Robert Puschautz

ARTE 302
Reading Response 4
Feb-02-2010

The first article that I read from Gude focussed on the Art curricula in a Democratic
Society. This is the main article that I would like to look at. It was the most interesting because
Gude sets up her ideologies in teaching art education, and it wasn't a list.
This article really focussed in on trying to get educators to open up to differences. She
says that in a democratic society differences between people shouldn't ever be seen as an attack
on the self, but rather a means to learn new perspectives on seeing the world. I like this idea that
with this way of looking at education the teacher becomes a learner as well. Gude also
mentioned several other ideas pertaining to a democratic society. One being the need to teach
from multiple perspectives. When teaching a lesson you have to approach from its historical
perspective, a contemporary perspective on how it's shaped the language of contemporary art,
and it relation to other art styles and techniques being used at the time it was made. In art we
constantly reference historical dialogues in art theory and practice, but contemporary art needs to
know the language and history of that art in order to understand the meaning of the art we make
ourselves. The main point of the article, however was not just understanding the past and current
art trends, but creating contemporary culture. Students by creating their art have a chance to
affect their environment and express and emphasize what they value in culture. You have to talk
about issues that are important to the students and not be afraid to ask some deep questions that
stir up student responses.
I liked a significant amount of this article. I did, however, find a bit of unexplained
ideologies that I felt did not have enough weight to be just considered as true. For example the
multiple selfs idea was a bit out there for me. This is Gude saying that we don't have just one
identity that we associate with but many. This claim is a bit unclear to me and yet she uses it as a
premise for making art education claims. There were others as well. I just think that some of her
claims were unjustified in the article. I am not saying that they are not good claims, but that I
would like to see some more justification for these claims.
I found a few things that I liked in Gude's Rubric for a quality art curriculum. One thing
that I particularly liked was the way that she talked about the art curriculum as this organic being
that changed over time. It's supposed to have changes of speed, have different focuses, while
being fun for the students. An organic art class gives students the opportunity to shape their own
ideas along with the course on what is important to them and what should be talked about in the
classroom.
Their were a few terms that I found to be quite interesting in Gude's article Investigating
the Culture of Curriculum. Hidden Curriculum was one that I found to be quite appealing. Gude
talks about the Art curriculum having a hidden message in the way that students are refused
communal work, their artworks are seen as of little importance, and they are just discarded.
Their can be a hidden curriculum in your classes. One that emphasizes student work as shaping
culture today, and one that emphasizes the social role that art has on the community around them
and the community of students in the class. If students are ignored these chances to interact with
each other and their community They will be much more unlikely to have the confidence in the
ability of art to form and shape culture.