It is no revelation to claim that art education, at least as I have experienced it, is driven in large part by what could be best described as a to This can be understood in part as a supposed natural desire to see: to see things in particular ways, and to know things through specific practices of looking.The will to see is inherently self-justifying and tied tightly to the presupposition that the more we see, the more knowledge we gain (I see = I know). Similar to Foucault's (1986) discussion of the to the will to see is not simply natural and given, but established, in large part, during the enlightenment and subtended by historical and institutional support, distribution, and deployment:Going back a little in time, to the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.... a will to knowledge merged which, anticipating its present content, sketched out a schema of possible, observable, measurable and classified objects; a will to knowledge which imposed upon the knowing subject-in some ways taking precedence over all experience-a certain position, a certain viewpoint, and a certain function, (p. 151 )A will to knowledge naturalizes the desire to know and, in turn, the will to see normalizes learning to look. In the contemporary art classroom, as well as in galleries and museums, the agent of art education that issues the order to see (the teacher, in many cases) and the agents of seeing (the students, in many cases), are set to work and bound inextricably together in this headlong pursuit of learning to look (regardless of the biological capacity of sight), a quintessential and virtuous process and a coveted territory for our field (Nobus & Quinn, 2005).Similar to the will to knowledge, the will to see seems to exist for its own sake-fueled by old traditions in our field, an almost unlimited amount of literature and classroom paraphernalia, and new curricula and classroom practices around visual culture (and, asan extension, visual literacy). We know, for example, that it is beneficial for students to see further, deeper, closer, clearer, inside and outside, and so on. Most of us know what the field has asked of us-to teach students to see the world in different ways, to see art deeply, to see themselves as artists, and so on. Seeing itself-in more detail, with more attention and intention through art education- is almost always taken for granted as necessarily valuable and good, and a modality tethered to knowledge production that should always be taught (and arguably the raison d'etre for the field). For the last few hundred years, similar to the will to knowledge, the idea of seeing further and better has held tremendous currency in Western societies (Sturken & Cartwright, 2009). In the current field of art education, in particular, the will to see has remarkable market value.1Art education is, then, by default, increasing the number of individuals that believe they are driven to see and should learn how to see, the variety of objects and images to be seen, and the need to validate how to see and what is seen. A result of all of this is the enlargement of the field of visual culture into an end itself. An urgent issue is the consequence of this selfreproducing agency of the will to see. Flow do theories and interpretation strategies of visual culture deal, for example, with the failure of visual culture? In other words, how can seemingly all-inclusive practices of looking, under the directive of the will to see, address the conseque nee of not seeing, especiallyforarteducation (what happens to the field, for example, when students do not see)?2Enter StupidityDespite our good intentions as art educators to have students seek and represent knowledge and consciously use language to describe what they see, the things we thinkthey should see a nd the signifies that come out of their mouths (and through their bodies) always reveal that there is something else going on-between them, us, and the world. …