Oipyri^i 2007 by the
Naiional Ail Educacion As:iOLiaiicin
Correspondence
concerning this article
siiould be addressed
to Karen Keifer-Boyd,
210 Arts Cottage,
School of Visual Arts,
The Pennsylvania State
University. University
Park. PA, 16802-2905.
E-mail: kk-b@psu.edu
^To visually convey
the dialogical process
involved in conduct-
ing this research and
in writing this article,
m which Judy Chicago
responded to my
interim analysis of her
teaching approach, her
direct responses (beyond
quotes from the several
interviews [hat 1
conducted wiih her)
arc offset in a diffetent
font from the rest of the
article.
^My analysis of
Chicago's pedagogy
(continued)
134
Studies in Art Education
A Journal a( Issues and Research
2007.48(2), 134-154
From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy
with Reflections hy Judy Chicago
Karen Keifer-Boyd
The Pennsylvania State University
In this article, internationally renowned artist and educator Judy Chicago reflects
on her teaching and on my own interpretarion of her pedagogy in three projects:
Woman/foust' (1971-1972), At Home (2001-2002), and Envisioning the Future
(2003-2004). From a comparLfon of pre- and post-open-ended questionnaire
responses given by 62 participants in the Envisioning the Euture (ETF) project,
I identified aspects of Chicago's methodology that make it unique from other
studio teaching approaches. Gender, status, ajid ideology emerge as significant
themes in the analysis of eight artist-educators' experiences who learn Chicago's
teaching methodology in a 10-day workshop and subsequently are guided by
Chicago in their semester-long facilitation of artmaking groups of the 62 partici-
pants in the ETE project, f distinguish Chicago's teaching methodology from
common threads ot feminist pedagogy. These threads include the following goals:
effecting social change; envisioning teaching as a political act; viewing knowledge
as value-laden; valuing personal experience and self-representation; providing
avenues for multivocality, and sharing leadership in srudenr-centered environ-
ments. The focus is on Chicago's primary teaching goal, which is to facilitate the
creation of "content-based art of high quality."
The creative work and the careers of artists and art students who have
participated in Judy Chicago's feminist teaching projects have advanced
in significant ways. During my observations of her pedagogy and in
my conversations with the artist about her teaching projects, several
fundamental questions emerged: How does Chicago guide others to
translate content to form in art?' Can others learn Judy Chicago's art
teaching approach, further developed in recent years in collaboration
with partner Donald Woodman? How successful is the methodology
when others of different gender and status apply Chicago's approach? I
explore these questions in this article-through the examination of the
perspectives of eight facilitators of 62 participants in the Envisioning
the Future (ETF) project, which occutred throughout autumn of 2003
and culminated in a 2-month exhibition at 12 sites in Pomona and
Claremont, California, 2004. Experiences of the facilitators are shared
in reference to their translation and adaptation of Chicago's teaching
methodology.^ Their experiences are not always in concert with one
another, nor with Chicago's intended pedagogy. In addition, findings
from an open-ended survey in Spring 2004 of the iTfproject partici-
pants and facilitators, paired with my own observations and insights,
suggest that Chicago's approach is unique as compared with teaching
practices typical of many university studio art programs.
Studies in Art Education
 From Content to Form; Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

Relationship of Chicago's Art Pedagogy to

Other Art Teaching Approaches is informed by 13 in-
dejifh interviews that I
The £7Fparticipants included men and women ranging in age from conducted in the Spring
25 to 78 years and differing in cultural backgrounds. All desired to of 2002, in which I
used temuiisc interview
develop further as professional artists. A few were either self-taught strategies with artists
or had learned through apprenticeship situations. Most had earned and student artists who
imdergraduate or graduate degrees in art or had taken some university had experienced Jiniv
Chicago's feminist art
studio courses. pedagogical approach
Some participants described hierarchical situations in which the in a collaborative
students were "expected to kneel at the master teacher's feet who artmaking project, At
Home in Kentucky. I
Lidamantly opposed feminist and conceptual art." Some reported that also held two interviews
teachers discussed student work formally and impersonally rather than with Judy Chicago in
asking students to discuss their goals in the work. Several mentioned November 2002 and
jtine 2003 concerning
reaching approaches in which students were told what to do and how
to do it. Many stated that their art education consisted of emphasis "on her reaching methodol-
ogy in the At Hotnc
technique without reference to subject" or requests to use specific media project in 2001 and the
and subject matter such as drawing from the nude without specifying Wamanhouse pro']cci in
che context or concern for what the work communicated. Others noted the 1970s. 1 met with
her fout times in the
that self-expression was not encouraged; yet some were encouraged Fall of2003 to discuss
to create from their interests. The typical teaching approach in their my interim analysis and
Former studio courses involved teacher demonstrations of techniques her reaching experi-
ence while she was in
and whole class faculty critiques about the visual form of each student's the midst ot teaching
work. The critiques usually emphasized color theory and composition. her methodology to
Othet teaching approaches included emphasis on concept development, others. When names
are cited, they are used
class-wide collaborations, or the creation of several works based on a with consent of these
single theme. Participants in all three projects expressed similar senti- individtial.s.
ments as articulated by an At Home participant who commented, "This
-''Fall 2003.1 created
[Chicago's teaching methodology] was very different than anything I've a mulrimedia wehsite
ever experienced before" (personal communication, March 16, 2002). from research on Judy
Chicagos teaching
meihodology to provide
The Beginnings of Judy Chicago's Teaching Methodology
this model to an
Chicago: / first coined the term "feminist art education" In educators (Keifer-Boyd,
the early 1970s to describe the program I had established 2004). There were 60
artists in the exhibition
at California State University, Fresno, a program aimed at including Judy Chicago
helping female art students become professional artists and nationally renowned
without excising their experiences as women from the content photographer, Donald
of their artmaking. something that I had been forced to do Woodman. The
multimedia presentation
in my own development in order to be taken seriously in the ot Chicagos methodol-
entirely male-dominated Los Angeles art community. og)' is available ttom
My educational methods were in part based upon my own Through ihe Flower iion-
experiences at UCLA where I had gone for both my under- profit'as a CD-ROM fot
off-line presentation, or
graduate and graduate art education. It was there—and in my may be accessed directly
early years of professional art practice—that I had encoun- from the website.
tered the (then) widely-held notion that "one couldn 't be a

Studies in Art Education 135

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

woman and an artist too." Consequently, I had eliminated all

oontent in my art that ooutd have marked it as having been
made by a woman.
After nearly a decade of what I describe as "male drag" (i.e.,
making art which disguises the gender of the female artist). I
rebelled and sought to unite my gender and my artmaking by
oonstructing a feminist artpractioe that encouraged—rather
than discouraged—young women from exploring their own
experiences as potential content for artmaking. To accomplish
this, I decided to retrace my own steps in college by setting
up a program that would also liberate me from the profes-
sional constraints I had developed during my first decade
of professional art practice. Although I was both aware of
and frightened by the risk I was taking, I am not sure I fully
realized what a radical step I was about to make.
Judy Chicago developed a pedagogical approach that encourages
content-based artmaking (Schwib.s, 2002). Content in terms of how
Chicago refers to it in her pedagogical approach concerns a feminist,
political, personal, or social issue or message in a tangible visual form.
The goal is that content drawn from experience and research is integral
and seamlessly integrated in every aspect of the artwork. In all three
projects discussed in this paper as examples of her pedagogy, her emphasis
is to help participants Further develop or become professional artists. In
1971, she brought her Feminist Art Program (FAP) and many of her
Fresno students to Cal-Arts, where she established and team-taught
the FAP with artist, Mariam Schapiro. The FAP created Womanhouse,
a multi-room series of installations and performances centered on a
range of female experiences (Chicago, 1996). Faith Wilding (2002), a
participant in the FAP states:
Each room within Womanhouse, and each performance, was
credited with the name of the woman who made it. The content
and form of Wornanhouse wa.s evolved through consciousness-
raising sessions. Since we were always working together, there
was constant feedback and response for the work and lots of
informal kibitzing about processes and aesthetics. (? 9)
Miriam Shapiro describes that in "this team-teaching experiment...
we do not teach by fixed authoritarian rules. Traditionally, the flow of
power moves from teacher to student unilaterally. Our ways are more
circular, more womb-like; our primary concern lies with providing a
nourishing environment for growth" (2001, p. 125). Paula Harper,
FAP's art historian, notes that, "the program provided a psychological
environment that gave the participants the confidence to trust their
own instincts and judgment, even if their judgment was to leave or
rebel against the FAP" (2001, p. 126).

136 Studies in Art Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

In 2002, Judy Chicago explained that in the 1970s she felt a need to
teach only female students. When Chicago resumed teaching in 1999,
she made a conscious decision to include both men and women in
the courses and projects that she facilitated. She also found that "team
teaching with Donald Woodman made it easier to have men in the
projects because he provided a non-sexist male role model" (personal
communication, June 22, 2006). Chicago's mixed gender projects
intentionally encouraged men to listen to women and taught women
to speak out with conviction when men were present. She found this
worked best when the ratio was two-thirds women and one-third men.
Consequently, the 62 £"77^ participants included 46 women and 16
men. However, the ETFproject was purposefully planned to be a 50/50
gender mix of facilitators to provide balance. The £77^ project, in Fall
2003, was the first time that Judy Chicago, with Donald Woodman,
taught her pedagogical approach to others. Donald Woodman (Chica-
go's life partner) had participated in her teaching projects since 2001.
Chicago: / think it is important to point out that between 1970-
—when I established the Feminist Art Program in Fresno—to
1974—when I stopped teaching formally in order to devote
all my energies to studio art practice—t not only pioneered a
new, content-based pedagogy at both Cat-State, Fresno, and
Cal-Arts, but also co-founded the Feminist Studio Workshop
(FSW) with art critic Arlene Raven and designer Sheila De
Bretteville. The FSW was the first independent feminist art
educational institution and was linked to the Los Angeles
Women's Building, which i also helped co-found.
Although I left teaching, both the Feminist Studio Workshop
and the Women's Building continued for twenty years and
produced dozens of young feminist artists in both the fine,
and applied and graphic arts, along with art educators who
have brought their own versions of feminist art educational
practices to their careers and their teaching.
The reason I left the women's art community that I had helped
to establish was that by 1974, I had begun to figure out how to
do what I had gone to Fresno for, i.e., to construct a feminist
art practice.
Chicago's Teaching Methodology
Since 1999, a series of teaching projects, with distinctly different
contexts, provided Chicago with teaching experiences that helped her
to articulate a clear vision of her teaching methodology. Chicago avoids
the essentialist claim that her methodology is feminist art pedagogy,
acknowledging a variety of approaches to feminist education. Feminist
principles, however, inform her approach. From a comprehensive liter-
ature review of feminist pedagogy, Linda Forrest and Freda Rosenberg

Studies in Art Education 137

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

(1997) concluded that feminist pedagogy is "the fusion of feminist

values into the process and methods of teaching" (p. 179). Chicago's
content-based approach to artmaking is rooted in democratic ideals in
which different views are encouraged and argued.
There are three stages to Chicago's pedagogy that were named and
renamed between June and October of 2003, stages that were decided
upon as Judy and I discussed the best ways to describe the practice
that she knew intuitively and that I had observed. The sequence
moves from preparation, to process, and then to artmaking. Prepara-
tion involves sharing readings, research, and self. The dynamics of the
learning group motivate the individual to set significant artmaking
goals from arts-based research. While there are different perspectives
regarding the goals and nature of arts-based research (e.g., Irwin & de
Cosson, 2005; Kowalski, 2005; Pelias, 2004; Sullivan, 2005), Chica-
go's approach involves guiding participants to identify their concerns
and then to deeply research theoretical, empirical, and aesthetic work
related to that issue. This inquiry leads to the content of the artwork in
a way that captures and sustains attention, is accessible to the public for
contemplation, yet does not simplify the issue. In the "process" stage,
the facilitator and participants discuss individual choices of work mode,
media, and format; and how to navigate the constraints of time, space,
and resources. This discussion concerns transformation of personal
experience and researched content into a tangible form. The facilitator
builds a group support structure in order to help the participants meet
challenges together. In the third stage, artmaking moves from identi-
fying content to material samples, sketches, and models of the final
artfotms. Chicago's teaching approach involves guiding participants to
form a clear vision of their artmaking goals to convey specific content.
The facilitator also guides participants to consider the question: Who
is the audience and will the artist's intended meaning be clear to that
audience?

Chicago's Pedagogy Compared to Others' Views

of Feminist Pedagogy
Feminist pedagogy situates issues of power imbalances as a central
theme. Like others, Chicago stresses that transforming dominant power
relations is a central goal of feminist pedagogy (Collins & Sandell,
1984, 1997; Ellsworth, 1992; Forre.st& Rosenberg, 1997; hooks, 1994;
Lather, 1991; Manicom, 1992; Sasaki, 2002; Tomlinson & Fassinger,
2002). Power is implicated in teacher/student relationships, in access to
opportunities, in self-realization, among othet implications.
Power relationships are always present in teacher/student relation-
ships (Ellsworth, 1992; Knight, Kcifet-Boyd, & Amburgy, 2004;
Watkins, 2001). Chicago's pedagogy begins by replacing the traditional

138 Studies in Art Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

teacher/student relationship with a less hierarchical structure in which

the teacher becomes facilitator rather than an authority figure. Chica-
go's authority derives from what she has achieved as an attist rather than
from a rigid role relationship. Thus, her goals include helping partici-
pants actualize self. Chicago stated, "the process itself will be geared
towards empowering and enabling ... student[s] to feel comfortable
and to express themselves and to gain tools to express themselves" {At
Home mintites, March 4, 1999). Several female participants in ETF
and At Home spoke to me about how they were angry at first when
Judy challenged them to work beyond their comfort zone, but later
recognized the significance of their artwork as self-realization when
they undertook the challenge. Male participants in El'fand At Home
described confrontations with their assumptions and ways of working
thar Judy stimulated. However, they did not express their struggles
as a problem with self-acceptance, but with making personal feelings
toward life experiences public in their art.
Despite attempts to empower students, Chicago's fame and experi-
ence as an artist sometimes intimidate women and enrage men. Further,
Chicago has discussed with me—congruent with Ellsworth's (1992)
conclusions, in studying her own teaching—that many students expect
teachers to provide the correct answers rather than guide critical explo-
rations. Chicago acknowledges that students often position the teacher
as authority and she recognizes the difficulties of opening students to
discovery through research, dialogue, experimentation, and reflection.
It is not possible to shed power imbalances in the teacher/student
relationship no matter one's intent. Chicago's fame as an artist outweighs
typical discrediting of females in terms of receiving immediate respect,
and therefore power and authority. From a historical perspective,
Chicago challenges and changes the privilege system that provides
unearned advantage to White male artists (Parker & Pollock, 1981),
yet her recognized achievement merits her expert authority that is based
in hierarchical powet structures (Chizhik & Chizhik, 2002).
According to Tomlinson and Fassinget's (2002) survey of feminist
educators, feminist teaching practices value and draw out personal
experience for personal growih. In contrast, Judy Chicago emphasizes
the transformation of personal experience into content-based expres-
sion in the tangible form of art. Feminist art educator, Elizabeth Carber
reflects, "while scholarship on feminist pedagogy emphasizes personal
experience as part of mastery, expertise, and voice, experience tells me
that this is most successful when the teacher is comfortable with her or
his mastery and authority of the content" (2003, p. 66). Chicago, in the
early 1970s in Womanhouse, did not fee! the same level of authority in
her att content or in her teaching methodology as she did by the time
of the At Home and ETF projects. She described.

Studies in Art Education 139

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

Chicago: When I was at Fresno I went there to try and figure

out how to reconnect with the impulses that I had discon-
nected with when I was in coiiege and in graduate school...
I had no precedent for what I was going todo.... I was scared
half to death... . In terms of men. I couid not have had men in
the class in Fresno. I myself would not have been oomfortable
enough to do it. Now it is not a problem, (personal oommuni-
cation, November 23. 2002)
Chicago does not align with feminist pedagogy that coddles students,
and instead is honest and direct in her critiques to prepare students for
professional art practice.
Chicago: The art world is a tough place and in my opinion, it
does no good to ooddle students and to support their fanta-
sies that process should frump product—in the real world.
Product Rules. By this I mean that in the end. it is the art that
oounfs if you are going to be an artist. That is fhe system of
measurement thaf I bring to the practice of teaching.
Sounds tough? If is. but believe me, it is nowhere near as
tough as what students will encounter when fhey leave the
cloister of university life and attempt fo succeed as profes-
sional arfisfs. I therefore see my role as helping them to
become prepared. If their feelings get hurt in fhe process,
so be it: they'll discover soon enough fhaf I'm a pussycat in
comparison fo whom and whaf they'll be up against in the
art world.
Chicago has found some resistance to her pedagogical approach
from those participants in her teaching projects who value and privi-
lege process over product (personal communication, November 23,
2002), The resistance may be a reluctance to give primary importance
to completing an artwork that requires many revisions and numerous
hours to complete at the level of excellence that Chicago expects. She
hopes to instill in students high expectations for the final work through
the important first stages of her teaching approach in which students
search for other work on the topic and find a meaningful way to build
and contribute to the visual and other forms of such discourse. Chica-
go's pedagogical approach is clearly a process with sequential steps in
that research and content-searches precede setting artmaking goals.
Prior stages continue throughout the pedagogical process with artmak-
ing and exhibition in the final stage. The two stages prior to artmak-
ing and her emphasis on group dialogue about issues in which all are
expected to contribute to the discussion, content-searches, and research
prior to and throughout artmaking is what makes Chicago's approach
distinct from traditional studio instruction, which often begins with
artmaking without goal setting, media exploration and selection, and

140 Studies in Art Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

without intensive research into and discussion about the content that
will inform tbe artwork. The distinction of process and product for
Chicago is that processes valued, such as learning to listen to one's
intuitive senses and gaining confidence in oneself, are appreciated by
her as important outcomes when they occur, but not the goal of her
teaching methodology. The goal is to complete a content-based artwork
that merits public exhibition.
Feminist art pedagogues in the 1970s initially focused teaching on
the inclusion of women artists as role models and encouraged women
to express in visual form their lived experiences. Second wave feminist
art educators guided their students to look for contradictions between
socially expected gender roles and their everyday desires, hopes, and
experiences. Since the 1990s, feminist art educators have increasingly
included content about the diversity of women's experiences of oppres-
sion, power, and privilege; and have drawn attention in their teaching
to issues of gender, race, age, sexual identification, social class, and
education as co-creating this diversity.
Maher and Tetreaut (1994) note that student-centered learning is
an important feminist teaching strategy in which student learning is
constructed "through the interactions of communities of knowers"
(Carber, 2003, p. 22). Feminist educators in psychology, Tomlinson and
Fassinger (2002), found that "one common ingredient within feminist
pedagogy is an intentional focus on women, women's oppression, and/
or gender relations" (p. 38). They posit that feminist pedagogy is built
on "feminist principles of shared leadership, attending to process, and
valuing all voices" (2002, p. 38). Chicago opens spaces for others to lead
without compromising her own voice. She does not view her teaching
processes as prescriptive, but argues that research, content-searches, and
content-based critiques are critical to producing meaningful art.
Preparation in Chicago's Content-Based Art Pedagogy
Prior to the group meeting, the facilitator asks participants to research
beyond the required readings in areas related to their specific needs
and interests. Research continues throughout the creative process with
activities such as interviews, observations, sketching, reflective journ-
aling, library research, and other readings. After discussions of initial
readings and research, self-presentations serve as a means for the facili-
tator and participants to learn about each other and to begin building
group dynamics.
Variations in Facilitating Self-Presentations
The self-presentations led by ETF facilitators varied in effective-
ness. The facilitators who encouraged self-analysis in the self-presenta-
tions laid a foundation for content-searches and group support. One
male facilitator perceived that most of the ETF project participants

Studies in Art Education 141

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

in his group did not acknowledge that they make art derived from
their personal history, nor feel that their personal history is relevant to
their artmaking process. He was uncomfortable talking about personal
meaning of art content in his work and thus as a facilitator he did not
encourage such connections. Yet, from observations and interviews, 1
learned that most of the women in the other groups connected their
personal experiences to the content of their art, while most of the men
in these groups did not.
The facilitators in £77^ who did not have Judy Chicago's experience,
self-confidence, and status as an artist, were unable to identify partici-
pants' underlying issues and were unable or unwilling to push partici-
pants into confronting their greatest concerns. Even those facilitators
who were most open to emulating Chicago's methodology recognized
how her once a week visits to the group brought about drastic revisions
to participants' artmaking goals, which the participants sometimes
initially reacted to with defensive attitudes that transitioned into self-
turmoil. Chicago's success in challenging participants to do meaningful
content-based work may be due, in part, to the credibility that she has
as a famous artist; but this ability to challenge and to provoke success is
an area of intrigue for future study.
Building Group Dynamics
How does the facilitator effectively guide without directing partic-
ipants? Chicago advises to allow discomfort, a space to think about
differences and for differences to be heard. Silence sometimes creates
a feeling of anxiety in students since it disrupts the expected teacher
role. She maintains that allowing silent spaces will encourage people
to present their ideas and viewpoints. Chicago posits that silence is
ineffective if it does nor involve active listening and active engagement
in which each group member honestly acknowledges that they heard
the other person. To facilitate this, Chicago insists that participants
sit in a circle, all facing each other, without tables that would hide
their nonverbal body language. Such exposure encourages active listen-
ing. Chicago also expects each member to contribute to the discus-
sion by taking turns in responding to important questions under group
consideration. Chicago informs participants that they can pass their
turn in the citcle and then the facilitator can circle back to ask those
who passed to contribute when ready. However, everyone is expected to
participate. The facilitator's role often requires reminding individuals
not to interrupt another.
ETF facilitators' use of the circle promoted supportive group
dynamics and provided each member of the group an opportunity to
share their petspectives. The £7"f facilitators that did not open their
teaching space to the circle interaction had lively discussions, but not

142 Studies in Art Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

everyone participated in all the discussions. Facilitators who used the

circle formation with the expectation that all contribute to the discus-
sion had more tightly bonded groups.
Content-Search
Chicago emphasizes that there are many ways to facilitate content-
searches. The purpose is to search for specific content relevant to each
individual's interests and—if appropriate—to the project's theme, if
there is one. Discussions of the shared readings (and in the Envisioning
the Future project, the addition of a discussion of the lecture series' all ^See http;//v!dco.
were expected to attend) began the content-search. In the £"77^project csupomona.edu/
I • r ir • I ' l l ! scream in E/asc/
the connection or seli-presentations to content-searches varied depend- , ,c
, , ' • , , , ' envisioning.html ror
ing on the facilitator's ability to push participants to analyze self-content tke £rfvideo.s(reamed
and identify research directions. lecture series.
In both Womanhouse and the At Home projects, content-searches
began with consciousness-raising sessions of house memories. Questions
that arose included the following: What happens in a house? What is
the relationship between architecture and gender, between space and
social identities? In terms of Womanhouse, could the same activities
women had used in life be transformed into the means of making art?
(Chicago. 1996, 2001; Harper, 2001; Wylder, 2002/2003). Some of
the Womanhouse participants perceived that the teaching methodol-
ogy evoked a "psychological environment" in which the space became
emotionally charged from the investigations into their lives (Harper,
2001, p. 126).
From my interviews with /^///owi? participants, I found that content-
searches came directly out of the self-presentation process, which
opened discussion to life experiences often previously not atticulated to
self or shared with others. In the At Home project, after the self-presen-
tations, the participants met as a group for many sessions to discuss
from a personal perspective the concept of domestic space. One mid-
20 year-old man described, "sharing memories of house was the most
important element that made it all work" (personal communication,
March 7, 2002). In retrospect, many participants in all three projects
commented that the 6 or more weeks of discussing and sharing was
what they leatned most from, although most were at the time anxious
to make art.
Wylder (2002/2003) compares Womanhouse and At Home and
concludes that these are examples of a "distinct process and form
within the canon of feminist art pedagogy and contemporary art" (p.
79). She describes the content-search process in the At Home project
as an outgrowth of consciousness-raising with "the evolving structure
or paradigm of the art world" (p. 81). Chicago and Woodman encour-
age content-searches in which personal content is connected to larger

Studies in Art Education 143

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

social, political, and environmental issues. That is, in fact, a primary

goal of the two artists.
The At Home content-searches that began with deep revelations
and comfort-giving amongst the group were initially self-stymied for
some younger participants who resisted Chicago's insistence to conduct
library research on how artists have dealt with their selected content.
Perhaps the popular view that feminist pedagogy emphasizes personal
experience created this resistance. Chicago states that "the quickest way
to not be original is to not know what other people have done, because
that will guatantec that you will do something that has already been
done a hundred times before" (personal communication, November
23, 2002). Originality for Chicago concerns attwork derived ttom
deep content-searches that disrupt hegemonic ideology.
Chicago: Although I very much appreciated Viki Thompson
Wyider's essay on the At Home project, I disagree with her
contention that content-search is "an outgrowth of conscious-
ness raising".
While there is some truth to the idea that my earlier practice
of going around the circle in order to inciude alt my students
became informed by some of the feminist principles and
practices of the seventies, my use of these techniques was
always linked to art production—thus, process never trumped
product. In fact, many people used to ask me—even as long
ago as The Dinner Party days (1974-1979)—"Isn't the process
what's most important?", to which t always answered, "No, it's
the art that counts."
Of course, as a good feminist. I was (and am) always happy
when participants in my own art projects, my studio classes,
or my project classes (like At Home or ETF) end up feeling
both educated and empowered—that's the best outoome. But
it's an outcome that is not always possible, especially at the
end of a project when the pressure is on to produce; stress
is high: nerves are ragged: and everyone is on edge and
anxious. That doesn't always make for the most "supportive"
environment but you know, that's life—it's tough if you want to
achieve or create anything of significance.
Chicago's methodology emphasizes a ptocess which involves self-
discovery and research that culminates in content-based art. Moreover,
revising work or abandoning what initially seemed like the right direc-
tion, as well as the unexpected and sometimes disturbing insights in
self-discovery, can be felt as worth it if the artwork sustains or even
haunts viewers' contemplation long after first encounters with the
work. Therefote, in Chicago's teaching model the process is not the
goal, but is important in reaching the goal.

144 Sttidies in Art Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

Artmaking Goals
To set artmaking goals, Chicago recommends that artists clarify the
audience that they want to reach and then try to structure their art
so that it communicates to that audience. Chicago asks participants a
series of questions about the models and sketches of their art concept
to help with goal setting, such as asking, "How would others know
what this is or means as you are describing it?" For example, the ETF
mural group interviewed residents in the area in which the mural
would be situated. The artists struggled to compose one encompass-
ing theme as an image to communicate the disparate histories of the
people in the area. Community-based mutalist Judith Baca assisted the
group to construct a unified vision of complex differences. The strate-
gies employed in facilitating the gtoup to set artmaking goals included
guiding conceptualization beyond individual elements in the mural to
a larger visual statement.
In another example of setting artmaking goals, William Catling,
facilitator of the £7Tsculpture group, asked the participants to imagine
their conceptualization of their individual artwork exhibited next to
another's in the group, and how that would influence its meaning.
Group members saw connections from which a theme emerged rhat
directed their individual work. This process brought cohesiveness to
their group exhibition which was imagined as an "Earthian Culture
and Science Museum" in 4002.
Process in Chicago's Pedagogical Model
Ideal to Real: Navigating Limits of Time, Space, and Resources;
Selection of Work Mode, Media, and Format Decisions
The process stage involves discussions between facilitator and partici-
pants about individual choices of work mode, media, and format. Work
mode selection concerns decisions about whether to work individu-
ally or collaboratively on one artwork, and in what way to collaborate.
Media selection comes from finding the best media for what one wishes
to communicate. In addition to helping participants select the most
appropriate media, the facilitator helps participants to choose a visual
format most suitable to the available exhibition space and facilities.
Several £"77^ participants had used processes and materials previously
unfamiliar to them. They felt encouraged to select mode, media, and
Format most suited to the content and artmaking goals rather than start
From a familiar medium and honed expertise.
A difficult stage is to move from the ideal to the real by navigating
limits of time, space, and resources to meet artmaking goals. Group
support strengthens as participants solve these challenges together. One
participant described:

Studies in Art Education 145

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

In retrospect, the push which came in part from the limitations

of time due in part to the pacing of the discussion phase and
in part From a sort oFdire urgency projected by the principals
oF ETF, proved to be a valuable thing because it forced active
decision making, (personal communication, February 17, 2004)
In the At Home project, the youngest students conveyed to me that
they were not confident about their work and wanted more guidance
and reassurance. They Found this in the older women, the artists,
working on the house rather than from "the teacher." The mature
artists, more confident in themselves, were appreciative of Chicago's
critiques of their work, and felt that they made their own decisions in
response to Chicago's probing questions. Judy spoke of this strategy as
intentional, something she also did with the Womanhouse pro]ect. She
invited five or six practicing artists to "set a model for the students"
and "to support the aesthetic goals oF the project" (personal commu-
nication, November 23, 2002). By adding experienced artists to the
project, Chicago set into motion rhe provision of multiple teachers.
Chicago describes that, initially, she will spend extended time with the
students to help them find their way, but that it is important, eventu-
ally, to let them work and to provide guidance only when and if the
work requires it. "After all, when the project ends, they'll be alone in
their studios and I want to prepare them for that" (Chicago, personal
communication, October 15, 2005).
Personal Commitment and Group Support
Because the projects end with an exhibition, there is a responsibil-
ity to produce art by a specific time for a specific exhibition venue.
For some participants, particularly women, fear sometimes becomes
an issue—fear of not being able to complete the work because of, for
example, family demands. It is a struggle for many women to commit
even a minimum of 16-20 hours per week For several consecutive
months in the face of life demands and the pressure on ones time
commitment intensifies as the exhibition grows near. The male partici-
pants did not express such Fears in my observations and interviews with
them, although several conveyed that they set all else aside to work on
their art leading up to the exhibition.
There were many examples in all three projects oF group members
supporting each other by providing encouragement and by helping
with resources and expertise. In both Womanhouse and At Home, the
process oF creating the rooms was—For some—emotionally painful,
and physically tiring. Yet, they were dedicated to the ptoject and
helped each other to complete work for exhibition. When they spoke
about an aspect of their room, or of the house overall, most expressed
both exhaustion and exuberance concerning their accomplishments.

146 Studies in An Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

One of several examples in the ^ T f project of group support involved

contributions of an animation and original music by two participants
ro another s video.
Artmaking in Chicago's Content-Based Model
Participant Selection Criteria
The process would not work iFthe participants were not selected for
(heir commitment to discovery. This, oFcourse, is difficult to determine
In advance, and in various institutional settings the entrance criteria
may not be within the control of the teacher/facilitator. However,
many higher education studio programs have portfolio and artist state-
ment requirements For entry to both the undergraduate and graduate
levels. Chicago and Woodman reviewed slide portFolios and applicant
statements For the £"77^project, eliminating prospects that presented a
set plan. They accepted candidates committed to experiences to grow
as artists and art educators.
From Process to Image
After participants identify their artmaking goals, they develop
material samples, sketches, and models to formulate their ideas and
CO discuss their intentions, content, media, and format plans with the
group. The facilitator helps participants to critique and Further develop
preliminary plans that best convey their intentions. The criteria for
critiques are geared toward whether the artists' intentions in the work
are evident to the others in the group.
Balancing Support and Guidance
The participant oFten struggles at the artmaking stage and needs
both support and guidance From the Facilitator. For example, Judy
Chicago asked an £77^ participant, whose work showed a lack oF Focus,
to walk in front of her. Judy physically steered her from behind. As
the participant attempted to go a diFFerent direction, Judy guided her
Forward. This conveyed the need to complete one path before going
oFF on another path. The embodied exercise reminded everyone in
the group to go deeply into a focused inquiry, with all aspects of the
artwork reflecting that depth, rather than a breadth that could distract
and muddy the artist's intent.
Content-Based Critiques
Chicago's content-based critique assists the artist to Form a cleat
vision for the artwork with discussion of the Following:
1. What is your goal with this piece?
2. Start by telling us what you want to express.
3. Let's talk about ways you could do this.
4. How will rhe viewer understand it?

Studies in Art Education 147

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

Content-based critiques occur in the early stages of production. As

the time to complete the work approaches, the Facilitator's role changes.
The facilitator next provides suggestions such as "maybe this will work
better than that" or "how about trying such and such." Participants are
involved in these critiques and share their understanding of what the
work conveys to them.
Audience and Evaluation
To Chicago, the proof of the effectiveness oFher pedagogical process
is in the artwork. Does the work transform personal experience into a
tangible, visually excellent, and accessible, content-based expression?
(See Figure 1.) For Chicago, excellence, in part, has to do with if viewers
feel moved by the work, whether incited or stirred with new insights.
For example, reactions by visitors to At Home included comments
like, "It made me think of my life differently." Others liked the inter-
active immersive quality of entering the art. By going into the house,
they Felt connected to rather than spectators of an. One visitor to At
Home, who is a licensed Family therapist, described the house as "more
than art." The house, she asserted, "has a power and spirit oFits own"
(personal communication, March 27, 2002).
Chicago: Why is it 'more than art' when the art is sufficiently
meaningful and relevant—not to mention beautiful—that
moves one? Why can't that BE ART? Perhaps one could
say that's my dream: to transform our ideas about what we
consider to be worthwhile art. Guess you could describe me
as a female version of Don Quixote—tiiting away at the empty
windmill of most contemporary art.
The viewpoint, "more than art" is based in the modernist tenant that
art evokes a heightened out-oF-body experience that is cultivated as an
aesthetic distancing from social, sentimental, personal, and political
considerations. Art, from this modernist view, is not something that is
relevant to most people's lives.
Chicago: Historically, the primary audience for maie-centered
art was. of course, men. When—a tittle more than 100 years
ago—women were finally allowed access to professional art
education, women studying to be either artists or art historians
were naturally exposed to male-centered art history with its
theories of maie genius.
Few women students were able to navigate the lack of
support or outright hostiiity of the art world in order to become
professional artists. Those that did had to compete with
maie artists for the same audience, an audience generally
unschooled and uninterested in women's cuitural production
or our long struggle for equity and aesthetic freedom.

14 8 Studies in Art Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

When I was working on the problem of constructing a

feminist art practice, i realized that I would have to find a
different audience for my art, one that would be sympathetic
to women's concerns—which were my concerns. At first. I
conceived of that audience as exclusively female as indeed
it was when—in the early seventies—feminist art was born.
In the process of thinking about an appropriate audience. I
realized that such an audience might not be schooled in the
form language of high (i.e.. male-centered) art that is taught
in art history classes and expanded upon in art journals.
Thus, I came to the idea of educating a new audience which
I set out to do through: (a) my books about my life and my
work which brought my struggles, my ideas, and my art to
thousands of potential viewers worldwide; (b) trying to 'open'
my form language in order to make it more accessible while
retaining its aesthetic excellence: and (c) creating a new
context for viewing and understanding art.
Aesthetic excellence for Chicago concerns content that is seamlessly
expressed through a visually captivating form.

Figure 1. Rape Garage (view from right) by Stefanie Bruser, Josh Edwards, Katie Grone,
and Lindsey Lee with assistance of Justin Mutter from At Home: A Kentucky Project
facilitated hy Judy Chicago and Donald Woodman at Western Kentucky University,
Bowling Green, KY, 2001. Photo © Donald Woodman 2001.

Studies in Art Education 149

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

The Potential of Chicago's Methodology for Art Educators

1 he post ETF reflections by the facilitators and participants raised
important issues concerning how institutional structures and the
people with power in those structures impact one's intended pedagogy.
Most art educators do not have the same stature in the eyes of students
as Chicago does, nor the experience of producing content-based art
that has impacted society to the extent of Judy Chicago's work. There-
fore, translating the methodology tor various age groups is not the key
problem to overcome in adopting it. Instead, it involves considering
the whole context of one's social position, one's teaching institution,
and one's place within it, as well as, teacher/student power relations.
Furthermore, many art educators have been entrenched in a surface
aesthetic approach based on "master" works. Delving into content-
searches stirs emotional awakening and turmoil that many educa-
tors prefer to avoid. Students often resist content-based critiques that
delve into meaning. Student commitment derives from the teacher's
commitment to facilitate the creation of work for an exhibition. Not
all art educators are willing or able to make such a commitment of
curricular time and organization with a public site for each of their
class projects.
.£"77^facilitators modeled Chicago's methodology to varying degrees
depending on their acceptance of the ideology or view of the approach
as too simple to be significant, such as a facilitator who remarked
sarcastically, "you never sat in a circle before" {personal communi-
cation, September 16, 2003). Therefore, the bonding and sense of
support varied in the eight groups and was reflected in participants'
satisfaction with their growth as artists and in the type of art produced.
For example, one participant noted that, "the teaching methodology
reminded me of summer camp orientation, out-moded and a bit touchy
feely" (male respondent to survey, February 15, 2004). A third articu-
lated the feminist principles that seemed a part of the methodology
to include starting the project with intense education and mentoring;
"creating an arrangement where nurture by group members between
themselves became a necessity"; and acknowledging that the "art that
resulted came to look as it did due to much help and input from others
in the group. ... I feel my participation in what I regard as a highly
significant art project has brought me renewed self-confidence in my
work" (male respondent to survey, February 2, 2004).
Those who belittled the process as "nothing new," or interpreted
it as "touchy feely" feminine ways, at the same time, revealed that the
process they experienced resulted in provocative artwork that opened
new avenues for them. Despite resistance by some, the art that they
produced intrigued them. Many commented that they planned to
continue at least some of their work with a content-based focus. The

150 Studies in Art Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chici^o's Pedagogy

£77^ facilitators and participants who embraced the teaching method-

ology experienced a considerable learning transformation toward
self-actualization through their art and continued a momentum of
professional development after rhe project.
Those who held Utopian ideals of community with fantasy that there
are no differences of power, perceived the methodology as hampered
when difference in status was apparent in the teaching interactions.
Liberatory pedagogue, Betty Sasaki (2002) posits,
... a pedagogy project of coalition begins by identifying and
historicizing how narratives such as the one informing the
consensus model of ideal community are legitimated, normal-
ized, and internaliz-ed. By challenging the seamlessness of those
narratives as one and the same, students can begin to question
what many start out believing to be the seamlessness of their
own subjectivity, (pp. 35-36)
Power differences should be openly discussed as situational and
identified as strengths to contribute to the group, rather than as an end
to communication. 1 found this important in my own use of Chicago's
teaching methodology.
Chicago's methodology resonated with my pedagogy. Additionally,
rhe artictilation to students of her methodology—chat I adopted in
collaborative art projects that I facilitated in Spring 2004 with graduate
students that included many without art backgrounds and in Spring
2005 with undergraduate art education students—soothed their anxiety
that the artmaking should begin right away. Those in Womanhouse, At
Home^ and ETF<X\d not have a meta-overview of the pedagogy in which
they were participating, but trusted in Judy Chicago's leadership.
I was able to openly navigate teacher-student power relationships
in order to motivate and empower students to identify their own and
others' strengths and to collaborate with each other and to seek their
own answers through research and content-searches. In the Spring 2004
project we used artmaking as a means to reflect on how our own under-
standings of self are both informed and misinformed by many complex
discourses in the world, such as history, politics, power, culture, world-
views, feminism, silences, and technology. Twelve graduate students
collaborativeiy created 4-inch Binding Unbound zs a muitidisciplinary
dialogue. When the course concluded, 6 of the 12 students in the course
continued rhe collaborative project. We held meetings and workshops
ro conceptualize, plan, and implement a project of a never-ending visual
hook; and sent the project on a 3-year tour to othet universities. Each
site integrates it into their curriculum in different ways and documents
the process as well as adds pages to the book project. Not only is the
project traveling in its physical form to many different institutions.

Studies in Art Education 151

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

but it is also viewed (and contributed to) in cyberspace.^ This is an

5.See htip://expii>ration5. example of art practice as research to gain insight into epistemologies
sva.psu.edu/unbound/ gf

The Spring 2005 project culminated in an exhibition, Cultural

Interface which offered an opportunity for authentic engagement with
contemporary new media arc issues and processes. Interface—a site of
connection or confrontation, a space of effect between two entities, a
cultural construction of identity^was the theme of eight collaborative
artworks by 37 Penn State School of Visual Arts students from two
courses, Art 415: New Media Practice, taught by Carlos Rosas, and
Art Ed 323: Visual Culture and Art Education, taught by me. There-
fore, there was collaboration between two professors, two courses, and
students from different programs. One group's collaborative work,
Stolen, by students from both courses, used a single channel live-feed
relay (i.e., real time manipulated video but delayed) in the installation.
This created an element of surprise when viewers found themselves in
the projected video composite of a video credit card. I found that it
was not only helpful to use Chicago's pedagogical approach to encour-
age research and planning prior to artmaking, but also to present the
teaching methodology underlying the process. This helped to assure
students that the time spenr in the first stages of content-searches,
community-building, and research would improve the quality of the
art that they were to make. I am convinced that the first two stages of
Chicago's pedagogical approach are both what makes it unique, and
what makes it effective.
Gender, status, and ideology are not determining factors in adopting
Chicago's teaching methodology. But believing in and understanding
Chicago's teaching processes and valuing content-based art significantly
impacts ones desire and ability to use jndy Chicago's reaching method-
ology to facilirare meaningfial and compelling artworks. While Chicago's
pedagogical methods are geared toward the education of young artists at
the university level, I agree with her point when she states: "I believe that
my circle methodology, which emphasizes thar every voice is important,
and an art education that focuses on content rather than form can be
applied in a variety of ways and at a variety of levels and by people who
aren't at all famous" (personal communication, June 22, 2006).

' 52 Studies in Art Education

 From Content to Form: Judy Chicago's Pedagogy

References
Chicago, J. (1996). Beyond iheflower:The autobiography ofa frminist artist. New York: Viking.
Chicago, J. (2001), Woman as artist (1972). In H. Robinson (Ed.), Feminism-arl-theoTy: An
anthoUgy 1968-2000 (pp. 294-295). Maiden, MA: Blackwcll. (Reprinted from Chicago, J.
(1972). Everywoman. 2(7), 24-25.)
Chizhik, E. W., & Chizhik, A. W. (2002), Decoding the language of social jusrice: What do
privilege and oppres,(ion really meui^ Joumal of College Student Dneloptnem, 43{(>), 792-808.
Collins, G., & Sandell, R. (1984), Women, an, and education. Rcston, VA: National Art Education
As,sociation.
Collins, G., & Sandell, R. (1997), Feminise research: Themes, issues, and applications in art
education. In S. D. La Pierre & E. Zimmerman (Eds,), Research methods and methodologies frr
art education {pp. 193-222). Reston, VA: Nacional Art Education Association,
Ellsworth, E, (1992). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of
critical pedagogy. In C. Luke& J. Gore (Eds,), Feminisms and critical pedagogy {pp. 90-119).
New York: Rouiledge.
Forrest, L,, & Rosenberg, F (1997). A review of the feminist pedagogy literature: The neglected
child of feminist psythology. Applied & Preventive Psychology. 6, 179-192,
Garher, E. (200.1). Teaching about gender issues in the art education classroom: Myra Sadker Day,
Sindies in Art Education. 45(1), 56-72,
Harper, P. (2001). The first feminist art program: A view from the 1980s (1985)- In H, Robinson
(Ed,), feminism-art-theory. An anthology 1968-2000 (pp. 126-130). Maiden, MA: BlackweU,
(Reprinted from Harper. P (1985). Signs. / « 4 ) , 777-781.)
iiooks, h, (1994). leaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Roudedge.
Irwin, R. L., & de Cosson, A. (Eds.). (2005). A/r/tography: Rendering selfthrou^ arts-based living
inquiry. Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Educational Press,
Keifer-Boyd, K. (2004). Judy Chicago's participatory art pedagogy: Informed by frminist principles.
Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://www.judychicago.com/pedagogy.
Knight, W. B., Keifer-Boyd, K.. & Amburgy, P M, (2004), Revealing power: A visual culture
orientation to student-teacher relationships. Studies in Art Education, 450), 270-274.
Kowalski, K, (2005). Arts-based research as an alternative lens: Rethinking current scientific models
of physical self-concept. In N. Denzin (Ed.), First International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry
(pp. 211-212). Urban a-C ham pa ign: University of Illinois,
leather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the postmodern. New York:
Rout ledge.
Maher, F. A., & Tetreaut. M, K. (1994), The fitninist classroom. New York: Basic Books.
Manicom, A. (1992). Feminist pedagogy: Transfonnations, standpoints, and politics. Canadian
Joumal ofEducation, 17, 365-389,
Pjrker, R., 6f Pollock, G, (198!). Old mistresses: Women, art and ideology. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul,
Pelias, R, J. (20041. A methodology of the heart: Evoking academic and daily lifi. "Wsinui Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.
Sasaki. B. (2002). Toward a pedagogy of coalition. In A. A, Macdonald & S. Sinchez-Casal (Eds.).
Twenty-Jirst'century feminist classrooms: Pedagogies of identity and diffirence (pp. 31-58). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Studies in Art Education 153

 Karen Keifer-Boyd

Schwibs, S, (Producer), (2002). No compromise: Lessons in feminist art with Judy Chicago
[Film], (Available from Ifidiana University: WTIU, tbe l U T Y station in cijopetation with
Instructional .Support Services, 812-855-5900)
Sbapiro, M. (2001). Tbe education of women as artists; I'rujecr Womanhouse (\972). In H.
Robinson (Ed.), Feminism-art-theory: An anthology 196S-2000 (pp. 125-126). Maiden, MA:
Bbckwell, (Reprinted from Scbapiro, M. (1972). Art Journal, 31(3). 268-270.)
Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts.Thouss.nA Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tomlinson, M. J., & Fassinget, R, E. (2002). The faces of feminist pedagogy: A survey of psycholo-
gists and their students. In L. H. Collins, M. R. Duniap&J. C. Chrisier (Eds.), Charting a
new courseJorjeministpsychology (pp. 37-64), Westport, CT: Pracger.
Watkins,W, H, (2001). The white architects of black education: Ideology and poiver in America,
1865-1954- New York Teachers College Press,
WMm^, E (2002), Collectivity and collaboration: subRosa. M/E/A/N/I/N/G Online #2.
Retrieved June 8, 2006, from http;//writing,upenn,edu/epc/meaning/02/wilding-subrosa.hrml
Wylder, V.T. (2002/2003), A distinct feminist process and form: At Home: A Kentucky Project wizh
Judy Chicago and Dimald Woodman. The Journal of Gender Isiues in Art arid Education, 3.
79-90.

1 54 Studies in An Education