so you thought you were done with academics, eh?

Crazy, bizarre, insane -- all these things run through my head as I realize that the most interesting thing I've read all summer is written by James Elkins, and furthermore is titled "Why Art Cannot be Taught." (an idea I at least 75% disagree with.)

James Elkins is one of the very, very few contemporary art theorists in the United States (in fact, he's the only one anyone could name off hand, as the rest are primarily artists or professors rather than theorists). He's been a staple of my art curriculum here at Messiah, appearing in my intro to art history course first year and my senior seminar course this past year. Usually he's ridiculously academic and I fervently disagree with him. And I swore I would never read him again.

Until I picked up this book in Borders and flipped to the end, where I began to read his critiques of classroom critiques. Fascinating!

I've tried to get my hands on the book ever since, but I believe our library's copy is currently checked out by a professor, as it has been missing for months without going overdue. So I interlibrary loaned a copy. I'm only 1/3 of the way through at the moment, just past the dry historical summaries of art education before the late 20th century, but already I can see it will be a worthwhile read. . . .

If nothing else, Elkins always pushes me to define what I think in comprehensive, concrete terms. And what could be more perfect for me to read than a book all about the current mode of teaching in art academies (keep in mind 'current' for this book is 2001) that forces me to define what I think about the purpose of art education? Since I want to be an art professor and all. I'll need to define the ways in which I think art can be taught, the ways art instruction is most effective.

Studying under a lot of professors caused me to evaluate the characteristics of deportment which make one an effective professor, or at least the ones I want to emulate. I feel like this is a good book to argue back with, to begin determining the purposes of curricula that I think are worthwhile and the ways in which they can be most effectively structured.

And since critiqueing is one of the key elements in any studio course, I'm particularly eager to read his analyzation of critiques. It's the crux of studio learning in so many ways -- it contains elements of brainstorming, discussion of formal elements, forces students to analyze and react to artwork as well as articulate their purposes and refine the language they use to communicate those purposes (both verbal and visual). If a professor could develop a consistent pattern to their critiques that maximized teaching of all those things, they might just be a really freaking awesome professor.

This is what I'm hoping to learn from -- ironically enough -- James Elkins. I'll keep you updated. I can already feel some point-by-point rebuttals percolating in my brain, but I'm waiting to see what his conclusions are, first. I never thought I'd say this, but. . . there's an Elkins book out there that might be worth owning. (?!)

Does anyone else have recommendations about pedagogical reading? Preferably about pedagogical methods used in other classrooms than the English classroom (although Peter Elbow, Paulo Freire, and James Elkins would probably have quite a good pedagogical -- I can't help it, I love that word -- conversation together).