BRAVE NEW BASICS: CASE PORTRAITS OF INNOVATION IN UNDERGRADUATE STUDIO ART FOUNDATIONS CURRICULUM DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jodi Kushins, M. ***** The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Patricia Stuhr, Advisor Dr. Terry Barrett Approved by Dr.
Clayton Funk ________________________________ Alison Crocetta, MFA Advisor Art Education Program ABSTRACT By the end of the 20th century, many independent schools of art and art departments embedded in comprehensive universities required undergraduate students to complete a series of introductory courses commonly referred to as foundations. Interpreted literally, these foundations were perceived as the basic building blocks for all artistic practice. Regardless of a student’s future studies in fine or applied art forms, in tactile or digital media, she was required to start out with these fundamentals. Organized around drawing, color theory, and concepts in 2- and 3-dimensional design, the standard foundations sequence prioritized formalist concepts and technical proficiency.
At the dawn of the 21st century, the goals and objectives of traditional foundations are actively being challenged. While some argue that beginning students still need to become fluent in a fundamental visual language defined by the elements of art and principles of design, others look at the diversity of practices, purposes, and contexts for making art in the early 21st century and wonder if it is possible or desirable to define a single set of commonly employed, fundamental skills and concepts. Amidst the pluralism and criticality of the contemporary art world, alternative foundations curricula have begun to emerge. Brave New Basics: Case Portraits of Innovation in Introductory Undergraduate Studio Art Foundations Curriculum describes two programs that reflect developments in ii postmodern artmaking and theories of critical pedagogy.
This report is the result of my examination of introductory courses at Carnegie Mellon University and The School of the Art Institute of Chicago over the course of the 2006-2007 academic year. On my visits, I reviewed institutional documents, observed classes, and spoke with faculty and students. I used Lawrence-Lightfoot’s (1983) portraiture methodology to guide my observations, analysis of data, and eventual construction of contextualized narratives to describe these non-traditional foundations programs. I hope that my descriptions of these programs will provide those contemplating, embarking upon, and critiquing undergraduate introductory studio art curricular reform with models to consider.
iii Dedicated to my grandparents. Sam, Sylvia, Paul, & Sarah whose lives served as lessons that with hard work, a little of love, and a lot of chutzpah you can do anything. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Though it’s been said many times in many ways, this dissertation would not have been possible without the support of the following folks: My fellow students, my professors, and the staff in the Department of Art Education at The Ohio State University past and present. Special thanks to Pat Stuhr, Terry Barrett, Kenneth and Sylvia Marantz, Clayton Funk, Alison Crocetta, Holly Longfellow, Savenda Fulton, Kirsten Thomas, and Melanie Buffington; Members of Foundations in Art Theory and Education (FATE) for encouragement and attention most doctoral students only dream of; Faculty and students at Carnegie Mellon University and The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
Special thanks to Jim Elniski & Lowry Burgess for ongoing support and recognition; Amy Brook Snider for being my mentor and my friend; Mom and Dad, Stephen and Rebecca, my extended family and long-time friends who feel like family, for reminding me how to talk often and deeply about issues, for loving and worrying about me, and for asking when I’d be done with this project; Dan, George, and Rosa for pleasant distractions; My friends in The Salo(o)n—one good thing that came out of the 2004 election cycle—for support, inspiration, and commiseration. We are the future of academia. v Let’s never forgot what we learned in our interdisciplinary network. Special thanks to Vogel & Sons for your warmth and companionship and the Salo(o)nistas for the feminist discourse; My new comrades in ComFest University who provided me space and opportunity to keeping learning and to put knowledge I gained through this project to work in my own community; Joe at the gym for being that stranger who repeatedly asked, with genuine interest, how things were going and shared his own stories of survival; Avi for getting me into this in the first place; You, for taking the time to read and complete this text.
vi VITA May 2, 1975…………………………………Born – New York, United States 2001…………………………………………M. Art & Design Education, Pratt Institute (Brooklyn, NY) 2000-2003………………………………….Art Educator Tolland High School (Tolland, CT) 2003 – present………………………………Graduate Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Research Publications 1. With Kevin Tavin & Jim Elniski. “Shaking the foundations of post- secondary art(ist) education.
Book review of Rethinking curriculum in art by Marilyn G. Stewart and Sydney R. Studies in Art Education, 48 (3). “Recognizing Artists as Public Intellectuals: A Pedagogical Imperative.edu/culturework/culturework34.
“Learning From Our Learning Spaces. “Making Meaning from Murals.” Visions: Connecticut’s Professional Art Education Magazine 13 (1). “Making the BEST of it.” Visions: Connecticut’s Professional Art Education Magazine 12, no. FIELDS OF STUDY Art Education Critical Pedagogy Contemporary Art viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication…………………………………………………………………………….ix List of Figures.
INTRODUCTION Why Study Innovations in Undergraduate Studio Art Foundations?…….2 Statement of the Issue…………………………………………………….6 Statement of Purpose…………………………………………………….9 Significance of the Study……………………………………………….14 Overview of Research Design……………………………………….15 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………….16 Conclusion: Overview of Chapters……………………. CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH CONTEXT Framing Portraits of Innovative Undergraduate Studio Art Foundation Curricula……………………………….19 Postmodernism: A Revitalized Context for Creation and Curriculum….30 Critical Pedagogy: A Call for Radical Revisions ……………………….31 Rethinking Relationships Between School and Society…………33 Whose Knowledge is School Knowledge?…………………….34 Cultivating Critical Consciousness………………………………37 Towards 21st century Art Foundations: Enacting a Dynamic and Critical Praxis …….38 Thinking Thematically Across Media….……………41 Connecting Studio Practice and Art Interpretation………………45 Introducing Digital Technology……………………………….46 ix Collaborating in Context…………………………………………49 Attending to Identity Politics…………………………………….52 Conclusion: Embracing Postmodernism…………. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY On Becoming a Qualitative Researcher………………………………….55 Methodological Issue Interlude: Researcher Predilections and Theoretical Sensitivity………………….57 Methodology #1: Descriptive Case Study……………………………….59 Methodological Issue Interlude: Credibility as Transferability….62 Methodological Issue Interlude: Participant Reciprocity and Institutional Support…………………………………………….70 Student Focus Groups……………………………………………75 Methodological Issue Interlude: Credibility through Triangulation…….80 Identifying Themes………………………………………………81 Constant Comparative Analysis……………………………….83 Methodological Issue Interlude: Credibility through Member Checks……………………………………………………………84 Conclusion: Portraiture in Progress…. CASE PORTRAIT #1: CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY Contemporary Curriculum in Context Pittsburgh, PA: The Town Andrew Carnegie Built…………….86 Instructional Interlude……………………………………86 Carnegie Mellon University: A Comprehensive Academic Environment…………………………………………………….88 Educating Students, Benefiting Society….92 Instructional Interlude……………………………………94 The College of Fine Arts: Respecting Tradition, Encouraging Innovation……………………………………………………….95 Considering Current Curriculum……………………………………….98 Foundation Media Studios: Multi-media Impressions………………….101 Concept Studio: Conceptualizing Artmaking………………………….106 Conceptual Change Agents…………………………………….109 x Media and Concept: Two Sides of the Same Coin …………….111 Conclusion: Making Complexity Coherent…………………………………….
CASE PORTRAIT #2: THE SCHOOL OF THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO Contemporary Curriculum in Context Learning in The Loop……………….117 A Wealth of Resources……………………………….120 Institutional Interdisciplinary Initiative……………….………121 Catalysts of Change Mark-making in the 21sts century…………………………….124 Inspiring Leadership……………………………………………125 Instructional Interlude……….129 Considering Current Curriculum Research Studio: Generating Inspiration ………………………130 Instructional Interlude……….134 Core Studio Practice: Aiming for Interdisciplinary Introductions…….135 Structuring Inter-disciplinary Objectives……………………….144 Core or Cram……………………………………………………145 Conclusion: Living with Questions……………………………………. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Compare & Share………………………………………………….……149 Brave New Basics: A Rough Sketch………………………………….150 Art is always about something…………………………….…151 Context is critical………………………………………….153 Utrecht® is not the only place to buy art supplies….155 Question authority and own your vision……………………….157 Play well with others……………………………………………159 Implications for Postsecondary Art Education…………………………160 Focus on Foundations …………………………………………161 Promote Pedagogy…………………….163 Enact relationships between theory and artmaking….165 Facilitate critiques, don’t just schedule them.……168 Don’t abandon learning by making…………….175 History in the Making………………………………………….175 xi Beginners and Masters …………………………………………176 Impacts of Innovation………………………………………….201 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 Distribution of introductory courses required in the first and second years of the BFA program at Carnegie Mellon University………………………………….1 Comparison of credit hour distributions in The School of the Art Institute of Chicago’s First Year Program in the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 academic years…………………………………………………………………………….2 The flow of students through Surface, Space, Time, and Concluding rotations in Core Studio Practice, one of two courses that comprise the First Year Program at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago ……………………….140 xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Why Study Innovations in Undergraduate Studio Art Foundations? College students interested in studying art in the United States at the beginning of the twenty-first century, have a wide range of institutions to choose from. Various independent colleges of art and design, land grant and research universities, liberal arts and community colleges, and distance learning initiatives offer programs in art. In each case, the overarching contexts, missions, and organizing structures of these institutions influence what counts as art and art education.
In some schools, curricular content is oriented towards production and interpretation of fine art while others emphasize preparation for work in commercial art worlds. Despite these differences, however, most undergraduate visual art programs require students to complete some set of introductory courses commonly referred to as foundations. The architectural metaphor inherent in the term foundations is intentional. Such courses are designed to introduce basic skills and concepts as a support structure on which students can build advanced artistic practices.
As one instructor matter-of-factly proclaimed: “Foundations are called that because that's what they are: basic training for the eye and hand” (Bannard, 2005, ¶25). By the late 20th century, such training typically included beginning courses in drawing, color theory, and 2- and 3-dimensional design 1 (Betz, 2003; Dockery & Quinn, 2007; Kaprow, 1964). Assuming what is basic is also universal, beginning art students are often required to complete the same set of foundation courses regardless of their prior knowledge and experience, their desire to create fine or applied art forms, or their interests in analog or digital media. While one might interpret “training for the eye and hand” as more than biological or technical attunement, for those preparing art students to “imagine themselves as citizens within the world – not only the art world” (Becker, 1995/2000, p.
239) these objectives may seem limited and vague. Where, for example, does knowledge of historical and social context or cultural traditions fit into the traditional foundations curriculum? When are questions about the nature and purpose of art, artistic commitment, and professional responsibility introduced? I designed and conducted Brave New Basics: Case Portraits of Innovation in Undergraduate Studio Art Foundations Curriculum to explore alternative foundations curricula that might offer students more comprehensive preparation for life and work as contemporary artists. Background Most seem to agree that “[e]very student now pursuing a ‘foundation course’ at an art school has the Bauhaus to thank for it” (Whitford, 1984, p. Johannes Itten, a Swiss artist and educator, created the first rationale and curriculum for the introductory Vorkurs course at the well-known, but relatively short-lived, Bauhaus school of art and architecture in Germany (1919-1933).
His goals and objectives were based largely on his training as an elementary school teacher and follower of an Eastern theological tradition called Mazdaznan. As an elementary educator, Itten was trained in theories of constructive play popularized by Friedrich Froebel. As a spiritual man, he strove to 2 uncover and manipulate the essential nature and communicative power of materials and processes. “As a teacher he believed that everyone was innately creative and that Mazdaznan could provide the key to unlock their natural artistic talent,” (Whitford, 1984, p.
Bauhaus students and supporters welcomed Itten’s celebration of individually variable solutions. They did so, however, in relation to the newly established, democratic Weimar Republic (Goldstein, 1996). “Whether or not students chose to subordinate their art to a manifest social role, they were not to think of themselves as divorced from society but as integral to it” (Rogal, 1998, p. Vorkurs has been translated alternately as preliminary or basic.
While these concepts are not mutually exclusive, they are also not purely synonymous. In the case of Vokurs, preliminary would imply something that came before and led to something else whereas basic would have referred to some essential content and experience. Similarly, foundations are alternately referred to as introductory or core courses and curricula.