Postmodernism+in+Art+Education;+a+brief+history

In the state of Pennsylvania, Art Educators in a public school setting must hold a Kindergarten through Twelfth grade Certificate of Instruction. Public schools in Pennsylvania adhere to the Department of Education’s Academic Standards (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2010). The Academic Standards for the Arts and Humanities state that the interconnected arts and humanities areas are divided into these standards categories: They go on to assert that the Academic Standards for the Arts and Humanities define the content for planned instruction that will result in measurable gains for all students in knowledge and skills and provide a basis of learning for continued study in the arts (Greer, 2004). This type of Art Education is often referred to as D.B.A.E., or Discipline Based Art Education. The intent of this method of teaching is to merge these four disciplines, rather than teach them separately in an effort to unify each lesson. For example, rather than teaching a lesson solely on the history of cave painting, the teacher would introduce the work of cave art in a more complex series of lessons. The class would learn the history surrounding cave art while critically responding to the work by discussing the formal elements of art and principles of design. Class discussions would surround the seemingly unanswerable questions about cave art: What did the work mean? Why was it made? Then students would produce a work of art based this idea or process. Activities and skills presented in this manner produce an evolution of understanding in art education. The art of children becomes more reflective of concepts learned, in addition to being examples of expressive efforts (Project Zero [HGSE], 2010). This pedagogical structure pushes art educators out of a product-driven world and into one that is more process-oriented. Thus raising the question: how do we develop an art program which emphasizes process rather than only focusing on product? (Pfaff, 2010) It is safe to say that art educators are more interested in quality over quantity, but in an educational system that can be ignorant of the artistic process, how do we get our kids to create a product that is reflective of what they have learned? Often administrators, parents and educators of other subject areas base their assumption of what a student has learned in art on what the product “looks like”. How do we tell Mrs. Smith that her 5th grade son Johnny can readily identify why his drawing of a cat was created with warm colors, explain how the composition is balanced and unified, all the while making a historical connection to Egyptian Art; but it won’t be in the art show because it doesn’t hold the same aesthetic merit as the other students’ in the class? Or do we put less aesthetically pleasing work on display regardless of public opinion? At a time when funding for art programs is being cut, how do we empower our students to produce high quality work with a focus on process while at the same time creating visual appeal? Kerry Freedman (2003) believes that art educators can have it all, a high-quality product that results from an intense study of process, through a postmodernist approach to art education. This philosophy combines D.B.A.E with the theory that art educators need to provide students with the guidance to respond to the rapidly growing visual culture that surrounds us. Visual Culture includes fine arts, tribal arts, advertising, popular film and video, folk art, television and other performance, housing and apparel design, computer game and toy design along with a countless number of means of visual communication and production (Freedman, 2003). To understand art education today is to embrace these 21st century forms of art production, while guiding our students to make interdisciplinary and historical connections. In order to provide students with the opportunity to produce high-quality work, the quality of our art curriculum content must be redefined. Instructional methods must be reconsidered in relation to a more contemporary experience (Freedman, 2003). Quality work can no longer be judged on the fact that it hangs in a museum or that it produces a cultural capital. We are surrounded with images that do not always reflect our preconceived notions of quality. Many students are at liberty to see videos on “You Tube”, or artwork that is posted to a Blog, or a t-shirt designed by a friend, or a room decorated by a family member – these artistic products may not always reflect a successful aesthetic. Boundaries between these various art forms need to be broken down; our assumptions of quality must be questioned (Darts, 2010). In order to design a curriculum that can accomplish a modern, ideal experience for our students, three major attributes need to be considered: an emphasis on art, the skills necessary to practice art, and information presented in a structured way. The curriculum must also be comprised of activities derived from the disciplines of studio practice, aesthetics, history and criticism – allowing information, concepts and skills to be introduced in a sequence that leads to the development of the understanding art (Greer, 2004). The best-laid curriculum, however, can be extraneous if the educator is not willing or capable to implement its intention. Through a Harvard Graduate School Study, “The Qualities of Quality in Arts Education”, it was determined that drive for quality is a very personal journey. For most art educators involved in this particular study, ideas about what constitutes a quality curriculum are intrinsically tied to their own values and fundamental issues of identity (Project Zero [HGSE], 2010). Ideas about quality can not exist independently without the mention of process. Designing the best art program possible must include considerations of administration, pedagogical knowledge, and the mission and goals of the individual program. A shared vision of the importance of process in the curriculum must be evident to all parties involved: teachers, administrators, parents and students (Greer, 2004). Arts educators hold many different purposes for their programs, courses or projects. At any given time, the priority of those purposes may shift or evolve. With a certain group of students, the emphasis may be on developing technical skills. With others working on responsibility and respect may be a critical task. And with another, responding to artwork may be of utmost importance. None of these goals diminishes the importance of the others. Assessment of particular groups at particular moments will determine quality and process (Project Zero [HGSE], 2010). The modern day art curriculum must allow for freedom in quality products through process-based teaching. It must be a living, breathing document that in and of itself is a creative production. It will continually change as it is implemented, criticized and revised. It is influenced by the constraints of its institution, talents of the teachers and, at any given moment, the vision of its students (Freedman, 2003). Once this understanding is shared and embraced, the classroom execution of the curriculum can thrive. Students’ construction of knowledge can be enhanced as they work with teachers to take part in the process of art history, art aesthetics, art criticism and art production. In a 21st century art classroom community the environment must be structured and organized in a way that students understand goals and objects while at the same time allowing for freedom of expression. David Darts, professor of art education at New York University believes that students today are in the “Age of Participation” (Darts, 2010). Due to visual advances in technology, students are constantly invited to participate in creative decisions whether they realize it or not. Websites are now interactive, software is more accessible, and videogames require personal input; all allowing for creative decision-making. As art teachers, we can take advantage of this shift in visual culture by supporting our students as they are introduced and accustomed to the fast paced new world of creative participation. Giving them the tools to understand the qualities of the process of art, breaking down a successful aesthetic compared to an unsuccessful aesthetic is now giving them 21st century skills (Greer, 2004). A focus on process is imperative to our art curriculum, and if it is set-up and executed correctly, will produce the high-quality results being sought. Showing the school community that a successful aesthetic means more than a preconceived notion of what “looks good” will take time. It may take a few months of less aesthetically pleasing showcases along side hard evidence of process-learning to show that art (visual & creative process) is an evolving discipline, reflective of its culture. Over time, high-quality process will equal high-quality product if a common understanding of the 21st century art curriculum can be achieved.
 * Production, Performance and Exhibition of Dance, Music, Theatre and Visual Arts
 * Historical and Cultural Contexts
 * Critical Response
 * Aesthetic Response