literacy, media, and meaning || visual art/virtual art: teaching technology for meaning

National Art Education Association

Visual Art/Virtual Art: Teaching Technology for MeaningAuthor(s): Kerry FreedmanSource: Art Education, Vol. 50, No. 4, Literacy, Media, and Meaning (Jul., 1997), pp. 6-12Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193647 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:21

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 [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:21:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193647?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


VISUAL ART I VIR

Teachin T

Students in the past-

baccalaureate art teacher licensure program at the University of Minnesota

BY KERRY FREEDMAN

oday visual representations are available to anyone with access to television, computers, film and other mass

media. Visual forms of culture have become more accessible than literary forms. Americans have more televi- sions and video recorders and spend more on advertising per capita than any other nation. Approximately one- third of the early adolescents in the U. S. watch five or more hours of television a day. Many more students, from childhood through adolescence, watch national network television than are being taught through the same school curriculum. In a sense, television has become the national curriculum and the media now provide "edu-tainment." In this world of imagery, how should we teach art?

One answer to this question is that we should focus on the ways in which students use technology. Without such a focus, the merely technical

_ ART EDUCATION / JULY 1997

SPECIAL

TU



AL ART *

*

for Mieaning aspects of computing are likely to per- vade in schools (Streibel, 1993), and inappropriate generalizations about learning with technology will guide instruction. In art education, student use of technology must include consideration of both the production and viewing of technological images, as well as the ways such images come to have meaning. Even in classrooms where students do not have computers for production, they can learn how to analyze images created through the use of computer technology.

SEEING BELOW THE VIRTUAL SURFACE

The fragmented, often contradicto- ry, multidisciplinary and intercultural references to knowledge that students interact with through visual technology may have more to do with student understanding of the subject than does curriculum based on the struc- ture of a discipline. Such postmodern

visual experience should not be made to fit into modernist curriculum frame- works (Efland, Freedman, & Stuhr, 1996). Instead, the interpretive, didac- tic, and even seductive power of imagery (Freedberg, 1989) should be given attention in school.

In other words, the meaning of technological images cannot be simply understood in terms of what has been called "visual literacy," which has generally meant the semiotic reading of signs and symbols. As Neil Brown (1989) explains, the concept of visual literacy is an attempt to force images to fit illegitimately into a structuralist analysis of literary texts that tends to narrow visual meaning. Rather, a broad view of creative production and interpretation in relation to multiple meanings and visual qualities is called for if we are to understand and teach about the use of images in contemporary life.

The social conditions of viewing are

vital to the way in which visual messages are received and understood (Morley, 1992). The process is a high- ly interactive relationship between imagery and audience in which cultural and personal meanings are created. Both cultural and personal meanings are created as a result of social knowledge, including, for example, gendered associations, formal and informal education, and socioeconom- ic level. Therefore, focusing only on the technical aspects of visual technologies, such as manipulating computer software or animating film, in curriculum may result in the loss of a vital aspect of imagery in students' lives.

PRODUCING ON SCREEN Artistic production with computers

is an important use of technology for students. The social aspects of this production include a concern about students becoming isolated and anti-

JULY 1997 / ART EDUCATION



social as a result of sitting in front of a screen. However, classroom research has demonstrated that students of various ages actually work best in groups when using computers in school (e.g., Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1986; Rysavy & Sales, 1991). This conclusion has been reported based on studies of a range of computer uses, from databases (Ehman, Glenn, Johnson, & White, 1992) to computer graphics (Freedman, 1989), and involves a range of collaboration types, from pairs of students working at the same computer, to students who correspond by electronic mail.

Perhaps the most common use of computer technology in art classrooms is the generation of interactive graphics through paint programs, video capture, animation software, aand other multimedia systems. When students create computer graphics, they often find that the most stimulat- ing aspect of their work is the "trial and error" capability of the technology, including the capacity for seriation, which is the process of producing a series of images based on a single image (Freedman, 1989; 1991). Students can test out colors, move shapes around, animate objects, and recycle pictures quickly and easily without making permanent changes to the original image. This enables students to interact with each other's work in ways unlike traditional media because changes can be demontrated in images as a result of critique without changing the original image.

Computer networks also provide powerful possibilities for student learning. The interactive capabilities of computer technology coupled with the vast amount of imagery and information available on the Internet give students a wide range of resources that they can download, print out, or

Students' roles will involve a greater focus on taking responsibility for their own learning and creating images and other assignments in terms of meaning, with perhaps less emphasis on formal qualities and technical skill.

cut and paste into their own files. Several virtual exhibitions of student art have already been established on the Internet. The net even makes it easy for students to communicate with each other from different locations. Through the use of web sites and e- mail, groups and individuals can instantly communicate with others at long distance, enabling students to work together who would otherwise have little opportunity for contact. Students with common interests can "get in touch" with each other, and students who have little in common can learn about each other.

Equity issues, such as whether students (and which students) have access to computers demand attention if we are to understand student use of technology. Unfortunately, at times, computers actually support the inequities of schooling (DeVillar & Faltis, 1991; Muffoletto & Knupfer, 1993). A growing body of literature indicates that gender differences exist in computer use (e.g., Canada & Brusca, 1991; Diem, 1986; Freedman, 1989). Students from different ethnic backgrounds may also have different experiences with technology (DeVillar & Faltis, 1991; Freedman & Liu, 1996). For example, a recent study I did with a colleague indicated that students of different ethnic backgrounds had different attitudes about and knowledge

of computers, had different cross-cultural communication patterns, and used different learning processes when working with computers (Freedman & Liu, 1996).

As a result of the many changes in visual technologies, the roles of teachers and students are changing in relation to production. Our roles as teachers will be to help students critically reflect on their writing and image-making and perhaps even guide students to create their own curriculum as they explore the net. Students' roles will involve a greater focus on taking responsibility for their own learning and creating images and other assignments in terms of meaning, with perhaps less emphasis on formal qualities and technical skill.

WATCHING ART: AUDIENCES AS ACTORS

The role of teachers and students as active viewers will also change as we interact increasingly with technological images. Rather than to contin- ue as mere facilitators, teachers may be expected to pay increased attention to the interpretive and critical analysis of imagery and other information. In the following sections, I discuss some of the topics of a visual culture curriculum that includes analyses of technological imagery.

A ART EDUCATION / JULY 1997



University students developing teaching strategies for analyzing mass-produced art.

VISUALIZING COMPUTER GRAPHICS

Any curriculum that focuses on visual technologies should include consideration of the aesthetic pecu- liarities of computer graphics and mass media imagery. In computer graphics the elements and principles of design are apparent and have antecedents in the fine arts. However, they are often used somewhat differ- ently when computers are involved. Light is emitted as well as reflected; simulation becomes hyper-real; inter- action involves physically changing a work of art; and movement is at breakneck speed. Animation principles, such as point-of-view, are also important in studying computer graphics.

When using computers to produce art, aesthetic questions arise such as: What is the work of art? Is there an art object? If so, is it conceptual in the sense that it no longer exists when it leaves the screen? Who is the artist(s)? What part do the software designers play? How should computer graphic art be displayed? Is it appropriate for one person to change another person's work? The formula- tion of and debate about such questions is an important aspect of teaching about technology-based images (Freedman, 1993).

As well as the aesthetic qualities of computer graphics, the history of computer graphics could be included in curriculum. This history includes the emergence of graphics as a result of national defense interests. In the United States several early develop- ments were sponsored by the federal government, through agencies like NASA, which sought to visualize, animate, and enhance images of outer space. However, artists soon realized the possibilities of computer graphics




Preservice teachers developing strategies for helping students analyze

technological images for meaning, such as gender representation.

for other purposes and began to use art concepts to produce increasingly sophisticated images. Commercial uses of computer graphics also began early but were not commonly seen in feature-length films and advertising until the 1980s.

The subject matter in computer graphics is also an important topic for curriculum. For example, much pro- fessional work in computer animation is currently produced as science-fic- tion, which blurs the boundary between art and science. The unstable and border-crossing tendencies of computer graphics often give them a postmodern flavor.

COMPUTERIZED IMAGES THAT TEACH

Any single image can be interpret- ed in many ways, and some image- makers, such as fine artists, deliberately construct images that suggest unlimited and unstable meanings. In contrast, other image-makers, such as advertisers, typically produce images that they hope a particular audience will read in a "pre- ferred" or "dominant" manner (Morley, 1992). For example, ads are produced to represent certain possibilities for interpretation and not others in order to convince people to think and behave in a particular way. Like photographs, ads may be thought of as "visual metaphors [that] have lev- els of meaning: what is shown and what is implied" (Barrett, 1990, p. 35).

Using images, advertisers not only sell products; they sell politics (e.g., Ewen, 1988; Goffman, 1979; Williamson; 1978). Through messages of identity, desire, and power, they seem to speak to individuals, while attempting to shape mass con- sciousness. Ad images of, for example, of gender and ethnicity, are

I

ART EDUCATION / JULY 1997



largely conservative and attempt to engage their intended audience in a relationship with characters in the images that will be pleasurable and give the viewer a sense of being in con- trol. Recently, advertisers have begun to shift from using subtle message techniques to using images to send messages in overt, even shocking, ways as fine artists have done, in part, to grab an audience (Giroux, 1994). The new world of technology and the blurred boundaries of culture have made popular culture pedagogical, as well as political (Giroux & Simon, 1989).

As a result, computers have destroyed the idea of photography as documentary evidence. They collapse time and space, creating virtual reali- ties. What we see on a television screen as a stage set may be created entirely within a computer, and live action in different parts of the world can be seen simultaneously on the same screen. Most fashion magazine advertisements are now touched up through the use of computers. Wrinkles and blemishes are erased, make-up is enhanced, noses are nar- rowed, eyes made larger, jewelry is omitted, backgrounds are created, and even skin color is changed. Manipulated images have become so common in this context that untouched photographs are used to shock people into paying attention.

Although computers have certainly influenced imagery, it is important to keep in mind that they have not totally redirected the purposes of such images. For example, the manipulation of images of women by computer continues the long fine art tradition of representing gendered ideals. Consider Ingres' translation of female skin as a silk-sheeted bed or Degas' as a surface complex as a landscape.

Such traditions tie various types of visual culture together.

However, computer capabilities do provide for opportunities, such as the creation of illusion, that traditional art media generally have not. For example, computers can enable the creation of virtual people that look real. Recently, Mirabella published the first completely computerized cover "model" made of composite pieces of real women. This "ideal woman" does not exist and the image lacked some- thing (call it soul or personality) which may have made some people suspi- cious. But even people in the fashion industry tried to find and hire the model on the cover.

This example leads to questions that exemplify issues that should be dealt with in school: Does this type of technological manipulation hurt women's and girls' images of themselves? Do students understand that no images of women in magazines are "real" any more? What does the mass distribution of images suggest about beauty and other aspects of aesthetics in the culture of advanced democra- cies? Are we not, as art educators, responsible for teaching about all aspects of imagery?

The educational implications of these technological innovations derive from the use of such images by students. Beach and Freedman's (1992) study of adolescents' interpretation of advertising images containing representations of gender demonstrated that students often place themselves in the fictional world of ads and use it as a standard against which to judge reali- ty. Their use of gender stereotypes found in ad images in this study was inconsistent with the equity goals of schooling. Such images teach students how to "read" them in ways that their creators intend, rather than the

ways educators intend. As a result, students need to be specifically taught how to critically analyze such images. Through curriculum, students gain an awareness of the place of technology in the production and reproduction of, for example, visual stereotypes, and become aware of the perils and possibilities of the virtual world.

CONCLUSION It is an exciting and challenging

time to teach visual culture. The visual environment is changing and our con- ceptions of art are changing with it. Images are becoming an ever increas- ing influence in the lives of our students and we are in a position to help them negotiate the complexities of that influence. To do this, our classrooms must be places where images of all types can be discussed, debated, analyzed, generated, refined, and recy- cled. In such an environment, students can develop the power to contribute constructively to the visual culture that enriches their world.

Kerry Freedman is Associate Professor of art education and curriculum studies at the University of Minnesota. An earlier version of this paper was presented as a keynote at the 1996 meeting of the South Australian Visual Art Education Association.

REFERENCES Barrett, T. (1990). Criticizingphotographs: An

introduction to understanding images. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Beach, R., & Freedman, K (1992). Responding as a cultural act: Adolescents' responses to magazine ads and short sto- ries. In J. Many & C. Cox (Eds.), Reader stance and literary understanding: Exploring the theories, research, and practice (pp. 162-188). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, N. (1989). The myth of visual literacy. Australian Art Education, 13(2), 28 32.

Canada, K., & Brusca, F. (1991). The techno-




logical gender gap: Evidence and recom- mendations for educators and computer- based instruction designers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 43-51.

Diem, R A. (1986). Computers in a school environment: Preliminary report of the social consequences. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2), 163-170.

DeVillar, R A., & Faltis, C. J. (1991). Computers and cultural diversity: Restructuringfor school success. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Efland, A, Freedman, K., & Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum. Reston, VA: NAEA.

Ehman, L. E., Glenn, A D., Johnson, V., & White, C. S. (1992). Using computer data-

TC ART EDUCATION

o Studio 0

0

Museum Studies Technology

o Research o Leadership o Human Development o Arts and Humanities

bases in student problem solving: A study of eight social studies teachers' classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 20(2), 179-206.

Ewen, S. (1988). All consuming images: The politics of style in contemporary culture. New York: Basic Books.

Freedberg, D. (1989). The power ofimages: Studies in the history and theory of response. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Freedman, K (1989). Microcomputers and the dynamics of image making and social life in three art classrooms.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21(3), 290-298.

Freedman, K (1991). Possibilities of interactive computer graphics for art instruction: A summary of research. Art Education,

44(3), 41-47. Freedman, K (1993). Aesthetics and the

social production of computer graphics. In R Muffoletto & N. N. Knupfer (Eds.), Computers in education: Social, political, and historicalperspectives (pp. 197-206). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Freedman, K, & Liu, M. (1996). The impor- tance of computer experience, learning processes, and communication patterns in multicultural networking. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 43-60.

Giroux, H. A (1994). Disturbingpleasures: Learningpopular culture. NewYork: Routledge.

Giroux, H. A., & Simon, R. I. (1989). Popular culture: Schooling and everyday life. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. New York: Harper & Row.

Johnson, R T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer-assist- ed cooperative, competitive, and individu- alistic learning. American Educational ResearchJournal, 23(3), 382-392.

Morley, D. (1992). Television, audiences, and cultural studies. London: Routledge.

Muffoletto R, & Knupfer, N. N. (Eds.). (1993). Computers and education: Social, political, and historical perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Rysavy, S. D. M., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 70-80.

Streibel, M. J. (1993). Instructional design and human practice: What can we learn from Grundy's interpretation of Habermas' theory of technical and practical human inter- est? In R. Muffoletto & N. N. Knupfer (Eds.), Computers and education: Social, political, and historical perspectives (pp. 141-162). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Williamson, J. (1978). Decoding advertisements: Ideology and meaning in advertising. London: Marion Boyars.

FOR MORE INFORMATION Columbia University

West 120 Street NYC NY 10027

TEACHERS +

COLLEGE 212 678 3360

http://www.tc.columbia.edu/

PAPERMAKING SUPPLIES "Everything needed for Papermaking"

FOR A FREE CATALOG SEND A S.A.S.E. TO: GOLD'S ARTWORKS

2100 N. Pine Street, Lumberton, NC 28358 1-800-356-2306

I ART EDUCATION / JULY 1997

I m



literacy, media, and meaning || visual art/virtual art: teaching technology for meaning

Documents