potential pitfalls of visual culture in the classroom: the oddly-specific reference

story time!:

there was a student in my sequential art class who, during every critique without fail, would grind the conversation to a screeching halt by comparing someone's comic to some hyper-specific, highly obtuse cultural reference, usually to an 80's video game or d-list superhero that next to no one in the class was familiar with. while the comment was meaningful and likely illuminated the comic under discussion to those in the know, everyone else was instantly excluded and disconnected from further dialogue about the work at hand.

and there it is! visual culture pitfall number one, "the oddly specific reference."

so, how can we use visual culture in the classroom, when each and every student will have a different frame of reference?

1. level the playing field: bring in and share content with your class (so everyone is informed!) as it relates to your lessons.

2. show and tell: have students bring in and share their own ideas about content that relates to classwork. you can expand your own frame of reference this way, too, and challenge students to think differently about the way they engage with and consume media culture.

3. visual culture as content: further ask students to explore the role visual culture plays in their lives by having them make art about visual culture, rather than using it as a lens through which to examine other content. consider olivia gude's principles of possibility and postmodern principles, both of which directly address many of the themes and issues that surround visual culture and its role in our contemporary lives. more on that later, since i, ahem, love olivia gude.

are there other practical ways you see visual culture playing nice with the whole class and leading to inclusive, informed dialogue?

an awesome resource with an awesome (albeit not-so classroom-friendly) name:

while probably not something that you could pull up in your classroom to share with your students directly, fuck yeah, advertising! is an incredible resource for advertising that showcases traditional art-making techniques in real-life contexts:

(ad for the new google chrome browser)

...that ilustrates the relationship between form, function, and idea:

(ad for hair loss program)

...that can act as an introduction to other big ideas/questions:

(ad for the american red cross)

...that opens discussion about where the line between life and culture is (if there is one) and how/if we control our relationship with consumerism:

(ad for hp photo paper - what's real, what's not?)

...and that can be used/taught in countless other ways. advertising is a rich and relevant (and often controversial) area of visual culture that is really accessible, often self-referential, and endlessly applicable in the classroom. also take a look at the slightly less profane but still worthwhile creative criminals - both blogs are excellent, frequently updated resources (that are really great about citing their sources and creative/art directors as well).

making art about material culture: obsessive consumption

i recently purchased (hey, irony) a print from kate bingamin-burt, who maintains the blog "obsessive consumption," where she draws the things she buys on a daily basis. kate is another artist whose work directly addresses issues of our material-based culture:

while visual culture is a teaching tool that can be used to engage with countless big ideas, it can also be the very content being explored.

"why can't we be friends?" - traditional art and visual culture exemplars.

i recently read julia marshall's essay in contemporary issues in art education titled "exploring culture and identity through artifacts" which examines how contemporary art practices can shape and inform art lessons, rather than relying on traditional art-making habits that may not reflect our modern ways of thinking, working, and living.

her investigation of contemporary art practices, which included art as research, art as cultural lens, and art as purposeful critical inquiry also highlighted the role of visual culture (or specifically, non-art visual culture, if such a clear line can be drawn) in modern artmaking processes and lessons surrounding these new practices. she further explored the idea that visual culture exemplars of in some cases have a stronger and more authentic conceptual relationship to art lessons around these ideas than the tried and true fine art exemplars. especially in examples of research-based artmaking exploration, the resources that students are inundated with are visual culture examples, which can include the work of fine artists, but shouldn't be limited to it.

couldn't both ingres' odalisque and contemporary magazine covers be used side by side to examine the standards of beauty at various point in history?

couldn't robert and shana parkeharrison's photographs coexist alongside "reality" television to flesh out the idea of constructed realities?


what other connections do you see between contemporary culture and fine artists' big ideas that could together support lesson plans more meaningful to students?

childish behavior.

i recently read a short article by paul duncum regarding the nature of childhood in contemporary issues in art education, a collection of essays edited by yvonne gaudelius and peg speirs. in "children never were what they were: perspectives on childhood," duncum actually discusses the child almost not at all, instead focusing on the adult definition of childhood. this seemed like a peculiar angle to approach this topic from, and ultimately he ended up illuminating more about the nature of adults than of children.

an interesting question he did raise compared the imagery our culture creates (and propagates) of children and its multiple audiences. images of children created by children as compared to images of children created by adults (and furthermore, for a child audience or an adult audience) are vastly different. consider historically, the egyptian representation of children as tiny versions of adults with thin elongated limbs (because it was thought to be more beautiful, seen here in akhenaten and nefertiti):
alternatively, consider now how children are depicted in shows geared toward adults, versus how children are depicted in shows geared toward children, especially in interactions/situations with adults as well. when the lovely ms. jean marie blogged about modern family, a new abc sitcom examining various family formats and dynamics, my curiosity got the best of me and i watched the first few episodes. they do a fair job of staying true to contemporary child behavior, actually. they still have the prima donna teenage daughter, the misfit middle child, the dennis the menace younger brother, and even a "wise beyond his years" son, ever the voice of reason. the characters are reasonable, though, not over-simplified parodies of humanity: consider then in comparison, iCarly, a nickelodeon kids show about a 14 year-old girl who lives with her wacky older brother and runs a wildly popular web show from her house. here, the youth are essentially tiny adults. there are no parents in the picture (they are conveniently overseas somehow), carly is the creator and host of a web show, and the three friends have a weirdly casual relationship with the school principal. the show has many subtle ways of elevating the "children" (really teenagers) to an adult/independent status, to appeal to the child's sensibility of mimicking adult behavior (as christine marme thompson discussed in her article that i posted about a few weeks ago). this show is also aimed at an even younger audience (think 9-12 year olds) than the characters in it, furthering the disparity between child and adult behavior. duncum's point seemed to be that our adult definition of childhood is really a manifestation of our own need to assert our adulthood, and that the childhood innocence is virtually non-existent. based on the promotional strategies for toys, television shows, and products for children that are all about appearing/acting more grown-up, i'd say that this definition has to be only part of the equation. clearly the folks in the marketing departments have a pretty clear grasp on what children want out of childhood, for better or worse.

my inner nerd is showing.

so i can't believe it took me this long to post work by the exceptional scott c here! he is an artist/illustrator-type whose claim to fame (aside from being tremendously prolific) is smart, witty work riddled with pop-culture references/tributes. see below two from his "the spidermans" series ("costume spidermans" and "open mike spidermans"), followed by two from his "E.T. fun times" series (first "logicking" with his star trek buddies followed by "jumping" with the dukes).




these are part of his "great showdowns" collection (and there are many more to be seen on his blog - can you identify the films he's selected?) below this is scott's poster design that 100% warrants a "click to enlarge" for an annual show in l.a. called "crazy 4 cult" that is entirely dedicated to art based on cult films. you should really click it - it gets huge and incredible.

all of these works were part of recent group/solo shows scott participated in at venues like gallery 1988, and gallery nucleus, AND he has exhibited across the country and abroad, AND has been published countless times. did i mention he also writes/illustrates a daily comic over at double fine action comics? so basically, he's amazing. and, he's highly respected as an artist, even though naysayers (BUT NOT ME NO WAY I LOVE HIM) might point out that his work is built on content/characters that are not his own and is narrowly aimed at the twelve-year old boy demographic. clearly, with all the positive acclaim he's getting, those naysayers are wrong. but he does occupy an interesting place in this art vs. visual culture fake-battle. where/how would you classify scott's work, other than AWESOME?

robin rhode and the age-old question.

at the maryland art education association (maea) conference on friday, i was introduced to the work of robin rhode thanks to teresa roberts, who did a wonderful session on rhode's work as it can be applied to classroom art-making experiences involving flipbooks, stop motion animation, performance, and serial photography.

rhode's work frequently includes references to pop and material culture. the top image is part of a serial called "he got game," titled after the spike lee movie from 1998. the bottom, entitled "untitled, dream houses" (which you can click to enlarge!) shows rhode struggling to collect all manner of discarded physical belongings. he discusses his work as it relates to contemporary culture in the below video from the wexner art center:



coldplay's strawberry swing music video by the art collective shynola uses a similar technique and even touches on some similar themes, but music videos in and of themselves are often considered pieces of visual culture, rather than works of art:


NOTE: the "official" and higher-resolution version is infinitely more awesome, but has been blocked from being embedded. if you'd like to view that one, click here. this one'll get the point across, but man, the fancy version is unbelievable.

what makes one of these art versus culture? if visual culture is informing rhode's work, and rhode's artwork is (presumably) informing shynola's piece of visual culture, then... IT'S LIKE THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG.