Art Education

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

Problems Confronting Visual Culture

Arthur D. Efland

To cite this article: Arthur D. Efland (2005) Problems Confronting Visual Culture, Art Education,
58:6, 35-40, DOI: 10.1080/00043125.2005.11651567

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2005.11651567

Published online: 21 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 124

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uare20
VIS B ~ R1 H U R D.

A new movement has app eared Lntil the advent of this movement, th e fine arts were
deemed the cen tral CO il' of the visual arts cu rricul um,
recommending, in part, that the field of art an d indwd. there haw been times in the history of art
ed ucation sho uld lessen its tradition al ties education w ben nn e art w a.s offered as the social
remedy prot ecting th e young from the It'SSsa\"(1)' influ -
to drawing, painting, and the study of master- ences of the po pular c ulture (Tavin, 2005). Ho w eve r, the
pieces to become the study ofvisual culture. recent advance ohisual cult ural st udies seemingly
standspoised to displa ce th e nne arts. If th e fine arts
(Freedman. (l)!17;Tavin, 2001; Duncur n, 200(2)' '.'jsll tl!
co mprise a s mall fract ion or the total ity covered by
('ultuml ,<iflll/./l re fers to an an-e ncompasstng category of
vi sual cultural s tu dies, s hould it co ntinue 10 re main th e
cultural prac tice t hat includes the lim' arts bUIalso
central foc us ortnstmcnon? Dot'S ft conti nue to have a
deals with the s tudy c rvariou, forms of popular cult ure:
role in educat ion and what might that he?
the folk tradit ions ofartmaking; industr ial, interior,
pa ckage and graphic design; photography; commercial So me proponents of visual culture advocate that
illustration; andthe entertainment media incl udi ng more time and reso urces s hould be expended to st udy
cinema, television, and their electro nic exterus io ns vta the arts of evel)' day life ( Duncu m. 200l) ra ther than 10
the co mput er and th e Internet. It th e fine arts. Freedman an d Stuhr, though rec ogruztng
includes th e design o f bu ilt the impo rtance o f Ilne art as a carrier -of
e nvironments in public spaces In particular, till' histo rical and co nte mporary cu lt ure,
s uch , L'O theme parks, fa.'>I. food neve rtheless conclude, "Fine art
rest aurants . and s hopping malls.
hierarchy that placed objects and 'good tast e' can no longer
The presence of these po tent fine art at the top of be seen as the only \i s ua1 cult ural
sources ohi...uaI imagt'ry has capital to servE'ele mentary, secondary,
challl{ed Anwrican culture and
the heap and popular o r- college level students," (2()()..I, p.
the li\,{'So ( r-hildn-n gru ",ing up in culture at the bollom 8 17). Hthe Iine arts no longer should
the midst ortht'Sl' innlH'n("t'S. play th e principal role in de termining
has largely been the content of lnstruetion, w hal takes
Ilo w ever.uw fit·ld of art
ed ucation has done liu lt' to abandoned. The its place and to .....hal purpose? Before
prepare children (0 deal wi th \his d('aling wi th th ese questions, I revie w
curriculum 0 IW I1pd some problems that mak e-the st udy of
on....laught. (Freedman & Stuhr;
2(X).I; Duncum. 2(02) its elf to a broader the vt sual arts difficult at \his moment,
array of co ntent,
especially as the
boundary line
separating the high
from the low became NOVEIIB ER 200S I U T ED UCA TI ON ..
less clear.
 The Problem with Art
The problem with art is how to come to terms with its nature
as a human endeavor, including how to identify its bounds. What
purpose does it serve as a domain of practice especially when
the boundaries, which separate it from the everyday life-world,
are fading? In his book Beyond the Brillo Box, the philosopher
and critic, Arthur Danto (1992), describes the cultural landscape
as a map that shows many regions bounded by various zones.
One zone is the art world where the fine arts serve as its main
preoccupation, while other regions include the mass media and
the popular culture. But this map reveals an unusual cultural
situation, namely that the boundaries that once kept these zones
apart have either disappeared or are in the process of erasure.
The lines that once separated fine art from popular culture have
either become imperceptible, or register as disputed territories
or sites of contestation. 2
As Danto explained, starting in the 1960s,this series of
erasures has all but eliminated these borders. Pop art eliminated
the boundary between high art and low art; minimalism erased
the distinction between fine art and industrial process. The
border separating mass-produced things from the images of fine
art housed in museums has disappeared from the landscape.
Another is the distinction between objects appreciated as
exemplars of cultivated taste and the objects of the ordinary
person's life-world, including comic strips, soup cans, and
cheeseburgers. No longer does art have to be beautiful or to
resemble nature; indeed there is no longer any difference
between works of art and what Danto called "mere real things."
Even more telling was his observation that "Youcannot tell
when something is a work of art just by looking at it, for there is
no particular way that art has to look" (Danto, p. 5, 1992). One
can no longer teach art simply by looking at examples. And so
the question becomes, how does one teach the arts and what
does one teach? If fine art is indistinguishable from the rest of
the material culture, how does one define the limits of instruc-
tional content?
Though proponents of visual culture
acknowledge the existence of fine art as a
practice, they also describe it as a product
from a bygone era (modernism) and are
generally unconcerned with the task of
teaching art as fine art in all its separate-
ness and remoteness. Rather, the task is to
teach students to become critically
attentive to the cultural meanings that
visual images convey for the purpose of
understanding society and culture,
including how these images help create
the shared meanings we call culture.
Critical citizenship rather than the appreci-
ation of a "stale canon of masterpieces"
has become the objective (Tavin, 2001,
p. 133). Modernism has become a term of
opprobrium, a synonym for the status quo,
• ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 2005
and characterized by political neutrality. The fact that the
modernist avant-garde once had a radical agenda of its own
seems to have been forgotten, and this despite the fact that its
agenda was very much like that promoted by many proponents
of visual cultural studies, today.'
The Problem with Modernism
Since the end of World War II new technological advances
were at work busily creating today's mass culture. The
modernist avant-garde threw itself into opposition' and champi-
oned the ideal of high culture as the redeeming purpose of art.
Modem art was the high art of the future whereas the lower
forms of popular culture were labeled "kitsch," but by the late
1970smodem art began losing its lofty sense of purpose. Its
optimism was replaced by exhaustion and irrationality (See
Gablik, 1984). It began to lose its sense of entitlement and
privilege and was characterized as an elitist project by cultural
critics like Pierre Bourdieu, (cited in Johnson 2002, p. 112).In
fact, the cultural relation of the "high arts" to the rest of society
had become one of the topics of inquiry that typified
postmodern discussions of the arts. In particular, the hierarchy
that placed fine art at the top of the heap and popular culture at
the bottom has largely been abandoned. The curriculum opened
itselfto a broader array of content, especially as the boundary
line separating the high from the low became less clear.
Yet,with all the changes in culture brought on by the
postmodern moment, the teaching of art still continues to be
guided by a modernist aesthetic orientation. The movement to
transform traditional art education into visual cultural studies is
an attempt to align the teaching of art in school settings with
what is happening in the culture as a whole.
Visual Culture and Postmodernism
Visual cultural study became a curriculum movement within
professional art education with the onset of postmodernism as
the last century was ending. The ternlpostmodemism is an
academic category concerned with develop-
ments in the arts in the late decades ofthe last
century. It soon became a descriptive term for
all sorts of proposed shifts and changes in
contemporary society and culture. With faith in
progress seen as belonging to a modernist
period (1900-1960), the term "postmodernist"
began to describe the successor period as one
of change, often characterized by disillusion-
ment. As long as modernist optimism
prevailed, the advance of "fine" or "high" art
was deemed an unquestioned good. Many, like
myself, once saw modernist practices like
abstraction as progressive. Modernist architec-
ture with its clean lines and its "less is more"
aesthetic felt like a breath of fresh air that
transformed our cities with shiny new
buildings made of glass and steel. It is only in
retrospect that these gleaming skyscrapers
becam e an architecture that grew to symb olize corporate
dominance. When I became an art teacher in the mid-1950s, I
struggl ed to teach an appreciation for modem art even though
many deemed it a hoax or a communist conspiracy.
Of course , mod emi sm was not without its flaws, and one was
its tendency to define the vario us dom ains of kno wledge as
autonomous disciplines. Each discipline had its expertise, its
community of scholars, and methods for procuring knowledge.
This was especially tru e in the sc iences but the arts and litera-
ture followed this path as well. Each disciplin e promised to offer
univers al knowledge, that is, knowledge not bound to any
particular culture.
However, unlike the sciences, the arts are bound to their
cultures of origin. Typical talk about works of art or their
stylistic class ification cannot proceed without reference to such
ethnic or cultural descriptors as "Japane se" prints , "Fre nch"
Impressionist paintings , German romantic compose rs, the
"Italian Renaissance," "Pers ian" miniatures , or "Navajo" pottery.
Discussion of the cont ent of such works is also closely bound up
with the social context where thes e works have arisen. Looked
at from this persp ective, the atte mpt to characte rize the arts as
freestand ing disciplines culminated in the movement known as
Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) (Efland, 1988). The
visual arts were set apart from the cultural influences that gave
rise to them, and this was a grave error. Visual cultural studies
in large part atte mpts to remedy this tend ency.
Problems Affecting Visual Culture
However, visual cultural studies as a movement has so me
vexing att ributes that may limit its effectiveness as a new
paradigm. No movement can arise without expe riencing some
difficulties or what might be called "grow ing pains" and visual
culture is no exce ption. Two such difficulti es are its excessive
breadth since the numb er of genres covered by programs in
visual culture can become so enormous as to become unman-
ageable in the time allotted for teaching the arts. The she er
numb er of topics available for coverage confounds the selection
process. If everyone agreed on the choices of conte nt to meet
these objectives, which is far from the case, the assessment of
such objectives would still become a major so urce of difficulty.
(Freedman & Stuhr, 2004, p. 823) To be sure, these are practical
difficulties rath er than conce ptual ones, but they are difficulties,
nevertheless.
Asecond difficulty I call its leveling tend ency-the belief that
there is no pre-established hierarchy that accords privileged
standing to ce rta in objec ts such as the objects of "fine art."
A visual culture curriculum purports to place all objects on an
equal footing without favoritism and that to do otherwise leaves
the educator open to the charge of an elitism that favors certai n
kinds of art above the rest. The probl em is that many cultures in
their collective judgment do take ce rtai n works to be more
important than oth ers . The reasons for these judgments might
vary, might include their religious, civic, or aesthetic values and
may involve issues of power, as many who favor visual culture
insist.
Because the study of works of art has for its central purpose
the critical understanding of the cultures or societies wherein
such works originated, it is quite possible that one could very
well teach children to interpret cultures through a critical
reading of images from the mass medi a, without ever referring to
works from the genre of the fine arts of the sort traditionally
encountered in museum s. In my view this is an unfortunate
poss ibility.
Fine Art and its Continuing Importance
Histori cally, fine art always stood for something extraordi-
nary, so mething that transformed the world of the everyday and
the mundane. More than 30 years ago, the educational philoso -
pher Maxine Greene presented a pap er on the topi c of popular
culture and the fine arts in education.' Her term for them was the
"serious arts," a term that in my judgment is unfortunate since
the fme arts are not always serious. She included literature,
theatre, dan ce, and music as well as the visual arts in her discus-
sion . In her view, if we teachers try to ignore or demean the
popul ar culture, if we insist on pr esenting se rious art to students
as the only respectable culture, our efforts will be received with
blank looks or cries of irrelevanc e.
Like Maxine, I know better than to argue that the fine arts ar e
better than the arts conveye d by the mass media and pop ular
culture. However, they ar e different in purpose, and it is with
these ideas in mind that the case for their continued presence
can be made. Let me paraphrase a portion of Green e's argument.
She claims that serious art opens up more possibilities of feeling,
und erstanding, aIld pleasure than the popular arts . They perm it
a unique enrichment of existence, a diversification (indee d, all
expansion) of consciousness beyond the scope of the popular.
It is because serious art-Beethoven 's, Flaub ert's, Hemingway's,
Cezanne's, DeKoonin g's, Ibsen's, and others- if actively and
perceptively encountered , has the capacity to move human
beings into themselves , to releas e them into their own subject-
ivities, to illuminate their particular life worlds. Engagement
with works of serious art , difficult as they are to recognize and
NOVEM BER 2005 I ART EDUCATI ON II
 possess, is one way of achieving authenticity, the very authenticity
that is required if our students are to maintain integrity under the
onslaughts of technology and the seductions of media and
kitsch. I have experienced the impact of such works throughout
my life and these encounters tell me that Maxine's assessment of
their power is right; yet I know that it is difficult to make such a
case with individuals lacking such encounters.
Problematizing The FineArts as Cultural Practices
In the West the term "fine" was often used to modify the term
"art" to designate works where particular aesthetic features are
present that raise them above the level of the merely useful.
Many advocates for visual culture reject this concept. They resist
the idea of artistic value or the possibility that some works might
in some ultimate sense be aesthetically better than others.
Questions about quality or excellence or what allows a partic-
ular work to be accorded recognition as a cultural achievement
are rarely, if ever, pursued as a bona fide line of investigation.
The idea of a canon of masterpieces repels enthusiasts for visual
culture since the act of listing forces one to exclude other works
that might reveal important cultural or social factors.
If fine art as a cultural practice is acknowledged at all, it is
grudgingly and often mis-equated with upper class domination.
Social critics like Pierre Bourdieu regard the high arts as no
more than sign systems designating social status (cited in
Johnson 2002,p. 5). Likewise, Tony Bennett, a British Marxist
describes fine art as "sheltering the world of privilege ... from
unwelcome political distractions" (cited in Harpham, 1994,p.
128). Thus numerous academic types who once might have been
counted on to champion fine art, literature, and classical music,
stand less ready to support such offerings.
What gives the fine arts their special character is that within
them is an ongoing practice of critical investigation that
attempts to see which works should be recognized as art. This
happens with works in the popular culture as well, but it is
within the fine arts where the tradition and expectation of
.. ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 2005
critical appraisal is particularly well developed. Of course, the
various genres within popular culture are rapidly developing
their own modes of criticism relevant to their nature. For
example, in the days following the 2005 Super Bowl there was
extensive critical commentary on the lackluster quality of the TV
commercials shown during the game. One commentator on
National Public Radio referred to a particular commercial made
for Apple Computers in 1984as meeting a standard that has
rarely been surpassed. But if the boundary lines between
cultural genres are disappearing as Danto asserts, it might also
be the case that the differences between critical practices are
disappearing as well.
To Look Beyondthe EverydayWorld
There is a more compelling reason why fine art has educa-
tional value, and it is based on the contrast between the experi-
ences we have with objects in the everyday world and objects
traditionally categorized as fine art. I found Paul Duncum's
(2002) essay to be especially helpful in sorting out this problem.
He draws a sharp distinction between "everyday aesthetic sites"
as opposed to art objects "which belong to the refined and the
special" (p. 5). The latter would be the kind of art that concerns
the professional fine arts community whereas the average
layman is more likely to be drawn to the popular culture.
Everyday cultural sites, then, are set apart from experiences
of art insofar as their appeal is to popular sentiment ... Their
references are familiar and together they help form the
common culture. They directly address the present
moment. Unlike the art of the art-world, they are neither a
collection of sites that derive from the past, nor an attempt
to articulate the future. They represent neither a residue of
the past, nor what is emergent; rather they embody the
values and beliefs ofthe currently dominant form of
economic arrangement-global capital-and in this sense
they form what Williams (1977) calls the dominant culture.
(Duncum, 2002, p. 5)
 Duncum argues compellingly that the aesthetics of everyday
encounters are offered by sites such as shopping malls, televi-
sion, theme parks, and fast-food restaurants and should not be
overlooked by contemporary art educators as legitimate sources
of content in contradistinction to the experiences provided by
the arts of the museum. The latter are more likely to emphasize
the one-of-a-kind, unique aspects of aesthetic experience.
"Everyday life," in his view, involves the mundane world which
he characterizes as being unrelated to the major events of
history. "It involves the reproduction and maintenance of life,
not the production of new ways of thinking and acting"
(Duncum 2002, p. 4).
When Duncum turns his attention to fine art, he describes it as
a genre that "focuses exclusively on certain privileged forms of
the visual. Its focus is on works that are considered spiritually
elevating. Art is said to take us out of ourselves. Aesthetic appre-
ciation is thus an especially heightened, even consummatory
experience" (Duncum 2002, pp. 6-7). "Creating calm reflective
sites, separate from the overt, dynamic of a materialistic society
was for this tradition the point of both fine art and the aesthetic"
(p. 7). By contrast, the aesthetics ofthe everyday world
emphasize "the present moment, an immersion in the
immediacy of current experiences and activities" (Duncum,
2002, p. 4). He would have today's students focus attention on
the aesthetic experiences of the everyday world rather than
those offered by the so-called higher realms of the fine arts. In
effect, Duncum accepts the reality of an aesthetic hierarchy
except that he asks educators not to neglect the everyday end of
the continuum rather than concentrate upon the so-called higher
realms of experience offered by the fine arts. However, a
reversal ofthe hierarchy does not eliminate it; he merely asks us
to allow one set of values to take precedence over another.
The musicologist Julian Johnson takes an opposing view. His
little book Who Needs Classical Music? reads like a reply to
Duncum though, of course, this was not its purpose.
But sometimes art is not obviously concerned with the
everyday. It is concerned with the extraordinary, the outer
limits of our experience ... it is the source of art's unique
value as a means of articulating areas of experience beyond
everyday linguistic discourse, and at the same time, it is a
means of becoming fantasy, more or less unrelated to the
concerns ofthe everyday. (Johnson, 2002, p. 49)
And Johnson continues:
Art's apparent refusal of the everyday is not a refusal of the
"human" as such: it is a refusal of the idea that the sum of
what it is to be human is found in the everyday. (Johnson,
2002,p.49)
So, if we adopt Duncum's orientation we would emphasize the
aesthetic encounters of everyday life. Ifwe take Johnson's view,
we would look to the fine arts for a realm of experience that
extends beyond the everyday, to enter perhaps, that spiritual
world alluded to earlier. Duncum has a point in asking students
to become critically attentive to the aesthetic dimensions of
everyday life. However, it is equally the case that on some
occasions we should look beyond the everyday! This is where my
view differs from his. Moreover, his assumption that the fine arts
only provide "calm, reflective sites," or that they are politically
neutral is just plain wrong.
The proponents for a visual culture orientation have a valid
point when they say that too many oftoday's art educators teach
about works of art as though such works are politically neutral
and above controversy. In my opinion, the problem is not the
fine arts but how they are represented in instruction.
In my view, a visual culture curriculum should represent the
arts on both ends ofthe genre continuum and to do otherwise is
to constrain the freedom of cultural life. The same might be said
of a curriculum that deals only and exclusively with the fine arts
and that presents such works as exceptional moments of human
achievement-as the only legitimate content. No valid educa-
tional purpose is served by limiting the range of visual culture
either to the realm of the everyday or to arts that transcend the
everyday, but if each has the other to serve as a basis for compar-
ison, then the special attributes of each genre can become clear.
Implications for the Future of Art Education
The movement toward visual cultural studies is a step in the
right direction by identifying it more closely with the whole of
social life. But it is also a movement that runs the risk of
becoming blinded by a kind of shortsightedness. In its zeal to
problematize aesthetic or hierarchical distinctions as undemoc-
ratic, it loses sight of the fact that many cultures develop hierar-
chies often based on aesthetic attributes and these often do
more than serve as the markers differentiating social class. Left
to its own devices, each flies in the face of democratic aspira-
tions to constrain the freedom of inquiry, including the freedom
to explore various forms of cultural life. But freedom entails
more than art style or life style choices.
There is also a second sense in which I use the termfreedorn.
It is the particular role of the arts to traniiform the culture of
which they are part. This happens with the creation of novel,
imaginative works of art. This happens in the popular culture,
perhaps more so, but it is principally in the practices ofthe fine
arts where the human imagination has its greatest degree of
freedom to cultivate, explore and express novel meanings
relatively free" of social repression or censorship. Fine art
fosters "an experience of freedom" that can serve the broad
social purposes favored by the advocates of visual culture if in
human cognition they create a space for imagination and under-
standing to entertain and rehearse social and moral ideas
without immediate social or political consequences. Cultures
and societies which allow this in their arts (and many do not) are
ones where there is likely to be evolutionary change and adapta-
tion of cultural practices over time. Thus the fine arts as a
category of cognitive activity within human experience provides
a space where human beings have the freedom to create new
forms of cultural life, providing a means of social invention and
critique.'
NOVEMBER 2005/ ART EDUCATION •
 Social invention occurs in the popular culture as well, and
there has its greatest impact because it reaches more people.
And hence the goal of enabling students to assess the impact of
these forms on their lives, including their understanding of
reality, gives the study of popular culture a level of importance it
rarely had in the past.
However, popular culture, especially that which is dissemi-
nated by the mass media is inherently less free. It is constrained
by its very popularity to feature ideas and meanings chosen to
further the profitability of the culture industry. For the most part
its forms are assimilated uncritically into the lives of our
students. To increase the capacity for critical consciousness in
our students is the main reason why visual cultural study is
important. One develops such awareness through the play of
contrasts of one cultural form with another including one genre
with another. And this is where works of fine art play their
principal role. They belong in the art education curriculum, not
to give us aesthetic experiences, though many such works do
that very well, but to remind us of our human potential. In the
final analysis, we are educators in the arts and it is our business
to keep doors ofthe human imagination open.
Arthur D. Efland is Professor Emeritus at The Ohio State
University, Columbus. E-rnail: e:jland.l@osu.edu
ENDNOTES
1For opposing views on the topic of visual cultural studios sep Dorn, C.
(2003), Sociology and the ends of arts education, Arts Educat ion Policy
Reoieu: 104(5) 3-1:3, and Smith, P..J. (200:3), Visual culturo studies versus
art education, Arts Education Policy Renicu: 104(4) pp. :J-H.
2See Chapter Two in Efland, Freedman & Stuhr, Postmods-vn Al'l
Education: An Approaeh to Curriculum (HJDG) for a discussion of
cultural boundaries and their disappearance.
:3See Andreas Huyssen's essay "Mapping tho Postmodern "in Nicholson
(Ed.) in Feminism/ posim otiern ism , New York: Routledge, pp. 2:34-277,
for his description of the modernist agenda.
4Writings by Clement Greenberg typify the advocacy and defense of
modernism. Early in his career he attacked popular culture by rho term
kitsch in an essay entitled "Avant garde and kitsch" Pa rt isa II Recicir. 6,
pp. 4-49 (19:39).
5Greene, M. (HJ71). "Popular Culture, The Arts and Education." Paper
presented at the fall conference of the Institute for the Study of Art in
Education Department of Art, The City College, New York, November
1971.
GCertainly not totally free.
71obtained this term from Guyor, P. (HJUG) Ka lit a nil the Erpcricuc« q(
Freedom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8Since the Enlightenment this has been one of the functions of the arts
in the cultures ofthe West.

REFERENCES
Danto, A. (1992). Beyond the Brillo Box: The visual arts in post-histor-
ical perspective. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
Duncum, P. (2002). Theorizing everyday aesthetic experience with
contemporary visual culture. Visual Arts Research, 28(2), pp. 4-15.
Efland, A. (1988). How art became a discipline: Looking at our recent
history. Studies in Art Education. 2.9(3) 264-274.
Freedman, K. (1997). Critiquing the media: Art knowledge inside and
outside the school. Art Education, S.9(4), 46-51.
Freedman, K., & Stuhr, P. (2004). Curriculum change for the 21st
Century: visual culture in art education. In E. Eisner and M. Day
(Eds.), Handbook ofresearch and policy in art education (pp. SFi-
828). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Gablik, S. (1984). Has modernism.failed? New York: Thames & Hudson.
Johnson, J. (2002). Who needs classical music: Cultural choice and
musical value. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harpham, G. H. (1994). Aesthetics and the fundamentals of modernity.
In G. Levine (Ed.), Aesthetics and ideology. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Tavin, K. (2001). Swimming up-stream in the jean pool: Developing a
pedagogy towards critical citizenship in visual culture. Journal. of
Social Theory in Art Education Vol. 21, pp. 129-158.
Tavin, K. (2005). Haunto1ogical shifts: Fear and loathing of popular
(visual) culture. Studies in Art Education, 46(2), 101-117.

.. ART EDUCATION I NOVEMBER 2005