This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP]

On: 19 May 2012, At: 03:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Inclusive

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

The cultural production of ability

in drawing
Dennis Atkinson

Available online: 28 Jul 2006

To cite this article: Dennis Atkinson (1998): The cultural production of ability in drawing,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2:1, 45-54

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360311980020104

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of
the use of this material.
 INT. J. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 1998, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 4 5 - 5 4

The cultural production of ability in drawing

DENNIS ATKINSON
(Originally received 1 May 1997; accepted in final form 19 June 1997)

This paper argues for a more inclusive approach towards assessing pupils' observational
drawings and an expanded comprehension of ability in drawing practices. With reference to
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

the work of Foucault and Lucan, the paper examines the constitutive processes of assess-
ment of drawing ability and argues that such ability is not a natural possession, but a
production of specific practices and discourses in the field of art in education.

Introduction

In this paper, I argue for a more inclusive approach to the assessment of

pupils' representational drawing practices and, by implication, a more
inclusive attitude towards 'ability' in drawing. With reference to the
work of Foucault and Lacan, I show how drawing ability is not a natural
possession or talent, but that it is a production within specific practices and
discourses in the field of art in education.
Drawing ability, particularly the ability to represent views of the world,
is often assessed by using perspectival projection as a major criterion, This
representational system has become, in Western cultures, almost synony-
mous with vision, that is it replicates the natural way in which we see the
world. Thus an able drawer is often denoted by the ability to employ
perspective and this ability is taken to be a natural talent. Those pupils
who cannot employ this representational system or whose drawings man-
ifest other representational forms are frequently thought to be less able in
drawing.
Perspectival projection, however, is not synonymous with vision (see
Berger 1972: 16, Bryson 1983: 1-12, Jay 1994: 54-60), but it has been taken
to be so. Once this is appreciated, then we can argue that drawing ability is
not denned by the ability to represent the way we see the world, but by
a drawing's correspondence with a particular representational system.
Further, we can then see that ability in drawing is recognized and con-
structed within this dominant representational system.
We can then proceed to ask why should a particular representational
system, i.e. perspective, be awarded precedence over others which, when
employed by pupils, provide them with legitimate representational signifi-
cance? Consequently, we can begin to make alternative readings of pupils'
representational practices in drawing and, rather than pathologize those
drawings which do not accord with perspectival projection, we can try to

Dennis Atkinson is a lecturer in the Department of Education Studies, Goldsmith's College, New Cross,
London SE14 6NW, UK.
1360-3116/98 $1200 © 1998 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
 46 DENNIS ATKINSON

understand how a particular graphic configuration is representationally

significant for a pupil.
I begin by describing a drawing exercise set by a teacher and proceed to
discuss the assumptions concerning representation which appear to inform
the teacher's assessment of a particular drawing. I argue that the teacher's
assessment can be seen to constitute the pupil's drawing ability for both
pupil and teacher. I refer to work on the theorization of subjectivity in the
writings of Foucault and Lacan, which describe how subjectivity is con-
structed within particular discourses and practices and therefore not dis-
covered or revealed.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

Practices in school

The drawing reproduced in the figure was produced by a pupil for a home-
work assignment. He was asked to 'set up a place for a meal' and to include
'a plate with food, knife and fork, cup and saucer, placemat, teapot, salt and

-"?\

Pupil's homework assignment.

 CULTURAL PRODUCTION OF ABILITY IN DRAWING 47

pepper pots'. Pupils were asked to plan their compositions with care and to
use tone to make their objects look three-dimensional. The teacher
responded to this particular drawing by praising the pupil for his use of
tone but commented further that 'the angles of view and proportions are
incorrect'. The pupil was asked to attempt another drawing.
The terms 'angles of view' and 'proportion' suggest that the teacher was
assessing this drawing within a paradigm of representation commonly
known as perspective. This representational system anticipates a particular
graphic form and, by implication, a particular kind of drawer. If the
drawing is assessed according to the representational logic of perspectival
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

projection, then a specific drawing-drawer relationship is anticipated, that

is a particular form of drawing and thus a particular kind of drawing ability.
Such assessment will position the drawing and the pupil-as-drawer within a
particular site of practice. The word 'incorrect' is significant, in that it has a
powerful effect upon both the teacher's and the pupil's perception of the
efficacy of the drawing and, by implication, of the pupil's drawing ability.
Such assessment creates inclusory and exclusory forces which legitim-
ate the drawings of some pupils but pathologize the drawings of others. But
such assessment prevents other possible readings of the drawing's repre-
sentational strategies which, for the pupil, may be legitimate and powerful.
I shall offer other possible readings shortly, but first I want to refer to work
on the theorization of subjectivity in order to provide a theoretical frame-
work in which the teacher's assessment remarks can be understood as
productive.

Representation and the turn to language

A major epistemological concern developing throughout this century

recognizes that understanding is a social production achieved through the
medium of language and other symbolic orders. Coward and Ellis (1977: 1)
suggest, '[b]ecause all the practices that make up a social totality take place
in language, it becomes possible to consider language as the place in which
the social individual is constructed'. The idea that understanding is a con-
struction of language, rather than language being used as a neutral tool to
discover truths about an independent world, problematizes the relation
between linguistic representation and truth.
In discussing this relation in the work of post-structural or postmodern
writers, Usher and Edwards (1994: 14) show that the linguistic sign does
not invoke a fixed signifier, but that it constitutes its own reality:
Postmodernism is not simply a critique of realism in that cultural representations do not simply
reflect or mirror reality ... It questions representation and the underlying belief of a reality that
is independent of representation yet capturable by it. However, it also puts forward the notion of
a reality constructed by representations and therefore multiple perspectives where representa-
tions become reality and where reality is always necessarily represented.
For example, Walkerdine (1984) argues that the Piagetian child is not a
natural entity, possessing natural capacities which have been discovered by
developmental psychology. Rather, the developing child as described in
 48 DENNIS ATKINSON

Piagetian discourse is a construction within a particular discourse in which

key signifiers such as 'stages of development' invoke a naturalist reading of
development which create the parameters through which development is
understood (see Jenks 1996).
Foucault's work on the constitution of subjects within particular social
practices introduces the notion of power, through his term 'power-knowl-
edge'. Thus within institutions such as schools, practices such as assess-
ment and examinations position and regulate pupils within their specific
practices and discourses. These discursive practices construct both the
teacher's understanding of pupils' ability and the pupils' understanding
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

of their own ability. Such discourses and practices are imbued with what
Faucault (1980) terms power-knowledge. This term is used to indicate the
point that implicated in the acquisition, transmission or use of knowledge,
particularly those knowledges which Foucault identifies as 'disciplinary'
(knowledge which constitutes the curriculum, for example), are forms of
power. Usher and Edwards (1944: 89) state that:
Power is manifested as relationships in a social network . . . Power, through knowledge, brings
forth active 'subjects' who better 'understand' their own subjectivity yet who in this very process
subject themselves to forms of power.
Here it is important to hold onto Foucault's idea of discursive practices and
to see them as 'constituting' truths, as opposed to 'revealing' truths:
'Discourses are not about objects; they do not identify objects, they con-
stitute them and in the practice of doing so conceal their own invention'
(1974: 49).
This constitutive nature of discourse also involves the fact that dis-
courses are used by people who are positioned with particular social con-
texts and implicated with this use is power. Ball (1970: 17) writes:
Discourses are ... about what can be said, and thought, but also about who can speak, when,
where and with what authority. Discourses embody meaning and social relationships, they con-
stitute both subjectivity and power relations ... Thus, discourses construct certain possibilities
for thought.
Thus the fact that a particular discourse both informs and influences ways
of thinking about a particular subject in a particular context of practice
suggests that as a form of knowledge it is also imbued with power.

The discourse of ability in art practice

If ability in art practice is viewed as a construction within a particular

discourse, for example, within the discourse of perspectival representation,
then a pupil's drawing ability is not something which is liberated or dis-
covered, even though we may think this is so. Rather, ability is constituted
within particular sites of practice and their corresponding discourses which
constitute and regulate aspects of subjectivity, such a drawing ability,
through their particular regimes of power-knowledge.
Within these discursive formations, then, the pupil as subject is con-
stituted; s/he becomes 'subjected' to the gaze of a particular discourse
which measures and regulates ability. Other significant discourses in the
 CULTURAL PRODUCTION OF ABILITY IN DRAWING 49

field of art in education which relate to the teacher's assessment of the

drawing reproduced in the figure concern what are often referred to as
the basic elements of art. These are line, tone, proportion, texture and
composition which are said to constitute visual literacy and identify teach-
able aspects of art practice (see DFE 1995).
A large proportion of art practice in secondary schools is still devoted to
the acquisition and accumulation of skills related to these elements. Within
such a practico-discursive regime, pupils, as subjects, have been con-
stituted in terms of their ability to develop skills in relation to this basic
language of art practice. Within such practices and discourses, pupils are
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

constituted as powerful (able) or not (less able). Usher and Edwards (1994:
96) refer to the concealed nature of power-knowledge imbued in discourse
in the following way:
Power-knowledge formations operate through the practices which inscribe the person as a par-
ticular subject prior to entering an educational institution and those practices they are engaged in
once within it; in becoming a 'subject' we learn to be a 'subject' of a particular sort. It is our
assumptions about the nature of the 'subject' which then inform our practices as teachers and
learners, yet the effect of power which gives rise to the particular positioning of subjects is
effectively veiled.

The basic elements of art identify an agenda of teachable skills and

allow the teacher to assess ability. Although it is difficult to identify an
exact rubric for assessment in such a teaching regime, pupils' drawings
are compared against a putative set of criteria relating to proportion,
tone, projection and composition, which are presumed but not made
explicit. Such criteria establish a normalizing discourse which separates
and categorizes individual ability. The pupils become their abilities. The
normalizing criteria appear neutral, thus objective, and we believe they are
identifying natural capacities. It is as though the discourse is identifying
something 'in the pupil', something natural. Through such normalizing
discourses the subject's ability is classified; pupils become objectified in
the eyes of their teachers as possessing particular levels of drawing ability
and, at the same time, pupils learn the 'truth' about their ability by being
assessed in relation to what appear to be neutral criteria, or norms. Such
criteria tend to hide from scrutiny the cultural and ideological forces
(power-knowledges) through which they have become established and, as
Usher and Edwards (1944: 103) indicate, appear to refer to natural capa-
cities:
In effect they [the pupils] become their capacities and it is through these capacities, or the lack of
them, that they become 'objects' of surveillance, examination and governance. The significance
and power of normalisation is precisely that it appears to be neutral. In its objectivity it appears
to be simply a neutral procedure for ascertaining inherent natural capacities.

The notion of power-knowledge can help us to become clearer about the

hegemony of particular forms of discourse and practice through which we
understand and thus constitute a pupil's drawing ability in the art cur-
riculum. Let me return now to the drawing reproduced in the figure and
to the teacher's assessment comments, particularly the word 'incorrect'.
The angles of view and proportion are only 'incorrect' if it is assumed
that the pupil is drawing from a fixed viewpoint. Another interpretation,
 50 DENNIS ATKINSON

which employs a different drawing-drawer relation, can produce a quite

different reading. Rather than the drawing being positioned and identified
as confused or incorrect, it can be interpreted as an inventive signifying
orchestration. In the drawing objects, such as the table, plate, saucers, knife
and fork, are depicted in terms of their enduring or canonical shapes,
irrespective of viewpoint. Other objects, such as the cups and chairs, are
depicted as though seen from a particular viewing position. The relative
sizes of the objects on the table, although not 'true to life', produce a
compositional symmetry within the circle of the table and may encode a
symbolizing hierarchy. It is as though in the process of drawing, the pupil
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

has encoded different representational interests. The outcome of the

drawing interpreted in this more inclusive discourse is to view the drawing
as an elaborate medley of graphic forms which constitute an intricate con-
figuration possessing a legitimate semiotic order (see Atkinson 1993). It is
crucial to note that the teacher's instructions did not insist upon or even
mention that the drawing should be produced from a fixed viewpoint, but
this seems to be implied in the teacher's assessment remarks.
The teacher's assessment predicates a specific drawing practice and
drawing form and thus a particular kind of drawer. This assessment prac-
tice constitutes a power-knowledge discourse, so that drawing ability makes
sense only in terms of the discourse for both teacher and pupil. The power
is invoked through the use of the word 'incorrect' in order to describe the
angles of view. Whilst this word might signify the difference or incompat-
ibility between the meaning relations within the teacher's and the pupil's
sites of practice, it is the use of this word 'incorrect' which makes the
pupil's drawing meaningful within the teacher's discourse. This key
word positions the drawing within the teacher's drawing-drawer discourse.
Art curriculum assessment practices therefore construct pupils' subjec-
tivities as drawers, confirm them a able drawers or pathologize them as
deficient in drawing ability. The application of the dyad, drawing-
drawer, helps us to consider how both meanings and pupils as subjects in
relation to drawing ability are produced and fixed within particular sites of
practice. But it is also an aid to exploring the possibility of different, more
inclusive, constructions of pupils as drawers and thus a means of opening
up a wider exploration of their drawings in terms of local signifying prac-
tices in which pupils are engaged when they draw. It is within the specific
meaning-signifying relations of particular practices and discourses in the
art curriculum that pupils' abilities as drawers are observed, sanctioned or
corrected and positioned. It may well be the case that a pupil's drawing
may involve signifying practices different from those which are predicated
by the teacher.

Positioning the pupil's ability within a particular

discourse of practice

Lacan's theorization of subjectivity provides another tool for under-

standing how discursive practices position and regulate subjects within
particular sites of practice. In this description of the mirror phase, Lacan
 CULTURAL PRODUCTION OF ABILITY IN DRAWING 51

(1949) illustrates how the infant comes to recognize itself, or constructs its
identity, in terms of the reflected image. Identity of the self is therefore
seen in terms of the represented other. As the child grows and enters into
the symbolic orders of social practice, and particularly the symbolic order
of language, she is positioned and comes to understand herself through
such positioning. Subjectivity is thus attained through the terms of the
'Other', which is Lacan's term for the symbolic order. Thus under-
standing ourselves and others is constituted within the symbolic order of
language and other social practices.
This has a crucial bearing upon how we recognize and identify others.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

By implication, it has bearing on how we form our understanding of pupils'

drawing practices in school art studios. We can only understand pupils'
drawing practices through discourse and visual signifiers which are
embedded within particular cultural and social practices. We understand
pupils' drawings not by gaining direct access to 'pupils themselves', their
'intentions' or their 'meanings', but in terms of particular readings con-
stituted in particular representational traditions, as well as the symbolic
system of language.
How does the subject—or rather subjectivity—for example, a pupil's
drawing ability, become embedded in the symbolic order or language? In
their discussion of Lacanian psychoanalysis and education, Usher and
Edwards (1994: 75-77) identify the general discourse of the university as
structuring and positioning learners in schools. Under the gaze of this
discourse, pupils are subject to specific practices and bodies of knowledge
which position pupils as subjects within particular curriculum discourses.
Pupils are woven into specific curriculum practices through 'master sig-
nifiers' and their discourses which structure pupil subjectivities, in terms,
for example, of ability. Through such discourse pupils' identities as
learners are constructed. These master signifiers correspond to the
Lacanian points de capiton (Lacan 1977): 303, Zizek 1989: 87-88), which
operate through a process of 'quilting', of stitching the pupils to the dis-
course through key signifiers by which identity as learners is constructed.
Coward and Ellis (1977: 97) describe 'points de capiton' as 'privileged
points at which the direction of the signifying chain is established'.
In order to illustrate this quilting process and how particular subjectiv-
ities in relation to drawing ability are produced within particular dis-
courses, I will refer to a video produced in 1986 to introduce teachers in
England to the then new GCSE examination in art for pupils aged 16 years
(ILEA 1986). The particular sequence I want to describe concerns a group
of teachers being asked to consider two drawings of the same chair.
The group leader asks the teachers if they are prepared to say which is
the better drawing, all of whom indicate they would. Together, they then
proceed to describe the qualities of the better drawing:
'Better composition . . . better structured . . . finer balance to i t . . . more exciting . . . it moves you
into the picture . . . it sits on the paper very well . . . more awareness of texture and perspective.'

The teachers' comments constitute a descriptive assessment of the more

successful drawing and, by implication, the less successful drawing, which
highlights their respective formal properties. Later, the discussion on
 52 DENNIS ATKINSON
V

assessment considers the context of practice in which a drawing is pro-

duced. At this point, there is speculation that, if a drawing constitutes a
product which the pupil sees as meeting his or her ends, then it would be
improper to assess it according to a set of prescribed formal considerations.
In this case, assessment is grounded in the pupil's agenda for practice.
However, the problem with this is that, whenever assessment occurs in
relation to established frameworks and practices of drawing, it is difficult
not to let prescribed formal expectations influence judgement. Assessment
practices themselves establish a pre-text which creates a framework of
recognition and a language through which pupils' drawings are understood.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

In the video sequence the teachers use particular words to describe the
more successful drawing. Their assessment discourse invokes a particular
power-knowledge relation in which particular formal qualities of the draw-
ings are recognized (or not), and within this discourse the ability of the
pupils is implied. The terms of the discourse establish powerful inclusory
and exclusory forces, so that the more successful drawing is viewed as being
produced by a more able pupil.
In the video sequence, I have highlighted the discourse which teachers
used to identify the better of two drawings and, by implication, the more
able pupil. Key terms of their discourse such as 'proportion' and
'perspective' stitch the pupil to a particular representational practice
which possesses a chain and structure of meaning through which identity
as a subject of drawing practice is constructed. The important point is that
identification of drawing ability does not refer to something 'in the
drawing' or 'in the pupil', but is recognized and produced through a par-
ticular symbolic order. The key terms of the teachers' discourse inscribe
the pupil's ability. Indeed, it is through the gaze of their discourse that the
drawing as an object and the pupil as a subject are produced. According to
Zizek (1989: 101), the quilting point becomes:
the point where the subject is sewn to the signifier and at the same time the point which
interpolates individual into subject by addressing the subject with the call of a certain [key]
signifier ... it is the point of subjectivation of the signifiers chain.

Returning to the teacher's assessment of the drawing reproduced in the

figure, it is the word 'incorrect' which forms the Lacanian 'point de
capiton' in the teacher's discourse. This key word, as an arbiter of judge-
ment, fastens the pupil's drawing within a particular discourse and practice
of drawing, in which the drawing is given meaning by the teacher. In other
words, the drawing is positioned by the teacher within a particular sym-
bolic order of drawing and this, in turn, invokes a power-knowledge rela-
tion between the teaching discourse and the pupil's drawing practice. The
notion of power-knowledge, from the work of Foucault and Lacan's 'point
de capiton' can therefore be combined in order to consider the productive
effects of practice and discourse. It is also crucial to acknowledge the recur-
sivity of subject production. Sites of practice inform action as action is able
to confirm practice. Both teacher and pupil come to read and recognize
their practices through their actions which are informed, in turn, by their
practices. Both subjects are constructed as they are quilted into the signify-
ing chains of practice and discourse, which they confirm through practice.
 CULTURAL PRODUCTION OF ABILITY IN DRAWING S3

It is through the power of this quilting process that the individual becomes
subjectified, becomes known as a subject to him/herself and to others.
In 'fixing', or 'quilting', our understanding of subjectivity (drawing
ability) through key or pivotal signifiers, a particular discourse can be
seen to be a form of power-knowledge. This has important implications
for considering the effect of particular cultural traditions within which
ability in practice is constituted. Walkerdine (1990) describes the posi-
tioning and regulating process through which subjects come to recognize
'who they are':
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

Modern apparatuses of social regulation, along with other social and cultural practices, produce
knowledges which claim to 'identify' individuals. These knowledges create the possibility of
multiple practices, multiple positions. To be a 'clever child' or a 'good mother', for example,
makes sense only in the terms given by pedagogic, welfare, medical, legal and other discourses
and practices. These observe, sanction and correct how we act; they attempt to define who and what
we are. (Walkerdine 1990: 199; emphasis added)

Conclusion

I have tried to show how particular practices and discourses in art teaching
construct the teacher's pedagogic gaze and the pupil as a subject. Through
this gaze pupil's abilities are constructed, positioned and regulated
according to the terms of a particular discourse. In one sense, this gaze
might be said to comprise 'pedagogical fictions' which create their object,
the pupil's ability. Such fictions can be construed as forming what teachers
desire in the terms of the Other, in terms of a particular symbolic order. In
the video sequence described above, the teachers can be viewed as inter-
preting the two drawings of a chair through a particular discourse in which
the drawings are given meaning within a particular representational tradi-
tion. Within the particular terms of the teachers' assessment discourse, the
pupil's drawing ability is determined. The assessment discourse induces a
particular kind of drawer and can therefore ignore representational pactices
which, for the pupil, form his/her personal processes of drawing and
graphic signification, which are difficult if not impossible to articulate in
the teacher's discourse.
Art teachers have the difficult task of attempting to understand the
representational logic of pupils' drawing practices whilst initiating pupils
into socially constructed representational traditions. Concentrating on the
latter can operate a closure whereby the former is underplayed or even
pathologized. I have argued for a position in which ability is not viewed
as a natural capacity, but as a production of particular practices and dis-
courses within the art curriculum which proliferate historically embedded
practices and their associated techniques. The pupil's drawing-meaning
relation may be quite diffrerent, when he/she practises drawing, from the
teacher's agenda which is informed by particular traditions of representa-
tion. Reducing the hegemony of traditional forms of practice, when eval-
uating pupils' drawings, and attempting to explore how drawings might
signify for pupils, can broaden interpretational approaches to their drawing
practices and thereby help to promote a more inclusive constitution of
 54 CULTURAL PRODUCTION OF ABILITY IN DRAWING

pupils as drawers within their local representational practices. This would

seem to necessitate an expanded field of representation in which pupil's
drawings can be interpreted.
This paper thus abandons naturalist conceptions of ability and recog-
nizes the constitution of pupils as subjects within particular sites of dis-
course and practice. Whilst exposing inclusory and exclusory forces which
are implicated within particular assessment practices, it provides an oppor-
tunity to consider alternative drawing practices and for alternative subject
constitutions to be legitimated and valued.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:22 19 May 2012

Note
1. Lacan's term the 'Other' usually refers to the symbolic order of language, the symbolic medium
through which, and in terms of which, understanding is achieved. It can also designate other sym-
bolic orders, codes or systems in which we are positioned and function and through which we
identify ourselves and others, for example, the family, the school and other social organizations.

References
Atkinson, D. (1993) Representation and experience in children's drawing. Journal of Art and Design
Education, 12 (1), 85-104.
Ball, S. (1990) Foucault and Education: Disciplines and Knowledge (London: Routledge).
Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin).
Bryson, N. (1983) Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze (London: Macmillan).
Coward, R. and Ellis, J. (1977) Language and Materialism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
DFE (1995) Art in the National Curriculum (London: HMSO).
Foucault, M. (1974) The Archaeology of Knowledge (London: Tavistock).
Foucault, M. (1980) Power-Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-77 (Brighton:
Harvester Press).
ILEA video cassette (1986) GCSE Art & Design. Video 1 Session: Differentiation. ILEA Learning
Resources Branch, Television and Publishing Centre, London; produced in collaboration with
the University of London Schools Examination Board and Norman Binch, ILEA Staff Inspector
for Art Design.
Jay, M. (1994) Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-century French Thought (Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press).
Jenks, C. (1996) Childhood (London: Routledge).
Lacan, J. (1949) The mirror phase as a formative function of the I. In R. Usher and R. Edwards (eds),
Postmodernism and Education (London and New York: Routledge).
Lacan, J. (1977) Ecrits: A Selection (trans. A. Sheridan) (London: Tavistock).
Usher, R. and Edwards, R. (eds) (1994) Postmodernism and Education (London and New York:
Routledge).
Wakerdine, V. (1984) Developmental psychology and the child-centred pedagogy. In Henriques et al.
(eds), Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity (London: Methuen).
Walkerdine, V. (1990) Schoolgirl Fictions (London: Verso).
Zizek, S. (1989) The Sublime Object of Ideology (London: Verso).