|
Review
Duncum, Paul & Bracey, Ted. (Eds). (2001). On
Knowing: Art and Visual Culture. Christchurch, New
Zealand: Canterbury University Press.
163 pages
$25.95 (Paper) ISBN 1-877257-14-1
Reviewed by Kenneth Marantz
Prof. Emeritus, Ohio State University
The institutions of art and education are as prone
to fads as those of fashion and so-called popular music. When
the two form an amalgam like art education, the temptation
towards “band-wagon-ism” is doubly enhanced. In very
recent years the phrase “visual culture” has been
articulated by a growing number of advocates as a substitute for
“art.” One can well imagine what hackles such a
movement can raise, what emotions are generated among those who
have developed a comfortable, if unreflective, belief in some
more “traditional” bases for their teaching and/or
theorizing. The arguments exploding from this book’s pages
are clearly meant to cause such readers discomfort, although I
doubt that many of them will make the effort to read past the
Introduction.
The six authors (all from universities in
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States of America)
spent a couple of years developing their essays, exchanging
ideas, and writing rebuttals – so the results offer some
finely honed arguments as well as evidence of their shaping
process. The Responses in particular are useful in helping us
analyze and often challenge some of the contentious issues
projected in the initial essays. The writers tend to break into
two camps: a duo of philosophers and a quartet of educationists.
Indeed, the former (Ted Bracey and Philip Pearson) who espouse an
Institutional Theory of Art, run rather over the much less
focused “all objects and events are art” beliefs of
their colleagues (Graeme Chalmers, Paul Duncum, Kerry Freedman,
and Elizabeth Garber). All throw around names of philosophers,
some, like Kant almost ancient and others, like Dickey more
middle-aged, and even a few younger ones like Danto. There are
times when the writing looks like an intellectual tag-team
wrestling match with one or more of these philosophers being
brought into the fray. Among the extra attractions of the book
are its investigations of esthetics and its relationship to art
and/or art objects and/or “artefacts.” Considerable
ink is spilled trying to differentiate among these terms. And I
almost ached for them to deal with an exhibition from San
Francisco’s Exploratorium: “Revealing Bodies”
which uses “an array of artifacts and artworks to
demonstrate that our view of human anatomy has always been
informed as much by culture as science.” (New York
Times, Aug. 6, 2000. page A33). Reflecting on the specifics
of such a display and the language which defines it, would
encourage, if not demand, the writers to make their arguments
more concrete.
The complexity of the issues discussed makes any
attempt at representing them here a task fit for heroes.
However, there are a few which motivated me to scribble in the
margins. I am puzzled by Duncum’s claim that “we
need ways to understand new kinds of visual imagery and new ways
to understand our understandings” (page 119). What might
be the source of such new imagery and what other kinds are there
but “visual” ones? Perhaps some attention should be
paid to the sorts of arguments raised by W.J.T. Mitchell in books
like ICONOLOGY: Image, Text, and Ideology (1986) where,
among other notions, he bats around concepts of
“natural” and “conventional” symbols a la
Gombrich. He finds it too facile to simply associate
“pictures” with the former and
”words” with the latter. There may be some clues to
differentiating among objects and/or their images in pursuing
Mitchell’s intricate tale. Freedman’s claim that we
are experiencing a “rapid shift from text-based
communications to image saturation and
fragmentation…” is dropped without any evidence.
Bracey’s anti-globalization stance seems naïve in our
time of massive world-wide electronic delivery of information.
Pearson’ objection to Chalmers’ insistence that
“all objects and events in the world were to be called
‘art works’” fails to consider the future when
anything may indeed be so labeled. And so on, and so on.
It’s clear that the sextet produces a considerable
intellectual variety of notions for us to chew over. Their
styles vary from Pearson’s sort of naughty academic-isms
with delicious phrases like “Graeme’s reasoning
chases its own tail” to the accused’s much more
accessible, pragmatics extolling the virtues of contextual
probings. The differences seem to encourage us to identify our
personal champion, the one who comes closest to sharing our
prejudices.
To better understand their differences and,
indeed, the scope of their involvements with “visual
culture” one has only to compare their myriad references to
see how very few overlaps there are. Perhaps some of the reasons
for the internal lack of consensus stem from the apparent effect
of marching to the beat of different drummers. Also, it might
have been helpful if there were some visual examples of visual
culture included. But again, this is an academic book meant for
an elite audience of peers and graduate students (i.e. would-be
peers). It reinforces the observation that much of the
argumentation is a function of language rather than philosophical
or educational concepts. Or perhaps that’s what these
concepts are fundamentally made of, and maybe what appear to be
conceptual disagreements are really linguistic misunderstandings?
Having some non-verbal exhibits to refer to might, at least, give
the debates some texture. And, in passing, such a verbally rich
and conceptually compact book really should have an index to help
readers more readily attend to the arguments.
“It’s on the Wall, It’s in a
Frame, But is It Art?” (New York Times, March 8, 2001, page
B1). This question, for me, points to the major concern art
teachers, if not art educators, have today in deciding what sorts
of stuff to include in their curriculums.
Of course, part of their concerns are political because they
work in traditional institutions with almost rigid traditional
expectations. And major shift from what “has always been
done” or which tweaks sensibilities probably will be
stopped and the art teacher punished. “Social
relevancy,” pushed by Bracey may, even if understood, take
a teacher into dangerous territory. And the apparently
“anything goes” attitude of Chalmers may well lead to
the creation of many mini art worlds dealing with objects
foreign to the other mini art worlds. A traditional approach at
least points to a group of “art” objects
“worthy” of study which can be the basis for
communication. The Western canon seems to have, for the moment,
floated away and taken our few formalists with it. The notion
that things made in places like the Congo or the Pacific
Northwest or in our advertising offices are “worthy”
of study/appreciation seems acceptable to most art educators.
For those for whom intuitive learning isn’t quite enough,
however, books like this one are useful to help us question
ourselves, to challenge our professional behaviors, to make our
on-going debates more profound.
About the Reviewer
Ken Marantz has been in the art education field since 1952,
when he took a post in a rural K-12 school district. He has taught
in several other schools, public and private, and ultimately in
universities where he chaired the Department at the Ohio State University.
Retired for ten years now, he continues to dip into the
literature and maintain conversations with practicing teachers.
|
