Active Library Instruction for Art Educators:

International Handbook of Research in Arts Education

Art Criticism and Art Education Wolff, T., & Geahigan, G. (1997). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 352 pages, ISBN 0-252-02314-5. An early impetus for art educators to move to a discipline-based perspective was Bruner's (1960) proposal that educators look to methods employed by experts in related academic fields. This redistribution of authority from curriculum specialists to disciplinary experts affected both the form and the content of curriculum materials and texts. Projects initiated by the Getty often met this challenge by pairing discipline practitioners, artists, critics, historians, and philosophers, who provided the aura of disciplinary expertise, with art educators, who worked to translate disciplinary forms into pedagogical practice. One result of this pairing of discipline expert with art educator is Art Criticism and Education, the fifth book in the five-volume series, Disciplines in Art Education: Contexts of Understanding, edited by Ralph A. Smith and sponsored by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts. This book is a rich and wonderful addition to art education's conversation about the role of art criticism in curriculum. Its wonderfulness, however, is not found in the pairing of a discipline expert with a curriculum specialist nor in the authority of the discipline expert, Theodore F. Wolff, art critic for the Christian Science Monitor. The merits of this text proceed from the eloquent writing and perceptive ideas of a curriculum specialist, George Geahigan, professor of art education at Purdue University. Reflective readers should consider not only Geahigan's substantive insights concerning critical inquiry as classroom practice but also the limitations of an educational agenda that concedes authority to discipline experts rather than curriculum specialists. Geahigan reclaims authority for the curriculum expert with the assistance of his contextualist perspective and pragmatic philosophy. Pragmatists are not univocal but they arguably present the most useful philosophical context for understanding American values. The cool and analytical C. S. Peirce can be contrasted with the social activism of Cornel West, and the speculative Richard Rorty. The pragmatist who most wholeheartedly embraced the arts was John Dewey and so it is right that Geahigan, American, art educator and contextualist, chooses Dewey as his philosophical mentor. Interpretation is the key to contextualist criticism so it is understandable that Geahigan interprets both Dewey and art criticism in ways that correspond to this historical moment. At different times, other art educators have interpreted Dewey and art criticism through their own historical perspectives. Dewey's ideas provided the basis for Ecker's (1963/1966) discussion of the similarities between the problem solving in studio art and scientific inquiry. The conflation of art criticism, curriculum, and inquiry related to the sciences has a respectable history in education which parallels the development of discipline-based art education (DBAE). Science as epistemological model was directly connected to Bruner's ideas. With one eye on objectivist practices drawn from the sciences and another on the rhetorical style of art critics, art educators such as Feldman (1973) and Barrett (1994) identified art criticism with a critical process that relies upon description, analysis, interpretation, and judgment. These educators share Peirce's (1955/1878) reasoned opinion that to relieve our doubts we should turn to methods identified with the sciences, even our doubts about the meaning and value of artworks. Geahigan does not reject this tradition but rather suggests that it precludes a consideration of the many ways that students actually enter into critical dialogues with the world. Educational conversations such as the ones surrounding DBAE tend to develop their own momentum. They develop into forms unforeseen at their inception. …

W. Reid Hastie, the fifth president (1957-1959) of the National Art Education Association, promoted the need for a scholarly venue devoted entirely to issues and research in art education and a place where related research results could be presented on a regular basis to the field of art education, as well as the larger field of education. His vision led to the initiation of Studies in Art Education, a journal of issues and research in art education. The first issue was published in the Fall of 1959. Hasties vision, practice, and support of research are examined within the context of the history of research in art education and the rapidly changing world of higher education following World War II.When Studies in Art Education was introduced to the field of art education in 1959 as a journal for professional and critical dialogue about issues and research related to art and art education, it was a landmark. For die first time ever, there was a scholarly venue devoted entirely to issues and research related to art education. The fact that it has survived and flourished is a testament to the vision of W. Reid Hastie, the National Art Education Association (NAEA) president (1957-1959) under whose leadership Studies in Art Education was established. It is also a testament to the need for a forum where art education researchers could share the results of their work and engage in a dialogue with professional colleagues throughout the world (Beelke, 1972).Research Trends in Art EducationWhile there is an established history of research in art education predating the beginning of Studies, most related research prior to 1 940 was conducted by individuals outside the discipline. Those few individuals, both art educators and non-art educators, who published their work did so in a variety of educational, psychological, and sociological journals (Davis, 1967). The earliest known piece of published research with a relationship to art education was a study conducted by the legendary leader of the child study movement, G. Stanley Hall. In May of 1883, he published a report on a study of the contents of children's minds on entering schools in the Princeton Review (Hall, 1883).In her thesis, A Summary ofScientific Investigations Relatingto Art, Mary Strange (1940) presented a systematic look at scientific research in art and art education prior to that time, identifying all published research that she could locate. She reported that during the 57-year period between 1883 and 1939, 162 studies were published in books and in a wide variety of educational and psychological journals such as Pedagogical Seminary, American Journal ofPsychohgy, and the British Journal of Psychology. These publications grouped themselves into four general categories: (a) color and color vision, (b) drawing and/or graphic ability, (c) picture preference and appreciation, and (d) tests and measurements. An examination of this work reveals that most of it was conducted by individuals outside the field of art education, primarily by psychologists and sociologists. In many cases, it appears that art was being used as a means to an end, without any foundational basis in aesthetics, creativity, or artistic processes (Davis, 1967). For example, the focus of many of the studies was not on art but on other topics such as mental development, intelligence, special talents and defects, differences in males and females on various traits, and school success. Art was simply used as a vehicle to examine the phenomenon being investigated.Following World War II, the United States experienced unprecedented growth in higher education with the returning veterans and support of their education by the G.I. Bill. Art education was not excluded, and educational opportunities in die field were characterized by phenomenal growth, especially at the graduate level. More researchers who were art educators emetged, bringing about more research in art education. The field of art education was developing to a point that more research was necessary if continued growth were to occur. …

Artist Ad Reinhardt's 1 991 prediction of the Future of Art can be interpreted as the condition of art education in 2010. He writes, next revolution will see the emancipation of the university academy of art from its market-place fantasies and its emergence as a center of consciousness and conscience (p. 62). The focus in the fields of art and art education has increasingly turned toward the social as well as aesthetic aspects of experience. Creating and responding to art in the context of people's everyday lives has become a dominant center of art practices. Art educators should recognize these shifts and work collectively to realize our strengths and responsibilities as we grapple with the complexities of art in society. Collectivity involves a process of coming to relative agreement on shared goals of the field and an understanding of the necessary components of a cohesive art education. Establishing a broad yet defined framework for the field provides a unifying structure that promotes opposing discourse and investigation without fragmentation (see Figure 1 ).In an effort to move beyond previously defined disciplinary boundaries, (i.e., seeking broader, yet related, transdisciplinary discourse), this document strives to confront art education's moment of crisis; a crisis that stems from instability in public education, economic uncertainty, the impact of No Child Left Behind, standardized testing, and technocratic forms of education. The Critical Visual Art Education (CVAE) Club argues for a collective, transdisciplinary process moving forward into a new era of art education.1 In this document, CVAE identifies declarative statements that approach the field with inclusive examination of its past, present, and future.In order to determine what has been successful and what has failed, what we wish to keep and to discard, our argument extends from specific movements and categories derived from literature that have served to define, promote, explain, and clarify new and renewed movements in the field. These include: Creative Self-Expression, Child-Centered Approach, Discipline-Based Art Education, Social Reconstructionism,Multiculturalism,Environmental/ Eco-Based Art Education, Community-Based Art Education, Narratives/Literacy, Issues-Based Art Education, Arts-Based Research, and Visual and Material Culture (Carpenter & Tavin, 201 0; Gaudelius & Speirs, 2002).From these movements, CVAE derives its own statements that symbolize holistic art education. We envision an art education that promotes an understanding of visual and material culture and its influence in shaping everyday life through transdisciplinarity, critical dialogue, cultural production, global discourse, and artistic reasoning and practice. These themes are useful in framing the following declarative statements that describe the needs of the field based on our individual perspectives as contemporary art educators.2 We wish to promote transdisciplinarity and collective processes that may engage a broader range of citizens, artists, teachers, theoreticians, and scholars. These statements reflect the growing effort of many like-minded art educators who call for broader dialogue informed by localized cultural communities and global interactions (Delacruz, Arnold, Kuo, & Parsons, 2009; Grierson, 2008). Our intent is to explore a concept of art education informed by theories and practices relative to the field of art education. These statements attempt to form an inclusive and permeable network for art education that we hope others will contribute to, perforate, and disrupt.StatementsTransdisciplinarityThe present situation in art education is one of 'crisis', e.g., instability in public education, economic uncertainty, the impact of No Child Left Behind, standardized testing, and technocratic forms of education driven by the politics of accountability (Sabol, 201 0,-Taubman, 2009). Radical new technologies are shaping how we live and interact (Roland, 2010), as well as extraordinary political and economic shifts in culture. …

This viewpoint presents a reflection on a meaningful relationship that developed between a university art education department and a local art therapy studio. Such partnerships are desirable and mutually beneficial because of the significant interest many art educators have in the field of art therapy. The author, an art educator, describes the origins of the collaboration and the ways in which this partnership guides her practices as an art educator and impacts her art education students.

This year the National Art Education Association (NAEA) celebrated its 50th anniversary. As an educational organization, NAEA is relatively young and now has a history that can be reflected upon and a research agenda poised on the brink of moving into the mainstream of recognition in the field of educational research. In the first issue of Studies in Art Education, Jerome Hausman (1959) wrote: The teaching of art, as we know it, is a relatively recent phenomenon. There is, for example, a much greater tradition for an artistapprentice relationship. Only in recent years have we moved to a point of identifying a profession concerned with the theory and practice of teaching art. (p. 5) His observations appear to be as true today as 39 years ago. Much has happened in the intervening years, yet research in art education is still viewed by some in the larger educational research community as nonexistent or less rigorous than that practiced in other academic disciplines. I teach as a member of a faculty in a school of education that is recognized as a major research institution. I often have been asked by colleagues if there is a body of research in art education, and if there are issues discussed and studies conducted in art education in a similar manner to studies in other more academic areas. It always amazes these colleagues when art education doctoral students receive national and state research awards; they are especially astonished when these students are recipients of awards from the faculty of education. Burton's survey of current research in art education challenges the notion that there is a paucity of research by demonstrating that from 1995 to 1996 higher education faculty, independent scholars, and doctoral and masters' studies, as self-reported by 75 art educators, were conducting 254 research studies. Burton's survey and analysis focuses on eight categories of research identified in 1994 by the NAEA Research Commission. He has attempted to answer the question, is the current state of research in art education? This question poses more questions than are addressed in this survey. A number of unanswered questions occurred to me when reading Burton's study. How many of these researchers were eventually presented in public arenas and/or later published? Are studies identified by art educators' idiosyncratic, one-time events or are they part of ongoing research agendas? What kinds of methodologies were utilized in these studies? How many of the studies employed several researchers working in collaboration and at a variety of sites? Were studies conducted in national and/or international contexts? Were studies based on the work of art education researchers and/or scholars from other fields? Burton's survey is a beginning venture that adds to demographic knowledge in art education. Answers to the questions just posed should be addressed in future studies so that this beginning knowledge base is extended and expanded. The current emphasis on educational reform in the United States and other countries has highlighted the need for research and information in all school subjects including the arts. In 1994, an Arts Education Research Agenda for the Future was published (NEA and USDOE, 1994) that outlined a need for research in curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation, and teacher education and preparation. A year earlier NAEA (1993) had published Art Education: Creating a Visual Arts Research Agenda Toward the 21st Century, followed by Briefing Papers (Zimmerman, 1996), Implementing a Visual Arts Education Research Program (NAEA, 1996), and Research Methods and Methodologies in Art Education (LaPierre & Zimmerman, 1997). …

Introduction The term has a negative connotation in arts education, especially among those who justify the arts' inclusion in the general curriculum as aesthetic education. Those who support the notion that the arts are valuable in the general curriculum say it is so because of the arts' connection to aesthetics. Supporters of aesthetic education assert that the arts promote uniquely artistic ideals instead of mere utilitarian goals. That is, the arts are not a handmaiden for the promotion of extra-artistic ends. This particular view of the term utilitanan has led to arguments in the field resulting in persistent partisan divisions. One group sees the arts as something distinctive, separate, and worthy of study for its own sake, while another believes the arts ought to be integrated throughout the curriculum or taught as a way to facilitate higher order thinking in another discipline. Is there any hope for reconciliation? There might be. If reconciliation is possible, altering the way in which arts educators generally, and aesthetic educators specifically, understand and use the term utilitarian is necessary. To begin the process of reconciliation I first offer a brief conceptual analysis of how the term has been used in arts education discourse. This analysis simultaneously reveals how the casting of the term by many arts educators has limited the scope of discussion about it in the arts. In the late 1950s arts educators looked to aesthetics to further justify inclusion in the general public school curriculum. The attempt to justify the arts by emphasizing aesthetics in arts education meant undermining what scholars considered to be the previous theoretical underpinning. Utilitarian was the descriptive label of prior arts education justification given by arts educators espousing aesthetic education who sought to justify the arts as part of the general school curriculum on a new footing. The vocabulary used has had a particularly important role in framing the debate around aesthetic education. Scholars such as Elliot Eisner, Maxine Greene, Charles Leonhard, Robert House, Bennett Reimer, and Michael Mark (2) assert that arts education from the mid-twentieth century ought to have an emphasis on developing aesthetic experiences, aesthetic attitudes, and aesthetic responsiveness. They used vocabulary that cast the previous justification as inconsistent with what they saw as the principles and values of the arts. In their discourse on arts education, aesthetic doctrines were bifurcated with utilitarian ones. Although it may be a false dichotomy, what is more problematic to me is how both terms have been used in the scholarship. In particular, and more important for this article, utilitanan is a term that has been disparaged to such an extent that one dare not say it in certain circles, especially among proponents of arts education. Because of the attempt to supplant so-called utilitarian justification with aesthetic education, the former term was looked upon with scorn, and in the field of arts education utilitanan is a term that has continued to be spurned. The purpose of this paper is not to give a definition of aesthetic education or identify the ways in which it is understood in arts education. Instead, in the first part of this paper I elaborate on the ways in which views and explanations of cloud the discourse of educators. The crux of the problem lies in the ways in which the terms utilitarian, utility, and utilitarianism are described, used, and understood to characterize how arts education has traditionally been justified in public education in the United States. I do not purport to have the definitive and final word on the topic of utilitarian views in relation to arts education, nor do I advance an ironclad definition of what ought to mean. My task is much simpler. The first aim of this paper is to show how scholars have applied the term utilitarian in such a way that renders it problematic for readers and the field of arts education, and to intimate why it might have been applied this way. …

Art education is like an ancient city for which modern planners (and yes, postmodern planners, too) have grand designs. Like urban designers, art educational reformers always have schemes for tearing down old buildings; erecting new ones; clearing slums; widening streets; creating new traffic patterns; establishing zones for culture, industry, commerce and entertainment; and in a myriad of other ways dictating to citizens the kinds of environments in which they should live their lives. But the common citizens of art education-teachers and their students-also have ideas, perhaps less formally divised, about how are educational cities should be built and how they should function. If we are to understand art educational change we must recoginze the tensions that exist between grand schemes for reforming art education and the undisclosed actions of teachers and students-acts that both deform change initiatives and keep art education in a state of formlessness. Morevoer, if we wish to understand the factors that affect art educational change we must look beyond or field to things such as the art world, the broader realm of visual culture, and the, world wide web. We must attend to the things that will literally change and relocate the ”urban spaces” on which art educational designers attempt to impose grand plans. The architect Christopher Alexander has shown that urban planners base their designs for cities on tree-like structures that permit few interactions among elements. On the other hand, natural cities that have been shaped by many thousands of individuals over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years have lattice-like structures that permit millions of interactions and overlapping functions. In short, professional designers are unable to replicate desirable complexities that citizens natrually devise for themselves. Like most cities, most art educational programs have both ”naturally-occurring” and designed elements. They have been influenced by grand plans in the form of national curricula, change initiatives, the writings of influential art educator theoreticians and visionaries, by textbooks, and examination policies. These same art educational programs have their ”natural” attributes. They are influenced by thousands of strands of conventional folklore passed from on generation of art teachers to the next. The conventional features of art educational programs are also subverted by the perpetual transformation of art and artworks-thus making content, practices, and values problematic. Even students, who are frequently more comfortable living in contemporary visual culture than their teachers, sometimes bulid their own forms of art education-their own art educational neighborhoods-that are enormously more interesting and important than those designed by their teachers. In my paper I employ Alexander's theory of natural and designed cities as a metaphor for examining the art education we now have and the art education we might plan for the Twenty-first Century. First, I will argue that the national examinations found in countries such as Britain and the Netherlands, paradoxically, improve art education while impeding desirable change. Second, I will argue that Japanese children who draw graphic narratives following models based on comic books called manga, devise a more potent and influential from of art education than is found in textbooks based on the Japanese national curriculum. Finally, I will propose a way of structuring art .education programs in order to capitalize on the strengths of planning while at the same time accommodating the seeming formlessness and ambiguity of visual culture, popular culture, and the postmodern art world.

Digital visual culture is a crucial concept in today's digital landscape, influencing socio-cultural interactions, communication and education. It necessitates a holistic understanding of changes and their potential disruptive effects on society. The integration of digital technologies, particularly in art education, has transformed teaching process, emphasizing the need for new competencies among educators and students alike. Art educators are expected to foster critical thinking, effective communication, and adaptability in a technology-mediated environment while engaging students dynamically. Incorporating AI into art education enriches learning experiences, providing personalized instruction and enhancing creative processes. Critical and creative pedagogical approaches emerge as fundamental strategies in navigating digital visual culture. Overall, as digital visual culture reshapes art education, educators must bridge traditional and contemporary practices, equipping students with essential skills for critical engagement with the digital visual world. The purpose of this study is to conduct an instructor and student-centered inquiry that focuses on interactions within the realm of digital visual culture and AI in art education. The research reflects the perspectives of art and design education regarding digital visual culture and AI in teaching, alongside the perspectives of art and design students concerning the integration of these elements within their learning experiences. Additionally, the research identified the competencies necessary to enhance teaching and learning outcomes in art education related to digital visual culture and AI. Through these inquiries, the research aims to foster a comprehensive understanding of digital visual culture's impact on art education.

In 1932 Dorothy Dunn established the Studio, a painting program for Native American students, at Santa Fe Indian School. Dunn taught at the Studio for only 5 years; however, she was influential on the development of both art education for Native American students and Native American easel painting. Dunn taught several Native American students who became well known artists. Her teaching theories influenced the art education practices of several subsequent programs for Native American students. Her theories about Native American art influenced what was accepted and rejected by critics, galleries, collectors, museums, and the general public for decades. Recently Smith (1999) and Stokrocki (2000) have called for more research on art education in the American southwest. Smith brings Dorothy Dunn into art education historical literature as an important historical figure in southwestern art education. Stokrocki praises Smith's efforts to make this major female art educator's work more visible and asks for more research about her. With this article I will continue the dialogue begun by Smith and Stokrocki concerning the work of Dorothy Dunn by exploring Dorothy Dunn's theories and art education practices. I will examine implications of Dunn's theories and art education practices for both the art education of Native American students and for Native American art. This study also can help fill the gap identified by Smith (1999) in existing art education historical literature concerning the art education of minority students. I want to bring to the dialogue issues of identity and authenticity, which are important concerns in Native American art, and which are deeply intertwined with the history of art education for Native American students. Dunn's art teaching, the exhibition of her students' works, and her publications helped to codify ideas about Native American identity, Native American art, and its authenticity for both Native people and nonNatives. Some Native American artists found in Dunn's influences the means to create positive identities for themselves as Native people. Others rejected Dunn's influences and from this rejection created a different basis for their Native American identities and established new directions in Native American art. Stokrocki (2000) asked that the voices of Native Americans and women be brought forth in research about the history of art education in the American southwest. Although I have not conducted the ethnohistories of Native Americans and women that Stokrocki rightly calls for, as a Native American woman researcher who has chosen to write on this topic I do bring one such voice to the dialogue. Dorothy Dunn herself published in both the literature of art education and the literature of Native American art studies. To date, very little has been published about Dunn in art education historical literature. Consequently, many of the secondary sources that I use for this paper come from the field of Native American art studies. Early Native American Education Policy The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has been involved in the education of Native American students since the late 19th century. Indian education policy prior to the New Deal era focused on assimilation of Native students into mainstream American society. This was thought to be best accomplished by replacing savagism with civilization (Adams, 1995). The annihilation of traditional Indian cultures was seen as the removal of a major roadblock to civilization. This cultural annihilation included preventing students from practicing their traditional religions and speaking their Native languages. Creating images of their homes, rituals, or creating other aspects of their visual and material cultures also was discouraged. Consequently art instruction was not usually a part of Indian education. However, some groups of people who were predominantly White AngloSaxons worked to change this government policy. …

Research in art education is often conducted by independent researchers working without coordination or knowledge of other ongoing research studies. Zimmerman, in Briefing Papers: Creating A Visual Arts Research Agenda Toward the 21st Century (1996), notes, Both Davis (1977) and Hamblen (1989) observed that art educators have worked inductively and idiosyncratically without the base-line data and descriptive information about the field that is necessary for informing art education theory and practice. In art education, there is a preponderence of individual, independent studies that have not been replicated (p. 8). In the last several years NAEA has worked vigorously to create rational, comprehensive strategies for research in art education, including publications, and the creation of the NAEA Commission on Research in Art Education, and its eight task forces representing research in demographics, conceptual issues, curriculum, instruction, learning, teacher education, and evaluation. Each of these strategies seeks a clearer conception of research, promotes discussion of research issues and priorities, and encourages research through coordination, communication, and collaboration. For research to proceed in a purposeful manner, art educators need a comprehensive view of ongoing research in the field. The broad array of practical and theoretical issues in art education begs the question, What is the current state of research in art education? In order to answer that question, I surveyed 332 art educators, including 137 members of the Seminar for Research in Art Education (SRAE) and 195 other higher education faculty at U.S. institutions with doctoral and/or masters' programs in art education. The survey asked respondents to identify one or two categories corresponding to the eight NAEA Research Task Forces that most typified each research study. Of the 332 art educators surveyed, 75 (or 22.6%) responded, reporting on a total of 254 studies completed in 1995 and/or ongoing in 1996. Of these, 102 (or 40.1 %) were done by 68 higher education faculty and 10 independent scholars (without an institutional affiliation), 60 (or 23.6%) were doctoral dissertations, and 92 (or 36.2%) were masters' theses. The results are shown in Tables 1-3. Each study is classified by one or two categories corresponding to the eight research task forces. The categories are hierarchically ranked from left to right, and from top to bottom, resulting in a different categorical order for each matrix. In Table 2 and 3, another category, Technology, has been added to reflect write-ins. Higher Education Faculty's Research Research in contexts, concepts, and curriculum dominate the higher education faculty's studies. The first three columns comprise 78% of the studies, while the six cells comprising the first three columns represent over 57%! The shaded cells in the three matrices represent studies in which only one category was listed. Doctoral Dissertations Among the 60 doctoral dissertations, 47 (or 78%) fall in the concepts, contexts, and student learning categories. …

Views regarding the access, position and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI pedagogies in transformative art education are changeable and controversial, particularly regarding influence, opportunity and ethics. This dialogic paper grapples with these concerns to ‘make peace’ with AI and its pedagogic development in art education. It draws on collective intelligence and collective imagination gained from scholarly material, the machine and art educator reflective experiences and voices to position ‘peaceful dialogic making’ as a pedagogic approach to transform future art education opportunities. Making can encourage sensitive engagement with ecologies, complexities and possibilities in art education, and as demonstrated in this paper, AI can be engaged critically and with peace to enrich making. Enacting ‘peaceful dialogic making’ in, with, through and about AI in art education can forge identity and value connection, such as with the National Society for Education Art and Design manifesto values, that favour inclusive, equitable and lifelong art education experiences. Making peace with AI, through dialogues, roaming with it and engaging with its complexities builds responsible AI literacy that can help AI be integrated into art education aligned to contemporary and future life.

In this paper, I present an understanding of art and visual culture education in India in a framework that employs Deleuze and Guattari’s theories. I place this research study in context of contemporary trends in education policy and political climates in India. I suggest that research on understanding art education practices in emerging geographies be conducted with a view to gain a cohesive social understanding, rather that isolated views on curriculum and pedagogy, with pre-determined understandings of what art education is, and what it does. The paper is structured in the following manner: After setting a context for this paper, I provide an overview of the study itself. I then describe the development of my own study exploring the identity of Indian art education and art educators using a hybrid lens of Vedanta philosophy and Deleuze and Guattari’s theories of rhizome and assemblage. Explaining these concepts, I illustrate an application of this theoretical lens towards reading art education practices both of my research participants, as well as of developments of art education in ontemporary India. This paper thus offers a strategy to conduct research in art education employing a rhizomatic approach to structuring research, and analyzing data using the concept of assemblage. I make these suggestions in order to make multiple experiences and voices within the research relevant and respected, especially when read in international and global contexts.

Based on historical reviews, John Dewey’s visit to China from 1919 to 1921 had little impact on China’s art education. However, a careful examination of the works of art scholars and educators in the 1920s and 1930s reveals a more complex picture of Dewey’s influence. In this study, I analyze the works of the influential art educators and scholars Jing Hengyi (经亨颐, 1877–1938), Lyu Cheng(吕瀓, 1896–1989), Bingxian (冰弦), and Liang Shuming (梁漱溟, 1893–1988). The results show that these scholars overcame the dualism of art and science, which was a prominent discourse in the New Culture Movement. They considered life growth as the goal of art education through the cultivation of a creative, inclusive personality that released the potential life energy. These scholars developed their ideas regarding aesthetics and art education based on their interpretation of some aspects of Dewey’s philosophy of education and came up with a Chinese version of Dewey’s theory of aesthetics even before the publication of his work Art as Experience in 1934. Their interpretation is consistent with Dewey’s ideas of aesthetic experience, and art education as the means of developing the potential of the individual. The goal of art education that these Chinese scholars proposed 100 hundred years ago remains valid today.

One of the peculiarities of the published American art education historical literature is the almost complete absence of accounts of art education in the Southwest. An examination of histories by Arthur Efland (1990), Foster Wygant (1993), Peter Smith (1996), or the Penn State Symposium Proceedings edited by Al Anderson and Paul Bolin (1997) failed to turn up much of anything about the Southwest, although in the last book, John Howell White (1997) presented some material on School Arts articles about Native Americans, including persons from the Southwest. Perhaps this is merely a reflection of art education historians' tendency to follow somewhat falteringly in the footsteps of historians of general education. For example, William F. Connell's A History of Education in the Twentieth Century World (1980) reads as if the Northeastern United States was the only place in this country where anything educational worth considering took place. Connell even ignores the Civil Rights movement that affected education all across the United States, but found its first theatre in the South. This movement was examined by educators in other nations facing the challenges of democratic consideration of hitherto ignored segments of their populations. Later, of course, the Civil Rights movement found further expression in Chicano and Native American ideas in the Southwest, some of which had impact on art of the region. Considering just one Southwest state, New Mexico, the omission in the literature becomes curious indeed. New Mexico has a celebrated and ongoing art scene involving Native Americans, Hispanics, and those described in the state's tourist publications as "Anglos." The latter formed famed art colonies in Santa Fe and Taos, beginning in the early 20th century. The name Georgia O'Keeffe, as an example of an Anglo artist, brings to the mind's eye many evocative images of New Mexico, but the name Maria Martinez also resonates around the world. Obviously some forms of education in art must have taken place in the area, quite aside from public school classes or the University of New Mexico's Art Education Program founded by Alexander Masley in 1947. Art education must have taken place in pueblos, in hogans, and other homes of Hispanic craftspeople and santeros, as well as in public, parochial, and Indian schools. Various and energetic art educators must have been in New Mexico. The consequences of art educators not being aware of the information that should have been available to inform can be seen in the early assaults on Getty DBAE for being too Eurocentric, and too focused on dominant cultural notions.2 Since the Getty Center for Education in the Arts was located in southern California, it is ironic indeed that the first publications from the Center paid little or no attention to Native American or Hispanic arts, or to the conceptual foundations in these cultures for doing, using, or thinking about the arts. These cultures were near the Center's doorsteps, but art education's historians failed to underscore their presence. Only when Celebrating Pluralism by Graeme Chalmers (1996) was published by the Getty Center was there major evidence of awareness of the Southwest cultures in mainstream art education literature. Even in that monograph, it was in the illustrations that the Southwest connections were most clearly viewed. Of course one journal article cannot eliminate the historical gap as large as the history of the whole United States Southwest. I can only attempt to raise a few markers for further research by describing a few colorful examples and issues connected with these examples. I hope that I can provide sufficient information to encourage myself and other researchers to thoroughly investigate the region's contributions and what they might mean to art education. An Example of a Southwestern Art Educator In this article, in order to further the inclusion of Southwest art education history in art education literature and to exemplify issues associated with it, I will begin by focusing on the work of one art educator, Dorothy Dunn. …