Art Education

ISSN: 0004-3125 (Print) 2325-5161 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uare20

Clarifying Visual Culture Art Education

Paul Duncum

To cite this article: Paul Duncum (2002) Clarifying Visual Culture Art Education, Art Education,
55:3, 6-11

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2002.11651489

Published online: 22 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 554

View related articles

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uare20
 n a recent ereele in this journal . Elliu!

I Eisner (200 1) Offl'rt 'fl sonu- comments un

the propo sa l tha I art education adopt a vis ua l
culture pamdigtu. His comments l'dm SlUlW
of thust' that art' frequently made whenever
I present vi sual Culum- Art Education (VCAE)
at conn-n-nces and III students. The pamdlgm
has been t-mployed by many art educators

• (t'R'. Chalmers. 2U01:Congdon & Blandy. 2(XII ;

Clan ng
Fn-edrnan. 2UU );Stok n x-ki. 2001 ; Tavin. 2()00).
and Visual Cultun- Art Education is unlikely 10
('volvl' into just om- thing. \\11011 ISl't'k In do bore
is to clarify Illy understandiuz of what \ 'CAE is
and to rectify some cnmnum mlsunderstandmgs.

al Culture
Education VCA E sees mak ing a nd critique as
s ym biotic.The critique and making of imag-l's
111'('(1 10 goo hand-in-hand. with tlu- tint'
supporting'the uther in a symbiotk n-lation shlp.

•• • V s\
Critical understanding ilnd empowerment-c-nut
artistic cxpression-earc the primary g-oats of
\'CAE. but critical understanding and empower-
mcnt arelx-st dt'wlopt'(tthruug-h an emphasis
on imag'('-makil1g- w hen-students haw SO Il W

) freedom to explore meaning- forthemselves.

However. tilt' objection is ofu-n raised that
VCAE dislodzes lilt' central place ofim<lj.tl'-
making in favor ofc ritique. It is arj.,'1.lt'(llhat
men- than anything- {'1St·. making'illla}!t -s St'ts
art apart (mill other St'h' HIIsubiects. '11IrlJUg-h
making- irnaz es students It-am about art as a
practitioner:they learn how artists think. and

B Y PAU L DU N CU M

~ AAT fD UCATI ON I !.l AY 2002

students have the opportunity to explore By contrast, Buckingham and Sefton- follows this expressive model. By
a unique way of thinking for themselves. Green provide an exemplar for VCAE contrast, image making in VCAE would
To stress critique at the expense of by focusing on making images that tend to adopt more of a design proce-
making images would destroy the combine critical questions with the dure- such as discovering, planning,
subject in the eyes of students and freedom for individuals and groups to doing, and assessing-than the open-
teachers alike. While developments in explore meaning for themselves. In ended exploratory approach of some
our field over the past few decades have emphasizing making as central to peda- artists. As well as learning skills,
emphasized the value of critique, gogy, they effectively take their model students maintain freedom to explore
making images remains central to art for teaching from art education. At the while focused on questions related to
education and for good reason. same time, they used making activities the nature and function of visual culture
This argument is a helpful caution to have their students explore a much in society and its impact on their lives.
against a singular stress on critique broader, socially conscious range of Though making takes on a different
that some advocacy of VCAE may have questions about cultural practices than accent from some mainstream art educa-
implied. I don't believe anyone wishes is usually explored in the art class. tional practice, it remains central.
VCAE is a new paradigm. One of
the most often used methods of under-
A visual culture approach requires a substantial shift mining what is new is to fail to recognize
it as new and to claim it as nothing more
in what is to be known about images and thereby has than a repackaging or an extension of
already existing and accepted practice.
far-reaching implications for changing the pre- and in- Thus the emphasis ofVCAE on working
service training of teachers. Knowing about television with and on expanding students' own
cultural experience is said to be nothing
production and audience reception is different from more than sound, traditional art educa-
tion practice. Linking the world of art
knowing about Monet, for example. with the world of students is what all
good teachers do, it is claimed.
to turn visual culture into just another Critical issues that informed making However, despite similarities
academic subject as some proponents of activities included the roles played by between existing practices (e.g., Wilson,
Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) imagery in society, audience reception, 1997; Dobbs, 1998) and VCAE, they are
were once accused. Stressing critique at media ownership, the construction of substantially different. They have
the expense of making images in an their own multiple subjectivities, and the different fundamental starting points
exploratory way can have serious nature of representation. In short, this and goals and require of teachers a
detrimental effects, as Buckingham model is founded on a framework of different orientation to the curriculum
and Sefton-Green (1994) warn in their critical pedagogy within which students as a whole. A visual culture approach
examination of Media Studies in Britain. are encouraged to explore issues for requires a substantial shift in what is to
There, making is often subservient to themselves. I be known about images and thereby has
teacher-determined ideas; making Making images in a visual culture far-reaching implications for changing
activities merely illustrate pre-existing curriculum would therefore not always the pre- and in-service training of
critical positions. The legacy of this be the same as it exists in some art teachers. Knowing about television
transmission model is students who are classes today. Artmaking is often a production and audience reception is
able to regurgitate the ideology of their process of open experimentation different from knowing about Monet,
teachers but unable to transfer learning without a clearly articulated set of ques- for example.
to their lives outside formal schooling. tions, and art in schools sometimes

MAY 2002 I ART EDUCATION _

 Mainstr 'am art -ducation b 'I.dns
with th eassumption that art i . inher-
-ntly valuabl " wh -r 'as V E assum es
that visual r -pr 's -ntations ar ' sites of
id -ological 'I nJ ~~1 ' that can b ' as
d iplornbl ' as th 'y can b ' prais 'worthy.
"Ill ' starting point is not th ' pr -scrib -d,
inclusive canon ofth institutionalized
art world, bUI stud -nts' own cultural
-xperi -nc -. majorgoal is -mpower-
III -nt in r .lation to the pr 'S sur 'S and
••• pr oc -ss 'S of cont -m porary illla~ ..
VCAE. .. would focus on the extraordinarily
diverse ways people deal with the visual
products of global capitalism as people
negotiate. resist, and appropriate the
meaning of images in terms of their
own cultural predispositions.
makers, mostlythose who work on
behalf ofcorporate capitalism.not the
cherishing ofartistic traditions and the
valuingofartistic experimentation.The
basic orientation is to understand. not
to celebrate.
The kinds of people attracted to
existing practices mayalso be different
from those attracted to visualculture.
People sometimes appear to select to
be art teachers because they feellike
outsiders and want to celebrate cultural
expression that takes them awayfrom
the general. driven impetus of society.
They see themselves on the margins of
society in general and cuniculum in
particular.and in reaction to both they
adopt a defensiveposition. Bycontrast.
a visualculture approach requires
teachers to deal directlywith the images
of mainstream societyand in place ofa
defensivepositionto locate themselves
at the core of the cuniculum.
DBAEhas taught us that there is
more to art in schools than making
_ ART ED UCATION / MAY 2 0 02
pictures; there is the need to learn how
to discuss images sensibly. To this
extent, DBAE has provided an essential
stepping-stone to VisualCulture Art
Education. It would have been impos-
sible to move from a self-expression
approach to a visualculture approach
without the intervening period where
critique of art became accepted as an
essential component ofcuniculum.
Thus. VCAE is indebted to DBAE. but
it is a mistake to see it as merely an
extension ofexisting practice. Indeed,
the implicationsare far-reachingfor
theory and classroom practice. the
orientation of teachers to their
colleagues, and the recruitment and
training of teachers.
VCAE is profoundly historical.
To exclude the perspective that history
offerswouldbe a serious failing ifit were
true, but as texts on visualculture
demonstrate. nothing could be further
from the truth (e.g., Barnard, 1998;
Darley,2000; Evans & Hall, 1997;
Mlrzeoff, 1999; Walker & Chaplin,
1997). Because VCAE places great
stress on examining images in their
contexts. and one of the major contexts
ofimages is the history ofimages, this
history is a vitalcomponent ofa visual
culture cuniculum. The history of repre-
sentation is often far more determining
ofcontemporary representations than
anything in contemporary life. Where.
after all.do visualstereotypes derive if
not from previousvisual representa-
tions?This is true ofgendered images,
images ofviolence.beauty, motherhood.
family, authority, and numerous other
subjects.
The history of images also provides
a usefulcorrective to the idea that the
bright and colorfulofcontemporary
visualsites represent the cheap and
tacky, while restraint exemplifiesthe
good taste offine art. For example,
Leddy (1997) demonstrates that what
he calls an aesthetic of"sparkle and
shine" was at the core of the concept
of beauty from the Greeks to the
Romantics, a matter of special pride to
Realist painters, and only fell out of favor
during the 20th century.
To fully understand contemporary
cultural sites it is necessary to study
their history. However, the history of
visual culture is not the same as the
history of art. Just as the canon of
images is greatly expanded under a
visual culture approach, so is the history
of images. For example, Darley (2000)
develops a history of popular pictorial
practice over the past century as a
succession of steps-realism, simula-
tion, and interaction-that rarely
mentions conventional art. A visual
culture curriculum is profoundly
historical, though it reframes what
history means.
VCAE is cross-eultural. VCAE is
inherently cross-cultural, though, again,
it offers new meaning to cross-cultural
study. It would focus on the extraordi-
narily diverse ways people deal with the
visual products of global capitalism as
people negotiate, resist, and appropriate
the meaning of images in terms of their
own cultural predispositions. However,
opponents fear that a focus on what are
often the cultural sites of global, corpo-
rate capitalism, takes precedence over
the cross-cultural study of art. They
argue that a focus on cultural sites that
appear everywhere the same dislodges
an interest in the differences between
cultural groups and their search for
their own unique identity.
The cultural sites of global capitalism
only at first appear homogenous; they
are everywhere interpreted differently.
'The meaning of global images is highly
heterogeneous as different nationalities
and ethnic groups interpret the same
images in a range of ways. Just as we
have learned from post-structuralism
that audiences interpret images so
diversely that they can be thought to be
co-creators, so different nationalities
and ethnic groups interpret images
according to their own cultural tradi-
tions and contemporary needs. They
undertake cultural translations and indi-
genize images created elsewhere. Perry
(1998) says that cultural translation is
never a matter of mere transmission but
involves creativity. Images sometimes
take on wholly new meanings so that,
for example, McDonalds® represents
cheap fast food to many, but in some
parts of the world McDonalds
represents high status. Coca-Cola®
represents the United States of America
to many, but it also represents a range of
other national identities. The image of
Coca-Cola may be made in the USA,
but, as Howes (1996) demonstrates, it is
remade in many other countries. VCAE
brings to cross-cultural study a focus
on the polysemetic nature of global
imagery.
VCAE is as natural as any
other study of culture. Working
with the nat digital screen of television
or the Internet, it is claimed, can hardly
be equated with the wonders of working
with materials like juicy paint and clay.
Squeezing clay through young fingers is
an act of pure sensory delight that elec-
tronic forms cannot possibly simulate.
One is artificial, it is claimed; the other,
natural. One is mediated experience
and therefore always second-order
experience; the other is authentic and
reminds us of our essential humanity.
The argument for and against this
position turns on what is to count as
natural and authentic. Nature is perhaps
the most contested word in the English
language (Williams, 1983).
Anthropology has taught us that the
nature/culture opposition is arbitrary
so that what is natural for one group is
unnatural for another. Equally, in the
West, the history of technological devel-
opment is a history of naturalization
where what is unnatural for one
generation becomes natural for the next
a ohnson, 1997). Television, once a
strange, new cultural intervention that
the family gathered around to watch
particular programs is now more likely
to be left on as a background accompa-
niment to numerous other family
activities such as eating, cleaning, doing
homework, and so on (Morley, 1995).
What was once an intrusion into the
flow of daily life has become naturalized.
Similarly, digitalized image screens are
seen by many as an unnatural affair, yet
many youngsters are taking to them
as fish to water (Thomas, 2001).
Arguments that evoke the values of
what are assumed to be self-evidently
natural and authentic are neither suffi-
ciently cross-cultural nor historical.
They are insufficiently conscious of
their assumptions. Where older critics
complain that our image culture is
nothing but a hall of mirrors, younger
critics like Johnson (1997) respond by
saying the only people afraid of mirrors
are vampires.
Moreover, the argument that paint
and clay are natural conveniently over-
looks the extent to which traditional
materials have become cultural
products. To visit the exhibitors' hall at
NAEA conferences is to be made aware
of the extent to which art materials in
schools are the product of cultural
contrivance.
MAY 2002 / ART EDUCATION _
 VCAE values both aesthetic
value and social issues. The
dichotomy between social studies and
aesthetics is false, as was an earlier
debate in aesthetic theory between
aesthetic value and ideology. Aesthetics
Learning to make media is a social issue. On the one hand,
institutionalized art is inherently about
images or to plan shop-
values, beliefs, and attitudes, and if art
ping malls or theme park classes do not address them, they are
rides involves as many falsely called art classes. On the other
hand, television and cultural sites like
aesthetic considerations shopping malls and theme parks rely
heavily on aesthetic manipulations.
as learning how to paint
Learning to make media images or to
or create a clay pot. plan shopping malls or theme park
Yet some argue that the rides involves as many aesthetic
considerations as learning how to paint
interest in visual culture or create a clay pot. Yet some argue that
is akin to replacing art the interest in visual culture is akin to
replacing ali with social studies. They
with social studies. suggest that the study of issues like
media ownership, audience reception,
They suggest that the
ideology, and social reproduction
study of issues like media appear to displace relishing the
ownership, audience sensuous qualities of images.
By contrast, such issues place
reception, ideology, and aesthetic experience within its proper
social reproduction social contexts. Ideology works best
when it is hidden, and the aesthetics of
appear to displace sensory appeal work to hide ideology so
that ideology and aesthetics always go
relishing the sensuous
hand in hand. Witness how Monet is
qualities of images. used today to promote the depoliticiza-
tion of art. For good and/or ill, ideology
and aesthetics are always bedfellows
and always have been. A visual culture
curriculum would study how
ideology works through
aesthetic means or,
conversely, how aesthetics
works to promote ideology. A
celebration of sensory delight
would thereby be grounded in
its problematic socioeconomic
and political nature.
e ••
_ ART EDUCATION I MAY 2002
VCAE will emerge incremen-
tally. Teachers claim that they are not
equipped to deal with the complexity of
contemporary cultural sites. We were
trained in art schools, they say, where
some of the central issues to do with
visual culture were never even raised.
Teachers, for whom it is always
Monday morning, have little time to
keep abreast of developments that until
recently may have appeared outside
their immediate domain. Analyzing a
theme park ride is not the same as
analyzing a painting. Moreover,
traditions ofteacher practice, which are
based on what is known to work in the
classroom and what meets administra-
tive and parental expectations, make it
difficult for many teachers to change.
These arguments are founded on a
conflation of a new paradigm and the
actual dynamics of change. While
realizing the need for new practice may
take place in an instant, learning how
to translate insight into the classroom
cannot be expected to take place
overnight. Change in education is
always incremental, and so it must be
with the transition from one art educa-
tional paradigm to another. If, as Wilson
(1997) suggests, the shift to DBAE was
a quiet evolution, we should expect no
more with the shift to VCAE. If a
teacher starts by reading just one book
on one contemporary cultural site and
experiments with how to deal with it
within the classroom, the process
starts. Just one book on one site, one at
a time, over time will mean that a new
body of teacher knowledge is
developed that comes to form a new
art educational paradigm in practice.
 Johnson. S. (997)./nterfaceculture.' How new
Paul Duncum isa Lecturer in Visual technology transforms theway wecreate and
Am Curriculum in the School 0/Early communicate. San Francisco. CA:
Childhood andPrimary Education, HarperEdge.
Leddy. T. (997). Sparkle and shine. The
Facultyo/Education, University 0/ British Journal 0/Aesthetics, 37(3). 259-273.
Tasmania.Launceston, Tasmania, Mirzeoff, N. (1999). An introduction tovisual
7250, Australia. culture. London: Routledge.
Morley. D. (995). Television as a cultural
E-mail: Paul.Duncum@utas.edu.au form. In C. Jenks (Ed.), Visual culture.
London: Routledge.
NOTE Perry. N. (998). Hyperreality and global
culture. London: Routledge.
1Many examples will be published in a sJJt;cial
Stokrocki, M. (2001). Go to the mall and get it
issue of the journal Visual ArtsResearch this
all: Adolescents' aesthetic values in the
fall. This issue is devoted to examples of how
shopping mall. ArlEducation. 54(2). 18-24.
to deal in the classroom with such sites as
Tavin, K (2000). Teaching in and through
theme parks. advertisements. tourist sites.
visual culture.journal o/Multicultural and
tourist souvenirs. television. surfing culture.
Cross-culuoa! Research in Arl Education.
and adolescent bedrooms. (8).2Q.23.
Thomas. A (2001). Cyber children: Discursive
REFERENCES and subjective practices in the palace.
Barnard. M. (998). Arl,design and visual disClosure: AJournal o/Social Theory. (0).
culture: An introduction. London: 143-175.
Macmillan. Walker.JA.&Chaplin.S. (997). Visual
Buckingham. D.•& Sefton-Green.L (994). culture: An introduction. Manchester. UK:
Cultural studies goes toschool: Reading and Manchester University Press.
teaching popular media. London: Taylor & Williams. R (983). Keywords: A vocabulary 0/
Francis. culture andsociety (2nd. Ed.). London:
Chalmers. G. (2001). Knowing art through Fontana.
multiple lenses: In defence of purple haze Wilson. B. (1997). Thequietevolution:
and grey areas. In P. Duncum & T. Bracey Changing the/ace 0/artseducation. Los
(Eds.), Onknowing.' Arland visual culture. Angeles. CA:The Getty Education Institute
(pp. 86-98). Christchurch. NZ:Canterbury for the Arts.
University Press.
Congdon. K. & Blandy, D. (2001).
Approaching the real and the fake: Living
life in the Fifth World. Studies in Arl
Education, 4(3). 266-278.
Darley. A (2000). Visual digital culture:
Surface play andspectacle in newmedia
genre. London: Routledge.
Dobbs. S. M. (998). Aguide todiscipline-based
arteducation: Learning in andthrough arlo
Los Angeles: CA:The Getty Education
Institute for the Arts.
Eisner. E. (2001). Should we create new aims
for art education? Arl Education, 54(5).
6-10.
Evans.L, & Hall. S. (997). (Eds.). Visual
culture: Thereader. London: Sage.
Freedman. K (2000). Social perspectives on
art education in the U.S.:Teaching visual
culture in a democracy. Studies in Arl
Education. 41(4). 314-329.
Howes. D. (996). Introduction: Commodities
and cultural borders. In D. Howe (Ed.),
Cross-cultural consumption: Global markets,
local realities (pp. 1-16).London: Routledge.

MAY 2002 / ART EDUCATION _