Forging the Way for New Art History Classrooms
While the approaches for queered discussions will differ for university-level students and elementary-age students in terms of vocabulary and presentation of ideas, the dialogues in the classroom should maintain an intersectional, queered, feminist approach at their core. Students in average art education classrooms are faced with the problem of learning the “masters” of high art from a young age; they are taught that Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael are the most prodigious contributors to art history. These assertions have been directly challenged by more radical thinking art historians, especially those who pioneered methodologies for analyzing art that circumvented the norm, but there is still a long road ahead for forging a new art historical approach. The combination of semiotics and best education practices molded this analysis into an interdisciplinary examination of how to serve the next generation of creative thinkers.
Educators in art history are dually teaching the subject and how the subject is represented, which is where the role and function of semiotics is so essential to this newly queered process. So how can educators embrace a queered approach in a subject with centuries worth of historical scholarship already established? The more complex answer is that it would require an entire re-examination of Western history and philosophy. Propositions such as these have existed since philosophers like Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida pioneered the concepts of post-structuralism to circumvent the normative confines of history.
Barthes had major contributions about semiotics and post-structuralism. He asserted that meaning was completely contingent on circumstance. The “signifier” represents the language itself as well as the sounds the language makes when spoken. The “signified” is the mental formation established when words are spoken, and together, signifier and signified create a “sign”, the thing that exists in the world (most often, the thing represented, in terms of art). Barthes built upon this theory by suggesting that there are an infinite amount of ways meaning can expand and never cease.
The identification of a sign combined with the symbolism, embodiment, and expression of its meaning comprise the chain of signification, which some radical post-structuralists suggest has no end. In the art history classroom, meaning-making is essential to the study of artworks; however, the most esteemed narratives of this history have been limited to male scholars like Giorgio Vasari and popular survey texts like Gardner and Janson which systematically shut out women artists, artists of color, and gender queer artists, only to include them as a footnote. Instead of regulating the process of meaning-making, I suggest we circumvent the system and create a new curriculum for art education that not only includes but regards all artworks by these minority groups to be fundamental to the history of art.
Nicholas Addison examines the role of art education and identity construction in his research and asks how educators can combat the process of “othering” in a learning space.
“The process of othering is a type of negative identification, a means by which a group of people confirm who they are by asserting what they are not and often by projecting their own perceived faults onto others designated ‘not us’” (Addison).
Educators’ attempts to diversify the classroom may sometimes result in an unintentional “othering” of a group of people. In discussing difference he has urged educators to recognize that “othering is a particularly prevalent tool within the normalizing function of schooling and it is within this process of normalization that the seemingly benevolent othering practices of multicultural celebration and homosocial bonding can turn out to have pernicious effects” (Addison). This is often the case in most art history classrooms. To recognize difference, one must come from a point of view belonging to the self, which has an already established identity, with a certain amount of privilege imbedded within the viewpoint.
“If one accepts the notion that an identity is something constructed rather than something with which a person is born, then identities are less like objects and more like social practices, a series of semiotic processes that have to be negotiated and made visible to function effectively” (Addison).
Thus, to disrupt this practice of “othering” in destructive ways, educators (and their students) must accept the notion that identities are social practices, and then begin to unlearn the semiotic connotations that result from the endless chain of signification. In other words, the whole concept of “othering” becomes inessential when the meaning of identity is questioned altogether. Educators should first educate themselves about issues surrounding women, people of color (POC), LGBTQ individuals, and peoples with disabilities. For an art history educator this means questioning the theories and methods which have come to comprise the scholarship of art.
In his article, “Anything You Can Do: Proposals for Lesbian and Gay Art Education,” Nick Stanley proposes a specific LGBTQ art and design curriculum, developed from a civil rights approach. Stanley calls on feminist art historians’ “reappraisal of dominant modes of art history” to drive the new construction of curriculum centered on LGBTQ and feminist issues and believes that teachers and students must enter into a “compact” in which teachers encourage students to share personal anecdotes and experiences. This practice challenges heteronormative performance and encourages positive conversation about homosexuality. Students will be less inclined to use words like gay, homo, and queer in damaging ways when they realize the origin of the words we use to describe queerness. In addition, introducing these topics early in the course offers ease to students in the classroom who identify under the umbrella term “queer” when they feel like their perspective is being considered and eliminates the need for phrases like “it gets better” as consolidation for suicidal thoughts in LGBTQ youth (particularly in the high school setting).
Individuals like Griselda Pollock and Rozsika Parker developed one of the first diverse, comprehensive analyses of art history by applying feminist theory. Pollock’s proposed analysis from a feminist lens expanded on the work of the 1970s feminist scholar Linda Nochlin and went on to influence later feminist art historians like Norma Broud, Mary Garrard, and Lynda Nead. Pollock remained critical of any and all methods that did not account for women in art, those early scholars like Panofsky, Clark, and Gombrich. She was most interested in the representations of femininity in art, how it is perceived, and dedicated her work to the reification of the women’s movement into the study of art. Similar to many gender scholars, she wrote about how gender is reflected in social settings and how those representations of gender are played out or perpetuated in art. By doing this, she calls on readers to reconsider the “male canon” and relearn the standards by which historians reward artwork and artists themselves with prestige.
Feminist theory refutes a Western depiction of ideal beauty and the female form as “normal” and questions why the nonconformity to the Western aesthetic has garnered negative feedback, “aggressive” or “threatening” or “sublime.” Even if the subject in an artwork is not queer, there is always a place for discussion about how normality is presented in visual culture. Validating all representations gender and sexuality by teaching feminist text can increase all meaning-making possibilities, which is why feminist theorists created a vast departure from the early art historians.
Scholars are continually surprised by the abilities of their students to discuss social justice issues in the classroom. Brianna Burke and Kristina Greenfield state,
“[Students] are much more ready to take on the controversial issues that will dominate their lives than we think. In many ways, this unit plan will be more controversial for the students’ parents and a teacher’s colleagues that it will be for the students themselves.”
This particular observation serves as a direct correlation between the current generations’ acceptance and kindness toward difference and the ease of application in the classroom (Burke). Queered learning forced students to examine their own lives to recognize privilege, and then learn to identify places in the text where the author brings privilege or bias to the writing. It forges dialogue about (heterosexual, white, cisgender, male) privilege where students may not ever receive that information in other classes. This privileged standpoint is prevalent in all types of art writing, including museum texts.
“There is a need for published museum research that considers the ways contextual information (wall labels, catalogues) and docent tour commentaries sustain heterosexual privilege” (Cosier).
Museum research could afford to widen its range of commentary on the artworks, and include more people of color, women, and LGBTQ folks writing the wall tags.
The exposure to queer art in public and private settings alike, gives students an opportunity to understand and participate in social change on a “micro” level. Teachers who introduce art and activism encourage students to get involved in causes they find important, and shape their role as an ally and advocate. Educators who neglect to include diverse subjects do a disservice to their students, but research has found that it is teachers who are the ones hesitant to engage the topics.
Authors Dick Downing and Ruth Watson explore the dimensions of art education in their book, School Art: What’s In It? Exploring Visual Arts in Secondary Schools. Given the massive potential range of artists and art images for teaching, Downing and Watson assert that school art education curriculum is fairly limited. In their research, 54 teachers from 18 schools were interviewed and educators were asked a series of questions regarding the reasoning behind the exclusion of some (artwork) images and not others. The most frequently cited factor affecting the choice of images was participants’ personal preference. In addition, they found that the inclusion of images with “demonstrated skill and form” took precedence over “content and meaning”.
Downing and Watson gathered a variety of materials from the learning institutions, to find that only three of the eighteen schools had provided documentation that expressed a philosophical approach to art teaching, and only one included a policy statement concerning “equal opportunities” and “art and gender.” This evidence suggests that 67% of secondary schools have not set forth a vision statement (or otherwise) that demonstrates their commitment and values to education practices. In a cultural climate where art practitioners are already fighting for the validity of arts education in general, the act of arts education that values queer art seems an impossible and radical idea. The fight for arts education will continue with amendments for queer topics, and the departure from the “masters.”
The future of arts education may be unpredictable at first, while some educators will still impress skill and form on their students, both in practicing and studying art. The cycle will be difficult to interrupt, and as Cindy Foley puts it, “We need to be much more intentional about how we communicate arts’ critical value,” but one could add, “or else art has ceased to maintain its purpose.” A university/secondary school curriculum may be easier to alter to include queer topics, whereas elementary schools’ lessons have a tendency to remain stagnant in their content. The primary notion is to cultivate a classroom environment that appears and feels different and peculiar. After all, “queer” simply means “strange” or curious, but the important of queering the classroom is to cultivate a new worldview and mold the next generation into compassionate scholars.
Bibliography
Bickmore, Kathy. “Why Discuss Sexuality in Elementary School?” Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling, 1999, pp. 15–25.
Burke, Brianna and Greenfield, Christina. “Challenging Heteronormativity: Raising LGBTQ Awareness in a High School English Language Arts Classroom” English Journal, July 2016.
Cosier, Kimberly, and Sanders, James. “Queering Art Teacher Education.” International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 26, no. 1, 2007, pp. 21–30.
Cranton, Patricia. Understanding and promoting transformative learning: a guide for educators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Downing, Dick, and Ruth Watson. School Art: What’s in It?: Exploring Visual Arts in Secondary Schools. Slough: NFER, 2008. Print.
García, Ana María and Slesaransky-Poe, Graciela. “The Heternormative Classroom: Questioning and Liberating Practices.” The Teacher Educator, Arcadia University, 2010, pp. 244–256.
Sieben, Nicole and Wallowitz, Laraine. “Watch What You Teach: A first-Year Teacher Refuses to Play It Safe.” English Journal, vol. 98, no. 4, 2009, pp. 44–49.
Stanley, Nick. “Preface: ‘Anything You Can Do’: Proposals for Lesbian and Gay Art Education.” International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 26, no. 1, 2007, pp. 2–9.
