The Kamhi article literally took me hours to read!!! I would digest a paragraph (perhaps "stomach" is a better word), pick it apart, pause and think of examples that contradicted the author's assertions, then run to the computer to search for information to endorse MY thinking. In the margin beside paragraph #2, I even wrote "Sounds like Glen Beck!" Where do I begin? Her arguments are so incredulous and full of holes!
Kamhi defines art so narrowly that it is hard to believe she lives in the 21st century. By including only painting and sculpture, she negates undeniable masterworks of the past such as the Book of Kells, the Unicorn Tapestries, and certainly Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. I suppose she would have the Euphronios krater kicked to the curb as well as King Tutankhamen's Death Mask. Even Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi's terra cotta army, though technically sculptural, would have to be disregarded in her view because of its functional intent as a protective force in Qin's afterlife. I could, of course, go on and on. Imagine how much historical and undeniably fine "art" would not fit within Kamhi's limited definition? And if she conceded that these examples were exceptions to her rule, she would also have to admit that each of them reflects the "visual culture" of the respective epochs in which they were created. All art does. And how much of it was disregarded when it was created because it didn't fit into the elite's conception of art?
Kamhi makes statements in advocating her criteria for "fine art" that clearly apply to contemporary and postmodern art that she cannot accept. She says that "the manner of representation is of prime importance, contributing significatnly to the ultimate import of what is depicted" (p. 3).The Charles painting "Cut & Paste" clearly illustrates her statement, and yet she abhors it. She argues that "abstract form alone is incapable of conveying the range or depth of themes and values that can be embodied in works of representational art--ideas such as the love of a mother for a child (How about Henry Moore's sculptures?) or the horrors of war (How about Guernica or Maya Lin's Viet Nam War Memorial?)" (p. 8). It seems that every argument she makes about what real art is can be exemplified by non-paintings and non-sculptures; by a contemporary or postmodern work that she would argue are not art. Her understanding of the discipline seems extremely shallow, uninformed, and archaic; her ability to perceive the BIG IDEAS behind Depression Era photography, Pop Art, or Installation art proves that she doesn't understand art at all.
It would be interesting to have her list works that she considers fine art.....to research them and discover how many of them were actually social or political statements, reflections of the visual cultures of their days, and/or works that were scorned by the fine art elite at the historical time in which they were created. It would be fun, too, to take her through a VTS discussion with my former 3rd & 4th graders. They are so much more perceptive than she!
Finally, I don't believe that Ms. Kamhi understands what is at stake by not teaching 21st century students to read their visual culture. I read an article by Renee Sandell of George Mason University; citing former NEA Chairman Bill Ivey, she writes, "With the pervasiveness of media in the lives of our young people, it becomes even more imperative that they are able to interpret the messages they receive. If our children don't learn to shape images, images will shape them." Clearly, we are remiss in our responsibilities as educators not to teach our student to read their visual culture and respond to it critically with their own ideas and imagery.
I chose a Kerry Freedman article to counter Kamhi's complaints. The article is entitled, "Social Perspectives in the U.S.: Teaching Visual Culture in a Democracy." I chose it because I perceived Kamhi's article to be so dictatorial; that narrowly defined art requires formalist, and conformist art education that doesn't consider possibilities or construct meaning, but has it handed down from "those who know better."
In her article Freedman speaks of a liberating type of art education that responds to contemporary sociopolitical contexts and is relevant in the lives of students. In a free country such as ours, she asserts that artistic freedom nurtures democratic thought and action; that "art education can make a difference in student understanding of and action in the world and that, that difference can enrich and improve social life" (p. 314). (This is quite the opposite of Kamhi who believes that art education that includes visual culture studies "is likely to dull the next generations' aesthetic sensibilities and further debase the general level of culture" (p. 1). Freedman further believes that a shift away from emphasis on formalistic teaching (like that advocated by Kahmi, I'm sure) toward constructivist meaning-making that takes social context into consideration will further democratic thinking and action in our students. That sociopolitical context is both mirrored and communicated by the visual culture in which our students are immersed.
Freedman values what she terms "Student-Eye Views" and insists that art education must take these views into account. Admittedly, student perceptions and experiencs are reflected in their art making and visual culture is clearly an influential component in this milieu.
I thought it interesting that while Kamhi viewed Visual Culture Studies as replacing the rigid art education she clearly loved and knew, Freedman perceives visual culture as "broadening the domain" (p. 315). The visual arts in her estimation include not only fine art, but also "television, film/video, computer technology, fashion, photography, advertising, and so on" (p. 315). The fine art advocated exclusively by Kamhi has a place in Freedman's view, but does not constitute the whole of the visual arts.
I particularly liked a closing statement by Freedman who concludes, "An essential responsibility of our field in this century will be to teach students about the power of the visual arts and the freedoms and responsibilities that come with it....we will focus less on teaching students what we were taught and more on what they need to know." They need to understand the power of visual culture and how to decode it so that they can respond as critical, competent citizens. Though I have only done a cursory reading of Gardner's Chapter 1 of "5 Minds for the Future," I sense some shared thinking; the Respectful and Ethical minds in particular came to mind. In the days and weeks to come, the connection promises become more apparent.
