Search

The debate over copying in the art classroom is a longstanding and contentious one. In the past, the discussion has been erroneously characterized as a two-sided argument between those who view copying as the vilest of crimes to be perpetrated in an art classroom and those who see in it a useful and even essential tool for learning. In the last decade, a new emphasis has been placed in academic circles, and especially within art education, on the potential for studio practice as a site for the creation of knowledge. The research presented in this paper stems from work done in an artist's studio. This research is part of a larger ongoing project that stems from the author's personal interest in the Swiss sculptor and painter Alberto Giacometti (1901-1966). Some time ago, his curiosity concerning Giacometti's working methods led him to several initial creative experiments which in turn have led him to thinking about questions concerning how artistic research in general and research into artists in particular is approached. Focussing principally on Giacometti's paintings, the author explores the practical question of how Giacometti worked in his studio through a physical recreation using practical working methods rather than from a purely conceptual basis. (Contains 3 figures and 5 endnotes.)

In recent decades, the field of art education has seen an increasing interest in issues of social justice and social reconstruction which has led to pre-service art educators often being encouraged to include potentially controversial topics in their pedagogy. Surprisingly, however, there seems to have been little concurrent discussion concerning the inherent risks involved in introducing polemical themes within the classroom. Indeed, despite its obvious importance, the subject of censorship is often given little attention in art education circles, save for when it has already become an active problem, such as when an instructor is accused of censorship by a student, or when forces outside the classroom seek to involve themselves in pedagogical decisions. In this article, I describe my experience creating and implementing an undergraduate pre-service art education course on the subject of censorship. I begin by examining my students' reactions to some of the themes explored, and then explain how discussing cases of art censorship and controversy can serve as a platform for introducing students to the key role that context plays in how we perceive, value and react to artworks. Finally, I make the argument that by including censorship as a subject within their curriculum, teachers can help students better to navigate the psychological, moral and ethical complexities of contemporary art making.

With art education at Concordia University (Montreal, Canada) celebrating 50 years of program delivery, this article offers a self-study history of the university's community art education program for undergraduate artist-teachers. Drawing on case study, archival, and oral history methods, this research situates key program events within their university and Montreal contexts and addresses three questions: How did community art education emerge as a teaching direction at Concordia University? What key moments, projects, and themes emerge from a historical review of the past 50 years of curriculum development and teaching activities? What does a review of the history of the teaching of community art education at Concordia University suggest for its future and for the work of other historical researchers? The article identifies practice and collaboration as two enduring themes, and ends with guiding questions to encourage future research.

Abstract: In recent decades, the field of art education has seen an increasing interest in issues of social justice and social reconstruction which has led to pre‐service art educators often being encouraged to include potentially controversial topics in their pedagogy. Surprisingly, however, there seems to have been little concurrent discussion concerning the inherent risks involved in introducing polemical themes within the classroom. Indeed, despite its obvious importance, the subject of censorship is often given little attention in art education circles, save for when it has already become an active problem, such as when an instructor is accused of censorship by a student, or when forces outside the classroom seek to involve themselves in pedagogical decisions. In this article, I describe my experience creating and implementing an undergraduate pre‐service art education course on the subject of censorship. I begin by examining my students’ reactions to some of the themes explored, and then explain how discussing cases of art censorship and controversy can serve as a platform for introducing students to the key role that context plays in how we perceive, value and react to artworks. Finally, I make the argument that by including censorship as a subject within their curriculum, teachers can help students better to navigate the psychological, moral and ethical complexities of contemporary art making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Review of Art Education: Research & Issues is the property of Canadian Society for Education Through Art (CSEA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The act of copying has a long history of polemic within the discipline of art education; a debate rekindled as the artist/teacher phenomenon has brought more practicing artists into the field. How, then, does one learn from copying? What can, in practical terms, be learnt from it and what does it in fact entail? Using a hybrid research methodology based on self-reflective studio practice, I will demonstrate that this apparently simple act can serve not only as a basis for a multi-faceted approach to studio-based research but also as an original and exciting framework for teaching art in the classroom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]