Do I agree with the pimary arguement?, yes and no. Yes, because I belive art is an important part of students curriculum. Art gives students a means to express themselves in ways they might not be able to otherwise. I feel that art give students a reprieve from more "academic" based classes and if a student is having fun in art their mood is likely to carry over into other classes and make them more receptive to learning. No, because it sounds as if the author is proposing art teachers include powerpoint and other forms of multimedia in their course. I feel that this would adversely effect the current art courses impacts on students and what their learning. I would rather, and indeed like to, see these things being taught to students in a different class(gaphics class would seem a more suitable choice).
I agree with the article. I especially liked the quote at the end, about how we need to "prepare our kids for their future rather than our past." Teachers are going to throw these technology-based assignments at their class, because they're mandated to or it is suggested to them by the administrators, but the kids don't really know what to do. I liked the anecdote about the student who was struggling to make a multimedia project. I agree with this. Teachers spend so much time teaching students how to write correctly, but the bulk of their work anymore is going to be multimedia projects, power points, web pages, etc. While I don't think this should replace traditional fine art classes, I think there is a place for it, perhaps within other core classes. For instance, in language arts, working with multimedia should be just as important as learning to structure a paragraph.
First, the author's claim of: "First, today's relatively affordable, easy-to-use, multimedia technology acts as assistive technology for the artistically challenged. In the same way that word processing opened up the world of the writer, multimedia technology has opened up the world of the artist. Today, anyone who can move a mouse can jump in and give it a go."
THAT is the problem: "anyone who can move a mouse can jump in and give it a go" see this is what I have an issue with, he's right, anyone can, they can take any image they very well please slap it in Coral or Photoshop, change the contrast, and call it their own. It's aggravating and has led to me having to have site administration on sites such as Deviantart.com remove said 'art' that people have plagiarized from my own works as well as works of my friends and called their own. If I ever wish to use a piece of art that isn't my own I ASK permission from said artist and NEVER post it on an art site claiming it as my own.
As for the author so cleverly comparing this to programs like Word opening up the world to writers, no. It is not the same thing. Word is a tool that you can use to produce your work more neatly and easily. It doesn't do the work for you. You still have to research what you wish to write, determine how you wish to present (say) it, you still have to have the skill and practice of writing to back it up.
As for his talk of powerpoint presentations and how they are now the norm, well yes they are. Because it’s less work. If one knows how to click, copy, and paste images to a powerpoint slide, write three bullets of information, and add some color, a paper that used to be five pages of actual research on a topic can now be covered in 12 slides which combined might have no more that 5 complete sentences. Adding art is great for presentation sake, but it doesn’t make up for, nor should it, take the place of actual research and work.
I agree with this article! I am an extreme advocate for the arts in the public schools. I think that there has been a lack in arts literacy in our schools and it needs to change. Putting the arts to work in each content area and incorporating technology into it is a very good thing. I think if students were given the opportunity to incorporate the arts, (especially music) into the regular curriculum, we would see a jump in literacy across the curiculums overall. The arts tend to lend themselves to intrinsic motivation and collaboration, and this is what makes students learn. There needs to be an even balance. Not all arts, not all core curriculum, not all technology. When there is a balance, the students will learn much better.
Do I agree with the pimary arguement?, yes and no. Yes, because I belive art is an important part of students curriculum. Art gives students a means to express themselves in ways they might not be able to otherwise. I feel that art give students a reprieve from more "academic" based classes and if a student is having fun in art their mood is likely to carry over into other classes and make them more receptive to learning.
ReplyDeleteNo, because it sounds as if the author is proposing art teachers include powerpoint and other forms of multimedia in their course. I feel that this would adversely effect the current art courses impacts on students and what their learning. I would rather, and indeed like to, see these things being taught to students in a different class(gaphics class would seem a more suitable choice).
I agree with the article. I especially liked the quote at the end, about how we need to "prepare our kids for their future rather than our past." Teachers are going to throw these technology-based assignments at their class, because they're mandated to or it is suggested to them by the administrators, but the kids don't really know what to do. I liked the anecdote about the student who was struggling to make a multimedia project. I agree with this. Teachers spend so much time teaching students how to write correctly, but the bulk of their work anymore is going to be multimedia projects, power points, web pages, etc. While I don't think this should replace traditional fine art classes, I think there is a place for it, perhaps within other core classes. For instance, in language arts, working with multimedia should be just as important as learning to structure a paragraph.
ReplyDeleteOkay here's my issue with all of this:
ReplyDeleteFirst, the author's claim of: "First, today's relatively affordable, easy-to-use, multimedia technology acts as assistive technology for the artistically challenged. In the same way that word processing opened up the world of the writer, multimedia technology has opened up the world of the artist. Today, anyone who can move a mouse can jump in and give it a go."
THAT is the problem: "anyone who can move a mouse can jump in and give it a go" see this is what I have an issue with, he's right, anyone can, they can take any image they very well please slap it in Coral or Photoshop, change the contrast, and call it their own. It's aggravating and has led to me having to have site administration on sites such as Deviantart.com remove said 'art' that people have plagiarized from my own works as well as works of my friends and called their own. If I ever wish to use a piece of art that isn't my own I ASK permission from said artist and NEVER post it on an art site claiming it as my own.
As for the author so cleverly comparing this to programs like Word opening up the world to writers, no. It is not the same thing. Word is a tool that you can use to produce your work more neatly and easily. It doesn't do the work for you. You still have to research what you wish to write, determine how you wish to present (say) it, you still have to have the skill and practice of writing to back it up.
As for his talk of powerpoint presentations and how they are now the norm, well yes they are. Because it’s less work. If one knows how to click, copy, and paste images to a powerpoint slide, write three bullets of information, and add some color, a paper that used to be five pages of actual research on a topic can now be covered in 12 slides which combined might have no more that 5 complete sentences. Adding art is great for presentation sake, but it doesn’t make up for, nor should it, take the place of actual research and work.
You raise some very interesting points here! Please post to this to our Facebook Group discussion!
ReplyDeleteI agree with this article! I am an extreme advocate for the arts in the public schools. I think that there has been a lack in arts literacy in our schools and it needs to change. Putting the arts to work in each content area and incorporating technology into it is a very good thing. I think if students were given the opportunity to incorporate the arts, (especially music) into the regular curriculum, we would see a jump in literacy across the curiculums overall. The arts tend to lend themselves to intrinsic motivation and collaboration, and this is what makes students learn. There needs to be an even balance. Not all arts, not all core curriculum, not all technology. When there is a balance, the students will learn much better.
ReplyDelete