No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Abstract In this paper, four art educators, writing individually, speculate about the future of their field. Conjecturing about the condition and direction of art education in years to come, the authors have each addressed to some extent the following questions: If art is over and if it can no longer be defined (if it ever could), what then are we to teach? If there is no longer history, how then can we deal with the present and future? If everything is, as Martinez and Strauss (2005) claim, "commodification, decoration, [and] entertainment" (p. 43), then can art education continue as a field of study? With new media demanding collaboration as a methodology, who can claim to be an artist? Wondering beyond Dissanayake (1988), who asserts that everyone makes art, who then can claim not to be an artist? So too, what does it mean to be an art educator today? In the age of "No Child Left Behind" and the further marginalization of our discipline in school programs, can our field, such as it is, continue to exist as an educational program? If craft stores proliferate across our country, conducting and supporting numerous classes in quilting, flower arranging, crocheting, and painting, what is our role as a field? Is our existence possible? It is even desirable? The positions of the four writers are not offered with a voice of unison. Each author has addressed these questions from separate locations, and with different purposes and viewpoints in mind. The speculative outcomes, while not harmonious, offer the field a range of responses to these critical questions about the future of art education.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.