National Art Education Association
Art Education for New Times
Author(s): Paul Duncum
Source: Studies in Art Education, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Winter, 1997), pp. 69-79
Published by: National Art Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320584 .
Accessed: 03/10/2014 04:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Studies in Art Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Copyrightby the
NationalArt EducationAssociation
STUDIES in Art Education
A Journalof Issues and Research
1997, 38(2), 69-79
Art Educationfor New Times
Paul Duncum
CentralQueenslandUniversity
Rockhampton,Australia
The notion of new times is a recognitionof a culturalepoch which many observershave
called "postmodern."It is arguedthat a proliferationof mass media imagery distinguishes our culturalperiod. We are saturatedby visual images just as we are saturatedby language, and for art educationto engage seriously with students'own culturalpreferences,
a broad,semiotic conception of visual images is necessary. A new art educationis needed which acknowledges crossover between high and popularculturalforms, is commensurate with new technologies, and accommodatesa view of individuals as multifaceted.
Educationalresponses to new times are discussed, and a classroom unit derived from
media educationis offered.
Althougharteducatorsbelieve in educatingthroughart,studentslive throughthe
mass media. Students negotiate with the media in as many, often contradictory,
ways as studentsthemselves are multifaceted. This is not a new situation,but what
is genuinely new is the currentproliferationof images. A rapidincreasein imagery
is a central feature of what many critics call postmodernity (Baudrillard,1988;
Bertens, 1995; Jameson, 1991; McRobbie, 1994) and others call new times (Hall &
Jacques, 1991).
The concept of new timeshas two meanings. It is both an analysis of the momentous changes otherwise called postmodernand the generationof a progressiveperspective for them. In the postmodernperiod, a sea change of fundamentallynew
forms of social, cultural,and economic arrangementshave come to characterizelife
in the West. New times theorists seek to move beyond the nihilism and reactionary
politics of some postmoderniststo offer an effective engagement with the forces
shaping our period.
In this paper,I focus primarilyon a numberof culturaldevelopmentswhich are
seen as linked to social and economic life. I addressonly threefacets of new times,
althougheach is close to the concerns of art educators:the treatmentof culture as
an ordinary,materialcommodity;the proliferationof electronic visual images; and,
the multifacetedconstructionof individualidentity. Each issue interpenetratesbut,
to simplify: to regardculture as ordinaryrelates to the subject matterof art education; electronic imagery relates to modes of learning;and multifacetedindividual
identityrelatesto the studentswe teach as well as ourselves as teachers. I also con-
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70
PAULDUNCUM
sider the choices open to us in respondingto new times and offer an example of
desirableclassroom practice.
Culture as Ordinary
It is necessaryto startfrom first principlesto addressthe challenge of new times.
Most arteducationaltheory and practiceare based upon a high culturedefinitionof
culture (Pearson, 1995), whereas new times theorists base their observationson a
semiotic view of culture (Featherstone,1991; Hall & Jacques, 1991), where the
most ordinarycommodities are consideredworthy of study (Sebeok, 1994). Most
art education appearsto be based on the idea that there is something qualitatively
special about the fine arts. The fine arts are said to put us in contact with the most
original,creative,subtle,intense, humane,honest, and inspiringaspectsof ourselves
and society. By contrast,the images throughwhich the greatmajorityof people create meaningare seen as panderingto the worst in society: to be conformist,violent,
sentimental,and manufacturedonly with dollar signs in mind (Gans, 1974).
Many studieshave exploredand exploded this distinction(Duncum, 1990; Gans,
1974; Gowans, 1981). There are too many similarities of function and too many
crossoversfor any distinctionof qualityto be meaningful. It is possible to make distinctions of kind between high and popularculture,but not of value. Not only has
high culture been exposed as functioning as a commodity as much as any other
(Williams, 1983), but mass culturehas been shown to offer the same range of pleasures and insights as high culture. For theorists of new times, the distinction
between high and popular culture is effaced (Featherstone, 1991; Hall, 1991;
Jameson, 1991).
In considerationof this new theoreticallandscape,the operationsof the institutions which continue to profit from the idea of high cultureneed to be made problematic. Bracey and Taylor (1988) saw critical interrogationof the operationsof
high culture institutions,including education in high culture, as the principaltask
for arteducationtoday. However, in itself such action seems hardlycommensurate
with the issues we face as a society. More pressingconcernsappearto lie in the way
the greatmajorityof people position themselves in relationto mass media. As commonly observed, from both the left and the right of the educational spectrum
(Bloom, 1987; Gannaway;1994; Giroux, 1994), it is from popularculturethat most
people weave their identities and establish their relationshipswith others and the
environment. Mass media images saturateour lives, structuringmuch of what we
know beyond personal experience. We live throughvisual images as much as we
do language.
Although images are regarded as a constitutive part of society, society is
viewed-to use the spatialmetaphorof the sociologists-as asymmetrical,as inherently unfair and unjust. Imagery,like language, serves particularsocial, political,
and economic struggles. Imageryis a battlegroundof meaning, a site of ideological struggle, where competing interests co-opt meanings, censor, recontextualize,
appropriate,and otherwise manipulate meanings to serve their ends. Before
imageryis aestheticallypleasing or insightful, it is, like language (Williams, 1977),
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEW TIMES
71
a weapon in the armoryof competing groups in their quest for influence and power.
Always, images tell us more aboutthe interestsof those who make images than the
subjectsrepresented(Willis, 1993).
As to what directionthis critiqueleads art education,Pearson(1995) wrote:
...the object of concern for art education is constitutedby the social fields in
which images are produced, distributedand used. On this view, art education takes the form of investigation into the practices which constitute the
field. (p. 11)
I would add that there are many fields. On Pearson'sreading, the central issue
for art education is the position of images in the social world. Meaning does not
reside in images themselves, but in the way they are used by people in differentsituations. Centralto Pearson'sconcern with the position of images in people's lives
is the way "people dominate other people" (p. 12), and he arguedthat on analysis
we will often find that it is ourselves who are dominated. Pearsonconcluded:
...what they [students]will also see, is how people go about the business of
dominationand that, at least, is the minimumrequirementfor studentsif they
are to be empowered to challenge the use of symbolic power which denies
their,and others, reality of social existence and social worth. (p. 12)
This means giving priorityto the visual representationalpracticesby which most
people are positioned, position themselves, and position others. For a long time,
many art educatorshave advocatedan inclusive view of the visual arts (Chapman,
1978; Lanier,1982; McFee & Degge, 1980), but usually the popularartsare simply
added on, and, moreover,viewed from a fine artperspective. The popularis incorporatedinsofar as it influences fine art,but it is neithergiven prioritynor viewed in
its own terms. What arteducationneeds is a paradigmshift thatboth acknowledges
the hegemony of the mass media and approachesthe media with appropriateconceptual tools.
If culturaltheoristscan no longer defend a distinctionbetween high and popular
culture,how long can arteducatorsremainunaffected? Art educationin this century has been founded on a high culture/popularculture distinction (Efland, 1990).
The traditionaldisciplinaryboundarythat has maintainedart as partof the curriculum has crumbled, and art education is left without a defensible rationale. To survive in the futurein some form, it must find a new theoreticalfoundation. A semiotic view of cultureoffers a foundationwhereinvisual images are regardedas ordinary materialcommodities, which are as common as everyday speech, and as significant as the way the greatmajorityof studentsconstructtheirview of themselves
and the world.
Thus, an education commensuratewith new times would be broadenedbeyond
the fine artsto include all visual images. A new times approachwould not exclude
high artfrom education,but only give it the prominenceit has in society as a whole.
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72
PAULDUNCUM
Popularmass media would achieve prominencein proportionwith its dominance
within society.
The Proliferation of Electronic Imagery
The urgencyof remakingart educationis dramaticallyhighlightedby the proliferation of mass media imagery throughboth existing and emerging technologies.
Globally producedimages circulatein an electronic informationalhyperspace,and
interactivemulti-mediais set to become the basis of a new informationeconomy.
The kaleidoscope of electronic imagery,however elevated or educationalit can be,
is mobilized to ensure the smooth operationof an economy which depends upon
ever increasing consumption, including imagery consumption (Harvey, 1989;
Jameson, 1991). The turnoverof imageryis now very fast indeed; it can be like the
"twinklingof an eye" which Marx saw as optimalfrom the standpointof capitalcirculation (Harvey, 1989, p. 288).
New times theoristscharacterizecontemporaryconsciousness as impactedby the
proliferationof images with a pervasive sense of unreality,depthlessness,historical
amnesia, and, even, meaninglessness(Featherstone,1991; Harvey, 1989). A sense
of dislocation and disorientationpervadesbecause life, like schizophrenia,is experienced as a series of perpetual,presentmoments (Jameson, 1991). In place of the
disinterestedgaze and the transcendental,therehas emerged an aesthetics of a consumer society, an aesthetics of desire, sensuousness, and immediacy (McRobbie,
1994). Instead of a delayed satisfactionvia careful scrutiny,the aesthetics of the
everyday involves an immediate impact, an economy of pleasure. Rather than
viewing images in a state of contemplation,images are more likely to be viewed in
a state of distraction.
The prevalenceand self-referentialcharacterof mass media imageryraises doubt
aboutwhat can be reasonablyconsideredto have some basis in fact and what is illusion. Baudrillard(1988) arguedthatthe density and seamlessness of images means
that any distinctionbetween reality and its images has been effaced. All that now
with its ability to seduce, overwhelm,intoxicate,and delivexists is representation,.
er us into a state of hyperreality.Everydaylife has become aestheticized,enveloped
in an aesthetics of the surfacewhere discriminationhas been replacedby revelry.
More cautiously, Harvey (1989) wrote that our currentdifficulties may lie not
with the proliferationof imagery but our lack of psychological preparedness. He
arguedthat most of us may not possess the perceptualhabitsrequiredof new times.
He suggested that a new times consciousness may prove simply to be qualitatively
different,not necessarilybetteror worse, thanthe habitualways of thinkingof most
matureadults today. Perhapsa proliferationof electronic imagery is leading-if it
has not already done so, especially for the young-not to deficient modes of
thought,but to differentmodes of communicationand cognition.
It is now commonly held that the age of the image marks a change no less
momentousthan the invention of writing and the printingpress (Gannaway,1994;
Spender,1994), and it is useful to note thatnot everyone welcomed the inventionof
writing. Socrates,for example, refusedto write down his thoughts;for, among other
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEW TIMES
73
reasons, fear of them becoming ossified. He arguedthat humanthought and communicationwere fluid and dynamic, and that understandingwas based on constant
interchangebetween people that writing denied. Writing,he argued,forced you to
follow an argumentratherthan engage in one (Spender, 1994). Socrates' models
were conversationand the oral tradition. Because some of the new technologies are
immediate and highly ephemeralthey are said to be more like oracy than literacy
(Spender,1994). New technologies may representa returnto Socrates'models.
Thus, the argumentthat we are living in an age of surface appearancemay represent only the disorientationexperienced by those without the perceptualhabits
necessary for the new technologies. New times, then, do not necessarilyheraldthe
deteriorationof cognition or communication. The deathof communicationitself, as
predictedby such observers as Baudrillard,seems to have been greatly exaggerated. However, it is crucial for art educationto acknowledge that while visual communicationsurvives, it has changed its form. Imageryis now infinitely more plentiful, pervasive, immediate,and ephemeralthanever before. And proponentsof the
informationhighway promise a high level of interactivity.
Individuals as Multifaceted
The meaning of imagery must also now be consideredas site specific. Not only
is our society more fragmentedthan before, it is importantto consider individuals
as sites of numerousintersections(Giroux, 1994). As individualswe are said to be
increasingly positioned within and across a variety of identities, needs, and
lifestyles. Increasingly,we appearto be aware of ourselves not as singularentities,
but as beings comprised of multiple identities which are often contradictory. We
find ourselves tornbetween the various antagonismsand strugglesthat characterize
our society, but also characterizeour own individual identities. This is why new
times theoriststalk of an absence of a unified self and, instead, of fragmentedidentities and a de-centeredself (Giroux, 1992; Hall, 1991).
Many of us are membersof marginalizedgroups, whether,for example, of ethnicity, age, class, gender, sexual preference, religious affiliation, political persuasion, education,or mentaland physical ability. So many interestsnow are acknowledged as marginalizedthat marginalized"others"now take up the position of the
dominant, if fragmented,center (Giroux, 1992; Hall, 1991). Art educators have
begun to deal seriously with marginalizedgroups, especially ethnic and indigenous
others(Congdon, 1991; Garber,1995; Stokrocki,1994; Neperud& Stuhr,1993) but
also, for example, people with alternativesexual orientation(Honeychurch,1995),
mental and physical disabilities (Blandy, 1993; Guay, 1994), and those with fundamentalistreligious beliefs (Blair, 1995). However, this focus on the "other"almost
invariablyfails to addressthe fact that no matterwhat minority or combinationof
minoritiesa person may belong to, he or she engages as partof everyday,ordinary
experience with popularmass culture.
Different life experiences, expectations, and emotional attachmentslead to differentkinds of negotiationwith, and resistanceto, mass media. In short,what mass
media has to offer is employed in association with all the otherlocations of the self.
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74
PAUL DUNCUM
However powerful other influences might be, no one's personalidentity nowadays
is created without negotiation with or resistance to popularmedia (Giroux, 1994).
Studentsshould be viewed as constructingmeaning within the complex intertextuality of images (Freedman,1994). We need to view studentsas free floating agents
who create meaning out of the bits and pieces of stories, images, and objects that
envelop them.
Educational Responses
How should art educatorsrespondto new times? Harvey (1989) identified four
basic responsesto new times, althoughI will arguethat only the fourthis viable for
art educators.
The first response is withdrawalinto a kind of shell-shocked,exhaustedsilence.
Suffering from sensory overload and feeling that new times are beyond anyone's
control, one response is to acquiesce. Withdrawalis always a personaloption, but
it is not an option for educatorschargedwith a public responsibility.
A second response is to try to ride out the storm by trying to keep abreastof
change and so bring change undercontrol. An example of this response, identified
by Feldman(1994), is to be found in the rushby some educatorsto keep up with the
very latest technological advances. While lacking a clear educational goal, they
assume thatthe possession of the new technology alone will somehow lead students
to master it.
A thirdresponse is to deny both the complexity and challenge of new times, and
to offer simple solutions. Old fashionedvalues and ways of doing things are offered
as virtues. Standardsthat were established in a pre-electronicimage age are presented as the cure for our ills. This response has had a dramaticimpact on education throughthe back-to-basicsmovement. Bloom (1987) and other conservatives
have proposeda returnto what they consider a literateculture,one founded on the
skills of reading and writing and a knowledge of the alleged great works of literature. They see an educationalsite, to quote from Giroux (1992), as "a warehouse
built on the pillars of an unproblematicand revered tradition"(p. 93). Similarly,
Greer's (1984) formulationof DBAE, Smith's (1994) espousal of excellence, and
Abbs's (1995) belief in the intrinsicqualitiesof fine art,ignore the pluralityof practices from which most people derive meaning in ordinary,everyday life. This
response to new times representsa closed-off, often defensive, minority view of
visual culture. High art is celebratedat the expense of the pluralityof production
and use of images within society.
The fourth response is to acknowledge the importance of new media, and to
devise curriculain partnershipwith students'use of it. Gannaway(1994) argues
thatthe purposeof educationis no longer to distributeinformationbut to teach how
to handle the vast amountthat is readily available. Similarly,Giroux (1992; 1994)
arguesthatwe need to recognize sites apartfrom schools that actively shape student
experiencesand throughwhich studentsdefine and constructtheir sense of identity,
politics, and culture. A critical study of mass media would investigate how it situ-
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEW TIMES
75
ates us, what pleasureswe derive from it, and how it forms partof the largersocial,
political, and economic agenda of others.
What is needed is a remappingof the areas between school and home, between
traditionalcurriculumofferings and students'own knowledge of the world. Some
educatorshave acknowledged the need for such bordercrossings in art education
(Freedman,1994; Hamblen, 1990).
New Times in the Classroom
How a new times art education might operatein the classroom can be glimpsed
by examiningcurrentpracticein media education. Media educationis informedby
a semiotic critiqueof contemporaryculturalforms. Moreover,media educationhas
long been centrallyconcernedwith the representationof marginalgroups,especially in relation to gender, race, and class (Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 1994). It
attemptsto offer strategiesfor broadeningthe art curriculumto incorporatesocial,
economic, and political issues in ways which studentscan relateto theirlived experience.
Media educationcommonly is comprisedof four overlappingareas:production,
values, audiences, and the media industry (Queensland Education Department,
1993). Productionrequiresa knowledge of the codes and conventions with which
media productsare created,and involves studentsin creatingtheir own media products. It also involves expression and aestheticjudgment. Valuesinvolve semiotic
readingsof the meaningsof media products,especially of how apparentrealities are
createdfor their audiencesand how these realitiesrelateto social values and beliefs.
A central concept is the selective representationof people, events, ideas, feelings,
and objects. Studentsare taughtthatno media productcan show more than a selective reality, and as a result studentslearn to recognize andjudge the selective constructionsof others.
Productionand values are similarto productionand criticism of artin arteducation. The significantdepartureof media educationfrom arteducationlies in the further two areas of media education. Media students study audiences; in particular,
how differentaudiences respond, and how demographicsinfluence budgetaryconsiderations. Students also study the media as an industry, the various agents
involved, and the influences and pressures affecting the economics of production
and the legislature governing their actions. Both areas of study-audiences and
industry-provide the means by which teachersembed their students'study of culturalproductionwithin social, economic, and political frameworks. The opportunity exists for studentsto become politically literateby studying culturalproductsin
which they have a personalinvestment.
The following descriptionof young adolescents studyinga popularsoap operais
intendedto illuminatethe above emphases. The unit is adaptedfrom McMahonand
Quin's (1993) materialsfor teachers and students studying the popularAustralian
soap Home and Away. This soap is aimed mostly at young adolescents,and it is programmedin most countriesin the late afternoon.This is only an example of media
education, and different topics, different students, even a different soap would
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76
PAULDUNCUM
require different activities. How art teachers might adapt a media education
approachis, at present,an open question.
1. Students watch a short sequence. They make distinctions between visual
codes such as facial expression, gestures, and costume; technical codes such
as focus, framing and editing; and aural codes such as dialogue and sound
effects. They discuss how these codes work together.
2. An excerptfrom a typical scriptis studied,and studentsask: If you were playing the characters,what codes would you use? The class act out the script,
refining their interpretationwith repeatedattempts.
3. Studentswatch a video in which the producerof Home andAway describesthe
roles of story editors, script editors, and scriptwriters,including the tight
deadlines to which each works. Informationis offered about how and why
soaps are the productof an assembly line.
4. The text of a scene breakdownof an episode is studied, and the settings, time
of the day, and the charactersin each scene are noted. The class watch this
episode and discuss the differences between how they imagined the episode
and its realization.
5. Studentsexamine studio floor plans, including sets, and they discuss why sets
are used. They ask whethersets would save money and how many sets would
be requiredper episode.
6. With a soap set in their school in mind, studentsdraw their own studio plan
and sets, and they compile a list of necessary props.
7. The class watch a further video interview with the producer of Home and
Away. He explains, for example, that because he considers there are too
many restrictions on what can be shown about drugs in the late afternoon,
he prefers not to deal with drugs at all. Students discuss what other issues
are rarely dealt with at this time and how a soap set in their school could
deal with difficult issues. This leads to a discussion on which groups in
society would be more likely to have social issues raised in soaps and
which would be unlikely. Issues of race, class, and religious affiliation are
canvassed.
8. Students examine the audience for Home and Away and similar soaps.
They study how audience ratings are gathered and measured. Students
compare rating statistics with their own survey of family and friends.
They draw up profiles of typical target audiences and compare them with
the products advertised during the screening of soaps. Students consider
who buys for the target audiences, and if the buyers are not watching, how
they find out about the products. Students discuss how they would change
a soap to attract an older age group and whether they could retain the
existing audience. Students consider whether the mainstay of soaps, family-based personal and emotional relationships, are better dealt with by
women. They also consider the gendering of terms like soap addict and
sports fan. They examine the possible effects on ratings of particular
actors, guest stars, changes in seasons from winter to summer, and switches in time-slots.
9. Classmembersdebatetheissue:"Soapoperasneverdealwithrealproblemsfacedin
life." Studentsdrawupontheirknowledgeof character
types,storylines,audiences,
advertisers,
soapsas an assemblyline,andtheirown experiencesandpleasures.
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEW TIMES
77
10. Students move to the production of their own soap episode about their
school, including a story outline, a script, a storyboard,a productionschedule, and finally, shooting and editing. Class memberstake the role of actors,
lighting crew, directorand so on. The episode includes a numberof stories,
one of which involves a social issue like gender, drugs, or racism in the
school.
At this point, the study of mass media becomes especially interestingbecause
studentsfrequentlygo beyond mere imitationof their models. Productionis a creative process because studentsmove within the space between media realities and
their own experiences. Pleasure is found in oscillating between a close emotional
engagement and a knowledge of the artificialityand implausibilityof media products (Buckingham& Sefton-Green,1994). In the classroom,the result is often parody. In recreatingmedia productsthey will sometimes mock their teachersas much
as the media. This furtherlayering of meaning is crucial.Withouta playful, mocking resistance,there is a dangerthat in being incorporatedinto the classroom, popular culturewill lose its popularnature(Buckingham& Sefton-Green,1994).
Some students resist examining issues of gender or race which impinge upon
their own identity. For example, they may resist a critical study of media stereotypes in which they have a personal investment (Williamson, 1981/1982).
Buckingham and Sefton-Green's (1994) studies indicate that teachers should not
expect studentscompletely to work throughmedia stereotypes,or come to a clear
critical conception of an issue. They warn, for example, that students will often
offer their teachers a version of the official school and wider societal line on controversialissues ratherthan fully engage with their own beliefs and values. They
indicate that what teachers can do is provide opportunitiesfor critical engagement
and hope for at least partialresolutions.
Media educationsuggests thatwhen dealing with mass media artteachersshould
expect complications which do not arise when studying someone else's culture.
Multipleand subtle resistancesare essential to mass media use, and its study invariably will involve similarcomplexity.
Conclusion
For arteducationto have a healthyfuture,it must be remade.It requiresa paradigm
shift toward a socially leveled, semiotic conception of culture. An inclusive conception of culturecould begin to addressthe proliferationof mass media images and
their multiplereadingsby our multifacetedselves. I have offered only one glimpse
of where this might lead. As the term new times implies, the future of an art education for new times is undecided,open ended; it is a projectof discovery.
References
Abbs, P. (1995). Thenew paradigmin arts education.Unpublishedpaper.Universityof Sussex, England.
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78
PAULDUNCUM
Baudrillard,J. (1988). Jean Baudrillard:Selected writing.M. Poster (Ed.). London:Polity Press.
Bertens, H. (1995). The idea of the postmodern:A history. London:Routledge.
Blair, L. (1995). Religion, censorship, and art in public schools. Unpublishedmanuscript.Concordia
University,Montreal.
Blandy, D. (1993). Community-based lifelong learning in art for adults with mental retardation:A
rationale, conceptual foundation, and supportive environments. Studies in Art Education,
34(3), 167-175.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed democracy
and impoverished the souls of today's students. London: Penguin.
Bracey, T., & Taylor, B. (1988). The core curriculum and teaching art as politics. Australian Art
Education, 12(2), 17-23.
Buckingham, D., & Sefton-Green, J. (1994). Cultural studies goes to school. Reading and teaching
popular media. London: Taylor & Francis.
Chapman,L. (1978). Approaches to art in education. San Diego: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Congdon, K. G. (1991). A folk art focus. Journal of Multiculturaland Crosscultural Research in Art
Education, (9), 65-72.
Duncum, P. (1990). Clearing the decks for dominant culture: Toward a contemporaryart education.
Studies in Art Education, 31(4), 207-215.
Efland, A. (1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in the teaching of visual arts. New York:Teachers College Press.
Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture and postmodernism. London: Sage.
Feldman, (1994). Teaching art and so on. Reston, VA: NAEA.
Freedman, K. (1994). Interpreting gender and visual culture in art classrooms. Studies in Art
Education, 35(3), 157-170.
Gannaway, M. (1994). Transformingminds: A critical cognitive activity. Westport, CT: Bergin &
Garvey.
Gans, H. (1974). Popular culture and high culture. New York: Basic Books.
Garber,E. (1995). Teaching art in the context of culture: A study in the borderlands. Studies in Art
Education, 36(4), 218-232.
Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York:
Routledge.
Giroux, H. (1994). Disturbing pleasures. New York: Routledge.
Gowans, A. (1981). Learning to see: Historical perspectives on modern popular/commercial arts.
Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Popular Press.
Greer, W. D. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies
in Art Education, 25(4), 212-218.
Guay, D. M. (1994). Students with disabilities in the art classroom: How preparedare we? Studies
in Art Education, 36(1), 44-56.
Hall, S. (1991). The meaning of new times. In S. Hall and M. Jacques (Eds). New times: The changing face of politics in the 1990s (pp. 116-133). London: Verso.
Hall, S., & Jacques, M. (Eds). (1991). New times: The changing face of politics in the 1990s.
London: Verso.
Hamblen, K. A. (1990). Local knowledge of art as a school art alternative. Australian Art
Education, 14(3), 22-28.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition ofpostmodernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Honeychurch, K. G. (1995). Extending the dialogue of diversity : Sexual subjectivities and education in the visual arts. Studies in Art Education, 36(4), 210-217.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism: or, The cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Lanier, V. (1982). The arts we see; A simplified introduction to the visual arts. New York:Teachers
College Press.
McFee, J. K., & Degge, R. M. (1980). Art, culture, and environment: A catalyst for teaching.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
McMahon,B., & Quin, R. (1993). Understandingsoaps: A studentand teacher'sguide to learning about
television. Mount Coot-tha,Australia:The Seven Network.
McRobbie, A. (1994). Postmodernism and popular culture. London: Routledge.
Neperud, R. W., & Stuhr,P. L. (1993). Cross-culturalvaluing of Wisconsin Indian art by Indians and
non-Indians. Studies in Art Education, 34(4), 244-253.
Pearson, P. (1995). Looking for culture: Implications of two forms of social theory for art education
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEW TIMES
79
theory and practice. Australian Art Education, 18(3),6-18.
QueenslandEducationDepartment(1994). Constructingrealities.Media curriculumguidefor Years1 to
10. Brisbane:QueenslandEducationDepartment.
Sebeok, T. A. (1994). Signs: An introductionto semiotics. Toronto:University of TorontoPress.
Smith, R. (1994). Excellence II: The continuingquest in art education. Reston, VA: NAEA.
Spender,D. (1994). A history of informationmedia. AustralianJournal of Computing,9(1), 11-16.
Stokrocki,M. (1994). Expandingthe artworldof Navajo students.AustralianArt Education, 17(3), 3949.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxismand literature.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Williams, R. (1983). Keywords:A vocabularyof cultureand society (2nd ed.). London:Fontana.
Williamson, J. (1981/1982). How does girl number 20 understandideology? Screen Education, 40,
80-87.
Willis, A-M. (1993). Illusions of identity:The art of nation. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.
This content downloaded from 137.158.153.203 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions