Why teach mundane art alongside the classics?
The general idea here seems to be that there is a question, and growing movement, that asks why we still focus on old masterpieces and high art, and not on the more mundane art and design that today’s students are submerged in constantly. This is expressed most succinctly in the quote by Arthur Danto: “Pop art has eliminated the boundary between high art and low art. Minimalism erased the distinction between fine art and industrial process. … If fine art is indistinguishable from the rest of the material culture, how does one define the limits of instructional content?” I think it’s a good idea to incorporate more art and design frameworks that students encounter in everyday life, especially when it comes to media and decoding what they see. Even from a historical perspective, I’ve always felt that you can learn more about a modern culture from its advertisements than from its high art. If you take a look at how people attempt to control and manipulate, and how to decode these messages, there’s real utility there. In some ways, a more visual version of the documentary ‘The Social Dilemma’ would be appropriate visual literacy education.
Other practical applications of visual culture include well structured resumes and websites. Any student, whether their interests lie in art, business, athletics, or otherwise, can benefit from a better understanding of how to sell themselves. Too often, proper graphic layouts and hierarchies are taught outside of art class, leading to people who develop boring or unprofessional resumes that stunt their potential.
Students would be on board for a visual culture curriculum as well. Take a look at any art enthusiastic teenager’s personal online portfolio, and chances are it’s filled with popular culture replications, home-made comic strips, and concept art that imitates the development of popular media they consume. Tying design concepts to popular media would likely maintain higher levels of student engagement, and meet them at a level they already are comfortable looking at art. I’ve noticed this in other artistic areas of instruction, like music, where often soundtracks and popular songs will be learned alongside classics.
This is the same argument that tends to happen when we look at the ideals of fine art through a current social lens, especially in terms of feminism. While some may see fine art as aspiring to more spiritual aspirations, elevating it above the mundane constraints of popular demands, it’s evident that classic art tends to focus on art made by men, disregarding age-old art forms such as weaving, knitting, sewing, and certain forms of ceramics. These arguments often contain the same language, where fine art is separated from that which is seen as ‘kitsch’ or low art. I use this as an example to explain how broadening the kinds of art we focus on in art instruction is often inclusive in more than just content, but in culture. While some may see fine art as outside of the world of politics, we as humans never really get to escape from the fact that we tend to exclude people even subconsciously, and that the high culture vs. low culture argument is often just as much about taste as it is about class, race, culture, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Comments