Zorrilla 2016

645666
research-article2016
AEQXXX10.1177/0741713616645666Adult Education QuarterlyZorrilla and Tisdell
Article
Adult Education Quarterly
2016, Vol. 66(3) 273–291
Art as Critical Public © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Pedagogy: A Qualitative sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741713616645666
Study of Luis Camnitzer aeq.sagepub.com
and His Conceptual Art
Ana Zorrilla1 and Elizabeth J. Tisdell2
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the connection between art and adult education
for critical consciousness from the perspective and work of conceptual artist, Luis
Camnitzer. The theoretical framework is grounded in the critical public pedagogy
literature. Data collection methods included interviews with conceptual artist Luis
Camnitzer and with others familiar with his work, as well as textual analysis of his
writing and visual art. The findings focus on the theme of exile in the life of the
artist, his thoughts on the relation of art, politics, and education, and the role of
conceptual art’s potential for creating “dialogue” in the mind of the viewer by re-
presenting reality in unexpected ways. The discussion of the findings focuses on re-
examining and redefining the concept of “dialogue” for art and adult education for
critical consciousness in nonformal settings.
Keywords
adult education for critical consciousness, art, critical public pedagogy, Luis Camnitzer,
public pedagogy
There is a growing discussion on public pedagogy in adult education (Sandlin, Wright,

& Clark, 2013; Wright & Sandlin, 2009). Public pedagogy assumes that much teach-
ing and learning, education and miseducation, happen in public venues that include
media and popular culture; public arts such as murals, theater, and music; and places
such as museums, and other public spaces (Burdick, Sandlin, & O’Malley, 2014;
1Cedar Crest High School, Lebanon, PA, USA

2Pennsylvania State University, Middletown, PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Ana Zorrilla, Cedar Crest High School, 115 E. Evergreen Road, Lebanon, PA 17042, USA.
Email: anazorrilla@comcast.net
Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 29, 2016
274 Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)
Giroux, 2004a; Sandlin, Schultz, & Burdick, 2010). Public pedagogy can reproduce
the dominant culture or can openly challenge it through a critical public pedagogy—
by creating media and art that is intended to turn the status quo or dominant modes of
understanding on its head (Springgay & the Torontonians, 2014). This article makes a
contribution to the art and critical public pedagogy literature in adult education by
looking at the conceptual work and ideas explored by Uruguayan artist Luis Camnitzer.
Camnitzer’s work was chosen for this analysis because Camnitzer is an active social
critic who has written extensively and critically about social issues, as well as produced
works of art that challenge dominant ideologies and/or engage in consciousness raising
about social issues, and invites and welcomes interactions with his words and images.
Despite never using the term critical public pedagogy, his critique of hegemony through
his art and writings demonstrates that he embraces the notions of critical public peda-
gogy. Many of his discussions and actions support his view that art can be used to com-
municate, educate, and challenge society and the structures in place.
“Art is a dialogical process, and the work is only fully completed as a result of that
dialogue,” states conceptual artist Luis Camnitzer (1995/2009h, p. 201). Dialogue is a
hallmark of much critical adult education literature, exploring how learners can critically
reflect on their assumptions to alter their consciousness of power relations thus changing
their world (Brookfield, 2005; Horton & Freire, 1990). The fostering of this type of dia-
logue is often referred to as adult education for critical consciousness (Brookfield, 2005;
Kauffman, 2010; Tisdell, Hanley, & Taylor, 2000). While there is a growing discussion
of adult education in public spaces such as museums and libraries (Taylor, 2010), thus
far there has been little discussion on public art’s role as adult education for critical con-
sciousness, the kind of “dialogue” art can create, or how artists might think of their art as
adult education. There is also a growing body of literature on the role of the arts in adult
education (Clover & Stalker, 2007; Lawrence, 2005), but most of it focuses on adult
learners as creators of art in ongoing identity development or social activism (Clover,
2006; Grace & Wells, 2007; Tyler, 2015).
So far in the field, little consideration has been given to artists in the public sphere or
to their role in enacting critical public pedagogy, though more recently there has been
some consideration of artists’ roles in the wider public pedagogy literature (Burdick
et al., 2014; Jackson, 2011; Springgay & the Torontonians, 2014). As Brookfield (2005)
notes in drawing on Marcuse’s work and connecting it to adult education, art communi-
cates even though its message may not be direct; as such, art can be a form of adult
education, and, when publicly displayed, a form of public pedagogy. When it is used to
raise critical consciousness about social justice issues, it can be a form of critical public
pedagogy. In an extensive review of both research and conceptual literature on public
pedagogy in general, Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick (2011) “find explicit explorations
of the pedagogical work [italics added] of public pedagogy lacking in much of the litera-
ture” (p. 360). The same authors explored the fragility of public pedagogy, exploring
“the socially reproductive and the resistant dimensions of these various pedagogical
sites” beyond formal schooling (Burdick et al., 2014, p. 2). Despite a growing scholar-
ship on public pedagogy and also one that is critical, the field needs more research spe-
cifically examining connections between art and adult education as critical public
pedagogy and how the artist thinks about art or how it educates. As Jackson (2011) notes,
Zorrilla and Tisdell 275
public art can act as “the sites where aesthetic and social provocations coincide” (p. 5).
This collision is the fertilizer for Camnitzer’s oeuvre. As such, the purpose of this study
was to explore the connection between art and adult education for critical consciousness
from the perspective and works of one artist: conceptual artist Luis Camnitzer.
Camnitzer and His Work

Luis Camnitzer is a conceptual artist born in 1937 Germany, who immigrated with his
Jewish family to Uruguay in 1939 to escape the Nazi regime. Raised in Uruguay, he
studied in 1960s New York, but the 1973 dictatorial coup prevented him from return-
ing to Uruguay. While he still lives in New York, working as an artist and academic,
he identifies strongly with Latin American issues, writing about art, its processes, and
politics (Camnitzer, 2004/2009c, 2007). Camnitzer sees his art as a means to foster a
critical perspective about unjust situations (Baker, 2002). His recurrent artistic theme
is exploring society’s and memory’s “distortions” based on his life in constant exile
dealing with oppressive regimes (Camnitzer, 1983/2009e, p. 29).Though he never uses
the term adult education, Camnitzer connects conceptual art with educating for critical
consciousness by questioning identity, political injustice, one’s understanding of real-
ity, and the artist’s role (Princenthal, 1996). Conceptual art is a form where the idea or
concept that is its focus is more important than the art’s aesthetic or its materials
(Camnitzer, Farver, & Weiss, 1999).
Camnitzer attempts to create “dialogue” by creating space for critical thinking and
disjuncture or “distortions” in the mind of the viewer. This process can best be under-
stood in light of cultural theorist Stuart Hall’s (1997) theory of representation of
encoding and decoding. Applying Hall’s theory to Camnitzer’s Uruguayan Torture
Series (1983-1984) is an example that provides context for the theoretical framework
of the study (see Figure 1).
Hall’s (1997) theory of encoding and decoding suggests that the wire-wrapped fin-
ger is “encoded” culturally in viewers’ minds as an instrument of torture. Her fra-
grance lingered on captions the image. Camnitzer attempts to create disjuncture
(“decoding”) in viewers’ minds, since “fragrance” is usually encoded as a positive
odor. The positive saying with the negative image creates a space of potential dialogue
in viewers’ minds to deal with “distortions.” Hall refers to this as decoding art’s mes-
sage in challenging preconceptions.
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in the critical public pedagogy literature in adult education, the
body of literature relating to the role of arts in developing critical consciousness, in
light of Hall’s (1997) theory of representation and the example provided above.
Critical Public Pedagogy and the Arts

As noted and cited above, there is a growing body of literature on public pedagogy
in adult education. There is also an emerging body of critical and feminist literature
Figure 1. Image of wire-wrapped finger recalls torture. “Her fragrance lingered on” from
Uruguayan Torture Series, by L. Camnitzer, 1983-1984 (http://www.universes-in-universe.de/
car/documenta/11/bhf/e-camnitzer-zoom1.htm).
in and beyond the field of adult education that gets at how art can be used or created
to help learners as creators of art, or as viewers to engage in challenging dominant
ideologies or to engage in social issues, which could broadly be conceived as criti-
cal public pedagogy (Burdick et al., 2014; Clover, 2015; Ellsworth, 2005; Giroux,
2004b; Jackson, 2011; Springgay & the Torontonians, 2014; Wildemeersch, 2012).
Critical public pedagogy further draws on literature on both critical theory
(Brookfield, 2005) and critical pedagogy (Freire, 1971/1989), and examines spaces
of resistance and the attempt to challenge power relations in popular culture and
public spaces, noting that “education” can be “capacious and yet critical enough to
incorporate several sites of learning” (Mayo, 2013, p. 144). Hence critical public
pedagogy specifically encourages audiences to examine how systems of oppression
and privilege as portrayed in public venues affect our view of reality and its distor-
tions (Sandlin et al., 2013). Much of the literature thus far about public pedagogy
is conceptual and analytic, with a paucity of research studies that might identify
“public pedagogy” as the theoretical framework. But there are studies in critical
media literacy, which can be a form of critical public pedagogy in the field that
examines the process of learning and unlearning about social systems from movies
and television (Jarvis, 2005; Tisdell, 2008; Tisdell & Thompson, 2007; Wright,
2007). There are also research studies in the field that explore aspects of art-making
as a social justice educational activity that affects the ongoing identity construction
(Adams, 2002, 2005; Clover, 2006; El-Haj, 2009; Grace & Wells, 2007). While
there’s much discussion of the important role of the arts in learning (Lawrence,
2005), there are no studies in adult education focused on the perspective of how
artists are trying to educate the public or on what adults learn from viewing art in
public settings.
Art and Critical Consciousness

Art can certainly be used as a means to help people examine the nature of power rela-
tions based on race, gender, social class, or colonialism. Brookfield (2005) suggests
that questioning underlying assumptions about power relations is educating for critical
consciousness. Greene (1995) suggests that art offers the opportunity to better under-
stand a perceived reality by re-presenting it, which gives space for critique and change.
Though not always counterhegemonic, art typically seeks a re-creation of a common
world, which can be a form of adult learning (Butterwick & Lawrence, 2009). Public
art sometimes specifically attempts to help viewers think about and challenge power
relations and resist hegemonic assumptions; in these instances, art can be a form of
adult education for critical consciousness as well as a form of critical public pedagogy
(Brady, 2006).
Art helps create meaning about the world around us (Greene, 1995). Our world is
not simply reflected back but understood through systems of representation in which
we constantly engage. We enter a relationship with images that are representations
generating meaning (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). Unquestioned images, symbols,
and media are part of the ideology of hegemony, while learning to question what is
presented is part of the development of critical consciousness; displaying alternative
images can also be an attempt to educate for critical consciousness. Ellsworth (2005)
might suggest that the “pedagogical hinge” (p. 37) of how it does so is related to put-
ting what is outside as art or public space and what is inside the mind of the viewer into
relation. Understanding how systems of representation (images, including language
and art) work might further explicate this.
In this image- and media-bombarded society, we interpret and create meanings
almost automatically. de Saussure (1974) suggests that the social context and the rules
of the language partially determine meanings, though they are constantly in flux.
Linking this idea to visual culture, a means of communication is the sign, which is
made of two parts: the signifier (an image, a word, a sound) and the signified (the
concept evoked by that signifier; Barthes, 1967). Together, the signified and the signi-
fier from the sign exist within a sociohistorical and cultural context. As such, interpret-
ing these signs helps us examine our assumptions and beliefs, which is part of the
process of development of critical consciousness, and what some artists who are trying
to educate critically draw on in order to create a space of challenge. Meaning is
encoded at the artwork’s creation within a certain context and can then be decoded as
the viewer consumes it (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). This makes more sense as
applied to public pedagogy in light of Hall’s work.
Hall’s Theory of Representation

According to Hall (1997), communication is necessary for meaningful interactions
through encoding/decoding. Representation links language and concepts referring to
real or imaginary objects, people, or events. Through representation, we make mean-
ing of our lives. Culture is a system of shared codes (or language) necessary for trans-
lations of messages. Signs (seen, heard, read) are interpreted through familiar codes,
conveying ideas as individuals express ideas through systems of representation (writ-
ten, spoken, visual, or nonverbal) in a conscious or unconscious internalized process.
Encoding/decoding gives space for interpretation and meaning-making, dependent on
relationships between concepts and people or objects.
Culture becomes a system of shared meanings as a necessary language to commu-
nicate understandings (Du Gay, Hall, Janes, Mackay, & Negus, 1997). But through the
constant encoding and decoding process, culture changes. Artists know this and
manipulate symbols and encode and decode them in different ways to create new
meanings. As audiences interact with artwork, decoding may alter messages given the
context. Interpretation requires constantly accepting or rejecting meanings and asso-
ciations (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). In other words, culture changes because of our
interactions with it. As a conceptual artist, Luis Camnitzer plays with coding, evi-
denced in his conflicting representations of written codes juxtaposed with provocative
images. The photo example of the wire-wrapped finger and the words “her fragrance
lingered on” serves as an example. This study, then, attempts to examine his and oth-
ers’ perceptions of how he does so as a form of critical public pedagogy.
Methodology
The purpose of qualitative research is to ascertain how participants make meaning and
to find out their perspectives on a phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Given that
this study explores the connection between art and adult education for critical con-
sciousness from Camnitzer’s perspective, a qualitative research study was the appro-
priate design for the study; furthermore, this is a case study that is informed by
qualitative arts-based research. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note, arts-based
research can focus either on the role of the arts in the collection and analysis of data or
on artists and the creation of their art. This arts-based qualitative study focuses on the
case of one artist, Luis Camnitzer, and is framed as a qualitative case study.
The primary means of data collection in qualitative case study research are typically
interviews, observations, and analyses of relevant documents and artifacts (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In this study, the primary data were two in-depth interviews with Luis
Camnitzer conducted by one of us (Zorrilla), a published interview/conversation with
fellow conceptual artist Alejandro Cesarco (2011), and a textual analysis of documents
and artifacts of Camnitzer’s artworks and writings. The interviews sought Camnitzer’s
reflections on themes such as the relationship between art and social justice, the com-
munication (accidental or intentional) of an artistic creation, the impact of art on the
artist as creator and the audience as spectator, the distinction between politicized
aesthetics and aestheticized politics, freedom in art and art-making, art as an active
shaper of culture, the purpose of education and art’s role in it, and his personal role in
education and as an artist in society. Additional sources of data were articles by and
interviews with two curators from museums that showed his work, and published writ-
ings and critiques of his work by three art professionals/critics (Mosquera, 1990;
Ramirez, 1990; Weiss, 2009), as well as newspaper and magazine articles about his
work. The findings examined Camnitzer’s perspectives on his art’s purposes and other
art critics’/professionals’ perspectives on Camnitzer’s work to show its function as
critical public pedagogy, thus focusing on his work’s educative component.
Data were analyzed by both authors, first by coding the Camnitzer interviews and
doing a textual analysis of his writings, and then by coding the interviews with art
curators and the writings of art critics about Camnitzer’s work. The documents used
where those available online, in print, or in exhibitions visited. All data (from
Camnitzer’s writings, his conceptual work, his interviews, and others’ discussions of
him) were categorized for their mention of education/learning, critical consciousness,
communication, social activism, and biography. The data were then gathered into
themes largely as a constant comparative method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After
careful classification, each theme was explored in detail to find evidence in the data.
The analyses of the written text and interview transcripts highlighted assumptions and
beliefs. Hall’s (1997) theory of representation and decoding informed the data analysis
particularly related to issues of representation in the artwork and their coding and
decoding. After the documents and works were categorized with a careful attempt to
stay loyal to his views, member checks were conducted with Camnitzer, who agreed
with its findings.
Findings: Camnitzer as Critical Public Pedagogue

While Camnitzer does not use the term critical public pedagogy as a description of his
work, he embraces its fundamental notions, which are rooted in his own history and
work as a conceptual artist. In 1966-1968, Camnitzer created his first conceptual art
piece: “This Is a Mirror, You Are a Written Sentence” (Figure 2), which, like the others
since, was intended “to provoke thought and questions” (Cotter, 2011, p. 2), and he
began working with printed language as an art medium.
Camnitzer elicits creativity from viewers, hoping to make them think, rather than
making overtly political works, since “the work happens in the viewer, not in the art
object” (Camnitzer, 2006, para. 1). By offering new perceptions, he exemplifies art’s
use as education, believing that audiences are artists’ colleagues to be involved in the
thought process (as discussed in his Cesarco, 2011, interview). Camnitzer mixes
images and languages in what he calls “a pedagogical expression” (1983/2009e, p. 28)
(which indicates his leanings toward critical public pedagogy). According to Ramírez
(1990), he promotes critical views of perceived reality by requiring “active participa-
tion in the production of the meaning of the piece” (p. 5). Though his art is not purely
didactic, Camnitzer feels that he becomes “a lens that helps understand the kaleido-
scope that makes the community” (Camnitzer, 2004/2009c, p. 84). As discussed in our
Figure 2. Camnitzer’s first conceptual piece. This Is a Mirror, You Are a Written Sentence,
by L. Camnitzer 1966-1968 (http://www.studiointernational.com/index.php/luis-camnitzer).
Photo by Peter Schälchli.
interview, Camnitzer believes that art is “like a breezeway” through which the artist
can talk to the audience, hoping for a response from the viewer.
Reflecting ideas of 18th-century educator Simón Rodríguez, Camnitzer defines artists’
roles as “provocateurs” (Camnitzer, 1996/2009f), exemplifying his view of art as a means
for critical public pedagogy. Any social critic analyzes social structures and overturns
them to better understand social reality, thus aspiring for greater good. As a critical public
pedagogue, Camnitzer sees his activities as part of the same but expressed differently
(Cesarco, 2011). In the initial interview, Camnitzer explains that he chooses the media
depending on what he seeks to address, as art is a way of “empowering the viewer” and
“a way of consciousness raising and also to stimulate the viewer’s power of creation.” He
hopes to create space and tools for individuals to foster critical consciousness (which is
why he qualifies as a critical public pedagogue of sorts). From interactions with his art,
once viewers are able to look critically at society he may discontinue doing his art. “As
long as society needs me (and others) as an artist, I am a failure,” Camnitzer confessed in
our interview. His perspective on his social role as artist and critical public pedagogue are
made more explicit in light of three primary interrelated aspects of his personal history
and philosophy: his biography of exile; his belief in the connection of art, education, and
politics; and the role of conceptual art in critical consciousness raising.
The Effects and Responsibilities of Being “in Exile”

The year 1973 forever changed Camnitzer’s work, since it marked the beginning of an
11-year period of brutal military dictatorship of Juan María Bordaberry in Uruguay.
Camnitzer struggled during this time, being away from the daily torment of dictator-
ship. However, this event gave Camnitzer a new and recurrent theme to his conceptual
art: exile. This idea appears throughout his career “in an ongoing rumination about
identity, otherness, belonging, and resistance” (Weiss, 2009, p. xii). Exiled people like
Camnitzer survive “because they inhabit their memories,” living at times “an inner
rather than a geographic exile” (Camnitzer, 1996/2009f, p. 118). Even today, he admits
that it is difficult to let go of Uruguay (Camnitzer, 2003/2009g). Like most expatriates,
there is a longing in his heart to return home.
Though Camnitzer confesses the unforgivable lateness of dealing with the dictator-
ship until nearly its end in 1985, he began working in 1983 on a series of pieces address-
ing the torture under the dictatorship of Bordaberry (Camnitzer, 2003/2009g). He
admits that part of the reason he did so was to alleviate his feelings of guilt for not being
present during the dictatorship as many of his friends were. These works, titled
Uruguayan Torture Series, graphically showed elements of torture with text that
bumped against the visual image in a potentially disarming fashion. (The piece depicted
in Figure 1 with the caption “Her fragrance lingered on” is from this series; “Luis
Camnitzer: Retrospective Exhibition,” n.d.; “Walking the Line Between Metaphor and
Individual Pain,” 2011.) The theme of exile remains apparent in much of his art and is
a motivator for his creativity and use of art for education and politics.
The Relation of Art, Politics, and Education

In much of his writing and in his interviews both with us as researchers and with other
interviewers (Cesarco, 2011), Camnitzer discusses the connections among art, poli-
tics, and education. Since everything can be viewed as art, Camnitzer proposes that art
can become “a common denominator for understanding” (1969/2009d, p. 9, 2009a)
and, hence, education. He sees his art as a variant of pedagogy, as he explained in our
first interview that “if art is not providing an educative experience, it is bad art.” Good
education and good art foster expression and communication through imagining and
posturing, pushing individuals outside conventions. Art grounded in ethics can be
militant by challenging the status quo. He suggests that art that encourages viewers’
passivity is not reaching its potential, for, as he says, “We want to help develop cre-
ative individuals who apply themselves for the betterment of society.”
To Camnitzer, art and education are different forms of a similar activity. He
explained in our first interview that the artist’s role is educational and one of “a cul-
tural activist.” Art is a form of learning and vice versa. He went on to say, “I once
commented that today being ethical is a form of resistance. Since art is a tool for my
ethical discourse, there you have the connection”; he further elaborated on this point
and discussed art as his “strategy to bring ethics to the fore” and that “art is an acciden-
tal tool conditioned by my biography.” Camnitzer stated that it is important for art to
be politicized; “Otherwise we are working for the disciplines and not for society.” “Art
reflects culture, yet art grounded in ethics must question everything to push audience
and artist into an unknown, becoming a tool to access knowledge.” Camnitzer uses his
art “to create new leaves” instead of “old roots” (Mosquera, 1990, p. 3) and to make
sense of his world. Camnitzer suggests that every decision is political, though he
rejects overt politicality (Weiss, 2009). His art demands a continuous questioning of
assumptions and definitions to address social situations.
Figure 3. Blades and balls reflect European imperialism. El Viaje (The Voyage), by L.
Camnitzer, 1991 (http://ifacontemporary.org/luis-camnitzer-at-el-museo-del-barrio/).
Conceptual art, in particular, solidifies Camnitzer’s relation between art and poli-
tics by focusing on the idea or concept instead of the artwork, which frees artists and
audience to respond to political and economic situations (Camnitzer et al., 1999).
Camnitzer leaves in his artwork hidden narratives encouraging questioning status quo
and thus invites audiences to create their own newer understanding. He explains that
art is “an operation of creation and use of symbols” (Camnitzer, 1995/2009i, p. 203).
By juxtaposing texts with these symbols in conceptual art to create new meaning in
dialogue, Camnitzer includes audiences in communication and codification of mean-
ing-making. In our interview, Camnitzer stated, “More interesting is when the text
leads the viewer to see a particular way, like opening one particular door to enter the
work of art, or when neither text nor the image make sense on their own.” His 1991
piece, El Viaje (The Voyage), serves as an example (see Figure 3).
This conceptual art piece perhaps subverts the Eurocentric interests in the United
States that unquestioningly praise European “civilization.” Using phallic symbols as
balls and blades representing Columbus’s vessels, Camnitzer recalls Europe’s rape of
the Americas and challenges European privilege. By doing so, Camnitzer purposefully
engages the audience in his critique by letting them deconstruct and reconstruct under-
standings (Ramírez, 1990). This is but one example of how art, politics, and education
merge in his critical public pedagogy.
Conceptual Art and Critical Consciousness

Through the means of conceptual art, Camnitzer presents space to grapple with things
“unthinkable and inaccessible with the use of nonartistic tools” (Camnitzer & Hickey,
2003/2009, p. 81), which are a form of critical consciousness raising that is part of his
critical public pedagogy. He suggests that art becomes a way to communicate and
solve problems by encouraging critical thinking and to reshape culture. Camnitzer
believes that art has the ability to transform thought and perception, partly because it
has inherently embodied ideological resistance (Ramírez, 1990).
Using words and images, Camnitzer hopes to explore that borderland space where
new understandings take place. “More than learning, art presently requires unlearn-
ing,” Camnitzer explained in our interview. As Weiss (2009) notes, this explains the
“pedagogical heart” (p. xiv) evident in Camnitzer’s works. Camnitzer believes that art
should be taught not as appreciation but as an investigation into what forces the mak-
ing of art to be necessary. In our interview, he discussed that need as coming “from
cultural gaps that are identified through critical thinking and questioning.”
Camnitzer wrestles with the politicality of living he expresses in art, which he describes
in his interview as “a tool for my ethical discourse.” Art is not separate from politics and
vice versa. Politics must be creative (“aesthetified politics”), and art must be socially effec-
tive (“politicized aesthetics”; Camnitzer, 1994/2009b). Camnitzer’s work assumes expec-
tations of understanding individuals’ roles in society. Though Camnitzer acknowledges
that art alone cannot transform culture, he believes that art has the power to help audiences
construct society in subversive ways. This is part of critical consciousness raising.
Camnitzer’s work contributes to critical adult education discourse, opening space for dia-
logue, interaction, and potential ideology critique, which Brookfield (2005) suggests is
part of educating for critical consciousness. Camnitzer suggests that by being constructive
naggers, artists must work against commonly shared assumptions to create works fostering
criticality and find alternatives. Camnitzer’s role as a cultural worker is to shape social
conscience “ethically, politically, and artistically” (in that order of priorities). “Politics is
the strategy and art is the tool,” he explains in our interview.
Part of educating for critical consciousness is deconstructing one’s assumptions
(Brookfield, 2005). Camnitzer tries to be mindful of helping viewers do that, but he also
deconstructs the whole commercialization of art by turning the mirror on himself and the
art world, and explained in an interview how he questions the power of popularity. While
he recognizes that his museum exhibits and other public exhibitions increase his curricu-
lum vitae and inherent authority (Camnitzer, 1995/2009h), he notes that art loses its
power when it becomes a commodity to the name of the artist. To critique this, in his
conceptual art piece Selbstbedienung (Self-Service, 1996/2010), Camnitzer placed an
inkpad and a rubber stamp with his signature next to a stack of papers. The viewer picked
up a paper, stamped the signature, and put the suggested donation (25 cents) in the
money box (Temkin, 2011). As he explains in our interview, the piece served as his cri-
tique of the cult of personality that is deemed more important than the collective good.
Exhibiting a form of critical public pedagogy, he invites viewers’ critical consciousness
while he questions artists’ and art’s leaders and society’s attempts at commodification.
Discussion
The findings of this study present some interesting possibilities for understanding
the potential role of artists as critical public pedagogues, though the findings need
to be interpreted with caution. While there has been some discussion of public
pedagogy in the field (Sandlin et al., 2013; Wright & Sandlin, 2009), thus far dis-
cussion of critical public pedagogy has been limited in adult education, requiring
further development in theory, research, and practice (Sandlin et al., 2011). While
the findings of this study are based on the art and insights of only one conceptual
artist (Camnitzer) and his professional viewers and critics, they do offer both some
theoretical and practical insights into the role of conceptual art and critical public
pedagogy, though it is important to consider the insights offered with certain
nuances in mind.
First, Camnitzer, like many artists, identifies primarily as an artist, not as an educa-
tor, though he does recognize the way in which his work also educates, and it is his
intent to do so through his work. Art (at least conceptual art) and education are two
sides of the same coin, he says; he specifically hopes to make viewers think more criti-
cally about justice issues and power relations in what he creates, in his use of coding
and decoding: This is part of his direct intent as an artist who uses art, as he says, as “a
tool for [his] ethical discourse.”
Second, it is important to bear in mind that what the study foregrounds is the per-
spective of the artist, and his thoughts on how his conceptual art functions as what
Ellsworth (2005) refers to as the “pedagogical hinge” to potentially foster critical
consciousness. For Camnitzer, the “pedagogical hinge” is the juxtaposition of image
with either text or what the viewers have typically been taught; this juxtaposition is
specifically intended to create disjuncture to open up “distortions” about power rela-
tions and thus qualifies as critical public pedagogy. However, it is important to note
that the study was not about how viewers experience or are changed by Camnitzer’s
art; rather, it was about how Camnitzer thinks of his art as critical educational work.
Sandlin et al. (2011) note that more research is needed on how public viewers (besides
professional art critics and curators) perceive or experience the messages of (critical)
public pedagogy. While this study does not make a contribution to that end, it does
offer the perspective of Camnitzer’s educational intent as a conceptual artist; artists’
intents and views on how counterhegemonic art educates are also important in under-
standing the potential of art as critical public pedagogy. As noted above, Camnitzer
openly discussed the connection between art and ethics and that it is important for art
to be politicized, so that artists are not just “working for the disciplines” but also for
the betterment of society. The perspective of this conceptual artist is important to
understanding how art can act as a form of critical public pedagogy. But to find out
exactly how viewers perceived that they are affected by his or other conceptual art
would be the subject of a different study. However, Camnitzer does believe that “art
is a form of learning and should be a continual and shared activity”; as such, he is
obviously interested in the perspective and the internal dialogue of the viewer or
actual dialogue among viewers.
Third, the study offers an interesting twist on the notion of “dialogue” in critical
public pedagogy. According to many in adult education (Brookfield, 2005;
Kauffman, 2010; Mezirow, 2000), dialogue (usually thought of in the verbal sense)
is considered essential for the development of critical consciousness and ideology
critique. But as exemplified in Uruguayan Torture Series (1983-1984), which

graphically showed torture elements with juxtaposed text that creates disjuncture,
there is no evidence of verbal dialogue (“Luis Camnitzer: Retrospective Exhibition,”
n.d.; “Walking the Line Between Metaphor and Individual Pain,” 2011). Rather,
Camnitzer talks of opening space for individuals to interact with artworks, so codes
are exchanged and new meanings are formed and evolve as work, artist, and viewer
come into relation. The budding may awaken viewer and artist to a new understand-
ing of power imbalances, hopefully challenging ideology and perhaps affecting the
status quo.
The notion of verbal dialogue as essential to critical consciousness development is
more related to education in formal and nonformal settings, where students are gath-
ered for educational purposes. As Sandlin et al. (2011) emphasize, the “pedagogy” of
critical public pedagogy is not the same pedagogy as schooling or the pedagogy of
formal education, because in both formal and nonformal education there is a typically
identified “teacher” who may foster dialogue. But in public pedagogy there is no one
serving in an official teacher/facilitator capacity; hence public pedagogy begets infor-
mal learning where the educative work is the space, the artifact. We don’t know exactly
what the “public” is thinking or doing when they participate in such a public space or
view counterhegemonic art. It is rather more often an internal dialogue that the viewer
has with herself or himself in relation to the art and the artist (by association)—what
Ellsworth (2005) refers to in explaining how the pedagogical hinge puts what’s outside
(the art and artist) in relation to what’s inside (the mind of the viewer). Hence, it might
be that the art fosters critical consciousness via this nonverbal dialogue. This triangu-
lar communication (artist, work, audience) is where Hall (1997) explores the systems
of representation and the dynamic of encoding and decoding. There may not be any
verbal “dialogue” in the public space, but we cannot assume that such counterhege-
monic art is not affecting the development of critical consciousness.
A fourth and related insight offered by the study is its grounding in Hall’s theory
of representation and the mechanism of encoding and decoding in mediating the
meanings of symbol (including art) in a cultural context. Few studies in adult educa-
tion have drawn on Hall’s work to consider how it can contribute to what we know
about the development of critical consciousness. Hall explored how various systems
of representation, production, and consumption help shape power (Giroux, 2004a),
and how the processes of encoding and decoding of symbol and context in a culture
can unmask or make power visible. He applies this to addressing ideology’s impact,
and how the cultural context influences meaning and identity construction (Hall,
1980, 1997, 2003; Hall, Osbourne, & Segal, 1998). Meaning-making is dependent on
the relationship between concepts and people/objects since meaning is pervasive
(Hall, 1997). Culture entails social practices and goods given meanings and ideolo-
gies, encompassing our whole social and cultural experience (Giroux, 2004a).
Exemplifying Hall’s (1997) codification, Camnitzer plays with meanings, encourag-
ing new interpretations of seemingly conflicting texts, which are intended to open
space in the mind of the viewer. While such space opening is not so much about
verbal dialogue, it perhaps substitutes for the notion of verbal dialogue that is seen as
essential to critical consciousness raising in formal or nonformal settings (Brookfield,

2005). The study, itself theoretically grounded in some of Hall’s work on encoding
and decoding, helps offer insights into how the potential “dialogue” in viewers’ minds
in relation to artwork and artist in a public space can be theorized in public settings
that beget informal learning but that are not about verbal dialogue the way more for-
mal education spaces are. Hence, Hall’s framework helps provide an understanding
of how assumptions can potentially be unpacked through nonverbal means in public
spaces as sites of informal learning.
Fifth, a hallmark of the development of critical consciousness is the unpacking of
hegemonic assumptions. For sure, Camnitzer’s work as critical public pedagogy spe-
cifically does intend to do that. Critical public pedagogy hinges on reality’s decon-
struction/reconstruction in making power relations visible (Fine, Weis, Centrie, &
Roberts, 2000; Grodach, 2011; Jaramillo, 2010). Like other critical public pedagogues,
Camnitzer challenges assumptions, creatively encouraging unlearning of power
notions to redefine the present. Because Camnitzer’s work explicitly attempts to chal-
lenge power relations and unpack assumptions, it is distinctly a form of critical public
pedagogy involving viewers as meaning cocreators. Camnitzer’s use of space created
is for “cultural contestation and renewal,” which is essential to critical public peda-
gogy (Borg & Mayo, 2010, p. 37). The fact that our minds produce meaning through
language and symbol in a cultural context (Hall, 1997) is where Camnitzer plays.
Codes assist in reinterpreting signs and conveying ideas. Camnitzer jolts communi-
cated meanings to unravel and reinterpret them, in order to help viewers unpack
assumptions.
Finally, it is important to recognize that art and social change do not exist in parallel
universes but “art, politics, pedagogy and poetry overlap, integrate, and cross-polli-
nate into a whole” (Camnitzer, 2007, p. 21). Camnitzer challenges learned percep-
tions, encouraging questions beyond art to inquire about life itself. Certain threads tie
his work together, like the theme of the periphery (particularly Latin America).
However, themes highlighted here support the notion that art can be a tool to commu-
nicate and educate, raising critical consciousness. Summarizing his goal and the rela-
tionship between art and education, Camnitzer believes that art aims to develop
creativity in individuals hoping to improve society. As such, he said in his interview,
“Art is a form of education and education is a form of art.” In particular, conceptual art
that attempts to make power relations visible can indeed act as a form of critical public
pedagogy.
In conclusion, this study makes a contribution to the data-based research literature
on critical public pedagogy and begins to fill the gap that Sandlin et al. (2011) have
identified. It does make apparent the intents and purposes of how Luis Camnitzer as
one conceptual artist attempts to enact a critical public pedagogy in using his art as a
“tool for ethical discourse”; the study also offers some further insight through the use
of Hall’s theory of representation for understanding how the pedagogy might work in
its processes of encoding and decoding in a critical public pedagogy setting. While
more studies do need to be done, particularly of viewers and audiences, this study in
its findings and its theorizing offers some insight into the important work of critical
public pedagogy. We leave it to other researchers to conduct such studies, and we look
forward to participating in the ongoing dialogue.
Authors’ Note
Previous oral presentation by Ana Zorrilla at Adult Education Research Conference, June 2014,
in Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Adams, J. (2002). Art in social movements: Shantytown women’s protest in Pinochet’s Chile.
Sociological Forum, 17(1), 21-56.
Adams, J. (2005). When art loses its sting: The evolution of protest art in authoritarian contexts.
Sociological Perspectives, 48, 531-558.
Baker, G. (Ed.). (2002). Artist questionnaire: 21 responses. October, 100, 6-97.
Barthes, R. (1967). Elements of semiology. (A. Lavers & C. Smith, Trans.) New York, NY: Hill
& Wang.
Borg, C., & Mayo, P. (2010). Museums: Adult education as cultural politics. New Directions for
Adult & Continuing Education, 127, 35-44.
Brady, J. F. (2006). Public pedagogy and educational leadership: Politically engaged schol-
arly communities and possibilites for critical engagement. Journal of Curriculum and
Pedagogy, 3(1), 57-60.
Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burdick, J., Sandlin, J., & O’Malley, M. (Eds.). (2014). Problematizing public pedagogy. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Butterwick, S., & Lawrence, R. L. (2009). Creating alternative realities: Arts-based approaches
to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & E. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning in
practice (pp. 35-45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Camnitzer, L. (Artist). (1966-1968). This is a mirror, you are a written sentence [Vacuum
formed polystyrene mounted on synthetic board]. Retrieved from http://www.studiointer-
national.com/index.php/luis-camnitzer
Camnitzer, L. (Artist). (1983-1984). Uruguayan torture series [Photoengraving]. Retrieved
from http://www.universes-in-universe.de/car/documenta/11/bhf/e-camnitzer-zoom1.htm
Camnitzer, L. (Artist). (1991). The voyage [Engraved knives and Christmas ornaments].
Retrieved from http://ifacontemporary.org/luis-camnitzer-at-el-museo-del-barrio/
Camnitzer, L. (2006). Uruguayan torture series: Artist statement. Retrieved from http://www.
legacy-project.org/index.php?artID=950&page=art_detail
Camnitzer, L. (2007). Conceptualism in Latin America: Didactics of liberation. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Camnitzer, L. (2009a). Art and literacy. E-Journal, 2. Retrieved http://www.e-flux.com/journal/
view/42
Camnitzer, L. (2009b). Art and politics: The aesthetics of resistance. In L. Camnitzer & R. Weiss
(Ed.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 63-75). Austin: University of
Texas Press. (Original work published 1994)
Camnitzer, L. (2009c). The artist’s role and image in Latin America. In L. Camnitzer, &
R. Weiss (Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 76-92). Austin:
University of Texas Press. (Original work published 2004)
Camnitzer, L. (2009d). Contemporary colonial art. In L. Camnitzer & R. Weiss (Eds.), On art,
artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 8-21). Austin: University of Texas Press.
(Original work published 1969)
Camnitzer, L. (2009e). Exile. In L. Camnitzer & R. Weiss (Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America,
and other utopias (pp. 22-29). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published
1983)
Camnitzer, L. (2009f). The forgotten individual. In L. Camnitzer & R. Weiss (Eds.), On art,
artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 117-119). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Camnitzer, L. (2009g). Free-trade diaspora. In L. Camnitzer & R. Weiss (Eds.), On art, art-
ists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 120-123). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Camnitzer, L. (2009h). My museums. In L. Camnitzer & R. Weiss (Eds.), On art, artists, Latin
America and other utopias (pp. 112-116). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original
work pulished 1995)
Camnitzer, L. (2009i). The two versions of Santa Anna’s leg and the ethics of public art. In L.
Camnitzer & R. Weiss (Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America and other utopias (pp. 199-
207). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1995)
Camnitzer, L. (Artist). (1996/2010). Selbstbedienung [Self-service]. Retrieved from http://
www.studiointernational.com/index.php/luis-camnitzer
Camnitzer, L., Farver, J., & Weiss, R. (1999). Global conceptualism: Points of origin
1950s-1980s. New York, NY: Queens Museum of Art.
Camnitzer, L., & Hickey, S. (Eds.). (2009). The reconstruction of salami. In L. Camnitzer & R.
Weiss (Eds.), On art, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 97-103). Austin: University of
Texas Press. (Original work published 2003)
Cesarco, A. (2011). Luis Camnitzer. Bomb, 115, 4-8. Retrieved from http://bombmagazine.org/
article/4913/luis-camnitzer
Clover, D. E. (2006). Culture and antiracisms in adult education: An exploration of the contribu-
tions of arts-based learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(1), 46-61.
Clover, D. E. (2015). Adult education for social and environmental change in contemporary
public art gelleries and museums in Canada, Scotland and England. International Journal
of Lifelong Education, 34(3), 300-315.
Clover, D. E., & Stalker, J. (2007). Introduction. In D. E. Clover & J. Stalker (Eds.), The arts
and social justice: Re-crafting adult education and community cultural leadership (pp.
1-17). Leicester, England: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
Cotter, H. (2011, February 16). A careful reading between the lines is required. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/arts/design/17camnitzer.html?emc=etal
de Saussure, F. (1974). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). London, England: Fontana.
Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The
story of the Sony Walkman. London, England: Sage.
El-Haj, T. R. A. (2009). Imagining postnationalism: Arts, citizenship education, and Arab
American youth. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 1-19.
Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Centrie, C., & Roberts, R. (2000). Educating beyond the borders of school-
ing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31(2), 131-151.
Freire, P. (1989). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work pub-
lished 1971)
Giroux, H. A. (2004a). Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of intellectuals.
Comunication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1(1), 59-79.
Giroux, H. A. (2004b). Pedagogy, film, and the responsibility of intellectuals: A response.
Cinema Journal, 43, 119-127.
Grace, A., & Wells, K. (2007). Using Freirean pedagogy of just ire to inform critical social
learning in arts-informed community education for sexual minorities. Adult Education
Quarterly, 57, 95-114.
Greene, M. (1995). Art and imagination: Reclaiming the sense of possibility. Phi Delta Kappan,
76, 378-382.
Grodach, C. (2011). Art spaces in community and economic development: Connections to
neighborhoods, artists and the cultural economy. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 31(1), 74-85.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall (Ed.), Culture, media, language: Working papers
in cultural studies, 1972-1979 (pp. 128-138). London, England: Hutchinson. (Original
work published 1973)
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, S. (2003). Cultural identity in the diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity, community,
culture and difference. London, England: Lawrence & Wishart.
Hall, S., Osbourne, P., & Segal, L. (1998). Interview with Stuart Hall: Culture and power. In R.
D. Torres, L. F. Miron, & J. X. Inda (Eds.), Race, identity and citizenship: A reader (pp.
389-411). London, England: Blackwell.
Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and
social change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Jackson, S. (2011). Social works: Performing arts, supporting publics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jaramillo, N. E. (2010). A pedagogy of defiance: Public pedagogy as an act of unlearning. In J.
A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy: Education
and learning beyond schooling (pp. 500-510). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jarvis, C. (2005). Real stakeholder education? Lifelong learning in the Buffyverse. Studies in
the Education of Adults, 37, 31-46.
Kauffman, J. (2010). The practice of dialogue in critical pedagogy. Adult Education Quarterly,
60(5), 456-476.
Lawrence, R. L. (2005). Knowledge construction as contested terrain: Adult learning through
artistic expression. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 107, 3-11.
Luis Camnitzer: Retrospective exhibition. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/

vpadvance/artgallery/gallery/luis_camnitzer/ramirez_essay.htm
Mayo, P. (2013). Museums as sites of critical pedagogical practice. Review of Education,
Pedagogy, & Cultural Studies, 35(2), 144-153.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass. (Original work published 2002)
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformative learning
theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Mosquera, G. (1990). Politics and ethnicity in the work of Luis Camnitzer. Retrieved from
http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/gallery/luis_camnitzer/mosquera_
essay.htm
Princenthal, N. (1996). Luis Camnitzer at El Museo del Barrio and Carla Stellweg. Art in
America, 84(2), 91.
Ramírez, M. C. (1990). Moral imperatives: Politics as art in Luis Camnitzer. Retrieved from
www.lehman.cuny.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/gallery/luis_camnitzer/ramirez_essay.htm
Sandlin, J. A., O’Malley, M., & Burdick, J. (2011). Mapping the complexity of public pedagogy
scholarship: 1894-2010. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 338-375.
Sandlin, J. A., Schultz, B. D., & Burdick, J. (2010). Understanding, mapping, and exploring the
terrain of public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook
of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling (pp. 1-6). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Sandlin, J. A., Wright, R. R., & Clark, C. (2013). Reexamining theories of adult learning and
adult development through the lenses of public pedagogy. Adult Education Quarterly,
63(1), 1-21.
Springgay, S., & the Torontonians. (2014). How to be an artist by night: Critical public peda-
gogy and double ontology. In J. Burdick, J. Sandlin, & M. O’Malley (Eds.), Problematizing
public pedagogy (pp. 133-148). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sturken, M., & Cartwright, L. (2001). Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, E. (2010). Cultural institutions and adult education. New Directions for Adult &
Continuing Education, 127, 5-14.
Temkin, S. (2011, March 10). Luis Camnitzer at El Museo del Barrio. Retrieved from http://
ifacontemporary.org/author/susannatemkin/
Tisdell, E. J. (2008). Critical media literacy and transformative learning: Drawing on pop cul-
ture and entertainment media in teaching for diversity in adult higher education. Journal of
Transformative Learning, 6(1), 48-67.
Tisdell, E. J., Hanley, M. S., & Taylor, E. W. (2000). Different perspectives on teaching for
critical consciousness. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and con-
tinuing education (pp. 132-146). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tisdell, E. J., & Thompson, P. (2007). “Seeing from a different angle”: The role of pop culture
in teaching for diversity and critical media literacy in adult education. International Journal
of Lifelong Education, 26(6), 651-673.
Tyler, J. (2015). From spoke to hub: Transforming organizational vision and strategy with story
and art. Adult Education Quarterly, 65, 326-342.
Walking the line between metaphor and individual pain. (2011). Retrieved from http://arttattler.
com/archiveluiscamnitzer.html
Weiss, R. (2009). Foreword. In L. Camnitzer & R. Weiss (Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America,
and other utopias (pp. xi-xv). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Wildemeersch, D. (2012). Imagining pedagogy in public space: Visions of cultural policies and
practices in a city in transformation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(1),
77-95.
Wright, R. R. (2007). The Avengers, public pedagogy, and the development of British women’s
consciousness. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 115, 63-72.
Wright, R. R., & Sandlin, J. A. (2009). Popular culture, public pedagogy and perspective trans-
formation: The Avengers and adult learning in living rooms. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 28(4), 533-551.
Author Biographies
Ana Zorrilla is a social studies teacher at Cedar Crest High School–Lebanon, PA.
Elizabeth J. Tisdell is professor of adult education at Penn State University–Harrisburg.

Zorrilla 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zorrilla 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

645666

and His Conceptual Art

Ana Zorrilla1 and Elizabeth J. Tisdell2

There is a growing discussion on public pedagogy in adult education (Sandlin, Wright,

1Cedar Crest High School, Lebanon, PA, USA

Camnitzer and His Work

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Critical Public Pedagogy and the Arts

Art and Critical Consciousness

Hall’s Theory of Representation

Findings: Camnitzer as Critical Public Pedagogue

The Effects and Responsibilities of Being “in Exile”

The Relation of Art, Politics, and Education

Conceptual Art and Critical Consciousness

critique. But as exemplified in Uruguayan Torture Series (1983-1984), which

essential to critical consciousness raising in formal or nonformal settings (Brookfield,

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Luis Camnitzer: Retrospective exhibition. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/

You might also like