1. Relationship between art, art history and art education programs?

[JCAEC]

What should the relationship be between art, art history and art education programs? In most colleges and universities, studio art is privileged over art education even though museums everywhere are increasingly recognizing the need for education to become more integrated into their programs. And often, art history students learn almost nothing about studio practices, which deprives them of any understanding of HOW art is made. Should this be changed and if so, how? #JCinterdisciplinary

[JCAEC]

[Karen Keifer-Boyd]

#JCdialogue #JCinterdisciplinary Art education undergrad students are typically required to take a hefty number of studio and art history courses but those in art history or studio degree programs are not required to take art education courses. Studio programs typically require art history courses but not vice versa. Even if courses are not required, art history curricula could include studio visits and studio workshops as well as art education courses that include contemporary art aesthetics and museum education. Does your art education program offer courses that would be valuable to art history students?

[Karen Keifer-Boyd]

Carl Clausen commented on your post in NAEA Professional Learning through Research Working Group.
Carl Clausen

Carl Clausen
12:32pm Sep 28
My school district has a comprehensive k-12 Visual Art curriculum and each project is attached to a historical and/or cultural component. At the high school level, Art History is offered as an separate elective and often integrated with studio art classes. Those in elementary teacher training programs take a one-credit class on art education which hardly makes them competent unless the have a strong arts background in their k-12 education. I think teacher training courses should require more time devoted to arts education. I know several ‘teaching artists’ who don’t have a degree/training in education and have difficulty managing children, materials, & pedagogy as well as understanding developmental stages of children.

[Read Diket]

As a professor in a growing art program for undergraduates and graduates, I am fortunate to teach across art, art history, and art education. One semester I will teach undergraduate drawing and aesthetics, another session 20th century art history and art education research. another semester painting and quantitative analysis. I try to balance each studio encounter with another course that engages the mind and challenges the soul. What happens as a result is that students see the same professor in different course contexts and there can be no “hiding out” in a single area of thought. I was prepared for interdisciplinary boundary breaking and bridging by my doctoral work that explored critical theory as an approach to thinking about the contexts in which young artists in the making and educators emerge as contributors rather than actors in a play not of their own devising or exclusive of their input. In our program, other professors have similar experiences with cross-curricular teaching. As a result, we model thinking that is interdisciplinary and that clearly questions any single way of understanding the nature of the art world and how that stance can hold numerous possibilities for artistic life.

[Skoti Newsum]

Of course it should be changed. Art history, art education, and studio arts overlap one another. Teach the subjects that way. Put them in the same building. When art education students get further into their degree and start learning art in education, move them from the education building to the fine arts department. Same for art history. Being in the same place rather than scattered all over campus will help build relationships and exposure with the students. It will build a dialogue that is missing and so important between the three sides to the same discipline. Also, to further the relationships and dialouge a class that integrates the art students. Similar to senior seminar, but not only for the senior year, but maybe the last two years really build that solidarity between the different art perspectives. That full understanding of perspectives can be carried into the lower grades. Hopefully.

[sarhathcock]

I believe that it is necessary for art and art history to be combined and most of the time they already do interact with each other and the classes are in the same building. Art education is also important and should be incorporated with art and art history if students are interested in art education. I do not believe that it is important for those students who are not interested in the education field to be required to take art education classes. However, if they did, it might be a benefit and they might better understand what teaching styles their professors use and other ways they could be of assistance to peers struggling with projects. But I do believe that art educators should be involved with art and art history educators so they are all on the same page and are able to work and gain ideas from one another because as artists that what we do.

[Kate]

I think they should be very open to each other, obviously. I think that art education majors should be required to take studio and art history courses, but I’m not necessarily sure that studio and art history majors should be required to take art education courses, because it may not be relevant to their goals. However, in order to at least introduce them to the opportunity to take an art education class, all three departments should have many extracurricular events together, and have many chances to interact. And if artists wish to pursue a career in art education, it must be for the right reasons. They cannot be selfish, they must have a desire to teach, a willingness to educate themselves on art education theory at the very least.

[Beth Clayton]

I think in college you are either going to be an art teacher or not. If you aren’t then why be required to undergo any art education curriculum? However Art education classes should be offered to studio art and art history majors who may be interested in going in that direction.

[mkatherine21]

I believe that there is a close knit relationship between studio art, art history and art education programs. However, some people who study art history or studio art have no desire to teach in a formal setting. The choice to decide what class you believe will be more beneficial to you, should be the students choice and not be forced upon them because others believe that they should take a class based on principle.

[lola333]

As a student, I feel like it is important for Studio Art majors to have art history courses in addition to their studio art training. It is important to know how art and artists have impacted the next generations up to this point. From what I’ve seen, I think this is standard at most universities and art schools; in fact, too many art history courses are usually required for a studio art degree. Many studio art courses infuse background information and require personal research on techniques and artists; this in combination with 2-3 general art history courses should be enough. Not the usually required 6-9, mostly high level art history courses.
Along the same lines, art history majors should have to take a course or two of studio course (or be required to audit at least one studio art course in the subject of their history course) per semester. For example, if they are taking History of Printmaking, they should have to sit in on a print making studio course so they will know what they are looking at.
I don’t think art education needs to be involved unless they specifically want to go into education, or think they might at some point.

[eleek]

I think all three interconnect with one another. Art History influences and inspires artists’ work, and vice versa. Art history and art education go hand in hand, as do art and art education.

[eleek]

I think all three interconnect with one another. Art History influences and inspires artists’ work, and vice versa. Art history and art education go hand in hand, as do art and art education.

[kdc4728]

I currently attend a college that does not have an art education program even though that is what I am going to school to do. I am currently a fine arts major and when I am finished with that then I have to do the education part. I am exposed to all three programs and it is amazing to me how I can go into my art history classes and notice how much the students know about that aspect but yet they are not taking any hands on classes. When I go into my studio classes and when are asked questions or asked about art history usually the students know the answer. I think hands on art should be incorporated more into the art history program simply so that the students will have a better understanding of the material and work put into the pieces throughout history. As far as art education is concerned I think that taking these courses should not be required unless that is your focus but I also think that students should be encouraged to take them and incorporate what they learn into explaining their art works to others.

[Anonymous]

Art, art history, and educational programs are all intertwined. I would like to add to this list contemporary art and world events, and how we all relate. As artists, one makes a commentary and draws connections and parallels to create meaning of our world. So having a grasp on art history is crucial. In addition I think it’s important to have conversations of what you are seeing with your students. What portion of the art history “we teach” and society “values” are men, how many of those white? I think its up to the teacher to really think about how they teach art history and recognize some of the patriarchal undercurrents to create dialogue with students.

[Author]

Posts