National Art Education Association

An Editorial: The Return of Visual Culture (Why Not?)Author(s): B. Stephen Carpenter, IISource: Art Education, Vol. 58, No. 6, The Return of Visual Culture (Why Not?) (Nov., 2005),pp. 4-5Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27696105 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 23:20

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof 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 ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:20:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AN EDITORIAL

The Return of

Visual Culture (Why

n the March 2003 issue of Art Education, editor Pat Villeneuve asked, "WHY visual culture art

education? Why not?" (2003, p. 5). More than 2

years later, these questions are still important to consider beyond their apparently rhetorical tone.

This issue revisits visual culture. But unlike the

previous issue, this time, the authors did not respond to a call for submissions. Their collective concern for visual culture with respect to the field of art education

suggests that we still have much to talk about, and much to ask, on the subject. The present "theme issue" on visual culture came about because of an under

current in the field that seems to resonate with most

teachers, students, researchers and others who have

been paying attention to what is going on in art class

rooms, museums, art centers, and other educational

and social contexts.

I have heard some people call visual culture in art education a "movement." Others label it an

approach, a pedagogical stance, or a curriculum. Still

others point out that visual culture may not have a

single, distinct definition. That is, visual culture may in fact comprise three distinct but interrelated concepts or areas of inquiry: various ideas related to its roles in, implications for, and effects on our lives; the objects, events, sites, and experiences that fall into this

category of classification; and a curriculum concerned with ways in which this content could be taught, inter

preted, and learned (Tavin, 2003). All three concepts are addressed in this issue. Most of the authors

approach visual culture from a perspective replete with

theory and with the intention to offer meaningful inter

pretations that inform practice. Also important are the roles of looking to the past to see more clearly the

present and future. In short, these authors reflect on

the meanings, roles, and implications, of visual culture in art education.

This issue should inspire readers to consider this collection of viewpoints as a starting point for conscious deliberation and debate about visual culture. Not all of these authors share the same views about visual culture or art education. Many directly critique the philosophies and practices of other art educators, scholars, and philosophers, and I anticipate several "Letters to the Editor" in response to this issue. But, different viewpoints do not necessarily have to exist in

opposition. The current discussions about the purpose of and place for visual culture within art education at this time instigates scholars, veteran educators, and novice art teachers to carefully examine their goals, messages, methods.

Graeme Chalmers takes a look back to the 1960s and

quotes several scholars such as Vincent Lanier, June

King McFee, and Corita Kent, all of whom made early contributions to the ongoing discussions of visual culture in art education. J. Ulbricht looks back to the self-initiated comic book drawings of young J.C. Holz

through a recent interview in which both remember the child artist, his superheroes, and an article about his work that appeared in Art Education more than 30

years ago. In partnership with Ulbricht's discussion, Brent Wilson?the author of the first J.C. Holz article? also looks back at the comics of Holz, his past research on children's self-initiated drawing activities, and his current thoughts on art education and visual culture.

Through an analysis of recent proposals, Rebekka Herrmann warns of the pedagogical dangers inherent in a visual culture art education in which prescriptive step-by-step lessons lead to predetermined projects as she looks back to past and current theory and practice. Arthur Efland takes a rather centrist, but clearly demarcated position as he looks at various problems with respect to visual culture and attempts to position it in relationship to works of art, "mere objects," and art education. Charles Dorn looks at visual culture as a possible sign of the "end of art in education," a

4 ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 2005

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:20:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Not?) condition in which the aesthetic character of art and the art experience is devalued and forgotten. In the Instructional Resources, Kate Lantz looks at children's

picture books about fairy tales as sources for inter

disciplinary learning.

Depending on which side of the visual culture issue you find yourself?and there are more than two sides to any issue?consider that visual culture is not

easily defined nor limited to a single approach or

purpose. Far too often, different perspectives on a

single topic are considered to be binary and in conflict, like good and evil, us and them, black and white, or

modernism and postmodernism. If indeed "art can be

dangerous because it makes us think in new ways," (Rose, 2003, xii), visual culture is also hazardous

material (culture). I cannot help but imagine this issue of Art Education

as a sequel to the March 2003 issue. In fact, the authors who appear in this issue reference many of the articles and authors who appeared in that one. The earlier issue

sought to "introduce visual culture theory and offer diverse examples for practice" (Villeneuve, 2003, p. 5). This issue probes deeper into visual culture theory and offers diverse examples for considering practice, past, present, and future.

Whether an action/adventure, horror, suspense, or

comedy movie, visual culture is worth watching and

discussing. Which sequel do you hope to see? Are you one of those people who talk to the actors on the screen? Will you sit through the credits or leave before the final scene?

Sit back, relax, and prepare yourself for "The Return of Visual Culture."

B. Stephen Carpenter, II Editor

REFERENCES Rose, K (2003). Preface. In K. Rose & J. L. Kincheloe, (Eds.) Art,

culture, & education: Artful teaching in a fractured landscape, pp. ix-xiii. New York: Peter Lang.

Tavin, K. (2003). Wrestling with angels, searching for ghosts: Toward a critical pedagogy of visual culture. Studies in Art

Education, 44(3), 197-213.

Villeneuve, P. (2003). Why not visual culture? Art Education,

56(2), pp. 4-5.

NOVEMBER 2005

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:20:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions