Visuelle Kultur – what's next?

The future of international art education: Claims and challenges

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:17:15 +0000

Introduction
In the painting White on White, by Mark Tansey (1986)¹, there appears to be two groups of people meeting at a central point, in a seemingly unified field. Upon closer inspection of their clothing, animals, and other items, the people appear to be two groups from different cultures. Their clothing also suggests that there is wind blowing from opposite directions – behind their backs, as they face one another. Is it sand or snow that is blowing? Is it both? They also seem to be looking for something in the ground, between them: an invisible gap, rift, or bridge. Two entirely unlike societies and two very different climates come together on one field in a single moment of decision. This is an impossible landscape that collapses time and space, where an unreal conjunction of characters meet to determine a pluralism of possibilities. This is, for me, a visual metaphor of the impossible possibilities of international art education.
Without the people and all their belongings, we would seem to have a unified field of white on a surface, where we could not determine the background as either snow or sand. As soon as we place the figures on the image, however, we determine the space through the cultural contexts of the figures. The background, then, can be understood as the field of international art education. It is an unreal and impossible place, since it must fold together geographic space to provide a unified field. It is, however, an empty space that is defined only by its agents (art educators and students, for example) and the difference their placement makes to how we see the field. So, in a sense, international art education exists, but only through difference, like the difference between snow and sand. The difference determines the field itself, which cannot be seen without the agents. As soon as we try to determine the field without individual contexts, indeterminacy traps us.
What this means is that international art education is a necessary illusion of sameness that represents the background for different figures, different agents, and different cultural contexts. There is, in art education, a permanent tension between determination and indeterminacy. The sameness becomes difference, and the tensions present us with challenges as we turn toward each other, and away. We are both blinded to, and searching for, the invisible rifts, determined to cross over borders, disciplines, and languages.
In what follows, I lay out a manifesto of sorts: A series of claims, and then challenges to those claims. The claims represent possible futures of international art education; in a sense, investing faith in “what is next.” The challenges represent the tensions within the field, and the contestation of a pre-determined future (that there is such as thing as “next”). The claims and challenges should be taken together, and through their tension the project of international art education remains an impossible possibility.

Claim: The future of international art education lies at the crossroads of participatory visual culture.

Access to, and the proliferation of newer media, digital networks, and virtual worlds will continue to provide art education with transnational and trans-disciplinary opportunities. Currently, art educators around the globe are using newer media, software, devices, blogs, wikis, networks, and all kinds of digital worlds to teach, learn, communicate, and collaborate with each other. Art teachers are inventing and using digital spaces, and conferences and symposia are more and more frequently held in cyberspace. These digital worlds manifest in situated knowledge, some sense of democratization, and new subjectivities. The worlds converge personal spaces, and real, imaginary, and internal and external realms of experience. In this sense, the future provides art educators with an opportunity to rethink concepts tied to the sovereignty of a “national art pedagogy” (German, Finnish, American, and so on), where diasporic and rogue practices are neither situated in one place or another, but a hybrid of many and none at the same time. The future offers art education opportunities for exchange, collaboration, across distance and time – forming and reforming (over and over) different communities of learners.

Challenge: There is a collective celebratory attitude toward participatory culture in art education.

This attitude emphasizes the playfulness and interconnectedness of visual culture at both a macro and micro level while virtually ignoring the relationship between power and knowledge. How might we hold accountable the macro structures, namely capitalist structures, which define the parameters, however malleable, and the material and discursive conditions that help shape individual and collective participation? Another challenge stems from the need to move from a form of technological determinism to seeing technology as agents of social practice. How might art educators consider technological actants, as collaborators producing irreducible social complexity?

Claim: Prosthetic visuality revitalizes art education globally.

Prosthetic visuality is a term coined by Charles Garioan² meant to signify the revealing and concealing capacity of art and art education, in excess of itself. Prosthetic visuality emerges at the border in between personal ways of seeing and seeing that is socially constructed and shared – locally and globally. Devices, networks, and participatory spaces suture together different ways of seeing that both allow a transgression of normal patterns of seeing and knowing, and a collective and complementary process, where relationships change perceptual parameters. Prosthetic visuality is also about embodied knowing and being in the world. Through devices, we are, in a sense, cyborgs. As most of us with children know, being in the world includes fingers on the screen, eyes on a camera, the between spaces are part of our perceptual systems – impossible to delimit what is the supplement, what is surplus. Perhaps the future of art education is engaged through the indeterminacy of prosthesis, where seeing through and across devices, and constructing art education through digital spaces, is always constituted by disjunctive, fragments of images and ideas, knowledge, and understandings, whose complex, irreducible slippages of meaning resist synthetic closure.

Challenge: Art education is not the hardware of sociological determinism but the software of social practice.

As actants, both humans and non-humans enter into associations with one another that constitute networks. This symmetrical focus requires that the prosthetic visuality be analyzed not only for the ways that humans use technologies, but also to look to the technologies themselves for agentic forces that are a part of social -interactions. This way of rethinking technology is an extension of the posthumanist project, of expanding notions of subjectivity by utilizing the machine and animal hybrids of the cyborg imaginary to perceive human subjectivity as hybrid formations of data-bodies that disavow the autonomous subject, yet embrace complex notions of agency. In art education, this agency should reflect the mediating forces that construct the world, and ways of being in that world.

Claim: The consumptive aspects of everyday educational and learning sites should be explored and challenged through art education.

Art education in the future should open alternative -pedagogical spaces that reveal and challenge consumer-driven notions of public space and neoliberal lessons about freedom and democracy provided by global capitalism, and embedded in our visual culture. Neoliberalism is a powerful ensemble of ideological and institutional forces whose aim is to produce competitive, self-interested individuals vying for their own material and ideological gain, embracing the “market as the arbiter of social destiny. Art educators should explore the consumptive aspects of the everyday educational and learning sites that we teach in or learn in, and also challenge the educational and learning aspects of various sites of consumption. These sites can be formal learning or educational sites or informal, popular culture, or media-based sites of learning (shopping malls, sporting events, leisure sites, fast food restaurants, television shows, video games, magazines, movies, etc.). Art education must not be consumed by the all-encompassing cultural horizon, producing teachers as market identities and turning art education into, at best selection of consumer choices, or at worst, a private affair.

Challenge: Art education enhancing democracy while acknowledging that democracy is the form taken by institution’s attachment to capital.

If we know that many institutions serve primarily to integrate and consolidate capitalism, why do we present our political hopes through interventions sanctioned by the institutions and not something else? What might that something else look like? How might art education consider the market value of political action, especially against market values in the knowledge economy, including the so-called creative economy tied to art education, where we are all potential specialists? There is also the question of the singular universal – that is intervening as a subordinated voice to be an embodiment of society in its universality. In other words, one of the challenges for art education is the paradox of intervening against particular power interests as a stand-in for the universal.

Wiederabdruck
Teile dieses Manuskripts wurden bereits früher veröffentlicht in: Kevin Tavin, “International art education: Impossible possibilities”, Stylus: The journal of art education of Finland, January 2014, S. 29–30.

1.) As can be found on the blog whtsnxt.net via the QR code below: Figure 1. Mark Tansey, White on White, 1986. Oil on canvas. 78 x 138 x 1/2“. Collection Walker Art Center, Minneapolis. Gift of Charles and Leslie Herman, 1991.
2.) Charles Garoian, The prosthetic pedagogy of art: Embodied research and practice. Albany, NY 2013.

Maurice Blanchot’s Critique of the Everyday: A Challenge for Art Education

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:17:15 +0000

Although it is fair to say that the everyday has served as one of the central conceptual frames in the implementation of visual culture theory in art education throughout the past decade,¹ it seems that the everydayness of the everyday has remained vaguely theorized, and, more recently, nearly disappeared from art edu-cation literature. In Visual Culture Art Education (VCAE), the everyday has been associated with objects and practices of popular culture that (symptomatically) represent the existing structures of societal power in students’ lives. However, I see that understanding the everyday merely through practices that assumedly -unfold students’ relationship with ideological superstructures reproduces the very logic of power that VCAE’s critique of art education has tried to subvert. To challenge this logic, I turn to Maurice Blanchot’s -conceptualization of the everyday as a radically ambi-valent state of non-production that, I claim, offers tools to rethink the sociopolitical function of art education. After all, for Blanchot, the everyday is something that escapes; it evades the endless production of its own meaning.
In this text, I take a short excursion into “everyday aesthetics” as discussed by art educator Paul Duncum,² and show that by framing the everyday as a question of curricular contents (that is, positioning the “everyday aesthetics” against the aesthetics of institutionalized art), art education itself remains beyond a politico-philosophical critique. Contra Duncum, I explain how Blanchot’s conceptualization of the everyday might open a language of critique that corrodes rather than replaces the existing characterizations of our profession.
From the late 1990s to the 2000s, the advocates of VCAE attempted to turn popular culture from a demonized realm of ideological indoctrination into a contested site of socio-subjective practices that are more complex than binaries such as high art/low art, intellectual/idiotic, or authentic/copied might suggest. Despite the efforts to keep VCAE as an inclusive category where various forms of visual practices are examined, discussed, and created, it has been often understood as synonymous with the study of popular culture in the cost of rejecting various forms of art-making or artistic thinking.³ This critique did not emerge ex nihilo, since the discourse around VCAE in its early phase was explicitly critical toward fine arts. For example, Duncum argued in 1999 that “everyday aesthetic experiences are more significant than experiences of high art in forming and informing one’s identity and view of the world beyond personal experience.”⁴ For him, such experiences are a “backdrop to life.”⁵As visible, Duncum’s critical stance toward fine arts is directly linked to the everyday. By favoring the “everyday aesthetics” over “high art,” one ends up with a binary where the two opposing ends (popular culture and institutionalized art) are assessed through their relation to the everyday as the central realm of human experience of the self and the society. Such characterization of the political potential of the everyday relies heavily on the idea of popular culture qua everyday aesthetics as a tool that disrupt pedagogical thinking that reproduces the existing dynamics of societal power by excluding students’ real life from the art curriculum.⁶ In this respect, the everyday is seen first and foremost as a site of relevancy that connects students’ self to the art curriculum (and vice versa). For Duncum, “everyday aesthetic sites are more influential in structuring thought, feelings and actions than the fine arts precisely because they are everyday. It is because they are so ordinary that they are so significant.”⁷What, then, constitutes this significance? It seems that it is the tangible ordinariness of the everyday that makes popular culture relevant to the students, and such relevancy is associated directly with subject formation in contemporary societies. This view is based on two assumptions. Firstly, it requires that the everyday and its ordinariness are both accessible and that they grant an access to ideological subject formation. Such accessibility treats the everyday as an embodiment of ideological superstructures that can be analyzed and critiqued (i. e. accessed) through art education. Secondly, the idea of accessibility makes one approach ideology as a collection of representations that can be analyzed through critical art education, which means that the political project of art education is dependent on the endless production of representations that, for different reasons, students identify themselves with. For the theorization of the everyday, these two assumptions mean that the everyday is never more than what is already accessible: like an empty vessel, it carries its own ideology that merely waits to be deciphered by its subjects.
In this respect, to claim that the everyday aesthetic experiences are relevant and thus more important to the construction of students’ identities and subjectivities than non-everyday activities makes the everyday an overdetermined site of pedagogical interventions. Although the introduction of popular culture qua everyday aesthetics in the art curricula might have served as an important critique of institutionalized art, the presumed relevancy of everydayness reproduces a similar scene of subjectification as what one can find from transcendental characterizations of art. Indeed, the fetishization of the immediate seems to be symptomatic to the tradition of art education that bases its societal need on the dialectics between knowledge and non-knowledge; a dialectics where art education serves as the ultimate completion of an educated subjectivity. This is why seeing the everyday as a question of a curricular content, manifested in the division between the familiar (e. g. popular culture) and the unfamiliar (e. g. institutionalized art), makes it merely a reversed image of the institutions that VCAE has attempted to critique.⁸Despite the fact that the relationship between the everyday and art education has been a rather unfashionable topic of discussion after the heydays of VCAE in the mid 2000s, I see that it is worth to reexamine its possible radical characteristics for art education theory. This turns me to Blanchot, a thinker who rejects dialectical structures in his writings and offers a radical alternative to a critical thinking that exhausts itself in its own negativity. For him, the tension between concepts is neither based on either/or dichotomy nor reduced into a pluralistic both, but unfolds the very corrosiveness of language itself. His emphasis on the corrosion rather than in the production of language means that he engages the reader in a thought that puts itself in peril. In terms of my argument here, Blanchot helps to relocate the theorization of the everyday in art education from curricular contents to the ontology of its politics and opens the everyday outside of its predetermined characterizations.
In his essay Everyday Speech, Blanchot makes a repetitive claim that the everyday “escapes.”⁹ In order to understand what does this mean, it is worth quoting the essay at length: “The everyday is no longer the average, statistically established existence of a given society at a given moment; it is a category, a utopia and an Idea, without which one would not know how to get at either hidden present or the discoverable future of manifest beings. Man (the individual of today, of our modern societies) is at once engulfed within and deprived of the everyday. And a third definition: the everyday is also the ambiguity of these two movements, the one and the other hardly graspable.”¹⁰Here, Blanchot acknowledges that the everyday bears the characteristics of a silent backdrop of the society as well as an idealistic frame for a societal change; two characterizations that fit well with the idea of accessibility discussed above. However, his third definition -disrupts such logic: the “ambiguity of these two movements” pushes the everyday away from clear traits of predetermination. As he continues, “the everyday is the inaccessible to which we have always already had access; the everyday is inaccessible, but only insofar as every mode acceding is foreign to it.”¹¹ Thus, Blanchot does not try to position the everyday as a dialectical pair for the non-everyday (like the dichotomy familiar/unfamiliar suggests), since it always escapes the attention that it receives. The everyday is not, then, an empty or idealistic frame for life, but rather a collapse of such framing: “What is proper to the everyday is that it designates us a region or a level of speech where the determinations true and false, like the opposition of yes and no, do not apply – the everyday being always before what affirms it and yet incessantly reconstituting itself beyond all that negates it.”¹² In other words, not merely a vessel that contains the ordinary stuff that people are surrounded by, Blanchot’s everyday unfolds a radical ambiguity at the very center of the ordinary.
Due to this ambiguous characteristic, Blanchot sees that experience of the everyday is not manifested in excitement or familiarity (as Duncum’s “everyday aesthetics” seems to suggest), but in boredom, which, for him, is the closest we can get to the everyday experience. He writes: “Boredom is the everyday become manifest: consequently, the everyday after it has lost its essential – constitutive – trait of being unperceived. Thus the everyday always sends us back to that inapparent and nonetheless unconcealed part of existence that is insignificant because it remains always to the hither side of what signifies it.”¹³If boredom is the “everyday become manifest” (not fully, as Blanchot points out), the everyday loses its operativeness in relation to forms of educational subjectification that equate human life with a clearly defined actualization of one’s existence. The “inapparent and nonetheless unconcealed part of existence” that Blanchot refers to denotes a life that is capable of its own passivity; a life that distracts the logic of recognition that keeps its dialectics running through an endless production of representations. Contra the significance that Duncum relates to the “everyday aesthetics,” it is precisely the insignificance (embodied in boredom) that opens the pedagogy of the Blanchotian everyday to its political potential: it denotes an unknown that, as Blanchot writes, “supposes a relation that is foreign to every exigency of identity, of unity, even of presence.”¹⁴ For Blanchot, working from this unknown is the central task of writing; I see that it could also inform political theorization in art education.
Notably, it would be problematic to see the Blanchotian everyday simply as a liberatory space of politics. As he states, it contains a “dangerous essence” and he agrees with Henri Lefebvre that it is “the medium in which … alienations, fetishisms, and reifications produce their effects.”¹⁵ Nevertheless, he also states that the everyday “is in the street” and that “the man in the street is always on the verge of becoming political man.”¹⁶ By withholding any exhaustive description, Blanchot forces to rethink how the relation between the everyday and its politics becomes constituted. Whereas Duncum seems to base the political potential of the “everyday aesthetics” in familiarity, Blanchot locates this potential in the ambiguity that the state of being “on the verge” of politics entails. To get an idea what such radical ambiguity would mean for political theorization, Blanchot’s response to a questionnaire on committed literature offers a hint: “How to respond to your questionnaire when the writer is always in search of a question that is not asked of him in advance and which obliges him, whenever he believes he can be content with a question, slowly and patiently to put himself into question, faced with the lost question which is no longer the same and makes him turn aside from himself?”¹⁷Following this remark, I suggest that the everyday should be approached as a “lost question;” a question that does not merely challenge the content of art curriculum as a strategy of subjectification, but disrupts the very function of art education itself. As Blanchot writes elsewhere: “how can man – he the universal, the eternal, always accomplishing himself, always accomplished and repeating himself in a Discourse that does no more than endlessly speak itself – not hold to this sufficiency, and go on put himself, as such, in question? Properly speaking, he cannot.”¹⁸For me, the radicalness of Blanchot’s thought stems precisely from this observation. The critique of art education through the everyday in VCAE has not put art education as such in question, but, on the contrary, secured its position as the central element of the completion of one’s subjectivity through the content of art curriculum. Through Blanchot and his conceptualization of the everyday, this endless self-affirmation is rendered inoperative and thrust into the radical unknown that makes art education “turn aside” from itself. For the political theorization in our field, this allows an ontological critique of the sociopolitical projects of art education to emerge, which, I claim, offers more tools to tackle not only the existing order, but also to question the possible futures that art education qua political action tries to promise. While VCAE has helped to develop the sociopolitical theorization in art education, it has also sustained some old boundaries for our thought. Thus, it is important to approach the limits of our language(s) of critique; limits that denote the overdetermined relations between art, education, and the societal context in which they emerge. Blanchotian thought does not offer an easy way out from this problematic, but it does offer ways to put us, as such, in question.

1.) This text, originally presented as a conference paper at the National Art Education Association’s National Convention (Forth Worth, TX) in March 2013, is situated specifically in the North American academic context. For summaries of Visual Culture Art Education in this context, see T. Anderson, ”Roots, reason, and structure: framing visual culture art education”, International Journal of Arts Education, 1 (3), 2003, pp. 5–26; P. Duncum, ”Visual culture art education: why, what and how”, Journal of Art & Design Education, 21 (3), 2002, pp. 14–23; K. Tavin, ”Wrestling with angels, searching for ghosts: toward a critical pedagogy of visual culture”, Studies in Art Education, 44 (3), 2002, pp. 197–213.
2.) Besides that Duncum has been one of the early proponents of art curriculum that deals with popular culture, he consistently used the term everyday in his critique of Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE).
3.) See A. Efland, ”Problems confronting visual culture”, Art Education 58 (6), 2005, pp. 35–40; J. C. Van Camp, ”Visual culture and aesthetics: everything old is new again … or is it?”, Arts Education Policy Review, 106 (1), 2006, pp. 33–37.
4.) P. Duncum, “A case for an art education of everyday aesthetic experiences”, Studies in Art Education 40 (4), 1999, p. 296.
5.) P. Duncum, “Theorising everyday aesthetic experiences with contemporary visual culture”, Visual Arts Research, 28 (2), 2002, p. 5.
6.) Similar ideas about the importance of close relationship between student’s life and school were expressed throughout the 20th century, most importantly by John Dewey. See J. Dewey, The school and the society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL 1990.
7.) Duncum 1999, p. 299.
8.) It is notable that Duncum and other VCAE advocates have later taken a critical stance towards the early developments of VCAE. However, these critiques have not addressed the question of the everyday. For this critique, see P. Duncum, ”Thinking critically about critical thinking: towards a post-critical, dialogic pedagogy of popular visual culture”, International Journal of Education through Art, 4 (3), 2008, pp. 247–257.
9.) M. Blanchot, The infinite conversation. Minneapolis, MN 1993.
10.) Op. cit., p. 239.
11.) Op. cit., p. 245.
12.) Op. cit., p. 242.
13.) Op. cit., p. 242.
14.) Op. cit., p. 300, original emphasis.
15.) Op. cit., p. 244.
16.) Op. cit., p. 240–242.
17.) M. Blanchot, “Refuse the established order”, Paragraph, 30 (3), 2007, p. 20.
18.) Blanchot 1993, p. 207.

From Art Education to artEducation: making the education revolution into the visual arts teaching arena

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:16:15 +0000

“At one very unfortunate moment in history some philistine or group of philistines in a position of power decided to isolate art from education and relegate it from its position in the metadiscipline of knowledge to the discipline and craft where it is today.”¹

Luis Camnitzer

The door of the bus opens and a group of twenty children and their teacher get off. They cross the big courtyard and approach Ship 16, which is located in the back to the left. The teacher knocks on the door and a short and very blonde woman wearing a blue, almost black, coat invites them in. The children feel the urge to run because of the magnitude of the clear space, merely splashed by the residents’ work cubicles, and, when they reach the end, they sit down forming a circle around the woman in the blue coat, because they have already recognized her: Essi Kaussalainen, the Finnish artist who had come to the school a week before and had asked them to work with her on Interior Landscape.
On the second day, to go back to our story about Hall 16, after explaining the rules of the game (do not touch the work of other residents with whom we shared space and do not harm one another), Essi asked the children to sign their artists’ contracts. After this, she disappears for a moment and comes back with a large container filled with flowers that she hands out to each participant. They each choose the flowers they like the most and connect them with themselves, transforming hereby the use of the plants as well as of their bodies and extending the latter in a vegetal form. By using the flowers, they shape part of their new corporal landscape. After this community collective action, Essi asks the children to sit down in a circle and to reflect on what had happened and what knowledge the community had created. Here, every participant explains the -elements that conform their Interior Landscape. After the activity, the children start running again, go through the door, cross the big courtyard and get on the bus empowered as cultural producers and with many questions with no answers.
The sequence that I just described: is it art or education? Is it Art Education or is it precisely the direction we have to go, an experience full of knowledge, process and creativity, an amazing and empowering step, a pleasant experience that connects us to reality, gives us knowledge and helps us critically reflect on what is happening in the world from the visual arts perspective?

Spending the imaginary: from Art Education to -artEducation
I have a very clear opinion on what has to come next in art education, and that is exactly what I am going to write about in this text. But I want to work from a point of possibilities, from the fact that in this moment there are professionals working towards change. I do not want to work only on the NOs, on what Art Education is NOT², I want to work on the YES and empower teachers of visual arts to carry out the paradigm shift that visual arts education needs.
Outside our field of work, the paradigm shift, the -educational revolution or how I call it, the #rEDUvolution, is already a common place. As of now, there are many voices, led by Ken Robinson, claiming for the change and it is absolutely evident that the change in methods in the world we live in is urgent and necessary.³ But, what happens in our field, in the didactics of visual arts? Art is a process inherent to the human being; therefore, this can be said about its teaching too. Throughout the history of mankind, new generations have been taught the forms and theories of artistic creation, mainly in oral form, and in each time and space adapted to their own contexts. In the present time, Art Education is anchored within a paradigm in which it does not belong. It is deeply rooted in school and dissociated from the world where contemporary art is created, and for various reasons it is bound to an obsolete model whose backbone is the production of so-called crafts. Today is the day when we have to reclaim the necessity of change in our field’s theories and practices and move from Art Education (I will use this term in this text in order to describe the most traditional practices that I consider need to be changed) to artEducation, a discipline founded on a series of main concepts.
The first key notion of this discipline is the idea of -removing the boundaries between Art and Education, bringing Bauman’s concept of liquidity into our field of work. In the perception of the most traditional Art Education, there is a tacit separation between that which is Art and what is Education, a notion which is definitely abandoned in artEducation. The second key idea is that Art Education does not mean KIDS painting. Our discipline is not intended to be exclusively for children; it is an area of knowledge whose practices are meant for individuals of any age and that, just as the rest of educational practices, has to be oriented towards intergenerationality.
The next main idea is to link two very concrete physical contexts: the school and the artist’s atelier. artEducation proposes that the learning related to arts and visual culture takes place anytime and anywhere, resulting in what we may call expanded artEducation, a concept that comes from the ideas of Dewey⁴ (Art as Experience) and Kaprow⁵ (The Education of the Un-Artist).
Besides, Art Education is not a discipline based on producing beautiful objects and pretty things. If we analyze the visual complexity in which societies will have to develop in the future, we are going to have to reclaim the work related to visual elements as one of the basic competences of every citizen.

Emancipatory knowledge
The previous ideas can be summarized in one statement: artEducation works on the basis of emancipatory knowledge, developed through a complex process and whose main way of working will be the creative remix. Let us analyze this statement in a more detailed way.
First of all, one of the main differences between Art Education and artEducation is that the latter accepts that any visual product surrounding us is an intellectual exercise whose true importance resides in the meanings that it generates; meanings that the spectators produce based on the body of knowledge they possess, their ability to associate and the context. The knowledge created from visual products is not trivial, it is knowledge that profoundly affects us; it is political and inclusive. ArtEducation not only addresses the color combination, but it addresses the question if a color combination is necessary. It asks who decides to carry out the color combination.⁶ It has to do with the reaction provoked by how my motivation for buying something unnecessary is influenced by the colors. In artEducation, manual and technical skills are part of the possibilities and very important competences, but they are not the axis of a world saturated by images.
In order to consider this intellectual implication of the visual worlds that surround us, artEducation works with macro-narratives as well as with micro-narratives on the same level. It incorporates the macro-narratives as basic knowledge in art class and emphasizes the importance of the analysis, and not only the construction of images. In both cases (analysis and production) we have to incorporate two essential elements: visual culture and contemporary art, both understood as visual macro- and micro-narratives. Visual language is the system mostly used in western societies today, because of its outstanding communication capabilities. ArtEducation promotes the incorporation of that group of images which are not considered artistic; contemporary visual culture understood as the channel that delivers the macro-narratives to us. This notion is part of the art curricula described in the 1996 book Postmodern Art Education: An Approach to Curriculum and is one of the strongest tendencies in our field of study, especially within the United States of America, where professionals like Kerry Freedman⁷ or Paul Duncum⁸ have developed a line of work called Art Education for Visual Culture.
But, let us not forget the micro-narratives. In spite of everything (and this is a reality that I face in every country I visit), when teachers dare to introduce art in the classroom, the artists and pieces selected very rarely would qualify as contemporary. Rubens or Picasso are probably the most commonly used artists, despite the fact that there are extraordinary visual representations made in our present time that we decide not to incor-porate into our practices. This leads to a complete ignorance on contemporary art within our societies, to its lack of appreciation and often to the most absolute disdain. In artEducation, just as we are using publicity in real time (the campaign that is being shown all around the city and during every commercial break), we have to incorporate contemporary artists, whose languages and techniques, even though we resist to accept it, perfectly fit with the aesthetics and the world envisioned by our students. Students who are educated through videos and who have no problems in understanding video art, students who instantly comprehend the message of Dignatario, Nadín Ospina’s pre-Colombian style sculpture made with terracotta that depicts Bart Simpson. Contemporary artists live immersed in social reality, so their work deals with current subjects: from pedophilia to maternity, from the destruction of nature to any sort of terrorism, from quantum physics to football. Contemporary art can therefore be linked to any topic and we can use it as an ideal way of beginning any content discussion in class. In short, contemporary art needs to be established as content in our daily work as educators, without eliminating the teaching of art from other periods.
It is easy to create hegemonic models of visual re-presentation. Because they are highly available, it is much easier to reproduce macro-narratives (images that were created by those in power, for example advertising, commercial cinema, many informative images and certain types of art) than to search for micro-narratives (images created by those not in power, for example counter-advertising and contemporary art, as well as craftwork or the visual products created by the students themselves, etc.). I still remember with astonishment a case repeated in several books dedicated to visual education: in these books, as an example to explain how a cross composition works, almost all authors chose a mythical piece, Rubens’s The Rape of the Sabine Women. In this painting, a group of terrified women, about to be raped, try to escape the torture and abuse, but, despite this incredible topic, teachers are still using it -(either on the book or by projecting it on the wall) to -explain how a specific form of composition works. By using it as didactic material, we are not only showing the students what a cross composition is, but we are teaching them to witness a future rape, we are telling them something like “this image is so perfect and its author is so important that its topic, sexual abuse on a group of women, is secondary”. This is what happens to images when we do not think of them in pedagogy, this is how they work when we are not able to reach the depths and only stay on the surface: we turn into transmitters of other’s ideas, which very often go against our own.
In order to make Art Education more contemporary, we have to start using symmetric images, that is to say we have to think about what we choose and project the same amount of macro-narratives as of micro-narratives. As professionals representing artEducation, we have to rethink the images that we work with and reorganize our selection based on the criterion of critical symmetry. The goal is to incorporate globalized as well as local images into our activities, created by men as well as by women, from the West and from other cultures, images that belong to high culture (museums, -scientific journals, renowned documentaries and official maps, etc.) and images from low culture (music videos, celebrity magazines, video games, etc.). We have to choose images from the past and the present, the ones that we like or we think are interesting, but also the ones that the students like and are interested in.
Finally, I would like to mention a process that we as 21^st century art educators have to refuse to participate in, and that is to decorate the institution where we work when our superiors want to look good in front of (mainly) the parents (when you have to organize “something pretty” to put on the wall, etc.). In dramatic contrast to the figure of the traditional art teacher, we have to create the figure of the artEducator, an intellectual who works on the interesting crossroads of art and education, where both fields meet and their borders dissolve. This is an expert who promotes art as a pedago-gical process and pedagogy as an artistic process, a professional with a hybrid profile who tears down the bipolarity of professional stereotypes that place artists and educators in opposite spheres, a professional whose work is genuinely intellectual, political and transfor-mative, along the same line as the Critical Pedagogy theorists who write about “teachers as transformative intellectuals”⁹ The next step is to visualize the intellectual value of the artEducator’s work and incorporate knowledge as the backbone of our practices.

Complex Process
The second important issue regards time, because traditional methods in art class inevitably teach the idea that artistic products are produced as if by magic: it is neither necessary to think about it nor to plan it and there are no different production stages. Everything is done spontaneously, in the moment, and this is why many people who visit museums think “I can do this too”, because no one has shown them the amount of effort, planning, time and energy that hide behind an apparently simple piece of art.
For this reason, the second key notion that we need in art education is the value of the process; the idea that any product requires planning and a lot of time from the moment it is designed to its exhibition. We urgently need the people involved in visual art related projects to understand the importance of transmitting exactly that, that all cultural producers work on projects and that a project is a temporal construct divided into different phases. In artEducation, just as it happens in the liquid world we live in, the true objective is to experience an object; an experience which is based on an intention and whose purpose is related to a socially relevant topic, committed to reality, developed with long term planning and produced in different phases. A work that is to be undertaken with passion and discipline and is created in a community, in a collaborative manner, the way todays artists work, in connection with other agents and combining the community’s different sources of knowledge in a rhizomic way, without privileging one knowledge over the other. This work comes into contact with the real professional world and therefore with its mechanisms of legitimization, which in the present day translates into the work’s exhibition in prestigious cultural institutions.
The process not only involves the production phase, but also analysis. While in traditional art education the emphasis is absolutely put on production, on the necessity to build an object that we can take home in order to temporally decorate our refrigerator, in art-Education, the analysis process is equally important. We support the notion that to analyze is an act of -cultural production, just as Spanish artist Joan Font-cuberta -proposes: “The most genuine and coherent -creative act of our time does not consist in producing new images, but in assigning meaning to the existing ones.”¹⁰ In -artEducation, we have to design at least 50% of activities related to analysis, because the processes of analyzing, deconstructing and reflecting are absolutely on the same level as producing. Moreover, it has to become a habit, it should become the recount that my daughters do when they watch a movie and estimate how many girls are shown and if they play secondary or leading roles.

Creative Remix
Emancipatory knowledge and process cannot move forward without creativity, but the latter understood in a contemporary way, as a remix. When creativity is mentioned within the context of art education, it always -refers to the students’ creativity. In artEducation, creativity will also be the teacher’s basic competence, a teacher who sees her or his role as a cultural producer. Nonetheless, in a hyper technical world where the figure of an expert has been entirely modified, to be a cultural producer is something very different to the notion we had in the past and it may be similar to how Nicolas Bourriaud defines a visual artist: “[For present artists] It is no longer a matter of elaborating a form on the basis of a raw material but working with objects that are already in circulation on the cultural market […]. Notions of originality (being at the origin of) and even of creation (making something from nothing) are slowly blurred in this new cultural landscape marked by the twin figures of the DJ and the programmer, both of whom have the task of selecting cultural objects and inserting them into new contexts.”¹¹Bourriaud is one of the most interesting theorists reflecting on the roles of today’s artist. Investigative and critical, his two books Relational Aesthetics¹² and Postproduction¹³ can be interpreted as essays on contemporary art or essays intimately related to pedagogy. According to Bourriaud, in the 21^st century the term author (regardless if we are musicians, chefs or teachers) acquires a new meaning: we create on the foundations of other people’s ideas. The notion of producing knowledge in a rhizomatic way, laid out by French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari,¹⁴ proposes that to copy is to (re)generate, such that a DJ generates a personal discourse when arranging other’s music in a specific way. In Postproduction, Bourriaud defends the theory of the artist as a DJ, a creator who works with what has been created, because “[a]ll these artistic practices […] have in common the recourse to already produced forms. They testify to a willingness to inscribe the work of art within a network of signs and significations, instead of considering it an autonomous or original form”.¹⁵Bourriaud’s conviction is clear: it is unthinkable for us to create something out of nothing, a notion that is directly linked to the rhizome concept. When creating, we always start from a previous input, in a way that we make (new) connections and the genuine and completely original creation loses its meaning. For present artists, to reprogram may be a new verb, but if we analyze it thoroughly, it is something that we teachers have always done, because the content that we work with has hardly ever been entirely ours. For this reason, educational work in the 21^st century has to be founded on the notion of the teacher as a DJ, specifying our work as producers of remixes and validating the idea that a remix is a creation, not a copy.

In the beginning of this text, I sustained that a paradigm shift within educational practices in visual arts is a basic necessity. This challenge is to be addressed on the basis of artEducation, a model which produces emancipatory knowledge developed through a complex process and whose main working method is the creative remix. What is yet to come is to make these ideas our own and to transform them in order to make them tangible in classrooms, museums and hospitals, out on the streets and in our homes. If visual art education is not transformed in an area of contemporary knowledge, its own obsolescence will eliminate it. This is what is yet to come.

Translation: Dana Ersig / 2014.

1.) Luis Camnitzer, Introducción. Educación para el arte. Arte para la educación. Porto Alegre 2009. (www.yumpu.com/es/document/view/14213328/arte-e-educacao-fundacao-bienal-do-mercosul/287; also: http://mariaacaso.blogspot.de/2013/10/2013-el-museo-es-una-escuela-i-la-9.html)
2.) María Acaso, La educación artística no son manualidades. Nuevas prácticas en la enseñanza de las artes y la cultura visual. Madrid 2009.
3.) María Acaso, rEDUvolution. Hacer la revolución en la educación. Barcelona 2013.
4.) John Dewey, Experience and education. New York 1883.
5.) Allan Kaprow, “The Education of the Un-Artist”, in: Idem, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, Berkeley 2003.
6.) María Acaso, La educación artística no son manualidades. Nuevas prácticas en la enseñanza de las artes y la cultura visual. Madrid 2009.
7.) Kerry Freedman, Teaching Visual Culture: Curriculum, Aesthetics and the Social Life of Art. NY/Reston 2003.
8.) Paul Duncum, Visual culture in the art class: case studies. Reston 2006.
9.) Henry Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. Santa Barbara 1988.
10.) Original Spanish quote: “El acto de creación más genuino y coherente en nuestros días no consiste en producir nuevas imágenes, sino en asignar sentido a las existentes” (Joan Fontcuberta et al., Contranatura, Barcelona 2001.)
11.) Nicolas Bourriaud, Postproduction: Culture as Screenplay: How Art Reprograms the World. New York 2002, p. 6. (http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Bourriaud-Postproduction2.pdf)
12.) Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics. Dijon 2002.
13.) Nicolas Bourriaud, Postproduction, 2002.
14.) Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, L’Anti-Œdipe. Paris 1972.
15.) Nicolas Bourriaud, Postproduction, 2002.

Das Ganze nicht nur ein kleiner Teil – visuelle Kultur als neue Orientierung

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:16:15 +0000

Wer nach der nächsten Kunstpädagogik fragt, geht stillschweigend davon aus, dass die Kunst der nächsten Gesellschaft relevant für die Orientierung in Bildung und Ausbildung ist. Dieser Artikel geht davon aus, dass die nächste Kunstpädagogik keine „Kunst“pädagogik mehr sein wird. Hier wird gefragt, welche Fragen sich das Fach, das die Kunstpädagogik beerben wird, stellen muss.

Prolog
Derzeit gibt es weltweit 3,5 Milliarden Mobiltelefone, die nicht älter als zwei Jahre sind¹. Es gibt also mehr als 3,5 Milliarden funktionierende Kameras. Bilder -machen, verschicken, empfangen oder abrufen, für viele kein Problem mehr. Mein Vater war immer entsetzt über meine Art, Schokolade zu essen: „Du isst ja die Schokolade wie Brot.“ Er selbst hat in seiner Kindheit Schokolade nicht gekaut, sondern behutsam im Mund zergehen lassen. Als die Kunst sich entwickelte, war die Herstellung von Bildern aufwändig und kom-pliziert, Bilder waren so selten und begehrt wie Schokolade vor 100 Jahren. Deshalb wurden sie immer wieder und lang angeschaut. Diese Seltenheit hat die Art der Bildbetrachtung hervorgebracht, die seit dem 19. Jahrhundert als Kunsterfahrung gilt. Mit den vielen Bildern ändert sich da momentan einiges.

Institution oder Funktion
Früher war es einfach: Schule hat bewährte Traditionen und Wissen an die nächste Generation „weitergegeben“. Heute ist es schwieriger: Schule, Bildung und Ausbildung werden als Investition gesehen. Damit werden die Zukunft und ihre Herausforderungen interessant.
Den Gegenstand der Kunstpädagogik können wir unter zwei Aspekten sehen. Einmal als das, was Lehrpläne und Veröffentlichungen unter dem Fach verstehen: Kunst, ihre Vermittlung und ihre pädagogischen Möglichkeiten. Wir können sie aber auch von der Funktion her sehen: Als Teil der Schule soll sie den Schülerinnen und Schülern und der Gesellschaft dabei helfen, mit der eigenen Identität, mit den Bildern, der Visualität, den relevanten Formen der Kommunikation etc. -zurechtzukommen. Genauso lässt sich die nächste Kunst als Kontinuität ihrer Institutionen oder ihrer Funktionen betrachten. Neue Medien und Techniken verändern die Welt sozial, ökonomisch und kommunikativ. Das bedeutet oft: Institutionen verlieren an Einfluss oder verschwinden, weil andere Institutionen ihre Funktionen übernehmen. Digitale Techniken und Programme verändern die Gesellschaft und damit auch die Kunst und ihre Pädagogik als Institutionen. Diese verlieren wohl Macht und Kontrolle.
Hard- und Software sind billig und einfach zu bedienen. Mit ihnen lassen sich Bilder und andere visuelle Zeichen ohne aufwändige technische Ausbildung herstellen und manipulieren. Varianten sind schnell gemacht und Rückgängig-Funktionen machen sie schnell wieder ungeschehen. Einfach und angstfrei experimentieren die Nutzer und lernen entsprechend schnell. Tutorials werben auf Videoplattformen um „Schüler“. Künstler wie Kunstlehrer haben Konkurrenz bekommen.
Das gilt nicht nur für die technische Seite. Kreativität lässt sich beschreiben als neuartige Kombination von bereits Vorhandenem. Viele der Videos und Bilder von Laien auf Foto- und Videoplattformen lassen Kunstausstellungen langweilig aussehen, z. B. die derzeit populären Memes (siehe: http://knowyourmeme.com/). Themen und Regeln provozieren hier durch die Arbeit vieler in kurzer Zeit neue unverhoffte Ideen und Bilder.
Mangel an Speicherplatz charakterisiert traditionelle, staatliche Kunstinstitutionen. Er zwingt zur Auswahl: was wird dargestellt, was wird aufgeführt, was wird angekauft, was wird ausgestellt? In der bildenden Kunst gilt das für das Material, für das Können, das in den Körpern der Künstler als Folge aufwändigen und langen Lernens „verfügbar“ ist, und für die Institutionen, die Museen, Ausstellungen, Messen, Galerien und deren Künstler. Das ergibt zwangsläufig einen normativen Kunstbegriff: Kunst ist Qualität. Speichermedien werden größer und billiger. Damit wird diese Auswahl und damit Kontrolle überflüssig. Und: die Bilder sind via -Telekommunikation so gut wie überall zugänglich, man muss nicht eigens anreisen. Die schiere Menge interessanter Bilder beschleunigt wohl auch die Art der Betrachtung.
Die Ausdifferenzierung der Konsumgüter hat zur Ausweitung der ästhetischen und symbolischen Sphäre geführt. Dinge des täglichen Gebrauchs fungieren auch als Zeichen.² Die Konsumkultur ist in den entwickelten Ländern ein großes ästhetisches Lernprojekt³, das auch den traditionellen Kunstunterricht herausfordert.⁴ In der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts sind die Konsumenten zur Kultur tragenden Schicht geworden, sie stehen als Auftraggeber hinter wichtigen kulturellen Leistungen wie Stadien, Flughäfen, Brücken, Computerspielen, Filmen, langen Friedenszeiten, Internet, differenziertes Nahrungsangebot usw.. Diese kulturelle Produktion versteht sich nur in Ausnahmefällen in der Tradition der (bürgerlichen) Kunst.
Und nicht zuletzt: Die Kunst erweist sich als eine Frage des Geschmacks einer mehr oder weniger kleinen Szene, die ihren Anspruch auf Sonderstellung nicht mehr (lange) wird durchsetzen können.⁵ Die Kunst ist eine von vielen visuellen Kulturen, sie ist lediglich für eine wenige Menschen von Bedeutung.⁶ Sie kann keinen Anspruch auf allgemeine Verbindlichkeit mehr stellen.

Die Zukunft: Visuelle Kultur
Die zeitgenössische visuelle Produktion außerhalb der Kunst ist spannend und einflussreich. Schülerinnen und Schüler interessieren sich dafür. Bilder und visuelle Gestaltung bestimmen öffentliche und private Kommunikation⁷ ebenso wie unsere Entscheidungen in Politik und Konsum. In ihnen äußern sich unsere Werte, Hoffnungen und Befürchtungen. Mit ihnen bilden und zeigen wir Zugehörigkeiten und Unterschiede, mit ihnen konstruieren wir unsere Identitäten. Und wir lassen uns von ihnen stundenlang unterhalten. Wir nutzen Bilder als Einstieg in Tagträume ebenso wie zur Dokumentation unseres Lebens und zur Beobachtung und Kritik unserer Kultur. Wir gewinnen mit ihnen wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse und nutzen sie zur Überwachung des öffentlichen Raums. Bilder und visuelle Gestaltung durchdringen so gut wie alle Lebensbereiche.
Die bildende Kunst ist ein Teil dieser visuellen Kultur. Künstlerische Äußerungen werden im indirekten Modus auf die gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit bezogen: Sie werden nicht wortwörtlich sondern im übertragenen Sinn verstanden. Als Beuys geschrieben hat „Hiermit trete ich aus der Kunst aus“, hat das niemand ernst genommen; denn er hat es ja als Künstler gesagt. Dagegen sind viele Teile der visuellen Kultur ernst gemeint. Eine Pädagogik, die sich um Bilder kümmern will, muss vor allem die behandeln, die wortwörtlich gemeint sind und Grundlage für unser privates, ökonomisches und politisches Handeln sind. Damit verbunden ist dann immer auch die Frage nach der Macht, nicht zuletzt danach, wer die semiotische Arbeit des Verstehens leisten muss.⁸ Dafür muss die nächste „Kunst“pädagogik entsprechende Methoden entwickeln.⁹Daneben sollte sie auch beobachten, wie Funktionen, die sie heute der Kunst zuschreibt, schon jetzt und in Zukunft außerhalb der Kunstszene erfüllt werden.
– Beobachtung der Kultur leisten z. B. TV-Shows, Konsumprodukte, Comedy, Jugendkulturen, Foto- und Videoplattformen, Computerspiele &c.
– Identität wird im Tourismus¹⁰, beim Konsum¹¹, in sozialen Medien und in Spielen ausprobiert, entwickelt und realisiert
– den anderen Blick auf Welt und Gesellschaft bieten Reisen, Spielfilme, Computerspiele, Internetmemes
– Alternativen zur eigenen Weltsicht gibt es in anderen Kulturen und kulturellen Szenen und werden etwa auf Foto- und Videoplattformen präsentiert
– Innovationen und Kreativität gibt in den Medien- und Konsumprodukten

Hinsichtlich der visuellen Kultur wird etwa zu fragen sein:
– Wie funktioniert sie? Wie kann der einzelne sie beeinflussen, sich gegen Macht wehren und selbst Macht ausüben?
– Welche Rolle spielen die verschiedenen Genres?
– Welche sozialen Funktionen werden wie durch Bilder und visuelle Gestaltung erfüllt?
– Wie werden Weltvorstellungen entwickelt und kommuniziert?
– Wie steht es mit der Macht? Welche Interessen zeigen sich? Wer darf wen wie anschauen?
– Wer muss sich um die semiotische Arbeit kümmern?
– Welche Rolle spielen visuelle Elemente in der Unterhaltung?
– …
– Wie können Schülerinnen und Schüler sich dieser Kultur bewusst werden?
– Elemente werden nicht als Texte sondern … verstanden.

Die nächste „Kunst“pädagogik stellt nicht das „Bild“ oder das „Werk“ ins Zentrum, sondern die Situation, in der es verwendet wird, und das Problem, das mit ihm gelöst werden soll.¹² Dazu braucht es Methoden und -didaktische Forschung.¹³Das ist vermutlich nicht einfach. Im Vergleich dazu ist die zeitgenössische und historische bildende Kunst ein überschaubarer Bereich. Der nächsten Kunstpädagogik muss es gelingen, den Schülerinnen und Schülern an ausgewählten Beispielen allgemeine Strukturen und Regeln visueller Kulturen verständlich zu machen und ihnen ermöglichen, sich aktiv daran zu beteiligen und Einfluss zu nehmen.
Dabei geht es weder darum, die visuelle Kultur affirmativ zu behandeln, noch sie einfach zu kritisieren. Es geht um Verständnis und um die Fähigkeit, sich darin zu verhalten und sie entsprechend zu verändern. Nebenbei: Die ökologischen Kosten dieser Kultur erweisen sich als exorbitant und lebensbedrohlich.

1.) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobiltelefon/Tabellen_und_Grafiken#Verkaufszahlen_und_Marktanteile_nach_Unternehmen [4.1.2015]
2.) Helene Karmasin, Produkte als Botschaften. Wien/Frankfurt/M. 1998.
3.) Wolfgang Ullrich, Alles nur Konsum. Kritik der warenästhetischen Erziehung. Berlin 2013.
4.) Franz Billmayer, „Shopping – Ein Angebot zur Entlastung der Kunstpädagogik“, Zeitschrift Kunst Medien Bildung | zkmb, Text im Diskurs, 1.10.2011, www.zkmb.de/index.php?id=73 [6.1.2014]
5.) Christian Demand, Wie kommt die Ordnung in die Kunst? Springe 2010, S. 285.
6.) Ben Lewis, “A Plea for Realism”, in: Johannes M. Hedinger, Torsten Meyer (Hg.), What’s Next? Kunst nach der Krise. Berlin 2013, S. 303f.
7.) Gunther R. Kress, Theo van Leeuwen, Reading images – the grammar of visual design, London 2006, pp. XV, 291.
8.) Gunther R. Kress, Multimodality – Exploring contemporary methods of communication. London 2010, S. 72.
9.) Helene Illeris, Karsten Arvedsen, „Visuelle Phänomene und Ereignisse – Überlegungen zum Lehrplan der visuellen Kulturpädagogik“, in: Kunibert Bering et al. (Hg.), Visual Learning – Positionen im internationalen Vergleich, Oberhausen 2013, S. 366–386.
Karsten Arvedsen, „Probleme im Kunstunterricht – Kunstunterricht mit Problemen“, in: Franz Billmayer (Hg.), Schwierige SchülerInnen im Kunstunterricht, Flensburg 2013, S. 13–29.
10.) Franz Billmayer, „Tourism a Better Kind of Art Education?“ Paper präsentiert bei der InSEA-Tagung in Rovaniemi 2010, www.bilderlernen.at/theorie/tourism_artedu.html [13.1.2014]
11.) Billmayer 2011.
12.) Franz Billmayer, „Bild als Text – Bild als Werkzeug“, in: Barbara Lutz-Sterzenbach, Maria Peters, Frank Schulz, Bild und Bildung. Praxis, Reflexion, Wissen im Kontext von Kunst und Medien, München 2014.
13.) www.bilderlernen.at [4.1.2015]