National Art Education Association

Orientations to Curriculum in Computer Art EducationAuthor(s): Mia JohnsonSource: Art Education, Vol. 50, No. 3, Framing the Art Curriculum (May, 1997), pp. 43-47Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193696 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 15:23

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 185.44.78.113 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:23:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ORIENTATIONS TO

Curriculum in Computer Art

E ducation n the past ten years, more than 80 articles and dissertations have described aspects

of curriculum for computer art and graphics. While they are all based on

assumptions about what curriculum is or should be, few provide rationales. Perhaps

because the larger ethos of a technological imperative currently pervades all social

structures, the point of computer art education is rarely questioned.

A curriculum rationale is a philosophical, social or practical justification for what (and

how) we teach. However, as Eisner and Vallance (1974) pointed out, curriculum rationales

are based on conceptual biases toward the subject field that are not always

articulated. They may also be complicated by the abstract and elusive meanings

of "curriculum" itself. Beane, Toepfer and Alessi (1986) cited twelve different

definitions of curriculum given by leaders in the field. Even the apparently

straight-forward definition of curriculum as "a series of art lessons,

BY MIA JOHNSON

MAY 1997 / ART EDUCATION

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:23:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

actual written plans with objectives, motivation and learning activities, and methods of evaluation" (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987, p. 165) presents a number of questions. Why should education consist of a "series" of "lessons"? Why should the outcomes of the lessons be prescribed in writing rather than unfold during the course of events? Why do students need to be motivated or presented with specific activities by teachers, rather than develop their own? In what contexts are they are evaluated-and by whom?

In this paper I argue that, like every other subject area, curriculum for computer art education is prone to what Eisner and Vallance would call "distinct conceptual biases" (1974, p. 2). I begin by describing how five orientations described by Eisner and Vallance more than 20 years ago-cognitive processes, technology, self-actualization, social relevance or reconstruction, and academic rationalism-continue to be present in computer art education. I then raise questions about the degree to which these orientations are appropriate.

(1) THE COGNITIVE PROCESSES APPROACH

Eisner and Vallance defined "the cognitive processes approach" to curriculum as one based on assumptions about how children learn, rather than why or what. Proponents speak of knowledge as something that is "constructed" rather than accrued.

In this model, curriculum for computer art education is designed in terms of opportunities to define and solve problems (see, for example, Chia & Duthie, 1993, or Passmore, 1991). This works well with other common assumptions about the computer, such as the idea that learning to use a computer means acquiring new ways of

thinking and working-or what is commonly referred to as "computer literacy."

Like computer interfaces themselves, the cognitive processes approach is an intellectual model. It relies on a second assumption: that there is "a mind," or some kind of universal prototype for a mind, rather than something entirely unique to each individual. Ettinger points out that most user interfaces are geared to this prototype "one-user" level (1988, p. 57). Interfaces are also based on the way computers operate, which in turn involves a conception of one kind of mind. As Munoz characterizes it, the computer mind is "logical, efficient, organized and easy to understand...safe, orderly and predictable" (1993, pp. 48-49)- features which would apparently support the construction of computer art knowledge.

(2) CURRICULUM AS TECHNOLOGY

Curriculum as "technology" is an industrial model that focuses on the teacher-student loop, with the emphasis on the teacher. Like the cognitive processes approach, there is an assumption that knowledge is fixed and, therefore, can be transmitted. Curriculum is viewed as an input to supply and demand systems, and the role of the instructor is to package it effectively.

Applying this model, early curriculum studies in art education used computer-assisted instruction (CAI) to package such "core" knowledge of art as the elements and principles of design or art history. As graphics programs and interfaces increased in processing capabilities, art teachers have conceived of computer graphics more as a tool for making art

than as a medium used to directly transfer a database of knowledge. But words like effective, execute, and facilitate in statements of computer art objectives do not reflect aesthetic goals so much as economic concerns or pedagogical power relations. For example, Kitson believes that by not training our art students according to market demand, we are "wasting design resources when competing for markets" (1991, p. 542). According to other studies (such as that by Greh, 1986), computer graphics programs continue to be utilized as tools to indirectly perpetuate traditions with which art educators are most familiar.

(3) CURRICULUM AS SELF- ACTUALIZATION

Curriculum as "self-actualization" is an existential model that values personal relevance and individualized context. The focus is child-centered and learning is designed to be phenomenological in nature. Like schooling itself, computing in this model is perceived as what Eisner and Vallance would call "a vital and potentially enriching experience in its own right" (1974, p. 9).

In the area of art education, Warren spoke of the need to invest heavily in computer technology "in order to provide students with the maximum options to support their creative ambitions" (1989, p. 21). In place of logistical terms like efficient or facilitate, ideas about curriculum as self-actualization are expressed as "endless opportunities," and "pushing beyond limitations" with words like discovery, dynamic, and creativity.

The phenomenological approach to learning seems particularly well-suited to new technology. For example, the Human Interface Technology Lab at the University of Washington has

I ART EDUCATION / MAY 1997

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:23:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

developed a hands-on "chemistry world" with virtual reality technology (Johnston, 1994). Electrons, protons and neurons that appear three- dimensional and solid can be "handled" by students to create atoms and molecules. Another example is a virtual worlds' paint program developed by students at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Working in a 3D virtual space, users can select menu items like spray cans of "foam" to create sculptural, 360-degree forms.

(4) CURRICULUM AS SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION OR RELEVANCE

The "social reconstruction- relevance" approach to curriculum stresses the responsibility of curriculum to society. Both the reformist and adaptive aspects of the social relevance model are characterized in terms of agency and vehicle. That is, schools are perceived as "essentially institutions created to serve the interests of society" (Eisner, 1979, p. 62), while curriculum is "the means by which students learn to deal with societal issues" (Eisner & Vallance, 1974, p. 62).

There has certainly been enormous pressure over the past ten years for businesses, schools, and homes to become "wired." The pressure is expressed both in terms of becoming computer literate-that is, adapting to new modes of thought and ways of working-and in terms of refonning certain areas of society. Art educators have been concerned with improving design skills and aesthetic awareness, reforming communication processes, and developing a new "language" that relies heavily on visualization.

The scope of art education for design skills or aesthetic awareness is gradually expanding due to forms of

we teach.

expression not available before computer technology. These include time-varying imagery, such as animations or multimedia projects, and conceptual art projects with interfaces that deliberately set up a range of choices for the viewer (see Roland, 1990). The movement toward reforming communication processes has included new Internet listservs and databases specifically for art educators-or even subgroups within art education, such as ceramics specialists. It has also resulted in more partnership projects between art educators and specialists in previously unrelated areas like business or industry. Communication between artists and art educators in different countries has been improved with new technologies for simultaneous broadcast, such as videoconferencing. The widespread use of current computer software for art and design is producing an entire new artistic language of conventions and schemata, resulting in a universally recognized artistry.

(5) THE ACADEMIC RATIONALISM APPROACH

Like scientific rationalism, "academic rationalism" assumes there is a body of knowledge and traditions that can and should be transferred from one generation to the next. In art education, academic rationalists

promote a sense of common heritage through exposure to model works of art, termed "exemplars," and train students in such traditional theories of art as the "elements and principles of b design."

In computer graphics education, the academic rationalist approach usually involves the transference of traditional art paradigms to computer art. Applying one such paradigm, some art programs-such as that described by Ettinger (1988)-develop a historical perspective about computer art through the use of computer art exemplars. Another paradigm involves the development of perceptual and critical vocabulary to discuss computer images as if they were the products of a self-contained, formalist tradition (Ettinger, 1988; Johnson, 1995). A third type of paradigm involves teaching computer image-making in terms of two-dimensional design elements and principles carried over from analog fonns of art such as printmaking, painting, or the graphic arts.

DISCUSSION It has been more than twenty years

since Eisner and Vallance first proposed their five concepts. Despite the fact that these orientations can readily be found, is it reasonable to assume that any of them are really

MAY 199 / ART FDUCATION

A curriculum rationale is a

philosophical, social or practical justification for what (and how)

F

_LJJ :'7!1 W

FT TTTT

c,

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:23:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

appropriate for curriculum development in computer graphics?

Several factors complicate the answer. These include a recent interest in contructivist pedagogy; a renewed emphasis on the development of "skills" in education; and the increasing need for critical theory about the uses and place of the computer as an art medium. These factors are problematic because they are operating simultaneously with earlier orientations.

In 1974, Eisner and Vallance defended their five orientations on the grounds that certain others were not applicable. One was the "child-centered versus society-centered" distinction classically found in the work of Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Dewey. Today, what Eisner and Vallance would call "significant educational dialogue" (1974, p. 3) about child-centered curriculum can again be found in the work of curriculum reconceptualists like Madeleine Grumet and William Pinar, who speak of curriculum in terms of self-actualization but at the same time aim at social reform. These two orientations formed polar opposites 20 years ago, and, if we adopt such philosophies about curriculum for computer art education, we will need to conceive of new ways to reconcile the goals and objectives of each.

Eisner and Vallance also stated that they referred to "the value-skills dimension only secondarily since curricular dialogue is seldom presented directly in these terms" (1974, p. 4). Nor did they use a "present-future" dimension "...largely because the central issues in educational discussion do not revolve around the time orientation itself' (p. 5). However, both the value-skills and present-future dimensions are a major emphasis in education today. A top- down model of computer literacy,

technical know-how, and life-skill competence-"gearing students for the third millennium" as Hicks put it (1993, p. 42)-can be found in the opening arguments of almost every paper written on computer art education. We must become conscious of the choices we make when we combine these goals with more personal goals of self- actualization, self-discovery, or problem-solving opportunities.

The ways in which we must rethink our rationales for computer art education become even more apparent in the light of five questions posed by Clark, Day and Greer as "helpful checks for content selection" (1987, p. 164). Their first question, "Is the subject matter significant to an organized field of knowledge?" represents an academic rationalist orientation to categorization and fixation. As such, it does not support the kinds of art that have been produced by computer artists during the past fifteen years-the lifetime of our public school students. These have included images and animations generated by sequences which emerge from interactively evolving equations, such as reaction diffusion techniques (SIGGRAPH '91 Electronic Theater, p. 38 and 40); or performance art based on interactions with projected stereoscopic and real-time computer animations (SIGGRAPH, p. 52), or animated journeys through abstractions, like the colors, compositions and constructions of paintings by Maholy Nagy (SIGGRAPH, p. 29). Academic rationalism is perhaps the least useful of the orientations for computer art education, since it accounts neither for the enormous differences between analog and digital mediums, nor for the

movement towards more relativist and multicultural beliefs about art.

Their second question, "Does the subject matter survive the test of time?" reflects the cognitive processes approach to knowledge as something constructed by the educator as a positivist value, rather than something accrued by the learner as a phenomenological "fit" as it would be in a self-actualization model. While Munoz' characterization of the computer mind may typify the way we might try to design curriculum for computer art education, it is generally agreed that "safe, orderly and predictable" does not necessarily typify the way we learn.

Their third question, "Is the subject matter useful?" begs for a definition of useful since "usefulness" is a characteristic shared by all five orientations to curriculum. But computer graphics are by nature inwardly-directed, oriented to such technological constraints as hardware and software capabilities, commands and functions, procedures, and preconceived applications. We must first define "usefulness" in terms of the capabilities of the media.

Their fourth question, "Can the subject matter be made interesting to the learner?" reflects a bias towards a technology model that prizes the packaging. But the computer by itself cannot achieve such curricular objectives as "creativity," "self- discovery," or "enrichment." Nor does the much-lauded "ease of comparison" by which students can select from interpolated imagery necessarily develop a "sense of aesthetics and judgment," as Symmers (1989, p. 63) and many others would have it. Notions about what constitutes a more or less aesthetic image are conveyed directly or indirectly through the education process as well as through the social

ART EDUCATION / MAY 1997

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:23:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

culture. Their fifth question, "Does the

subject matter contribute to the growth and development of a democratic society?" is clearly a question of social relevance. Computer art curriculum in this model can be a means to enculturate and indoctrinate students in new social concepts of representation. As such, for art education reform it may be the most

promising of the five orientations. But the whole notion of a "democratic society" has been undergoing definitive changes that make it difficult to fix an itinerary. Students using the computer to make art require guidance in the form of critical theory, especially theory derived from new paradigms surrounding this unique medium that will allow students to question the dualities implicit between the personal and the collaborative, the individual and the social, or the phenomenological and the consensual.

CONCLUSION It is questionable whether the kinds

of curriculum orientations that have served us to date can reflect the discipline of computer art itself. More recently, Eisner advocated an expansion "of the utensils in our methodological pantry" (1993, p. 55), and suggested that changes in curriculum will depend on new research methodologies for determining curriculum. In computer art education, these may include in- depth studies of fields which have come to rely heavily on computer art and design, such as industry, science, architectural and medical visualization. Little is known about the computer art world itself. Certainly more studies of computer artists will be necessary if they are to serve as models of theoretical, practical and historical

development in computer art-as do their colleagues in painting or sculpture.

Art educators are well-positioned to

reconceptualize computer art education. Despite the persistence of the entrenched orientations, it is clear that current work in the computer art world, public and educational access to new resources on the Interet, and the

adoption of new technologies in the school system all bode well for exciting action on the curriculum front. The guiding questions proposed by Clark, Day and Greer could thus be rephrased as follows.

1. Why might computer media be significant to fine art education? Is commercial software adequate, or should students create their own applications?

2. How can curriculum be developed for computer art education in ways that will recognize the dynamic and constantly changing nature of the media? How can contemporary computer art education recognize historical and traditional paradigms and, at the same time, develop its own context?

3. How are computer media useful? What characteristics do computer media share or not share with other art media, and how should their potential be maximized?

4. Why should art teachers guide students in developing an aesthetic sensibility towards computer art and design? Is there a difference between "enrichment" and economic welfare?

5. Is computer art education important to society? Should it be?

MiaJohnson is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Curriculum Studies (Art) at the University ofBritish Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

REFERENCES Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., & Alessi, S. J.

(1986). Curriculum planning and development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Chia, J., & Duthie, B. (1993). Primary children and computer-based artwork: Their learning strategies and context. Art Education, 46 (6), 23-41.

Clark, G., Day, M., & Greer, D. (1987). Discipline-based art education: Becoming students of art. Journal ofAesthetic Education, 21(2), 129-193.

Eisner, E. (1979). The educational imagination. New York: MacMillan.

Eisner, E. (1993). The emergence of new paradigms for educational research. Art Education, 46 (6), 50-55.

Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (1974). Five conceptions of curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum, (pp. 1-18). Berkeley: McCutchan.

Ettinger, L. (1988). Art education and computing: Building a perspective. Studies in Art Education, 30(1), 53-62.

Greh, D. (1986). Using computers in secondary art education. Art Education, 39(6), 4-9.

Hicks, J. (1993). Technology and aesthetic education. Art Education, 46(6), 42-47.

Johnson, M. (1995). The elements and principles of design: Written in finger jello? Art Education, 48(1), 57-61.

Johnston, R. (1994). Chemistry world. HITLab Review, 4, 10.

Kitson, M. (1991). Computer graphics in art- and-design education: The problem of planning for change. Leonardo, 24(5), 541- 547.

Munoz, Z. (1993). A technophile looks at technology, education, and art. Art Education, 46 (6), 48-49.

Passmore, K (1991). The effect of microcomputers on secondary art students' two-dimensional designs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University.

Roland, C. (1990). Our love affair with the new technology: Is the honeymoon over? Art Education, 43(3), 54-60.

SIGGRAPH '91. (1991). Electronic theater. New York: SIGGRAPH International.

Symmers, J. (1989). Is computer art art: Should the computer be used in the art classroom?Journal of the Ontario Society forEducation Through Art, 18,62-66.

Warren, K.C. (1989). What are they doing with computers? School Arts, 89(4), 20-21.

MAY 1997 / ART EDUCATION

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:23:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions