Post #1

After reading Olivia Gude's articles, my mindset about curriculum of teaching art in the 21st century has changed drastically. In grade school and even in current college age classes, the stress on the elements and principles has always been present. They were an easy way for teachers to explain and talk about "good" art. Gude calls this technique the 7+7 model. Her most convincing argument for me was one that she made early on in her first article, "Postmodern Principles". Gude explains that the elements and principles that are used in so many textbooks and classrooms were created by the Western world. This greatly limits the understanding of artworks created in other parts of the world. If a student is only expected to view an art piece in reference to the principles that Western culture says is important, pieces that are from different cultures will be greatly misunderstood.

While Gude took this information as an opportunity to create a new curriculum for her workshop and to teach art to kids outside the realm of these traditional elements and principles, I could still see use for them as a way to help students understand the history behind traditional Western art. Only when viewing art that was made under these specific "rules" of that time does the 7+7 model apply though. This could be illustrated by our "reading" of the piece "Gulfstream" which we viewed in class. Because viewers had a much different culture than the subject of the painting, there was much confusion when trying to understand the meaning of the piece. If viewers were more aware of the cultures of the world and how art is created and considered valuable, the painting would not require such an explanation from Homer Winslow.

Gude's new categories do seem pretty valid for current 21st century work. While the categories are a bit more complex (not only in their names but in their ideas), challenging students to understand more complex categories and techniques of art would open their eyes to art that would have more meaning. If we are saying that art is such an outlet for meaning and deep thought, it would only make sense that the techniques used to create such important ideas, have some complexity to begin with.

Oliver Herring is an artist that seems to use many of Gude's ideas in his works. Art 21 explains how this artist uses a vast range of media in his career and in many of his works. In this sense, one could say that he is using the hybridity technique that Gude discusses. He combines sculpture and photography to make figures that are unlike any. He layers photos and stitching on his pieces as well. In his works entitled "Task" he literally uses ever possible medium an artist could think of (or in his case, he allows the public to use these mediums). Task also incorporates text/image interaction while the subjects involved read tasks, and create something from themselves.

Trying to feed off of Herring's basic idea of "Task" I could create pre-made tasks for students on post-its and provide various fun and exciting props or materials. Instructing the students to pick a task, complete it however they interpret it and then to add a new task to the pile and pick another one. Seeing how this experiment worked for Herring and comparing how middle school students would interpret "Task" would be very interesting. Kids could get a change to stretch their opinion of the word "art" from the typical 7+7 model and would get to create, move around, interpret, find meaning and be creative while interacting with the artists around them.

In Olivia Gude's other article, "Principles of Possibility"the first point that really hit home for me was her appreciation of playing. Coming from a limited art background, and knowing how intimidating art can be when touching materials for the first time has really convinced me that students can enjoy their creation of art if they have play time to experience the range of possibilities. I think that setting aside time for students to experiment would not only help the students enjoy the process more and feel more comfortable, but it would clue in students to the possibilities and limitations for that material, saving them the time and frustration associated with a project gone wrong.

Finally, the theme Gude follows throughout this article about deconstructing culture and understanding the cultural goals expressed in visual art was spot on. I had never viewed the projects that we did in art class using collages of symbolic images as "socially pre-defined" but I can clearly see that now, and in a culture that really needs to focus on valuing diverse individuals, projects like this can be misleading and limiting to an individual's "Forming of Self".