Lucinda Kalin
Thesis 1, Assignment 3
9/18/11
Art Education, 62 no 5 September, 2009
Article Title: Redefining the Artist Teacher
Author (s): James Daichendt
Daichendt, J. Art Education, 62 no 5 September, 2009
The purpose of this study is to review the historical uses of the term artistteacher in order to re-contextualize its origins since the mid 19th century. With this
historical review in mind, the author hopes to re-introduce the artist-teacher as a more
inclusive practitioner of an approach to art education, which brings artistic practices and
artistic ways of thinking into the classroom.
The historical arguments for what artist-teacher could and/or should mean were
presented within various art and education movements from the mid-19th century to
the present. In addition, the author referenced the medieval and renaissance periods to
raise differences in how the term artist has been used and understood over time. In
addition to methods of era comparison, the author highlights the
thoughts/contributions of several prominent figures. The author notes Walter Gropius
as one of the most important of these art/education figures as he brought design and
art together—bridging the divide between craft and art at the Bauhaus school.
The author seems to find that George Wallis’ idea regarding the artist-teacher, as
a concept rather than a descriptor of two fields being signified through one term, holds
the greatest potential for a contemporary approach to the term in the present. In
addition, the author provides Wallis’ list of artist-teacher characteristics, which claim
that: Teaching should be a direct extension of studio life; classrooms should be modeled
on the practices of artists and designers; Teaching is an aesthetic process—Artistteachers manipulate classroom techniques, materials, and characteristics similar to the
artist’s manipulation of the elements of principals of design; Artist-teachers apply
artistic aptitudes in teaching, etc.
This article was extremely useful in that it provided a thorough history of
terminology/reasons for how both artist and teacher came to be understood as such
and why there has been such debate over bringing these two words/fields together. The
author also provided many references for further research regarding this topic.
Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 20, No. 4, 20th Anniversary Issue (Winter, 1986),
pp. 38-42
Article Title: Artist-Teacher: A Problematic Model for Art Education
Author (s): Michael D. Day
University of Illinois Press, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3332595, Accessed:
18/09/2011 21:21
The purpose of the article to dissect the meanings of and/or associations with
the term artist-teacher. The author explores the roots of the meanings of artist-teacher
through scenarios and examples of college vs. K-12 settings. In addition, the author
draws on other educational fields within the K-12 setting to point out that only the
Artist-teacher is hyphenated with its practice. For example, there are no mathematicianteachers or athlete-teachers, etc.
In addition, the author stresses that the artist-teacher provides an art-making
focused art education to K-12 students whereas, the non-artist art teacher provides an
art education, which is broader and allows students to learn about art through art
history, criticism, museum, visits and art-making.
The author concludes that artist-teachers are not enough of either artist or
teacher with a title as such. The author seems to suggest that the artist-teacher needs
to maintain their “elevated” status as “artist” while actually being a teacher. According
to the author, artists would feel ashamed to “conform” by being a “teacher” and
therefore precede this title with “artist” to indicate that no individualism and/or artistness has been lost through their employment as a teacher.
This article is useful in that it offers appropriate references and an oppositional
argument to the notion that art education should be based in art-making, and that
artist-teachers should not be any different than other K-12 teachers—by continuing to
be artists, they do not put the best interests of students first.
Art Education, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Jul., 1981), pp. 45-46
Article Title: The Identity Crisis of the Art Educator: Artist? Teacher? Both?
Author (s): Constance Huddleston Anderson
National Art Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192553.
Accessed: 18/09/2011 22:20
The purpose of this article is to explore what artists and teachers fundamentally
are, how their “products” could be considered, and how their roles within varied settings
(i.e. university vs. K-12) differ.
The author explores the differences and similarities of art educators and artists
by indicating that artists create art and it is therefore important to determine what art is.
The author lays out the vast possibilities for what art can be and compares the most
traditional art (the object) with what the art educator creates.
The author then compares the art object, made by the artist, to the learning,
created within the minds of students, by the art educator. The author concludes that the
primary concern of the art educator is that of cognition, with the students’ art objects
being by-products. This is contrasted by the artist’s primary concern being that of art
production itself.
The author points out, however, that both artist and art educator are concerned
both with art and what their viewer thinks in response to the art produced. The art
educator must be highly skilled in both the creation of cognition itself and with technical
skills required to make art objects.
The author concludes that both artist and art educator should first know what it is
that they actually aim to do before being concerned with which title to choose in order to
describe that vocation.
This article is somewhat useful in that it offers yet another point of view regarding
how to name the art educator vs. the artist and why. In addition, many germane
references are provided.
Framework
The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 28.3 (2009)
Article Title: Continuing the Journey—the Artist-Teacher MA as a Catalyst for Critical
Reflection
Author (s): Terry Parker
JADE 28.3 (2009)
© 2009 The Author. Journal compilation © 2009 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
This article questions the efficacy of being a working artist while also being a teaching
artist. The author introduces the article by recalling her graduate work and degree, which led to
a Artist-Teacher MA. With the assumption/accepted academic wisdom that students are
receiving the best art education from artist-teachers, or those who are working artists, and who
also teach in schools, the author questions exactly how the continuing of an art practice actually
makes a better art teacher.
The author draws on literature and her own personal experience within graduate school
and within the classroom to illustrate how her own art-teaching practice has improved through
more of an emphasis on theory/education than the continuing of her own art practice.
Parker then draws on the notion of the artist-pupil in order to compare whether artistteacher is appropriate. The author indicates that if the best art education is to come from an
artist-teacher, who should be receiving them but artist-pupils. Moreover, what do we want to
achieve in art education if it must be carried out by an artist-teacher? Do we want students to
become the recepticals of the supposed “genius” that lies within the artist? Do we actually
expect students to become artists? If not, then why must we have artist-teachers providing
students with an art education?
The author concludes that her own ability to teach art has increase by the abandonment
of focus on a continued art practice and the taking up of a focus on theory/educational knowhow. Parker concludes that sending art teachers to a “drawing weekend” for professional
development does little to develop them as art educators. At best, it makes them better
drawers but how would their increase in drawing ability make them more able to teach
drawing? Parker argues that it will not.
This article has been extremely useful in that if provides convincing points of opposition
to my current idea that artist-teachers are indeed more equipped to teach art to children vs.
non-practicing art teachers. In addition, this article is rich with relevant references.
Introduction (Draft 2)
How is art teaching different from math/English/history/and/or science
teaching? Although these subjects, in addition to art, require that certain
techniques/facts be taught to and retained by students, it seems far less vital for the
teachers of other subjects to also be practitioners of their subject. There seem to be too
many facts, within each of these fields, to impart in a very short time. As a result,
students are not typically invited to explore what carrying out
historical/mathematical/written work is actually about. Although writing and doing
scientific experiments occurs in public education, these exercises are usually about a
demonstration of specific methodology. Although students must make their own
connections in order to write and do science, their work remains bound by the rules
inherent to those fields. Where, in schooling, do we teach/exercise the individual’s
autonomy in connection-making?
Because it is not expected that a math teacher produce mathematicians, we do
not refer to K-12 math teachers as “mathematician-teachers” and we do not require
that they are pursuing original mathematical work. However, with Joseph Beuys’ 1973
statement that, “Every human being is an artist,” in mind, art education, unlike the
other fact-based subjects, does aim to produce artists. And for this reason, it would
seem that teaching artists would be best suited to provide art education in K-12 schools.
But given that these “pupil-artists” are not expected to become fine artists, what kind of
artists is the teaching artist expected to create?
To facilitate this exploration, I might observe art teachers within each grade level
and interview them about their curricula and personal art practices. When conducting
this fieldwork, it would probably be important to sample equal numbers of teachers
from arts-themed and non-arts based schools. It might also be worthwhile to interview
teaching artists from arts organizations regarding how they came to art education and
whether they see a connection between their own work and their work with students.
While interviewing art teachers, I would record our conversations. I would then
cull my conversations in search of themes/trends, specific to the grade level, school
type, and/or teacher background. I might then form hypotheses that I would then work
with my interviewees to visually present.
Although I am unclear about what this might mean, I am interested in making
the fieldwork portion of this thesis a set of participatory art works, a source of data that
would become art, a performance, installation, foundation of a teaching artist collective,
and/or any combination of the above, and probably other approaches that will present
themselves over the lifetime of this project.