library research scholar program san jose state university

Library Research Scholar Program

San Jose State University

Alexander Werdmuller von Elgg

[email protected]

13 May 2020

2020 College Art Education Survey – Pictorial Focus A General History and A Survey of SJSU Student and Faculty Attitudes

2

Introduction

Unlike science or other topics, the teaching and learning of art can be more abstract. This research aims to discover how students and teachers at San Jose State University, California (SJSU) value visual arts education at SJSU. There is research literature on student and faculty attitudes of college art education but student and faculty perceptions of art education at SJSU can be useful for addressing student interests at SJSU and for other college art departments. Hence, the goal of this research is to better realize students’ own potential as developing artists during their time as students by identifying meaningful teaching strategies, topics, and resources in art education. Teachers may also gain from this study by considering the diverse interests of the student population. The specific research questions are, “What do students want to learn and what do teachers want to teach in college level art education?” The relevance of this research is related to the conversations about the many directions college art education has experienced and can continue to evolve into. The annotated bibliography aims to draw students’ and faculties’ attention to a variety of themes and experiences commonly found in a college art education and may present under-recognized themes that may be possible directions to explore. When I was taking art education classes in 2019 at SJSU, my professor, Susan Trimingham, showed a presentation that cited author Mary Stankiewicz. This presentation planted the seed of curiosity in me about the topic of rationale for art education and thereby fueled my drive for this research project. Hence, I am indebted to Trimingham for opening my eyes to a fascinating subject. All of my teachers, both art and otherwise, have provided considerable support for me to consider these topics at depth and carry out the research. As a result of reading research articles with their findings, my questions developed into, “Does a teacher teach traditional aesthetic values or does a teacher teach strategies for student's own personal exploration and discovery of personal aesthetic values? How can a teacher achieve both and should they?”. The authors and their research described below address topics of higher art education including: personal artistic visions, social context, student engagement and success, student and teacher perceptions, foundation courses, and doctorate degrees in fine arts. A challenge in the learning of art is dealing with dynamic definitions and terms – ambiguity often persists. However, having read into the debates surrounding college art education, there are patterns and semblances of a consensus of relevant terms in college art education. Standard language recognizes words like drawing and painting, but the plasticity of terms becomes challenging when categorizing arts, crafts, and conceptual definitions of art. Hence, dynamism characterizes art education. Based on emerging themes from authors, this annotated bibliography is grouped into four major categories: history, teachers and students, political, and PhD of fine arts. Subjects: art, education, art education, college art education Key words: college art curriculum, BFA, MFA, PhD, studio art, fine art, craft, formalism, naturalism, abstraction, expressive, artist-genius, social art, aesthetics, art education philosophy, pedagogy, student/teacher attitudes

3

Annotated Bibliography

History

figure 1. Mary Stankiewicz. Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). Roots of Art Education Practice. Worcester, MA: Worcester, MA :

Davis Publications.

Mary Stankiewicz outlines a broad survey of rationales for art education dating back to pre-industrial America. Stankiewicz points out how diverse rationales have evolved over generations and often contradicted one another. The justification of art as a circular subject has been a long-standing debate because art has been seen as a means to an end or an end in and of itself. Therefore, the curriculum of art education reflects the values of the society and stakeholders. Indeed, educational policies are crafted to serve the needs of the time. Whether it be personal exploration and play or centered on industrial necessity, art education has transformed to serve a variety of populations.

figure 2. Godfrey Rubens. Rubens, G. (2003). Art Education. Grove Art Online. Retrieved 3 Mar. 2020, from

https://www.oxfordartonline.com/groveart/view/10.1093/gao/9781884446054.001.0001/oao-9781884446054-e-7000004341.

Godfrey Rubens describes different systems of art education through ancient,

medieval, pre-industrial, and modern time frames. Art education has been incorporated into hereditary trades, guilds of craftsmen, exclusive art academies, industrial assembly lines, arts and crafts societies, and eventually university programs. Similar to Stankiewicz, Rubens traces a myriad of reasons behind art

4

education across generations of time. Rubens and Stankiewicz help place the current state of art education in a historical context by highlighting defining moments and people in the development of art educational thought.

figure 3. Lee S. Shulman. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004

Lee S. Shulman describes a history of the university institution and confronts George Bernard Shaw’s statement, “he who can, does. He who cannot teaches” (4). Shulman discusses trends in education that emphasize content knowledge compared to pedagogical knowledge. Shulman points out that the original understanding of a masters or doctorate degree was comparable to teaching; bachelorship was essentially a teaching assistant. Therefore, the institution of an academy or university was meant to perpetuate the content knowledge and that teaching strategies were indistinguishable from content knowledge – they were not taught separately. Teaching instruction-methods was a trend that developed at the time of Shulman’s article.

figure 4. Deepali Dewan. Dewan, D. (2001). In Asher F. M. (Ed.), Crafting Knowledge and Knowledge of Crafts: Art

Education, Colonialism and the Madras School of Arts in Nineteenth-Century South Asia. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Deepali Dewan accounts for the creation of the South Asian art history discipline

and the colonial art schools in India. Dewan describes how the British colonial art school included in the curriculum naturalistic representation and incorporated a revival of Indian ornamental design (156). In colonial art schools, fine arts and handicrafts were two distinct departments. The definition of Western art education included three-dimensional, naturalistic drawing and a single teacher leading a

5

classroom of a group of students (4). The distinction between South Asian decorative design and naturalistic fine arts was established to support a hierarchy of inferior and superior art forms judged against classical Greek sculpture. This strategy to separate art forms justified the colonial presence by constantly asserting an ideal that was always out of reach by the colonized. During the post-colonial nationalist progression, art schools continued traditional ornamental Indian art. These schools erroneously claimed ornamental art to be a form of resistance to the colonial past when in actuality, ornamental art curriculum existed during the colonial period.

A result of colonial art education was the creation of the discipline of South Asian art history, its dissemination, and the apparatus for remembering a visual art history of India. The creation of a canon and its limitations is the object of critical study because it defines what and how we understand histories of visual art.

figure 5. J.A. Soika. Soika, J. A. (1964). German Art Education. Studies in Art Education, 5(2), 67-74.

doi:10.1080/00393541.1964.11650134

J.A. Soika traces a development of art education in Germany where the systemization of curriculum gradually developed as a means to “train human virtues” because creative energy is inherent in all people (67). Germany has a long history of recognizing the value of art education. This is exemplified by having international art education conferences, teaching credentials, and promoting art education as “[fructifying] all pedagogic fields” (68). Indeed, in early educational classes, drawing preceded writing (67). The development of appreciation for expressive, children’s paintings indicated a shift of interest away from traditional art academy standards. Art education assumed an attitude to embrace the “formation of personality” and building intellectual concepts through perception by way of art (72). The chancellor of Germany even stated that coming generations are at risk of losing their souls to automation if they do not engage in artistic thinking (72).

6

Teachers and Students

figure 6. Kimon Nicolaïdes. Nicolaïdes, K. (1941). The Natural Way to Draw: A Working Plan for Art Study,. Boston: Boston,

Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kimon Nicolaïdes outlines studio classroom routines in his book, The Natural Way to Draw 1940. Nicolaïdes describes ways to draw the gesture and spirit of a subject as well as structures of studio class time, a structure common in studio classrooms at the time of this writing. His focus on the essence of observational drawing shows how art educators aim to teach accurate perception of feeling and transferable impressions into two-dimensional representations. The acknowledgment of the gesture of a subject is customarily the first and most important step in drawing accurately – accuracy being naturalistic and empirical.

figure 7. Stuart Richmond. Richmond, S. (1998). In Praise of Practice: A Defense of Art Making in Education. Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 32(2), 11. doi:10.2307/3333554

Stuart Richmond argues in the same line as Nicolaïdes that the heart of art education is noticing observable phenomenon and actively working to present observations. This is connecting with the world, interpreting it, and producing a response to it. Art relies on representation or mimesis which then informs personal expression (15). Richmond states that a focus on art theory over art practice is an unfortunate model for art education. Essentially, talking about art is not as good as engaging in creating art (12). Engaging in the creation of art in the classroom creates content to respond to. The process of creation is itself valuable because students learn during the experience.

7

Richmond argues aesthetic contemplation sustains the human spirit (17). Art that is too didactic and literal loses its’ aesthetic value and purpose; therefore, art requires ambiguity and room for interpretation. Art with socially motivated content does not constitute good art (18). Further, Richmond’s question and concern is, “who decides the social agenda which art ought to serve?”. If morality is a factor for artists, Richmond claims a moral achievement of an artist is to diminish self-interest to engage with the reality of that which is encountered via realism (19). Essentially, a true rendition beyond superficiality is the object of art and art education.

figure 8. Anita Sinner. Sinner, A. (2015). Against the Grain: An Intervention of Mastery Learning and Intellectual

Emancipation in Art Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(5), 502-514. doi:10.1080/00131857.2014.883962

Anita Sinner taught an undergraduate class in art, implemented a visual journal

assignment, and analyzed student responses about the art course curriculum she used in her class. The visual journals were a type of repeating assignment to measure student mastery and intellectual emancipation to “verify student attention” (512). Sinner’s use of experimental curriculum allowed her to see possibilities in reforming curriculum for future students. The sense of an unknown is a key component in art education. Sinner aimed to support students’ agency to promote engagement in their art education toward personal responsibility.

figure 9. Kuan-Chen Tsai. Tsai, K. (2017). Teacher-Student Relationships, Satisfaction, and Achievement Among Art and

Design College Students in Macau. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(6), 12.

Kuan-Chen Tsai researched levels of student engagement by conducting a survey to college animation students in Macau, China. The survey used Likert scales to measure teacher-student relationship, student experiences, and student

8

achievement. Tsai concluded that there is a positive association between student engagement and when teachers are confident, give responsibility to students, and teachers are more friendly and understanding. These results emphasize the importance of teachers’ character in supporting a learning environment.

figure 10. Susan Orr. Orr, S., Yorke, M., & Blair, B. (2014). ‘The Answer is Brought About From Within You’: A Student-

Centred Perspective on Pedagogy in Art and Design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(1), 32-45. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2014.12008.x

Susan Orr et al interviewed college art students in the UK about their perception of

survey questions written to measure student satisfaction of teaching methods. Students see an instructor’s role is to facilitate creativity, listen to students, and draw out student creativity by deferring responsibility to the students (39). Orr mentions how Shell Curriculum balances a framework of project centered learning with the empowering experience of students coming into their own understanding of artwork. In this way, the instructor sets up assignment frames to be starting points and later the teacher becomes invisible as students respond with their own personal expression (39). This method is not prescriptive but designed to encourage revelations the student takes responsibility for.

figure 11. Mantz Yorke. Yorke, M., & Vaughan, D. (2013). The Expectations and Experiences of First-Year Students in Art

& Design. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(2), 215-228. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2013.775930

Mantz Yorke reported on freshmen perceptions of art education in the UK to

measure general satisfaction and the discrepancy between expectations and learning experiences. Criteria included learning environment, instructor feedback,

9

quality of teaching, assessment, course organization, and communication skills. Students showed a variety of attitudes toward scaffolding and open-ended explorations; therefore, individual attention is necessary to optimize a curriculum to meet a wide range of student needs.

figure 12. An image from Harrigan McMahon Bowman’s dissertation. Bowman, H. (2011). In Baldacchino J. (Ed.), The Artist in The University: Interview Case Studies

of How Four Art Professors Make Sense of the Meaning in Their Work as Educators and How They Navigate the Dual Relationship Between Artist and Educator. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Harrigan McMahon Bowman conducted in depth interviews with four art teachers

to better understand how they conceive themselves in duel roles as teachers and professional artists. In Bowman’s literature review, Bowman discusses an emergent theme of self-doubt among art instructors regarding the value of their contribution as educators. The concerns about the value of their content, pedagogy, and the efficacy of their instruction arrive because the subjectivity of art and the personalized experience of creativity can be challenging to define.

Bowman traces a shift in purpose for art education from teaching prospective

educators toward teaching professional artists with the introduction of the Masters in Fine Arts degree (MFA). The professionalization of artists is directly responsible for the emerging shared sentiment that teaching art in a university is inferior to supporting one’s self by means of art production alone. The individual production of artworks is considered a purer use of creative energy and preferable over succumbing to make ends meet as a university faculty member. This feeling is an outcome of the conceptualizing of a professional artist or teacher dichotomy.

The premise that an MFA graduate ought to make art rather than teach art is at the

center of the dilemma of self-identity as an art teacher (98). Bowman notes an absence of structured coursework in studio art classrooms or a sense of insufficient art pedagogy. Teaching through either osmosis or standardized curriculum both are insufficient teaching methods and so teachers are often unclear about how to construct class curriculum. According to a liberal arts value system, art instruction promotes “cultured and aware citizens”, which conceives of teaching as a worthy

10

end and not a result of failure as an artist. A teacher is often relegated to an inferior status when compared to a professional artist who earns a living from producing artwork – a rarity. Hence, definitions of success in art and art education vary.

figure 13. An image from Stacey Redford McKenna’s dissertation. Mckenna, S. (2011). In Burton J. M. (Ed.), Art School Consequential: Teaching and Learning in

the First Year of Art School. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Stacey Redford McKenna observed, interviewed, and surveyed college freshmen art students and teachers at the School of Visual Arts (SVA) New York, New York and the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) Baltimore, Maryland in order to understand their experiences and attitudes in college level art education. McKenna focused on their multiple points of view, narratives, and tone to collect data about themes regarding what qualities students want from instructors in a college level art education. McKenna probed to better understand examples of how instructors can promote revelatory learning moments that support artistry. McKenna asserts there is a paucity of research on contemporary college level art pedagogy.

Mckenna concluded there are five pedagogical themes appropriate for foundation

year art studies (221). These concepts in college level art education include: 1) the teacher being invested in the student as an individual; 2) showing ways for students to make personal art from their own lives; 3) developing technical skills in mediums; 4) promoting a safe and pleasant social work environment; and 5) living creatively. Similar to Tsai’s conclusion, McKenna found teachers’ personalities are a critical role in determining the quality of art education (161).

Prior to McKenna’s dissertation, McKenna taught MFA students about college level

teaching and introduced high school pedagogy into the college studio classroom and noticed a heightened level of engagement (236). This suggests that the pedagogy at K-12 levels of art education are still relevant at the college level for supporting personal artistic expression.

11

Political

figure 14. Clayton Funk. Funk, C. (1990). In Burton J. M. (Ed.), The Development of Professional Studio Art Training in

American Higher Education, 1860-1960. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Clayton Funk explores an historical debate over the development of studio art education practices and the political/social aspects that directed the initiation of studio art as a discrete discipline. During the 1790s, American art educators debated “who in America should be allowed to attend art school, what they would learn, and to what end” (4). Indeed, these questions persist and have become embedded in the fabric of art and art education. The social and individual polarities are the prominent directions art education has oscillated between.

As newly formed Americans ideated themselves as distinct from their European antecedents, some art educators saw mimicking European artistic values as a means to carry on academic art while others aimed for a more utilitarian and democratic function of art (7). Art exemplars to study from were limited during the 19th century and availability to art resources defined study references (51). Educators John Trumbull and Samuel Finney Breese Mores presented contrasting aims in art education: the catering to an upper class and governmental echelon or a pragmatic and self-sufficient middle class respectively (4). As a result, the rationale for art education frequently refers to these two pitted motives.

Another divergence that emerged was the industrial mass production compared to craftsman guilds. Here, the needs of commerce or the integrity of the artists’ spirit are at odds. Samuel Morse and Benjamin Franklin knew artistic education was intrinsic to a free person and subsequently a free nation (24). And so, they argued for an egalitarian approach to art education.

During the 1830s, college students became interested in the liberal arts, which included debate, reason, and fine arts (39). University students from the mid 19th century who looked away from colonial predecessors and toward the humanities took greater interest in the discipline of art history by way of a liberal arts education that formed literary societies who discussed the fine arts (40).

12

Drawing was commonly seen as related to industry, sciences, and architecture; drawing was slowly integrated into art departments unlike art academies that embraced art as its own end (48). Art was seen as a skill to design solutions to social problems and not for its own sake (52). The industrial training directly opposed the artists’ integrity because it minimized the presence of the hand in favor of the machine as homogenous goods at a low cost. William Morris, founder of the Arts and Crafts Movement in Britain, aimed to harmonize machines and artistic-spiritual aims. According to Morris, an artist is a socially conscious worker who makes beautiful and practical goods unlike an aloof genius in an elitist realm (26). Hence, the socially aware artist who is present in her/his work is celebrated according to Morris.

The South Kensington and Bauhaus art schools similarly aimed to unite Industrial training with the fine arts (27). Black Mountain College in North Carolina was one outcome of Bauhaus educators coming to America in the 1930s. Black Mountain College integrated art and design into practical life by including studio work, construction, and farming; art was seen as integral to life and so they accommodated industry in arts education (31).

American art universities would later rely on William Torrey Harris’s taxonomy of the arts to structure the strata of university art education. During the late 19th century, Harris gleaned from Henry Conrad Brokmeyer’s English translation of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Logic to establish major and minor forms of art – a hierarchy that still persists. Hence, the spectrum of acceptable forms of art are largely indebted to Harris’ cannon (42). Funk describes how a university sponsored art programs ironically promoted and confined the spirit of artists who initially liberated themselves of art academies and their hierarchies of art.

Art academies in America continued a neoclassical tradition of making and understanding images. Alternatively, painter, Thomas Eakins, was concerned with observable nature, not the idealized forms (12). This sentiment to accept the observable without imposing a stricture on the natural was echoed in Romantic and Modern artists. Modernist-abstract artists refuted a mass culture of representational images carried out by American impressionists and photojournalistic trends in art. Abstractionists sought autonomy from culture in search of personally sensitive expressions despite being labeled as lunacy (17). A rift between the empirical and intuitive outlooks on art took form.

Attempts to document data about college art education developed in 1874 when the Federal Bureau of Education conducted the first survey of college art class offerings; within 50 years, the number of art departments in college went from 8 to 83 (51). Andrew Carnegie financed education, including the arts, as a philanthropic

13

means toward upward individual mobility and a more enlightened culture for world peace (55). According to Carnegie, the arts were a part of a democratic society and served these diplomatic ends and therefore worthy of patronage (57). Vocationalism, with its empirical standardization of knowledge, was a competing theme over liberal arts education. In 1911, the College Art Association (CAA) drafted the professionalism of art and certified degrees to justify the academic acceptance of art as a field of study in a university and also established journals aimed at discussing college art (61). In this way, standardization and certainty overwhelmed the intuitive nature of art education continuing into the 1940s and 50s (35). At its basis, college level art education has been contested as it relates to utilitarian or a more abstract, intellectual pursuit (45).With the development of the MFA professional degrees during the 1960s, the institutionalization of art was reinstated resembling its academic roots yet again confronted with the question of whose aims does art education serve, an institution or an individual?

figure 15. An image from Tom Halsall’s article.

Halsall, T. (1974). Towards a More Effective Art Education Curriculum: Comparing American Art

Education Theory with Marxist/Leninist Art Education Theory in the German Democratic Republic. Art Education, 27(6), 2-6. doi:10.1080/00043125.1974.11653936

Tom Halsall (1974) argues artists and art educators exist in a society and ought to

employ art toward a socially conscious perspective. According to Halsall, artists and art teachers have a political obligation to engage in civic discussion. Conversely, independence and individualism (often expressed in abstraction and formalism) ignores the artist’s relationship to external features such as society and nature – essentially ignoring their current social circumstances (Halsall, 3). Artists’ relation to their context needs to be apparent in artwork. Otherwise, artists risk perpetuating the notion of an artist-genius, an egoistic ideology where the artist is isolated from the rest of humanity. Halsall criticizes this idea of artistic independence liberated from social responsibility. Halsall does not negate the personal experience in art but notes artists should “see external qualities” and respond to their essence (Halsall, 6). Art education out to work to this end of civic engagement.

14

figure 16. Alyson Pouls. Pouls, A. (2017). In Siegesmund R., Staikidis K. and Wilkins E.(Eds.), Theories Impacting Art

Foundations Course Descriptions in the United States. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Alyson Pouls analyzed United States college art curriculum according to the key

words Formal, Technical, and Conceptual to observe patterns and themes in art education. Pouls concluded the emphasis on impersonal topics of art and design deprive students of a personally engaged learning experience by asserting universal principles of art. Pouls advocates that the foundation year of college art education should not be confined to design principles but include individual student needs by recognizing their cultural contexts. Pouls argues that standardization of art education teaches there is one answer rather than promoting the pluralism and flexibility intrinsic to art. Pouls mentions when art is justified to serve industry, then art’s greatest contribution is lost – namely self-discovery and democratic engagement (113). As a result, classrooms are often geared toward commercial art and not for expressive art. Further, Pouls divided the art schools into geographic regions to observe trends and found art curriculum language at schools located in the South and Mid-Western regions had lower percentages of conceptual art (115). This is relevant for prospective students when deciding their trajectory of study.

figure 17. Kevin Tavin. Tavin, K., Kushins, J., & Elniski, J. (2007). Shaking the Foundations of Postsecondary Art(ist)

Education in Visual Culture. Art Education, 60(5), 13-19. doi:10.1080/00043125.2007.11651119

Similar to Pouls and Halsall, Kevin Tavin argues against the notion of a formalist

foundation art education; Tavin advocates for a socially aware art curriculum (14). Social content needs to be integrated into the curriculum to address the needs of a diverse and technologically evolving student population. A first-year program

15

(foundations course) should concentrate on students’ subjective experiences rather than objective formal qualities (15). In this way, the definition of approaches to art-making expands into transdisciplinary and socially alert modes of creativity.

figure 18. Melanie E. Corn. Corn, M. E. (2013). Community-Partnered Project-Based Studio Pedagogy: Developing a

Framework and Exploring the Impact on Faculty in Art and Design Higher Education (Ed.D.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (1436254054). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/docview/1436254054?accountid=10361

Melanie E. Corn argues colleges need community partnered project-based

pedagogy in art and design education to support service-learning where the needs of a community are addressed (3). Corn states that traditional studio practice education does not prepare student-artists well enough to be humanitarian but rather perpetuates a “lone-genius” model where individual endeavors are valued. Alternatively, a community partnered curriculum supports civic engagement in a global, democratic power (128). The aims in service-learning art education are making a meaningful collaboration while meeting pedagogic goals (10). Corn claims this mode of art education better facilitates professional preparation and civic engagement.

figure 19. An image from The University of Montana faculty page for Ardeshir Kia. Kia, A. (1988). In Neperud R. (Ed.), The Transition from Modernism to Post Modernism and its

Problematic Impact on Art Education Curriculum. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Ardeshir Kia traces historical transitions of art education. During the 20th century, trends developed to appreciate child-centered art that is unhindered by formal training. Kia also traces academic high art, modern, and then post-modern art education frameworks and the social implications of their respective ideologies. Kia

16

argues Discipline Based Art Education (DBAE) ignores the personal connection in art, artists, and art education and replaces the experience of art with the discipline of art itself. Essentially, the subject of art eclipses the relationship an individual has with art – a difference between voice and convention.

Kia’s concern with DBAE is that it perpetuates an elitist culture by conforming to

the rules of art and not the individual sensitivity of the artists. This rift is also reflected in the 19th century Romantic artists’ objections to academic art where the question of “art for whose benefit?” is at hand. Similar to Pouls, Kia stresses the cost of Post-Modern art education is the displacement of context in art. In this argument, when formal qualities in art education dominate curriculum, we do not hear about the life, struggles, and personality of the artist but only their adherence to tradition; in Kia’s view, the tradition is a corporate culture rather than democratic culture.

figure 20. Arthur Wesley Dow. Dow, Arthur W. (Arthur Wesley). (1997). In Masheck J. (Ed.), Composition: A Series of Exercises

in Art Structure for the Use of Students and Teachers (13th ed. ed.). Berkeley: Berkeley : University of California Press.

In 1929, Arthur Wesley Dow published an instructional book on visual art titled,

Composition: A Series of Exercises in Art Structure for the Use of Students and Teachers. Composition was important for placing the elements of art in a framework for teachers and students to articulate. These elements include line, value, shape, and notan among others. Dow drew inspiration from Japanese woodblock prints and was considered an orientalist and post-impressionist artist. Although Dow is not explicitly political, Kia mentions Dow as setting a tone for artistic guidelines in curriculum. Kia credits Dow for supporting the disinterestedness in academic high art in favor of child centered art (Kia, 1988). In a paradoxical way, Dow also confirmed rules of composition as the basis of art education while also supporting freely expressed spontaneity.

17

figure 21. Michael Grady. Grady, M. (2006). Art and Consciousness—The Pedagogy of Art and Transformation. Visual Arts

Research, 32(1), 83-91. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715405

Michael Grady explains the importance of a spiritual dimension to art education at JFK University, Berkeley, California. According to Grady, truly effective art is a “spiritual inquiry” (84). Grady was influenced by the Bauhaus School in Germany, which was deeply informed by a contrast of personal and social aspects of art (85). Grady draws the spiritual component of art from one instructor at the Bauhaus, Johannes Itten. The Bauhaus models of art school set the tone and parameters for many art colleges today.

Concerning the coming years of art and education, Grady anticipates “the artist as

harmonizer, healer, trickster, and teacher” compared to an expectation of an artist to be a solo performance. As the image of an artist shifts away from the artist-genius persona toward a more dynamic and constantly evolving definition of art, the idea of an artist will embrace more uncertainty in art; this emerging understanding will focus on developing an internal dialogue (90). Further, Grady promotes the link between artist and social context will be increasingly apparent where the intuitive sensitivity of artists and their connection to their environment weighs over the formalities of visual conventions – substance over form.

figure 22. Anna Rowland. Rowland, A. (1996). Itten, Johannes. Oxford University Press.

Anna Rowland (1996) describes the life of Johannes Itten, an art educator at the Bauhaus school in 1919. Itten was considered a progressive educator that embraced the idea of play as learning. Itten’s contribution to modern art focused on the underlying structure of composition and color theory. Itten was also interested in the spiritual component of art, a dimension of art education often seen as at odds with the industrial function of art. This dichotomy of mysticism and

18

industry fueled a rift within the Bauhaus school, which later resulted in its dissolution.

PhD in Fine Arts

figure 23. James Elkins. Elkins, J. (2004). Theoretical Remarks on Combined Creative and Scholarly PhD Degrees in the

Visual Arts. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 38(4), 22-31. doi:10.2307/3527373

James Elkins discusses the challenges and criteria of a PhD degree of Fine Arts. In addition to the production of artwork, a PhD in Fine Arts credential would configure any combination of criticism, philosophy, history, extra-disciplinary knowledge (adopt another field into the artwork), advancing a technical method, or incorporate an historical understanding to inform the artist’s practice (23). For example, this could be a written philosophy standing next to the artwork (24).

Elkins is concerned that this criteria blurs boundaries at confluences of disciplines,

which makes judging arduous and foggy. To carry out distinct studies simultaneously in conjunction with studio practice, artists need to justify their respective connections at the set of research (26, 27). Evaluation requires discrete evaluators for each criteria. To assess a product unlike existing products in each field means the complexity of the conceptual and financial obstacles is a mountainous undertaking.

19

figure 24. Jessica Bridget Schwarzenbach. Schwarzenbach, J. (2012). In Heller C., Byers J. and Stonyer A.(Eds.), Possibilities for the Fine Art

PhD in the United States: A Self-Imposed Qualification Ceiling? ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Jessica Bridget Schwarzenbach interviewed six graduate level art educators and

administrators about their attitudes toward the introduction of a PhD in Fine Arts as research in America. Doubt and discouragement were the dominant attitude toward a PhD in Fine Art as research because the definition of research is couched in technology despite the original purpose of a PhD has its origins in 19th century German philosophy, a subject classified in the humanities (84). Since art is an inquiry into life (a philosophical consideration), a PhD in fine art is not such a distant vision.

During the 1960s, university students protested the introduction of art history and

academics into the course requirements of an art education (76). Indeed, visual artists are often typified as less interested in academics (85). If a PhD in Fine Arts was introduced, individual institutions would define the parameters governing the criteria for a PhD in fine arts rather than a consistent accrediting body further mystifying qualifications (88). There is a general question of how art is a means to research and create knowledge – there is no singular concept of knowledge, epistemology, or ontology by which an artist may conduct research (20). This presents a challenge of qualifying doctorate candidates when there is no consensus of means, what to speak of achievement.

The MFA degree, or equivalent professional experience, are the typical criteria for

college art educators (282). A PhD could possibly raise the criteria for art instructors applying for work causing the job market competition to be more selective admitting only those privileged with a PhD. Some interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with the academic art programs of MFAs considering them to be arbitrary parameters that “have nothing to do with art” (236). Hence, excessive art education detracts one away from art proper since artistic tendencies can be supported but not taught (237). Additionally, advancing as an artist can be achieved through residencies or in solitude, independent of an institution altogether. Therefore, advancing in art through academics in a PhD program is often discouraged.

20

The overarching tone is critical and realistic taking into consideration the financial burden and limited accessibility toward higher education. A PhD “closes out” other professionals and perpetuates a turf war over theory and practice (239). In European countries, a PhD is directly related to livelihood as it helps attain grants and reviews; the general attitude toward artists in Europe is more favorable (180). Alternatively, America is far more capitalistically driven that marginalizes artists who do not sell their artwork (162). Hence, a PhD does not improve an artist’s economic standing nor does a doctorate program have a clear structure. It would simply be an endeavor for its own sake.

In practical terms, being an artist is a quality that endures beyond any academic institution where the drive to create persists after working a day job (213). Grit will sustain artists and cannot easily be taught in college art classes but is supported with consistent studio time and routine discussions. Therefore, a sure indicator of artistic development is a steady art practice and less so in academics even though academics can enhance one’s understanding of art.

figure 25. Stephen Mark Morrow. Morrow, S. (2017). In Richardson J., Richardson J. and Walker S.(Eds.), The Art Education of

Recklessness: Thinking Scholarship Through the Essay. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Stephen Mark Morrow discusses Arts Based Research (ABR) as an embodied

practice of art, poetry, and academic rigor applied toward contributing to knowledge; ABR is critiquing the nature of knowing through representing research findings with an aesthetic medium, namely art (165, 182). By design, Morrow’s dissertation is dense and difficult to follow because the format of a dissertation requires rereading and prolonged contemplation.

Morrow discusses how the medium of an art form carries messages that support

critical thinking. Morrow compares original thought to clichés; by accepting clichés, working though them, and diverging from traditions, an artist cultivates originality. The mental processes that lead to originality can be taught, which are most explicit in art; art, however, cannot be taught (30). Essentially, teachers provide frameworks and directions for students to facilitate original thinking but the development of art is a personal experience (31).

21

Conclusion

Many writers corroborate how the process of art causes self-ideation where the formation of self is so vividly present in engagement with art on any level whether it be creating or observing often in a metacognitive mode. Authors in this review tend to appreciate this mysterious nature of art; they state the purpose of art and education orbits the phenomenon of discovery of one’s self and environment. Essentially, art has a spiritual component with no substitute – art is a fundamentally human activity and teaching it should aim toward this understanding. Additionally, art is credited with promoting a democratic society as presented from Kia, Soika, Corn, Pouls, and Halsall. In this way, art facilitates self-awareness and personal responsibility, which are critical components to a functioning democracy. As a result of this political end in art, the formalistic approach to art education along with variations of the concept of an isolated artist-genius, contradict the service-learning model of art education where social context assumes highest relevancy in determining the function of art, artists, and education. This rift is best expressed as an individual-social dichotomy where the expectations of artists and their educators alternate from the self-reflective mode to a more collective contribution – also expressed as the adherence to artistic conventions or the advancement of humanitarianism. A couple remaining questions include: how does a formalistic art training compromise a communal outlook and what does a service-learning art education look like? Although each author expanded on art education at length, the summaries of authors’ work are curated to demonstrate a particular case, namely that art education often focuses on personal achievement rather than collective work, but that art education has always undergone transformation and will likely continue to transform to meet the needs of students, establishments or both. The fact art education has been so nebulous and debated is testimony to arts’ value and shifting presence in society and individuals’ lives. Therefore, a critical view into explanations for the condition of college level art education remains an important topic for students and teachers alike. Some implications for the philosophy of art education are the personal benefits paired with service to society. Challenges include the students’ personal learning experiences, and if art serves a political interest, who decides those interests? Indeed, the discussion for art and art education remains a diverse conversation. For aspiring artists and art teachers, I hope this annotated bibliography (despite its limitations) serves as a reference for guidelines to consider when writing curriculum, addressing student and classroom needs, and the direction and tone for lessons as well as student directed education when deciding where and how to study art. Indeed, this annotated bibliography is but a fraction of existing literature on college level arts education; however, several authors claim there is not enough literature on the topic and advocate for continued research. Therefore, this annotated bibliography may assist in directing readers to more authors and topics for further research.

22

Figures

Figure 1. Stankiewicz, Mary. https://sova.psu.edu/profile/mary-annstankiewicz Figure 2. Rubens, Godfrey. https://williammorrissociety.org/2019/02/05/godfrey-rubens/ Figure 3. Shulman, Lee. http://www.leeshulman.net/biography/ Figure 4. Dewan, Deepali. https://www.rom.on.ca/en/collections-research/rom-staff/deepali-

dewan Figure 5. Soika, J. A. https://www.insea.org/Soika Figure 6. Kimon, Nicolaides. http://www.librarything.com/author/nicolaideskimon Figure 7. Richmond, Stuart. https://www.sfu.ca/education/faculty-profiles/srichmond.html Figure 8. Sinner, Anita. https://www.concordia.ca/finearts/art-

education/faculty.html?fpid=anita-sinner Figure 9. Tsai, Kuan Chen. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kuan_Chen_Tsai2 Figure 10. Orr, Susan. https://www.arts.ac.uk/research/ual-staff-researchers/susan-orr Figure 11. Yorke, Mantz. http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/mantz-

yorke(ae2f0d4a-f5ad-4f0d-acb5-47604c3d8fad).html Figure 12. Bowman, Harrigan McMahon. Bowman, H. (2011). In Baldacchino J. (Ed.), The artist

in the university: Interview case studies of how four art professors make sense of the meaning in their work as educators and how they navigate the dual relationship between artist and educator. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Figure 13. McKenna, Stacey Redford. Mckenna, S. (2011). In Burton J. M. (Ed.), Art school

consequential: Teaching and learning in the first year of art school ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Figure 14. Funk, Clayton. https://aaep.osu.edu/people/funk.86 Figure 15. Halsall, Tom. Halsall, T. (1974). Towards a more effective art education curriculum:

Comparing American art education theory with Marxist/Leninist art education theory in the German democratic republic. Art Education, 27(6), 2-6. doi:10.1080/00043125.1974.11653936

Figure 16. Pouls, Alyson. https://alysonpoulsart.weebly.com/

23

Figure 17. Tavin, Kevin. https://people.aalto.fi/kevin.tavin#cv Figure 18. Corn, Melanie. https://www.ccad.edu/about-us/senior-cabinet Figure 19. Kia, Ardeshir. http://hs.umt.edu/history/people/default.php?s=Kia2 Figure 20. Dow, Arthur Wesley. https://www.pinterest.com/stuartmccallum/arthur-wesley-

dow/ Figure 21. Grady, Michael. https://art.appstate.edu/connect/directory/grady-michael Figure 22. Rowland, Anna. https://www.linkedin.com/in/annarowland/detail/photo/ Figure 23. Elkins, James. https://www.scu.edu/art/news--events/stories/james-elkins---

problems-teaching-visuality-across-the-university.html Figure 24. Schwarzenbach, Jessica.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jessica_Schwarzenbach Figure 25. Morrow, Stephen. https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-morrow-

95207614/detail/photo/

24

Survey Overview & Methodology

At the beginning of the research, I hypothesized students and faculty at San Jose State University, California (SJSU) are mostly satisfied with their college level art education but want improvements. To address the specific improvements, I designed a survey that asked students and teachers about their attitudes toward college level art education. The survey was quantitative with two qualitative text boxes: one to specify currently enrolled major and the other to address desired topics in art currently not offered at SJSU and that were beyond what the survey provided. One likert scale measured general satisfaction with their current art education. Using Qualtrics, I used display logic to direct participants in the survey based on their relationship to SJSU dividing the students from the teachers. Graduate students currently teaching undergraduate students had access to both survey question sections. After participants provided consent at the set of the survey, the survey prompted participants to respond to likert scales in three categories:

Teaching methods: 15 features Topics in art: 35 features Resources and facilities: 14 features.

Likert scales were broken down as 5 gradations:

Highly important (paramount, crucial and/or essential. Cannot do without) Necessary (required) Important (but secondary) Minimal importance (appreciated but can do without) Not important at all (have no need for this)

These gradations established the extent of value students and teachers placed on specific features commonly offered in a college level art education. Some limitations of the study is that these features are based on my personal experiences in art education, which do not comprehensively reflect an accurate scope of art education experiences. Hence, this study focuses on teaching methods taught in the teacher-preparation department at SJSU as well as my own direct observations and from informal conversations with students. For this survey, the topics in art include mediums, subject matter, and content (the more conceptual dimensions of art) as they relate to fashioning images onto a plain i.e. drawing, painting, and printmaking. The resources and facilities offered at SJSU appear to be consistent across art colleges i.e. studio and exhibition space. In this way, I have tried to describe college level art education in generic terms while relying on specifics.

25

15 teaching methods included: • One-on-one attention with teacher • Teacher lectures • Guest lectures • Viewing examples • Teachers show their artworks • Lesson demonstrations (teacher modeling) • Structured lessons (scaffolding) • Open ended lessons for exploration • Working in class studio time • Collaborative projects • Assigned reading • Class critiques/group discussions • Writing about artwork (articulation of concepts) • Working on one artwork over a prolonged period of time • Working on several iterations of artwork (quantity)

35 topics in art included:

• Representational art • Non-representational art (abstraction) • Observational drawing • Observational painting • Portraiture • Still-lifes • Landscapes • Linear perspective • Art History • Contemporary art news • Developing craftsmanship • Learning about materials • Making your own tools/materials • Paper making • Graphite drawing • Charcoal drawing • Pastel drawing • Relief printing • Screen printing • Lithography • Intaglio • Watercolor painting • Oil painting • Acrylic painting

26

• Guache painting • Collage • Hand lettering • Pattern design • Courses covering a wide range of mediums • Developing personal expressive voice and/or style • Developing conceptual art ideas • Developing a personal process to make images • Using computers for image making • Photographing artwork • Learning about art business skills

14 resources and facilities included:

• Shared studio space • Private studio space • Exhibition space • Storage space • Access to studio time and space outside of class time • Materials provided in class • Figure models • Field trips • Gallery visits • Museum visits • Visits to artist's studios • Visits to public art • Outdoor drawing/painting (plein air) • Library art book collections

Demographic questions included:

• Relationship to SJSU: undergraduate student, graduate student, graduate student and teacher, teacher, and other specify

• Current declared major: qualitative text entry • Semester(s) enrolled: 1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, 9+ • Apply for specific major: yes/no • Intent to study art specifically: yes/no • Change of major: yes/no • Transfer student: yes/no

27

Recruitment

The initial recruitment plan was to print out invitations to participate in the survey and post them in the hallways by the classrooms in the art building, photography department, and the ceramics department targeted at SJSU art students and faculty. When SJSU suspended in-person instruction on 10 March 2020 due to public health measures concerning COVID-19, I revised my IRB protocol to recruit participants by advertising the survey on the SJSU SammyApp, Instagram, and individually emailing students and teachers asking them for participation. I asked teachers to share the survey link with their students and one teacher confirmed they had shared the link. From 11 March 2020 – 20 March 2020 (10 days), I received 31 participants. Reponses date from 2 January 2020 – March 2020, which is 11 weeks. I am not certain how participants accessed the survey prior to the 11 March 2020 advertisements but their contribution provided interesting feedback none the less. Indeed, one participant took the survey on 15 April 2020 but the following results and analysis does not include this participant’s responses.

28

The recruitment poster

29

Data Report & Analysis

The yellow highlighted sections are the highest percentages. Bolded areas are over 50 percent. Red numbers are at least 60%, which I consider significant. Blue highlighted areas are equally distributed percentages.

Student Responses Relationship to SJSU 1. What is your relationship to college art education at San Jose State University?

# Answer % Count

1 Undergrad student 59.46% 22

2 Graduate Student 10.81% 4

3 Graduate Student teaching at SJSU 10.81% 4

4 Teacher/Faculty 10.81% 4

7 other/specify 8.11% 3

Total 100% 37 Comments

Of the 37 respondents, 22/37 (59.46%) are undergraduate students 4 /37(10.81%) are graduate students 4/37 (10.81%) are graduate students teaching at SJSU 4/37 (10.81%) are faculty 3/37 (8.11%) are other/specify Since most participants (59.46%) were undergraduate students, the survey results can be said to mostly reflect undergraduates’ experiences and interests.

30

Current Declared Major 2. What is your current declared major?

French and BFA in pictorial art

Studio practice

Design

Computer Science, BS

MFA - Pictorial

Studio Practice

Studio Art preparation for teaching

Pictorial: painting and drawing

BFA Pictorial Arts

Studio Practice

Studio practice art

Studio Practice, Preparation for Teaching

Pictorial Arts Major

Pictorial bfa

BA Design Studies

English--Creative Writing focus

Design Studies

Interior Design

mfa pictorial

bfa

31

Comments

I decided on 7 categories to interpret the responses. Of the 20 respondents, 6/20 Bachelor of Fine Art (BFA Pictorial) 4/20 Studio Practice 4/20 Design 2/20 Masters in Fine Art (MFA Pictorial) 2/20 Studio Art Teacher-prep 1/20 Bachelor in Computer Science 1/20 Bachelor Creative Writing Since most of respondents (30%) are BFA majors in the pictorial focus, the results can reflect the attitudes of students enrolled in the BFA major, which requires a solo exhibition as the culminating examination. Hence, the results of the survey are informed by the expectation of a solo exhibition because of the majority of participant responses are BFA majors. However, the remaining 60% are invested in their art education although they do not have the solo exhibition requirement. Hence, a student’s interest in art can develop independent of a solo exhibition. Non-BFA majors can choose to exhibit a solo show if they so choose. Future research questions could consider how students conceptualize their art education under these two circumstances – exhibition requirement compared to non-exhibition requirement.

Semesters Enrolled 3. How many semesters have you been enrolled at San Jose State University?

# Answer % Count

1 1-2 42.86% 9

2 3-4 33.33% 7

3 5-6 14.29% 3

4 7-8 4.76% 1

5 9+ 4.76% 1

Total 100% 21

32

Comments

Of the 21 respondents, 9/21 respondents (42.86%) have been enrolled in 1–2 semester(s). 7/21 respondents (33.33%) have been enrolled in 3–4 semesters. 3/21 respondents (14.29%( have been enrolled in 5–6 semesters. 1/21 respondents (4.76%) have been enrolled in 7–8 semesters. 1/21 respondents (4.76%) have been enrolled in 9+ semesters. Therefore, almost half of respondents (42.86%) are freshmen or recently transferred. 16/21 respondents (76.2%) are within two years of enrollment, suggesting the survey reflects participants’ desires in an early stage of art education. Provided student interests change as individuals discover personal avenues of art, the survey may show expectations for the foundation year. Authors like Kevin Tavin (2007) and Alyson Pouls (2017) address the assumptions behind the foundation (freshmen) year of college level art education as being formalistic and neglecting an individual’s voice to favor principles of design or the institution’s aesthetic values. This raises a question about the validity of a foundation year of art education: how does the formation of art education accommodate principles of visual arts and learners’ innate aptitudes? Future research could explore art students’ experiences across their life because much of art education occurs beyond the semesters enrolled outside of the classroom setting. This type of research could explain more about if an individual’s artistic inclinations are supported or checked by institutions because it could reveal trends in artistic learning experiences and how those experiences are reflected in a college level education.

33

Demographics

4. As a student, did you apply for a specific major?

# Answer % Count

1 yes 95.24% 20

2 no 4.76% 1

Total 100% 21

Comments

20/21 (95.24 %) of respondents applied for a specific major. Therefore, most students entered a program intent on a specific subject.

5. Did you come to college specifically to study art?

# Answer % Count

1 yes 80.95% 17

2 no 19.05% 4

Total 100% 21

Comments

17/21 (80.95%) of respondents came to college specifically to study art; hence, the results can suggest what art students value because most participants are actively engaged in art studies.

6. Did you change your major at any time while at SJSU?

1 yes 25.00% 5

3 No 75.00% 15

Total 100% 20

34

Comments Most students (75%) kept their original declared major. The remaining 25% of respondents changed their major. This could suggest most participating students are confident they know what they want to study due to the absence of changing majors, and that the responses reflect students’ intent on studying art. Unlike Stacey Redford McKenna (2011) who studied students in a variety of majors, my study attempted to focus on students enrolled in the pictorial arts, though the broad net of participants invites a liberal range of participants.

7. Are you a transfer student?

Yes 85.71% 18

No 14.29% 3

Comments

18/21 respondents (85.71%) are transfer students. In general, most participants can be characterized as students who are in their initial semesters, applied to a specific major, came to SJSU specifically to study art, kept their major, and are transfer students. On this basis, I would hazard respondents are clear minded about their direction of their goals in college level art education. In question #9 feature #8, exploration was ranked as important but secondary, and did not achieve highly important. This could suggest objective driven projects are preferable among participants and that the level of independence for personal exploration with the lack of structured lessons is less developed or less interesting, suggesting that structured lessons are valuable among this population. Perhaps a need for clarity and completion is helpful in developing art education whereas personality and independence in art fructify later in coursework.

35

Teaching Methods General Satisfaction

8. As a student, how satisfied are you with the teaching methods in art education?

# Answer % Count

1 Extremely satisfied 5.00% 1

2 Moderately satisfied 45.00% 9

3 Slightly satisfied 45.00% 9

4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 5.00% 1

5 Slightly dissatisfied 0.00% 0

6 Moderately dissatisfied 0.00% 0

7 Extremely dissatisfied 0.00% 0


Of the 20 respondents, 18 (90%) stated they were either slightly or moderately satisfied with teaching methods in art education. Therefore, most, if not all, participants have a positive experience with teachers’ teaching methods.

36

Student Value on Teaching Methods 9. As a student, to what extent do you value these teaching methods?

# Question

Highly important

(paramount, crucial and/or

essential. Cannot do

without)

Necessary (required)

Important (but

secondary)

Minimal importance

(appreciated but can do

without)

Not important

at all (have no need for

this)

Total

1 One-on-one

attention with teacher

56.52% 13 34.78% 8 0.00% 0 8.70% 2 0.00% 0 23

2 Teacher lectures 23.81% 5 47.62% 10 14.29% 3 14.29% 3 0.00% 0 21

3 Guest lectures 4.76% 1 23.81% 5 38.10% 8 28.57% 6 4.76% 1 21

4 Viewing examples 65.00% 13 35.00% 7 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 20

5 Teachers show their artworks

10.53% 2 26.32% 5 36.84% 7 26.32% 5 0.00% 0 19

6

Lesson demonstrations

(teacher modeling)

55.00% 11 25.00% 5 20.00% 4 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 20

7 Structured

lessons (scaffolding)

20.00% 4 40.00% 8 35.00% 7 5.00% 1 0.00% 0 20

8 Open ended

lessons for exploration

26.32% 5 31.58% 6 36.84% 7 5.26% 1 0.00% 0 19

9 Working in class studio time

52.63% 10 26.32% 5 15.79% 3 5.26% 1 0.00% 0 19

10 Collaborative projects

10.53% 2 21.05% 4 31.58% 6 21.05% 4 15.79% 3 19

11 Assigned reading 0.00% 0 15.79% 3 36.84% 7 42.11% 8 5.26% 1 19

12 Class

critiques/group discussions

44.44% 8 27.78% 5 16.67% 3 11.11% 2 0.00% 0 18

13

Writing about artwork

(articulation of concepts)

21.05% 4 10.53% 2 42.11% 8 15.79% 3 10.53% 2 19

14

Working on one artwork over a

prolonged period of time

35.00% 7 40.00% 8 15.00% 3 10.00% 2 0.00% 0 20

15

Working on several iterations

of artwork (quantity)

23.81% 5 23.81% 5 38.10% 8 14.29% 3 0.00% 0 21

37

Comments

Regarding the nature of value, students believe these teaching methods will help them in their college level art education to varying extents. Some prominent popular trends show students want:

• an individual relationship with a teacher • to see teachers demonstrate content knowledge • to look at examples of artwork • working on projects in class • class critiques

This suggests students respond to art education favorably when directly observing actions and examples as compared to hearing or reading about art and artists. The kinetic, tactile, and visual faculties are most prominent for depth of learning in the arts. The social community aspect appears to be highly important in art education, which supports that art students need active agents to engage them in art education. The low rating for assigned reading suggests that a visual arts education is more dependent on direct experience compared to literature on the topic. Schwarzenbach (2012) mentions art students are often typified as disinterested in academics as evidenced by the 1968 student protests against academic requirements in college art. Speaking about artwork shows more favorability compared to writing about artwork.

38

Student Value on Topics in Art 10. As a student, how satisfied are you with the variety of topics offered in art courses?

# Answer % Count








Total 100% 23 11. As a student, to what extent do you value the following topics in art education?

# Question Highly

important/essential Necessary (required)

Important (but

secondary)

Minimal importance


without)

Not important


this)

Total

1 Representational

art 59.09% 13 22.73% 5 18.18% 4 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 22

2 Non-

representational art (abstraction)

30.00% 6 40.00% 8 25.00% 5 5.00% 1 0.00% 0 20

3 Observational drawing

60.00% 12 15.00% 3 25.00% 5 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 20

4 Observational painting

55.00% 11 20.00% 4 20.00% 4 5.00% 1 0.00% 0 20

5 Portraiture 36.84% 7 21.05% 4 31.58% 6 10.53% 2 0.00% 0 19

6 Still-lifes 26.32% 5 36.84% 7 31.58% 6 5.26% 1 0.00% 0 19

7 Landscapes 22.22% 4 38.89% 7 38.89% 7 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 18

8 Linear perspective

27.78% 5 27.78% 5 44.44% 8 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 18

9 Art History 33.33% 6 33.33% 6 27.78% 5 5.56% 1 0.00% 0 18

10 Contemporary

art news 27.78% 5 33.33% 6 16.67% 3 22.22% 4 0.00% 0 18

11 Developing craftsmanship 77.78% 14 11.11% 2 11.11% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 18

39

12 Learning about materials

61.11% 11 22.22% 4 16.67% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 18

13 Making your own

tools/materials 22.22% 4 38.89% 7 22.22% 4 11.11% 2 5.56% 1 18

14 Paper making 5.88% 1 23.53% 4 41.18% 7 17.65% 3 11.76% 2 17

15 Graphite drawing 27.78% 5 33.33% 6 27.78% 5 0.00% 0 11.11% 2 18

16 Charcoal drawing 27.78% 5 27.78% 5 22.22% 4 16.67% 3 5.56% 1 18

17 Pastel drawing 11.76% 2 35.29% 6 35.29% 6 11.76% 2 5.88% 1 17

18 Relief printing 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 58.82% 10 23.53% 4 5.88% 1 17

19 Screen printing 6.25% 1 12.50% 2 50.00% 8 31.25% 5 0.00% 0 16

20 Lithography 6.25% 1 37.50% 6 43.75% 7 12.50% 2 0.00% 0 16

21 Intaglio 6.25% 1 25.00% 4 56.25% 9 6.25% 1 6.25% 1 16

22 Watercolor painting

22.22% 4 38.89% 7 33.33% 6 0.00% 0 5.56% 1 18

23 Oil painting 50.00% 9 16.67% 3 27.78% 5 0.00% 0 5.56% 1 18

24 Acrylic painting 36.84% 7 26.32% 5 26.32% 5 10.53% 2 0.00% 0 19

25 Guache painting 22.22% 4 22.22% 4 38.89% 7 11.11% 2 5.56% 1 18

26 Collage 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0

27 Hand lettering 5.56% 1 16.67% 3 44.44% 8 27.78% 5 5.56% 1 18

28 Pattern design 17.65% 3 17.65% 3 35.29% 6 29.41% 5 0.00% 0 17

29 Courses covering

a wide range of mediums

61.11% 11 22.22% 4 5.56% 1 11.11% 2 0.00% 0 18

30

Developing personal

expressive voice and/or style

78.95% 15 5.26% 1 10.53% 2 5.26% 1 0.00% 0 19

31 Developing

conceptual art ideas

72.22% 13 22.22% 4 5.56% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 18

32 Developing a

personal process to make images

72.22% 13 27.78% 5 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 18

33 Using computers for image making 36.84% 7 21.05% 4 31.58% 6 5.26% 1 5.26% 1 19

34 Photographing artwork 31.58% 6 36.84% 7 21.05% 4 10.53% 2 0.00% 0 19

35 Learning about art business skills 57.89% 11 26.32% 5 10.53% 2 5.26% 1 0.00% 0 19

40

Comments

Student responses showed a strong trend to value elements related to personal voice, expressiveness, processes, and conceptual ideas for making art compared to the specific mediums. However, craftsmanship and courses covering a wide variety of mediums ranked significantly high. This suggests that students want to understand artistic thinking processes and concepts, learn about materials, and learn to excel in the implementation of their ideas with their chosen mediums; proficiency with mediums and ideas are important. The specifics of which are mixed, but a sense of self and ability to translate that sensibility appears to be the focus of art students. Note: a few of the features are mixed up in the que for the student’ and teacher’ questions but both populations answered to the same features. Also, feature #26, collage, for some reason did not receive any responses although listed.

Student Value of Resources and Facilities 12. As a student, how satisfied are you with the resources and facilities in art education at San Jose State University?

# Answer % Count








Total 100% 23

41

13. As a student, to what extent do you value these resources and facilities in art education?

# Question Highly important/essential


Important

(but secondary)

Minimal importance


without)

Not important

at all (have no need for this)

Total

1

Shared studio

space 61.90% 13 19.05% 4 14.29% 3 4.76% 1 0.00% 0 21

2

Private studio

space 55.00% 11 0.00% 0 35.00% 7 5.00% 1 5.00% 1 20

3 Exhibition space 60.00% 12 20.00% 4 20.00% 4 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 20

4 Storage space 68.42% 13 21.05% 4 10.53% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 19

5

Access to studio

time and space

outside of class

time

68.42% 13 21.05% 4 10.53% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 19

6

Materials

provided in class 42.11% 8 36.84% 7 5.26% 1 15.79% 3 0.00% 0 19

7 Figure models 44.44% 8 38.89% 7 16.67% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 18

8 Field trips

15.79% 3 15.79% 3 36.84% 7 21.05% 4 10.53% 2 19

9 Gallery visits 21.05% 4 26.32% 5 31.58% 6 21.05% 4 0.00% 0 19

10 Museum visits 16.67% 3 27.78% 5 22.22% 4 33.33% 6 0.00% 0 18

11

Visits to artist's

studios 16.67% 3 33.33% 6 33.33% 6 16.67% 3 0.00% 0 18

12 Visits to public art 22.22% 4 33.33% 6 22.22% 4 16.67% 3 5.56% 1 18

13

Outdoor

drawing/painting

(plein air)

36.84% 7 36.84% 7 21.05% 4 5.26% 1 0.00% 0 19

14

Library art book

collections 36.84% 7 21.05% 4 26.32% 5 15.79% 3 0.00% 0 19

42

Comments

Students responded strongly to resources and facilities related to workspace since more than half of respondents ranked resources related to space as highly important/essential. Further, more than half of respondents were moderately satisfied with resources and facilities. Therefore, the current resources and facilities are sufficient for most students. Accessible workspaces should continue to be a priority in art education. This is a particularly timely and interesting finding because the stay-in-shelter ordinance directly opposes access to the studio art learning experience, which raises the question, “how can teachers offer students studio art practice education without or limited access to studios?”. This could become a matter of converting and designing homes outfitted to accommodate studio practice during distance learning requirements and may very likely alter the type of artwork students produce. Although figure models is listed here as a resource, figure drawing/painting is also a topic in art but access to models is considered a resource. The relatively mid to low ranking value on museums, field trips, and extra campus sites (though art related) suggests art education at the college level is preferred to occur in studios amidst fellow working artists. Viewing exhibitions is subject to personal inclination and students in general prefer to use class time in studios. When the outdoors is considered part of the studio space as in plein air, there is more interest in extra campus art education because it may be considered as an extension of the studio; by these descriptions, the studio can be defined as anywhere that art production takes place. The difference between working through art as an active participant of discovery compared to observing art as an outcome of an artist’s efforts is illustrated here in the volume of preference for engagement over consumption. However, the intimacy of library art books showed strong value. Although the social aspect is valuable, the social aspect of work rather than collective observation is indicated by the survey results. When studying existing art, it appears to be best expressed in the privacy of turning pages rather than crowded exhibitions. Visiting artists’ studios shows mixed results where it is both looking at art and imagining or seeing how the artist creates; and so, artists’ studios are a threshold of sorts – both exhibiting and demonstrating.

43

Overall Satisfaction

14. As a student, overall, how satisfied are you with your higher art education thus far?

# Answer % Count









Of the 22 respondents, 16 (72.73%) answered they were moderately satisfied.

44

Qualitative Comments

15. If applicable, please specify what topic(s) or resource(s) is (are) not currently offered that you would like offered at SJSU.

Plein air painting, Making own materials for an individual artist's own need

Currently, the offerings seem acceptable. The bigger issue is access and community. Partly because SJSU is a commuter school and student/faculty can commute up to an hour+ to get to campus. It would be nice if we can figure out ways to keep people involved and not just leave as soon as class is over.

so far NO

canvas and panel building for painting Classes for ceramic arts focused on glaze sciences, firing kilns, and a class on how to draw clothed figures. Papermaking Textile Arts

2d Mixed media

Color Theory Would like to see a more wider range of classes available for deisgn studies students, the more interesting classes are only available for BFA students and its a shame only so many get through. mud sculpture

tapestry Comments

Engagement with art materials is important for developing technical ability in art, which is reflected in the above comments. Some artforms like paper making and textiles are often considered crafts and do not enter college level art curriculum as they do not fit into the fine arts hierarchy as mentioned by Funk (1990). Bauhaus and Black Mountain College instructor, Joseph Albers, used colored paper to teach students about color theory (Funk, 32). Hence, student interests might be addressed by recognizing histories of teaching methods. Once an academic major is declared, class offerings can be limiting. This could result in students having to take up learning a specific subject that is not included in their academic plan on their own time outside of class. A challenge with this outcome is that students may not have access to resources like studio space replete with equipment outside of the university as well as the mentorship of faculty and peers.

45

Faculty Responses

Due to low response rates, the percentage distributions are spread either somewhat evenly or clumped together. Therefore, the results are helpful in understanding faculty perceptions of college level art education but are considerably limited in reflecting the faculty population.

16. As a teacher, how satisfied are you with the variety of topics offered in art courses at San Jose State University?

# Answer % Count








Total 100% 4 17. As a teacher, how effective do you consider the following pedagogy/teaching methods?

# Question

Highly important (Essential. Cannot do

without)


Important (but

secondary)

Minimal importance


without)

Not important at all (have no

need for this)

Total

1 One-on-one

attention with students

75.00% 3 25.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 4

2 Lectures 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

3 Guest lectures 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 3

4 Showing examples 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

5 Showing your own artworks 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 3

6 Lesson

demonstrations (teacher modeling)

66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

7 Structured lessons (scaffolding)

100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

46

8 Open ended

lessons for exploration

100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

9 Working in class

studio time 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

10 Collaborative

projects 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 3

11 Assigned reading 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

12 Class

critiques/group discussions

66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

13

Writing about artwork

(articulation of concepts)

0.00% 0 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

14

Assigning one project over a

prolonged period of time

66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

15

Assigning on several iterations

of artwork (higher quantity)

33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

Comments

Although students were measured on the extent of value they see in teaching methods and teachers were measured on the extent of efficacy they see in their teaching methods, I believe value and efficacy are similar enough in the respective populations to compare and draw beneficial insights into the student and teacher relationship with their similarities or dissimilarities. Given faculty needs and values vary, the gulf of responses to measure faculty value is sizable. Teachers’ estimation of the effectiveness in teaching methods shows similar trends compared to student value of teaching methods. Teaching methods #s 1 – 6, 9, 10, and 12 are quite similar and suggest students and teachers agree about the extent of value and effectiveness of these teaching methods. Teachers appear to see #s 13 and 14, writing about artwork (articulation of concepts) and working on one artwork over a prolonged period of time respectively, as slightly more important than most student responses. Teachers show #s 7 and 8, structured lessons and explorational lessons, to both have high importance, which could suggest lessons are structured to facilitate exploration. Aside from the aforementioned teaching methods, there are no major discrepancies between students and teachers valuing teaching methods, which suggests they are to a large extent on the same page about what to value in teaching methods.

47

18. As a teacher, how important is teaching the following topics in art education?

# Question Highly

important/essential Necessary (required)

Important (but

secondary)

Minimal importance


without)

Not important


this)

N/A Total

1 Representational art 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

2 Non-

representational art (abstraction)

0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

3 Observational drawing

33.33% 1 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 3

4 Observational

painting 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0

5 Still-lifes 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

6 Landscapes 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

7 Linear perspective

0.00% 0 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 3

8 Portraiture 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

9 Art History 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

10 Sharing

contemporary art news

0.00% 0 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

11 Teaching craftsmanship

66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

12 Teaching about art materials

33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

13 Making

tools/materials for art

0.00% 0 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

14 Paper making 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

15 Graphite drawing 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

16 Charcoal drawing

0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

17 Pastel drawing 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

18 Relief printing 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

19 Screen printing 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

20 Lithography 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

21 Intaglio 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

22 Watercolor

painting 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

23 Oil painting 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

48

24 Acrylic painting 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

25 Guache painting 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

26 Hand lettering 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

27 Collage 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0

28 Pattern design 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

29 Courses covering

a wide range of mediums

0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

30

Teaching strategies to

develop conceptual art

33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

31

Teaching strategies to

develop a personal

expressive voice and/or style

33.33% 1 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

32 Developing a

personal process to make images

33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

33 Using computers

for image making

33.33% 1 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

34 Photographing

artwork 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

35 Teaching about

art business skills

0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

Comments

Craftsmanship shows the most agreed upon value at an important level. This suggests that most teachers want their students to gain competency with art materials. This emphasis echoes art’s history as a trade or a craft practiced in guilds where the skill in handling materials is the main assignment. Expressivity holds a separate level of importance compared to the technical aspect of art education.

49

19. As a teacher, to what extent do you value these resources and facilities in art education?

# Question Highly important/essential


Important

(but secondary)

Minimal importance


without)

Not important

at all (have no need for this)

Total

1 Student shared studio space

33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

2 Student private studio space

0.00% 0 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 3

3 Exhibition space 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

4 Storage space 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

5 Access to studio space outside of

class time 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

6 Materials provided in class

0.00% 0 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 3

7 Figure models 0.00% 0 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

8 Field trips 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

9 Gallery visits 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

10 Museum visits 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

11 Visits to artists' studios

25.00% 1 50.00% 2 0.00% 0 25.00% 1 0.00% 0 4

12 Visits to public art 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 3

13 Outdoor

drawing/painting (plein air)

0.00% 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

14 Library art book collections 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

Comments

The studio space is important for students to comfortably share, have access to, and show their artwork. Teachers agree figure models are necessary. Exposure to examples of artworks is also similarly valued. Library collections of art books rank high. In general, teachers appear to place slightly more value on extra campus art events but recognize class time is meant for developing skills in the studio.

50

Conclusion

There are many criteria in art education and this study aimed to illustrate major aspects along with student and teacher perceptions of them. Most students find their needs are met on the basis of the general satisfaction survey question and noting the absence of dissatisfaction. Most survey participants’ recommendations were on facilities, resources, course offerings, and topics in art. Several authors in the annotated bibliography echo the challenge of balancing different philosophies in art education; hence, art programs may omit topics and respective resources to reinforce topics that are in keeping with a tradition or standard of art. Regarding the survey comments, the imposition of course requirements at the expense and exclusion of courses in order for students to earn an art degree appears to be a point of question – whether or not college art programs can cater to individual needs and interests in students’ artistic education or adhere to an institutionalized art education framework. Students’ genuine approach to subject matter during the undergraduate years could be supported by allowing students to mold their college level courses according to their own estimation of value. This would more likely reduce the amount of student apathy within classes and could potentially enliven student involvement. Albeit, exposure to a range of artistic concepts may be compromised by self-directed studies. Social life in the art department can get diminished in order to manage a long commute or earn a livelihood. The survey comment regarding, “keep[ing] people involved” speaks to the significance of artist communities in art education. Indeed, Schwarzenbach exemplified this with an interviewee who stated an artist residency can satisfy the needs of an artist (Schwarzenbach, 254). Further, social involvement in the fine arts can take on a range of forms including the crafting and management of materials, art production, exhibition, discussion, and critique to name a few. Indeed, the K–12 California Arts Standards of 2019 describe artistic behaviors or levels of engagement in the arts. One way to promote engagement is to identify the spectrum of possible engagement. However, many factors beyond the campus determine community involvement. The comments about workspace and subsequent community show access to art studios is a principal characteristic in art education. Students’ grasp of the written or spoken word can determine an important function of art education. Their eloquence can be partially dependent on the studio art teachers’ responsibility to inform students with vocabulary to articulate artistic concepts. Otherwise, ART-100W or art history courses support this necessary erudition. Provided class critiques and group discussions are crucial experiences in art education, the familiarity with art diction plays a critical role. Not surprisingly, the relationship of written-spoken word to visual arts is often ambiguous because the focus in studio classes is usually on producing art. But such nebulousness about how to describe art is

51

practically the aim – to discover visual arts’ meaning via words and discussion. The subjective nature of applying words to observations and the dialogue that occurs both in the individual with the artwork in the form of reflection as well as the individual among peers is essentially the mechanism to generate artistic discovery. Organized lessons and open-ended prompts are not mutually exclusive but can both offer students opportunities to grow as artists. How do teachers structure a lesson plan while accepting that there is no certain outcome? Often prompts are presented, and students’ artwork is measured against the standard of relevancy to the prompt either as visually evident or through explanation; often both apparent relevancy and the vocal defense of artwork work in conjunction to demonstrate an artwork’s compliance to assignments. In which case, justifying an artwork becomes the culmination of an exercise. Based on the annotated bibliography and the survey data report, teaching art at the college level appears to be a remarkable skill and profession with a relatively recent inception. Although art has been a continuous element in people’s lives, the education of art has varied. Hence, the establishment of artistic educational conventions has assumptions built into it that may or may not substantiate artistic discovery. Since definitions of achievement in fine arts change, it behooves students and teachers to appreciate the malleability of art education.

library research scholar program san jose state university

Documents