.!
Art often integrates new technologies.!
Art often blurs the boundaries between art and everyday life.!
Art can exist outside of traditional exhibition forums.!
Art can unfold over time.!
! What isn’t art? Today, we hear the popular term
“visual culture” used to navigate what is art and what is
entertainment, which I believe to be the two main oscillating
fields in the ‘image-saturated’ culture we live in. Wilson (2003)
notes that “In many respects these contemporary artworks are
virtually indistinguishable from journalism, television, cinema,
illustration, the popular arts, and the objects and events of
everyday life” (Wilson, 2003, p. 218). What distinguishes art
from what Wilson describes as visual culture lies in the
intention of the work. Artworks invite the viewer to
contemplate meaning and to consider the world through a
critical lens, while the entertainment world of visual culture
4

seeks to distract the viewer through escapism or detachment
from the world. Mary Ann Stankiewicz advocates the
inclusion of visual culture in art curriculum, because of its
ubiquitous presence in the world, but through a critical
perspective. Stankiewicz articulates that objective is the most
significant difference between fine art and consumer and
media culture (Stankiewicz, 2005). Although artworks should
constitute the core of art education, “without the inclusion of
visual representations beyond traditional fine art forms, art
students would not be fully equipped to understand the
contemporary art world in terms of social relationships,
politics, race, gender, sexuality, and class- all aspects of cultural
understanding” (Stankiewicz, 2005). Wilson writes that “It is
ironic that in a time when “high art” is frequently based on
the popular arts, teachers continue to believe that popular
visual culture is the enemy of high art and the debaser of the
timeless aesthetic qualities that “worthwhile” art education
cultivates” (Wilson, 2003, p. 224). Many artists, like Jeff
Koons, Andy Warhol, Audrey Flack and Nikki S. Lee, have
used visual or pop culture as a vehicle for artmaking. Learners
in the K-12 classroom, like students at the postsecondary level,
can and should critically investigate the implications of visual
culture we encounter everyday. !
! Contemporary art
can be characterized by a
lack of a uniforming “The artworld can no longer be defined
ideology, not because we are
living in it, but because we
solely by the works that find their way into
are living in a museum collections. The existence of digital
hyperconnected world of
new technology and the art and the Web make artworld
Internet. Communication
and the proliferation of
boundaries increasingly difficult to
information is immediate in fix” (Wilson, 2003, p 218). #
comparison to the scattered
disconnectedness of the pre-
internet age. We can look back on art history and neatly
compartmentalize movements, styles and ideologies because
art was created in pockets of the world during a time when
communication and cross-cultural influences moved at a
slower pace than today. The Internet offers a democratic
platform for making and sharing art that reaches across the
global terrain. The globalization of our world today offers a
‘big picture’ context in which a diverse and pluralistic body of
artworks are made. Artists of today are not concerned with
beauty but more of what the work is about. Stankiewicz notes
that “postmodernism is often referred to as an anti-aesthetic
tradition. Postmodern artists resist notions of beauty and
formal allure, preferring to delve into social, cultural and
political issues” (Stankiewicz, 2005, p 112). The shift from
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
modernism to postmodernism can be viewed through a
metaphor of text to context, from the idea of universal
meaning embedded within formal qualities of the work to an
emphasis on conceptual development and information that
surrounds and permeates the artwork. !
Contemporary Art
Education!
!
! If we can establish that contemporary art is
characterized by the un-characterized, or “distinguished
by the absence of a uniform organizing principle, ideology, or
label” (Art21, 2001-2014), then we may also think of
contemporary art education, the conventional preparation of
artists, in this way. It is difficult to determine what exactly
happens, or what is supposed to happen, in art school except
that art happens; it is both ‘taught’ and ‘learned’. In Why Art
Cannot Be Taught Elkins (2001) discusses art education at the
postsecondary level from his experience as a professor at the
School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Elkins writes, “I want
to try to see art instruction
as a very unusual activity, one
that sometimes lacks even
the minimal or contingent
sense that would allow
students to speak of
learning, or teachers to
speak of teaching, at
all” (Elkins, 2001, p. 42). He
posits three main claims, one
of which is “the idea of
teaching art is irreparably
irrational. We do not teach
because we do not know when or how we teach” (Elkins, 2001,
p. 107). Elkins first presents his argument from an explicitly
skeptical and pessimistic perspective, in that the
disorganization of contemporary art schools, and their
reluctance to provide concrete definitions or goals, is negative:
“Today is seems that the number of arts and media are
indeterminate. By and large, art schools and departments
remain disorganized because postmodern pedagogy has made
it seem as if systems of the arts are irrelevant or even
pernicious” (Elkins, 2001, p. 106). Rather than propose a
fundamental curricular change, Elkins suggests that there is a
need in art schools to ‘understand’ what is already happening,
but not to ‘rationalize’ it, because if contemporary art
5
 2014
Alexandra DeStefano

education is inherently irrational, rationalizing it will not fix
or improve it. !
! Although Elkins is pessimistic about the non-
definitive nature of art schools throughout the majority of the
text, he also recognizes the positive effects of its general
incoherence: “There is no need to teach without self-
contradiction, or without letting students in on our indecision
or incoherence. The fact that it is so hard to know what it
might mean to teach art tends to keep teachers going: it spurs
them to teach in many different ways” (Elkins, 2001, p. 189).
The non-prescriptive diversity of approaches is essential to
contemporary art education. Like art, it is undefinable,
although it can be deeply investigated. Elkins suggests that in
critique, the primary method of investigating and unpacking
meaning in artworks, dialogue should be guided through a line
of inquiry including a statement or judgement about the work,
the reasoning behind the statement, questioning unexamined
assumptions behind the reasoning, and perhaps arriving at an
axiom or final assumption. In light of this process, Elkins
closes his argument by questioning it, and by proposing that
art education does not need to be a clearly understandable
enterprise: “Even though I have written this entire book on
the assumption that it is a good idea to try for some measure
of clarity, I am not sure that is ultimately such a good
idea” (Elkins, 2001, p. 190). Rather than concluding with the
claim regarding ‘why art cannot be taught’, a replacement
statement, ‘it does not make sense to try to understand how
art is taught’, is proffered. !
boundaries of art education is certainly different from an
absence of a center. In fact, the center of art education
appears to get larger as we study the history of how art is
taught. The unique debate, albeit discouraging to some, may
serve as an example of the malleability of art teachers to adapt
(artistically) and to continue to influence and transform our
understanding in many different cultures and
contexts” (Daichendt, 2010, p. 15). This continuous shifting in
art education is a conscious move from the micro to the
macro, in which art can be ‘taught’ in any number of ways and
in a multitude of forms, but it is this diversity within a whole
that is essential to arts instruction. !
! Faculty in art schools, as Elkins (2001) observes,
identify with different art affiliations and ideologies, which
may naturally create a complex and decentralized system. Art
education at the primary and secondary levels may be limited
to a much smaller faculty, which is why the importance of a
pluralistic attitude must be stressed. Without it, arts
educators working in a primary or secondary setting can
become the sole source of specific art values. At the academy
or post secondary art school level, “the mere fact that
thousands of competing philosophies work concurrently

! One constant but implicit question that runs

throughout Elkins’ text is ‘why?’, which when asked in every
unique setting of art education allows for curriculum and
facilitation that is authentic, context sensitive, reflective and
emergent. The same can be asked of art, which reflects the
value Elkins places on so-called ‘interesting art’ throughout
the text, supporting the contemporary emphasis on
contextual considerations and the ‘aboutness’ of a work rather
than its formal attributes. !

! What Elkins initially perceived as a downside to the

lack of a conceptual center in art education, Daichendt
(2010), cites Davis (2005) to advocate as its strength.
Siegesmund (1998), like Elkins, shares the concern that
“whatever current success art education has is based more on
the politics of holding diverse conceptions of art together
than on the strength of a clearly articulated, persuasive, and
enduring educational rationale” (Siegesmund, 1998).
Daichendt proposes as counter argument in support of art
education as evolving and dynamic, rather than rationalized,
standardized, or codified: “Rethinking and pushing the Untitled, Hilma af Klint, oil on paper, 1907

6
 2014
Alexandra DeStefano

reinforces what today’s academy teaches as a pluralistic
attitude (from a macro view) toward understanding art
education and the preparation of artists. The philosophy that
there is no one right way agrees that turning your back on
rules is in fact the right way to do things” (Daichendt, 2010, p.
21). This lack of structured or defined boundaries has become
the ideal, and with it the absence of a centralized art
education has emerged. It is a field, rather than a path through
it, in which we are encouraged to wander in new and
progressive ways. It is the distinctly diverse, the individual,
and social collective. !
multi-faceted space that resists systematization. The elements
in Klint’s painting exist in the space in a clearly defined way,
while in Mehretu’s painting the elements and vocabulary of
mark-making form an indistinguishable complex cloud. These
two examples of work that employs the diagram also highlight
the shift from the Modernist idea of self-expressive meaning
embedded within the work through formal qualities, to
postmodern meaning discerned from contextual information.
Julie Mehretu’s work in particular is about globalization and
its implications in forming both an individual and cultural
identity. !

! Art is visual, and it is inherently metaphoric, ! If the big picture of contemporary art education can
presentational, or representational. Like providing the be related to how a Mehretu painting looks, we can think of
example of the field as a metaphor for art education, in the myriad approaches to teaching art, educational theories,
thinking artistically we are prone to visualize what art and the content of what is included in the curriculum,
education might look like in terms of metaphor, mapping, especially at the postsecondary level. Considering
illustrating, or diagramming. Wilson (2003) addresses the what contemporary art practice in K-12 education offers
of contemporary art education by expanding upon Discipline- possibilities to include various aspects from many approaches,
Based Art Education (DBAE) to include visual culture He
speaks of the “futility of diagramming within art education
Stadia II, Julie Mehretu, ink and acrylic on canvas, 2004
which is rhizomatic- more like a tangle of grass than the
orderly structure of a tree” (p. 214). He suggests a way to
navigate the emerging and multi-faceted field of art
education, contemporary art and visual culture: “one tactic
is also presented- that of moving pedagogy to a space
situated between conventional artworld-based school
curricular content and content from contemporary art and
visual culture. The tactic is proposed as a means for
teachers and students to collaboratively embrace dynamic
changes and expansions of content in a site alongside
traditional art education” (Wilson, 2003). Wilson proposes
a compromise between entirely submitting to the ‘new’, or
staying with the ‘old’. Although this synthesis of
immediate art culture and traditional school education
could be an effective strategy, I propose that what is
considered to be traditional art education should be
supplanted with the eclectic educational practices of the
postsecondary art institution. This compromise would
then be inclusive of both claims I am putting forth, that of
bringing contemporary art as well as contemporary art
because contemporary art in itself is rhizomatic. Desai and
practice into the classroom. !
Chalmers (2007) advocate the use of contemporary art as a
! In thinking of the diagram in art, and what kind of resource for critical engagement with issues and social justice,
metaphor could relate the complexities of art education to a as well as for a pedagogy that enables K-12 learners to think,
visual form, artwork that has explicitly addressed complexities act, and make like contemporary artists. “School art is
could be cited. The work of Hilma af Klint, a modernist extremely different from contemporary art practices in form
Swedish painter and one of the innovators of abstract and content. Giving increased attention to contemporary art
painting, and Julie Mehretu, a contemporary Ethiopian artists practices opens new possibilities for art education practice in
working in New York, can offer a comparative image of where schools” (Desai and Chalmers, 2007, p. 7). Through the
contemporary art education is situated, which is in a complex, expansive scope of contemporary art practice we can initiate

7
 2014
Alexandra DeStefano

critical dialogue, think about ways in which we create meaning
through making, and navigate the reading of images in visual
culture (Desai and Chalmers, 2007). Art is about something
other than the artform itself, but that does not mean that in
the K-PS classroom art is product based, because inherently a
part of contemporary art practice is about exploring,
experimenting, reflecting, and researching. !
Art and Education!
1960’s with Joseph Beuys’ performative lectures,
contemporary artists have also used pedagogy as a medium.
(Podesva, 2007; Allen, 2011; Archey, 2009). As a critique of
institutionalism and instead as a movement towards
democratic art practices, education as art has become an
increasing trend in contemporary art. (Reed, 2011). In 1969
Beuys stated: “To be a teacher is my greatest work of art. The
rest is the waste product, a demonstration. If you want to
explain yourself you must present something tangible. But
after a while this has only the function of a historic document.

! Objects aren’t very important to me anymore (as quoted in

Archey, 2009 ) Beginning with the 1965 work, How to Explain
Pictures to a Dead Hare, Beuys used the artist lecture-
! Art and art education are inextricably linked.
performance as a move away from the art object and towards a
Both have influenced and shaped the other; artists are more democratic dialogue (Archey, 2009). He was also fired
educated, create art in a specific context, and art made in its from his position at the The Düsseldorf Academy of Art in
context influences the way it is taught. If, in contemporary 1972 for opening his course to any who wished to attend
society we can recognize the conscious resistance to
conformity, and subsequently the lack of uniforming ideology
that makes both art and art education undefinable as argued
in the previous sections, can we also consider them to be one
in the same? Art educators teach through art and artists use
pedagogy as a medium. The aim of both is epistemological, in
the construction of knowledge to understand, question, and
investigate the world we live in and the history of the world
before us. Education is inherently a system of power dynamics
and although democratic ideals and equity pervade theories
regarding educational institutions, in practice true democracy
may never be achieved in the classroom. A facilitator is a
choice-maker, but those choices should be in empowering
others and not in imposing one viewpoint as the sole source of
knowledge transmittal. Each student constructs knowledge as
well, and can share that knowledge with peers and with the
peer-educator. Both educator and student construct
knowledge through their own experiences. In thinking about
the relationship of the learner to the educator; the educator to
the learner; and the artist to the audience or viewer we may
consider each to be related (Allen, 2011). The educator
presents opportunities for the construction of knowledge that
should be critically filtered by the student, and the same for
the student to educator. The artist can present work through a
variety of platforms like the Internet, public spaces, or
galleries, and the work is offered to the viewer or audience to
be filtered through a critical lens in a search for meaning, and
is influenced by the viewer’s experiences. The artwork, like art
education, should not seek to tell the viewer what to think,
but to openly offer a concept, a way of thinking, or a way of
seeing something. !

! Educators in the arts field have used artworks as a

tool for learning, and now, perhaps with its advent in the
Excerpt from Pablo Helguera’s Transpedagogy as designed in Documents of
8
Contemporary Art: Education

regardless of their enrollment at the Academy. Although
criticized for retaining a modernist conception of the artist as
elite (all performances were contingent upon his axiomatic
personal beliefs), Beuys initiated a well-documented
pedagogical turn that continues today (Podesva, 2007; Reed,
2013). !
! Many artists have since used pedagogy as a medium.
Such work has ranged from the community-oriented
performative lecture to more participatory projects in the
sphere of social practice. In 1989 American artist Andrea
Fraser posed as a museum docent under the name Jane
Castleton as an institutional critique in her performance
Museum Highlights; in 2006 Russian-American artist Anton
Vidokle organized the work unitednationsplaza, a series of free
art lectures; in 2009 anonymous artist collective The Bruce
High Quality Foundation issued a lecture-format work titled
How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Bull, addressing several
concerns about the relationship between contemporary art,
the art market, and art schools (Archey, 2009). Artist Pablo
Helguera advocates for a socially-responsible art that is more
like education, which is inherently process-based: “the rela-
tionship between pedagogy and art is absolutely crucial,
because pedagogy and education are about emphasis on the
embodiment of the process, on the dialogue, on the exchange,
on intersubjective communication, and on human
relationships” (Reed, 2013, p. 1). In 2006 Helguera
orchestrated a conceptual art project titled The School of
Panamerican Unrest, in which a traveling schoolhouse made 30
stops in different regions of
the Americas, seeking to find
connections between them
Through the expansive scope of
through lectures, contemporary art practice we can initiate
discussions, screenings and
collaborations critical dialogue, think about ways in
(Helguera.net). !
which we create meaning through making,
! Other artists who
have used pedagogy as an
and navigate the reading of images in
artistic medium include Fred visual culture. (Desai and Chalmers, 2007)
Wilson, Mining the Museum
(1992); Maria Pask, Beautiful
City (2007-ongoing); Thomas Hirschhorn, 24h Foucault (2004);
and Mark Dion, Raiding Neptune’s Vault: A Voyage to the Bottom
of the Canals and Lagoon of Venice (1997–98), among others
(Podesva, 2007; Bishop. 2007; MoMA). In moving beyond the
boundaries of disciplines the lines between art and discourse
about art, life and art, education and art, and teaching and
learning, can be blurred.!
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
! “If the basic character of art changes, if new
definitions and theories of art arise, if the artworld transforms
itself, and if the visual arts are seen as only one component
within the vastly larger realm of visual culture, then should art
education also change?” (Wilson, 2003, p. 214). If we can begin
to see education as art and art as education, then shouldn’t art
education in K-12 schools reflect contemporary practice and
artist preparation through authentic instruction? (Davis,
2005). Although the gap between art ‘taught’ in art schools
and art produced in the external world has increasingly
narrowed, art in K-12 schools has mostly been based on a
modernist curriculum and the specific interests of the
instructor (Allen, 2011). Art education in K-12 schools should
be modeled after post-modern pluralism and a
multidisciplinary approach, meaning the study of a topic
through several disciplines simultaneously. To that effect, art
education at the primary and secondary levels can and should
be modeled after postsecondary education. !
Two Timelines Converge:
Arts Education at the
Primary, Secondary, and
Postsecondary Levels!
!
The evolution of western
art instruction from
Classical Greece to
modern times has
paralleled art education
in common schools, or
what we can now call
collectively and generally
K-12 education. In ancient
Greece, painting and
sculpture were considered
inferior trades and were
absent from educational curriculum. Crafts such as pottery,
weaving, and stonecarving, as well as painting and sculpture,
remained as a workshop production, often as a trade passed
down through a domestic, family-based education. Acquisition
of technique over creativity was valued (Efland, 1989;
Daichendt, 2010). Among many aspects of Greek culture that
the Romans borrowed heavily from was art instruction, which
continued to remain a craft profession, excluded from
intellectual education (Efland, 1989; Daichendt, 2010). The
9

Middle Ages saw a rise in craft guilds based on a master-
apprentice system that slowly replaced the family workshop
model. The liberal arts curriculum included grammar, rhetoric,
dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, but the
visual arts remained estranged. The guild system, over the
centuries, evolved into the institutionalism of artist
preparation (Daichendt, 2010). During the Renaissance,
humanist philosophy and a renewed interest in classical
culture reigned, and for the first time the visual arts were
considered an intellectual endeavor. A distinction between
fine art and craft was created. The Renaissance was the age of
the artist as genius, and its preparation followed suit. In
addition to guild-workshop model, art clubs and academies
emerged as an alternative education. These informal
gatherings of artists that formed philosophical circles paved
the way for the French Academies of the 16th, 17th, and 18th
centuries that sought to codify Italian practices into a strict
fine arts curriculum (Efland, 1989; Daichendt, 2010). !
! The 19th century was marked by three revolutions:
the Industrial Revolution, the American and French
Revolutions, and romanticism as a reactionary movement
against Enlightenment ideals and scientific rationalism. The
Industrial Revolution, in its replacement of handmade craft
with mass production and the factory model, established the
need for design education, which each nation addressed in its
own way; it either emerged separately from fine arts
institutions or was integrated (Efland, 1989). The Royal
Academy was also established in Britain; its design education
was separate from the fine arts and did not have any
preparatory structure, which are two factors that may have
contributed to Britain’s then notorious lack of good design. In
1919 the Bauhaus was founded by Walter Gropius with the aim
of bridging the gaps between fine arts, craft, and design, and is
considered by many art historians to be one of the most
influential schools on contemporary art instruction (Efland,
1989). The model of this school continues today (Elkins,
2001). The Bauhaus philosophy valued the quality of craft,
and borrowed from the medieval workshop model, while also
emphasizing creativity through form problems and art theory.
The Nazi regime later closed the Bauhaus, and many
instructors emigrated to the United States to found the Black
Mountain College as a continuation of the Bauhaus
philosophy. After the First World War there was a dramatic
increase in teaching visual art in colleges and universities
(Efland, 1989). !
! On the other hand, art education, or visual art
instruction, in what we can now call K-12 education evolved
on a completely different track in the United States. The rise
of the public school in the United States happened primarily
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
between 1870 and 1917. The advent of state-supported schools
is credited to educator Horace Mann, who also strongly
advocated for drawing to be included in the curriculum
(Efland, 1989). The purpose for including drawing in common
schools was primarily economic. The need for designers in
industry caused the emergence of a new curriculum in public
education (Efland, 1989; Logan, 1955; Smith, 1996 Daichendt,
2010). The new program of industrial drawing drew from the
influence of Swiss pedagogue Pestalozzi. In the United States,
Walter Smith devised a curriculum of industrial drawing that
focused on the copying of geometric forms; “common school
art was totally at variance with the aesthetic traditions of the
fine arts” (Efland, 1989, p. 114). Drawing was likened to
handwriting, in that anyone could learn how to do it.
However, by the end of the 1920’s creativity as the emphasis
of art education surfaced as a result of child-study movements,
the validation of child art, the romantic notion of the child
not as a blank slate but as divine, child-centered curriculum
and progressive education led by notable revolutionaries like
John Dewey, and modernism. (Efland, 1989; Daichendt, 2010)!
! Supplemental to handicrafts and art appreciation
that were added to the curriculum was synthetic curriculum
championed by Arthur Wesley Dow through the elements and
principles of design, with an emphasis on composition. In
general, the metaphor of shifting from regulated graphite
drawing to the fluidity of painting can be used as a lens in
which to think about the evolution of art in schools during
the 20th century. Progressive models and self-expressionism
found its way into public schools after the Second World War
(Daichdent, 2010; Efland, 1989). Just as progressivists reacted
against the highly structured and irrelevant curriculum of
industrial drawing, so too did discipline-based arts educators
react against the laissez-faire self-expressionist art education
model (Stankiewicz, 2005). Discipline-Based Art Education
found its way onto the art education scene in the 1960’s as a
result of the Cold War and has gained interest since the 1980’s
(Efland, 1989). DBAE broke up art education in schools into
art studio production, art history, art criticism, and later,
aesthetics. Various influences from all movements continue
today, but I argue that K-12 education is and should
approximate art instruction at the postsecondary level, as well
as the contemporary practices of professional artists through
the inclusion of visual culture and contemporary art. !
! I propose that these two timelines of art instruction
at the postsecondary level and K-12 art education, which has
always lagged behind contemporary art (Wilson, 2003), have
come to a point of convergence. “I argue that the actions,
philosophies, and contexts we work within as artists inform
much of what we know and teach. Differentiation between
10

grade school and college art teachers is not a concern. Rather,
it is the way we see the world as artists and how that vision
informs out teaching practice” (Daichendt, 2010, p. 3). Now,
the educator of art in K-12 schools is primarily the product of
the art school and, hopefully, an art educational program; “the
new academy is present at all levels of art education
(elementary to higher education), and one must be a member
to teach” (Daichdent, 2010, p. 8). The immediacy of
communication through technology and the Web provides a
means to narrow the gap between education from K-12 to
higher art education, which on one hand is the most closely
tied to contemporary art outside of the school, and on the
other, is also tied to the niche subculture of the school,
inherent in K-12 education. Artist-educators like Franz Cizek
and Alfred Stieglitz, among others, have considered child art
as valid as adult art. (Efland, 1989). Without romanticizing this
notion, educators in the contemporary field of art education
can facilitate the nurturing of artistic people, because in
reality graduates from higher arts education enter into a
multitude of professions, and sometimes “non-arts” related. If
art education in K-12 schools can become an authentic art
experience in itself, graduates from K-12 education can engage
in art making, creative thinking, research, contemporary art,
and the visual world of today in a meaningful, relevant, and
critical way.!
My K-12 Education - My
Undergraduate
Education!
! the teacher according to her/his criteria. Nearly every project
! When I look back on my art education from
Kindergarten to my senior year of high school, I
remember only making art, but never discussing its meaning.
Modernist values of formal qualities and the strains of
teaching to the elements and principles of design were evident
in all of my primary and secondary education which was
largely product-driven. I was also never encourage to
investigate contemporary art, let alone any art history. !
! Elementary school set the stage for how I thought
about myself as an artistic person, in that I considered art to
be something that is well rendered or skillful in its execution.
In Kindergarten free time I copied Eric Carle’s Very Hungry
Caterpillar collage and received much praise from my parents
and teacher. I attribute this to the beginning of forming an
artistic identity, as well as the point at which I did not
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
consider risk taking to be a worthwhile endeavor. Another
highlight from my elementary career was a school-wide
illustrated book project about 9/11. I won a cover spot with a
nicely drawn eagle, although I don’t remember asking myself
why I was drawing that, or what the purpose of the book was
altogether. The rest of elementary school art was, for the most
part, executing teacher designed examples of projects. A
clown of woven paper and a conventional ‘Picasso’ oil pastel
self-portrait comes to mind. !
! My perceived aptitude in representational drawing
landed me in the advanced track of the art program in my
middle school, which was led by one teacher. One the first day
of class we were instructed to visit her portfolio website and
choose which piece we liked, and to write about why we liked
it. Her work was abstracted watercolor portraits of Native
Americans. There was no supplemental text to explain the
meaning of the work, and we never discussed it. About five
years later, my sister was instructed to do the same assignment
with the same work. After another five years, unbelievably, my
other sister was asked to do the same. This particular teacher
graded two-dimensional work according to her own standards
of adequate representation. She drew on top of students’
work. Two projects come to mind when I think of middle
school: a self portrait in the style of an artist of choice from a
teacher-generated list, and an ‘alien pod’ ceramic piece that
was prefaced by a visualization activity. Both assignments were
still part of her curriculum ten years after I had her as a
teacher. !
! My experience in high school was mainly
independently responding to teacher-issued prompts through
different media, and submitting each project to be graded by
was ‘about me’, or centered around self-expression. I had
classes with five faculty members, ranging from Portfolio
Preparation, Ceramics, Oil Painting, Digital Photography, and
Senior Thesis. There was minimal whole-class discussion, or
very much dialogue in general. Occasionally I would be asked
to write about the piece I had made. Sometimes a teacher
would comment that she/he really liked what I was doing.
Only once in my K-12 art education was there a collaborative
project between my classmates and I, and it was in one of the
advanced classes, and it was a nightmare. The assignment was
a group mural that would be hung in the school. The teacher
did nothing but to remind us that we needed to finish it, and
although I knew most of my peers since middle school when
we were tracked together, none of us had worked
collaboratively. In Digital Photography I took photos
demonstrating my understanding of the elements and
principles; I made a tea set in ceramics; and I drew a bicycle
11

for portfolio prep. Besides teacher-designed projects that were
executed according to each student’s self-expression, there
was an independent study called Senior Thesis. In retrospect
this was one of the most beneficial courses of study
throughout my K-12 experience. This was the only course in
which a whole class discussion or critique about student work
was held. It was led by the only faculty member with an MFA,
and although she was immensely supportive and nurturing,
she was also a very quiet and soft-spoken individual. During
the first class I had with her she asked us, ‘what is art?’. We
wrote down our responses but never pursued the matter
further, and when I asked her what she thought, she
responded with a smile and said that she didn’t know. !
! In short, this is what was lacking from my K-12
experience: !
! contemporary art!
! art history!
! engaging activities other than art making!
! aesthetic dialogue- why do we make art?!
! materials exploration without an assignment!
! discussion of work aimed at unearthing meaning
(critique) rather than judging (criticism)!
! rationale for the teacher’s decisions (transparency);
why is this important?!
! prompts aimed at something other than self-
portraiture or self-expression!
! critical inquiry!
! creation of meaningful artwork !
! validation of process/experimentation!
! My undergraduate education at MICA was split into
studio and academic courses. Much of what I found to be
lacking from my K-12 education can be found, in some form or
another, in what I experienced at MICA. MICA is organized
according to majors: painting, drawing, interdisciplinary
sculpture, animation, film and video, general fine arts, graphic
design, photography, printmaking, interactive arts, illustration,
humanistic studies, art history, ceramics, fiber, and
architectural design. Each major has its requirements for a
degree plan balanced between studio and academic courses.
Although I chose to be a painting major, there were many
opportunities to take courses in different department,
according to my own interests. !
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
! I argue that my K-12 experience would have been
more beneficial and meaningful if it had resembled my
education at MICA. So far I have addressed my first claim of
considering art education at all levels as one academy of
artistic experience: !
! K-12 art education should be in the process of
becoming, or in a decentralized, diverse, and rhizomatic space,
like art education at the postsecondary level, which is
considered now to be the conventional preparation of
contemporary artists. !
! I will now address my second claim about
considerations for the classroom regarding the work of
contemporary artists, creating meaningful work, and thinking
artistically:!
! Contemporary Art should be investigated in the K-12
classroom as an impetus for learning about the world we
currently live in.!
Contemporary Art in the
Classroom!
!
! Why learn about contemporary art in the K-12
classroom? Wilson (2003) answers that “contemporary
artworks, artifacts from visual culture, and the theories, ideas,
and ideologies that surround them are of our time and they
hold the possibility of informing us, more than art and
artifacts of previous eras, about our contemporary lives, they
probe and problematize contemporary society, and they raise
issues pertaining to our values and our aspirations” (p. 215).
An investigation of contemporary art and visual culture may
more authentically prompt a look at art history as well, due to
the fact that art and visual culture can and does reference art
history, either implicitly or explicitly. The relevancy of
contemporary art and visual culture, if established as a
meaningful interest to students in the K-12 classroom, would
prompt art historical research that is pertinent, rather than a
fact-packed survey course that dominates many approaches to
art history education. Becca Belleville, an Art 21 educator
currently teaching at the Baltimore Design School, has
written about this authentic establishment of the need for art
history and contemporary art through relevancy. She writes
that “by possessing knowledge about art history, I am able to
notice connections and understand more about our collective
lives, culture, and humaneness” (Belleville, 2014, p. 14). And,
“Modernist principles do not allow for multiple
12

interpretations of works of art; Postmodernism principles,
however, embrace pluralism in a way that validates many
truths instead of a singular one” (Belleville, 2014, p. 15). !
! This pluralistic attitude can elucidate the validation
of diverse connections and interpretations, and it can
empower students to construct their own working knowledge
base and perspectives on contemporary art and art history.
Belleville facilitates substantial investigations into art history
through a comparative analysis of art historical texts with
students, thereby critically thinking about who the writers of
art history are, the power of writing history, the inclusion of
certain content and how it is presented. In “Blogging, Zines,
and Narratives”, Belleville discusses how this investigation
happened with some of her students, and how she provided
the opportunity for becoming one’s own narrator of art
history. One student’s research “was deepening her
appreciation of contemporary art, whereas before she saw the
field as ridiculous and lacking meaning” (Belleville, 2014). This
view of contemporary art is not uncommon in the public
sphere. Villeneuve and
Erickson (2008) explore the
disconnect between the
“Modernist principles do not allow for
public and the artworld; “the multiple interpretations of works of art;
trouble with contemporary
art is many people in the Postmodernism principles, however,
United States are not
equipped to deal with it”.
embrace pluralism in a way that validates
From their experience many truths instead of a singular
“[they] find that young and
old alike seem more one” (Belleville, 2014, p. 15).
comfortable with art that is
representational and
attractive. Both groups can be stymied by conceptual
performance, or installation art or the unconventional
materials sometimes used by contemporary artists. Difficult
content, including perceived challenges to notions of sexuality,
patriotism, and religion, can present further obstacles to
understanding” (Velleneuve and Erickson, 2008). Art
education has suffered the same social ambivalence; on one
hand the arts are seen as engaging and cultivators of creativity,
an on the other, as frivolous or difficult (Davis, 2005)!
! Elkins (2001) observes that “according to
newspapers, artists are something of a blemish on society- or
more strongly, they are parasites on public largesse, or just
jerks. The general attitude of the public, as it is reflected in
the media, is annoyance” (p. 67). The absence of exposure to
contemporary art in schools can be seen as a contributing
factor to the rift between the art world and the public, as well
as the insular nature of the art world itself and what Elkins
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
deems the illusion of art school students in believing that they
are contributing to society at large and fulfilling a cultural role,
when perhaps in reality they are merely expressing an isolated
subculture. Contemporary artists, not art school students,
may be viewed as ‘leeches’, as Elkins phrases it. Art in society
has been considered both extraneous and essential. Current
buzz words of ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ pervade the
educational sphere in the Unites States today, yet the arts are
marginalized as standardized testing reigns. This
contradictory view of artists and art can be found anywhere.
In my experience, my extended relatives found my art school
education to be both a worthwhile endeavor and a waste of
time. Perhaps one of the answers to this tension is to
contemporary art to the K-12 classroom for critical
engagement and investigation, to truly bridge these two
realistically disconnected worlds. !
What the Work is About!
!
! What is contemporary
art about and what does that
mean for teaching and
learning in the classroom?
For one thing, art is not
about art, but it is about
something. The modernist
notion of, for example,
painting to be about painting
should no longer be the
dominant attitude in art
education. The series Documents of Contemporary Art is an
ongoing anthology of literature written by scholars, curators,
artists, and critics, and according to this series “In recent
decades artists have progressively expanded the boundaries of
art as they have sought to engage with an increasingly
pluralistic environment. Teaching, curating and understanding
of art and visual culture are likewise no longer grounded in
traditional aesthetics but centred on significant ideas, topics
and themes ranging from the everyday to the uncanny, the
psychoanalytical to the political” (Allen, 2011, preface). As
Documents of Contemporary Art exemplifies in the series’ format,
ways of thinking about contemporary art are currently
arranged thematically, or according to ‘big ideas’ and issues. !
! In Contemporary Issues in Art Education, Gaudelius and
Speirs (2002) advocate an issues-based approach to art
education that shifts from a primarily formalist, child-
centered approach or discipline-based art education, which
13

are “inadequate when we teach, discuss, and interpret content-
rich contemporary art works, especially since these works are
layered with meanings and often explore contemporary and
political issues”. This approach that investigates issues,
defined in the context of this book as “an idea about which at
least two distinct points of view can be held and articulated”
through contemporary art is considered by Gaudelius and
Spiers to be applicable in education from elementary school
to the college level. Art education could encompass
“integrating art with other subject areas, issues of identity, the
use of narrative and storytelling, connecting art learning with
everyday life, issues of the body, understanding how
knowledge and meaning are constructed” among countless
others. The aims of an issues-based art education is to no
longer view art as an abstract concept but as “an empowering
strategy, a way to critically communicate ideas or issues in
different ways to different audiences for different purposes
and to learn about ourselves in the process” (Gaudelius and
Speirs, 2002, p. 2). !
! Similar to an issues-based approach, a ‘big idea’
approach that runs throughout the Art Education in Practice
series moves beyond self-expressionist or discipline-based
approaches to focus instruction around big ideas. Rather than
‘nurturing free creativity’ through self-expression, or including
the disciplines of art for the sake of inclusion, this approach
aligns instruction towards a ‘meaning-making’ goal, or
authentic instruction: “students make artworks to investigate
and express ideas; and, based upon constructivist practices of
authentic learning based upon the real world, that students
model their artmaking on that of adult artists and thereby
learn how adult artists make art” (Walker, 2001). These big
ideas, “overarching notions that reach beyond any particular
discipline”, are broad issues, also called enduring
understandings, characterized by “complexity, ambiguity,
contradiction, and multiplicity”. Some examples Walker
provides in a starter list include: identity, power, fantasy and
reality, meaning and objects, alienation/loneliness, questioning
art, human emotions, and nature and culture. Although this
approach could encompass the claims I attempt to
substantiate in this paper, written in 2001, this text does not
address visual culture, and uses artist exemplars from
primarily the 1950’s-90s and within the established fine arts
field. Rather than relying on texts such as Walker’s, or
misusing them as a comprehensive guide, the immediacy of
the Internet should offer art educators a means to bring the
most current contemporary art into the classroom for
investigation. Learning about and through works of previous
decades holds a critical importance, but the lag or gap
between art education and current art should be taken into
2014
Alexandra DeStefano
consideration, especially now that this lag is mediated by the
Internet’s global and democratic platform. !
! Resources for what I will call ‘overall aboutness’, like
Walker’s Teaching Meaning in Art Making can be found through
Art 21’s video installments of artists and their work, and
Documents of Contemporary Art, the literature anthology
series mentioned previously. Both archive and order
contemporary art according to big ideas or themes. Art 21 has
episodes that highlight the artistic practice of various artists
working with ideas such as: place, spirituality, identity,
consumption, power, memory, play, romance, paradox, ecology,
compassion, fantasy, systems, and secrets, just to name a
handful. Each episode includes commentary and footage
featuring various artists, including Laylah Ali, Janine Antoni,
Matthew Barney, Trenton Doyle Hancock, Oliver Herring, and
Cindy Sherman, among many others. Jessica Hamlin, Director
of Educator Initiatives for Art21, writes: “We look at
curriculum as a way of problem finding as well as problem
solving. The Art21 films are introduced to sustain
conversations about what artists do and why, and to cultivate
meaningful studio practices” (Graham and Hamlin, 2014, p.
49). Documents of Contemporary Art, another excellent resource
like Art 21, has collections of writings on: exhibition, sexuality,
the object, networks, the market, time, abstraction,
documentary, dance, memory, nature, the studio, ruins,
education, painting, sound, failure, the sublime, and chance,
among others. Each book provides a pluralistic view on each
‘overall aboutness’ by including a variety of voices on each.!
Approaches to Content:
Making and Interpreting!
!
! How could we approach these overall
aboutnesses in terms of making and looking at
artworks? In making, Lois Hetland proposes eight studio
habits of mind, which is also interpreted as teaching for
artistic behaviors. The studio habits are: develop craft
(learning techniques for making and utilizing various
materials); engage and persist (embracing the process of
creative problem solving); envision (imagine); express (to
convey meaning); observe (seeing over looking); reflect (to
question, explain, or consider deeply); explore (to reach
beyond one’s perceived capabilities to embrace play and open-
ended investigation); and understand art world (to learn about
art history and current practices of contemporary artists, as
well as other art disciplines). (Hetland; Winner; Veenema;
14
 2014
Alexandra DeStefano

Sheridan; Perkins, 2007). I would suggest the addition of contemporary culture, and to reflect on the relationship
critique, or to unearth meaning (different than criticism, between self and society (Gude, 2008).!
meaning to judge (Elkins, 2001); and research, or to locate
different bases of knowledge in order to creatively synthesize
information for the purposes of art making and the
construction of new knowledge. The content of curriculum,
the overall aboutnesses, should be approached with these
artistic dispositions in mind.!

! The progression of curriculum should be emergent

and closer to real-life artistic practices than
compartmentalized exercises. The term bricolage has been
used both in assembling materials and in terms of a conceptual
framework. Bricolage, as it is used today in the context of
education, exemplifies this authentic form of instruction that
is naturally structured; it means to do with what is at hand and
embodies free play, or a form of making without a means to an
end. A new approach to art education should be “better
connected to the concepts and ideas behind art and art
practice, and to areas of inquiry outside of art” (Marshall,
2006, p. 17). In terms of art practice, which includes both
some version of making as well as research and the formation
of a concept, the idea of bricolage can be used as a lens
through which art education can be visualized. In my
interpretation, this means an iterative process aimed towards
understanding, or the assembling of knowledge in depth and
over time, rather than only a breadth of investigations that
may feel disconnected from one another, and also
disconnected from life or real-life art practices.!

! Gude (2008) asserts that it is our role as educators to

“teach how the culture is shaped and how to shape the culture
by providing our students with the tools of contemporary
aesthetic investigation. Through signifying practices we make
meaning of our lives and we make meaningful lives- with style, Contemporary Art/Education, Alexandra DeStefano, 2014 (installation view)
with purpose, and with pleasure” (Gude, 2008, p. 101) Gude,
in an effort to replace outmoded modernist art education that
teaches to and with the elements and principles of design,
!
proposes a new group of principles that are conceptually
based when investigating artworks, and potentially as
strategies for making. These ‘post-modern principles’ include
The Rhizome as a
appropriation, juxtaposition, recontextualization, layering,
interaction of text and image, hybridity, gazing, and
Metaphor: Complexity,
“representin’” (Gude, 2008). These conceptual skills can be
honed by looking at artworks through these lenses, and they
Contextualist, and
can also be exercised through creating artworks. Marshall
(2008) focuses on layering, or conceptual collage, and
Constructivist Theories!
metaphor, which could be two additions to Gude’s initial list. !
Gude aims to provide a quality art education to empower
students to become participants in an unfolding What would this approach of contemporary art/
education look like if were a visual? Metaphorically the

15
 2014
Alexandra DeStefano

rhizome has been used to describe many complex non-

hierarchal systems, and it can be used to symbolize “the
futility of diagramming within art education content
which is rhizomatic- more like the tangle of a patch of
grass than the orderly structure of a tree” (Wilson,
2003, p. 214). The Internet is also a rhizome that has
shaped the nature of art today into a more democratic,
undefined structure (Wilson, 2003). The complex
system of a rhizome is not easily diagrammable. The
rhizome also signifies the breaking up of a single
structure into pieces that may generate new pieces or
lines. Wilson (2003) quotes Deleuze and Guattari: !

“A rhizome ceaselessly established connections between

semiotic chains, organizations of power, and
circumstances relative to the arts, sciences, and social
struggles. A semiotic chain is like a tuber agglomerating
very diverse acts, not only linguistic, but also
perceptive, mimetic, gestural, and cognitive: there is no
language in itself, nor are there any linguistic universals,
only a throng of dialects, patois, slangs, and specialized
languages. There is no ideal speaker-listener, any more than
!
there is a homogeneous linguistic community.” !
Contemporary Art/Education, Alexandra DeStefano, 2014 (detail views)
(Deleuze and Guattari in Wilson, 2003, p. 222).!

! I have interpreted this idea to create a rhizome as a

visual metaphor for this pedagogical approach that can be
!
termed Contemporary Art/Education. The raw muslin
signifies something organic such as a field; the subtle
graphite lines delineate ‘context’ with the warp and weft
of the muslin; the perler fuse beads, originally intended
to be melded together into a finite form, are used as
nodes in a network; and the neon pink thread, a
variation of red, could be seen as a reference to the
Greek myth of Theseus and the labyrinth as a
navigation of networks through connections. While
thinking about the overall idea of this approach in terms
of a metaphor, three main educational theories of
learning also arise that offer a framework for this
pedagogy, and each are symbolized in the metaphor. The
graphite lines symbolize contextualist theory, in that
knowledge is context-sensitive and meaning changes
depending on what that context is; the beads or nodes
symbolize constructivist theory, in that learners
construct their own knowledge; and the thread
connections symbolize complexity theory. The rhizome
embodies a decentralization, diversity, and an unpredictable !
structure. Although it is not branching out in a linear fashion
like a tree, it is moving in new directions. ! !
16
 2014
Alexandra DeStefano

! Graham, M. and Hamlin, J (2014). Teaching with Art21 and !

! Contemporary Artist: Mark Bradford and the Use of !
! Improvisation, Layering, and Text. Art Education, (July !
References! ! 2014), pp 47-54!

! Gude, O. (2007). Postmodern Principles: In Search for a 21st-!

! Century Art Education. Art Education, Vol. 57, No. 1 !
Allen, F. (ed) (2011). Documents of Contemporary Art: # # # ! (Jan., 2007), pp. 6-14. Retrieved from http://! ! !
# Education. Cambridge: The MIT Press.! ! www.jstor.org/stable/3194078!

Archey, K. (2009). Performance and Pedagogy: All Talk, ! Some
! Action. Map Magazine, No. 20. Retrieved !from http://!
! mapmagazine.co.uk/8967/! performance-and-! ! ! #
! pedagogy-all/!
Benjamin, W. (1936). The Work of Art in the ! ! ! !
! Age of Mechanical Reproduction.!
Bishop, C. (2007). The New Masters of Liberal Arts: Artists ##
# Rewrite the Rules of Pedagogy, Documents of Contemporary #
# Art: Education !(p. 197-201). Cambridge: The MIT Press.!
Hetland, L; Winner, E; Veenema; S.; Sheridan, K.; Perkins, D !
! (2007). Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts #
Education. New York: Teachers College Press.!
Logan, F. M. (1955). Growth of Art in American Schools, New
! York: Harper and Brothers. !
Marshall, J. (2008). Visible Thinking: Using Contemporary Art
! to Teach Conceptual Skills. Art Education, Vol. 61, ! No. 2
! (Mar., 2008), pp 38-45. Retrieved from http://! ! !
! dx.doi.org/10.2307/27696275!

Calvino, I. (1988). Six Memos for the Next ! ! ! ! Podesva, K. L. (2007). A Pedagogical Turn: Brief Notes on !
! Millenium.!
Chalmers, G., & Desai, D. (2007). Notes for a Dialogue on !
! Art Education in Critical Times. !Art Education, Vol. 60,
! No. 5 (September 2007) pp 6-12. Retrieved from http://!
! www.jstor.org/stable/27696234!
Davis, J. H. (2005). Framing Education as Art: The Octopus # Has a
# Good Day. New York: Teachers College Press.!
de Duve, T. (1993). When Form Has Become ! ! !
! Attitude - And Beyond. In F. Allen, Documents of # #
# Contemporary Art: Education (p. 60-68). Cambridge: The
! MIT Press. !
Efland, A. D. (1989). A History of Art # # # # # #
# Education: Intellectual and Social Currents in ## # #
# Teaching the Visual Arts. New York: Teachers College !!
! Press. !
! Education as Art. Fillip 6. Retrieved from http://fillip.ca/!
! content/a-pedagogical-turn!
Reed, H. (2013). A Bad Education: Helen Reed Interviews !
! Pablo Helguera. The Pedagogical Impulse. Retrieved !
! from.http://thepedagogicalimpulse.com/a-bad-! ! !
! education-helen-reed-interviews-pablo-helguera/!
Siegesmund, R. (1998). “Why Do We Teach Art Today? ! !
! Conceptions of Art Education and their ! ! ! !
! Justification”, Studies in Art Education, 39: 3, pp. ! !
! 197-214!
Smith, P. (1996) The History of American Art Education: !
! Learning About Art in American Schools, Westport: !
! Greenwoood Press.!
Stankiewicz, M. (2005). Rethinking Curriculum in Art. ! !
! Worcester: Davis Publishing.!

Elkins, J. (2001). Why Art Cannot Be Taught. Urbana and ! ! The Internet. (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 8th, !
! Chicago: University of Illinois Press.! ! 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.!

Erickson, M., & Villeneuve, P. (2008). The Trouble with ! ! Wilson, B. (2003). Of Diagrams and Rhizomes: Visual Culture,
! Contemporary Art is… Art Education, Vol. 61, No. 2 ! ! Contemporary Art, and the !Impossibility of Mapping the
! (Mar., 2008), pp 92-97. Retrieved from http://! ! ! ! Content of Art Education. Studies in Art Education, !
! www.jstor.org/stable/27696283! ! ! Vol. 44, No. 3 (Spring 2003), pp 214-229. Retrieved from !
! http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321010!
Gaudelius, Y., & Spiers, P. (2002). Contemporary Issues in Art #
# Education.# Walker, S. (2001). Teaching Meaning in Artmaking. (Art ! !
! Education in Practice Series): Davis Publishing.

17