Abstract
Recognising that many art educators are increas-
ingly using the term visual culture, rather than art,
to describe their central concern, the author
examines why this development is taking place,
what visual culture might mean in the context of
art education, and how pedagogy might be
developed forvisual culture. The paper draws on
attempts by both art educators to redefine their
field and others outside art education who are
attempting to define visual culture as an emerg-
ing trans-disciplinary field in its own right.
Introduction
Visual culture has become a hot, new, trans-
disciplinary term, and, as Eisner notes, many art
educators are, in turn, using it to describe their
primary focus [1]. Instead of studying art, they
claim to be studying visual culture. What they
mean by visual culture, however, appears to vary
and is not always entirely clear. Dobbs uses it to
refer to "paintings, drawings, sculptures, architec-
ture, films and so on" [2] while for most of those
who use the term it is the "and so on" that is of
special interest: the sites of contemporary cultural
experience, television. the Internet, malls, video
games, theme park rides, and so on. Freedman
would study "human-made visual influences on
our lives" [3], Tavin would study "popular" and
" other images," [4] while Smith-Shank [5] and Irwin
[6] make visual culture refer to embodied visual
memories. In this paper I will examine why visual
culture has become a focus for such broad inter-
ests, the ways visual culture might be usefully
conceived within art education, and how we
might go about teaching it. In short, I will examine
its rationale, its nature. and its pedagogy; the why,
what and how of Visual Culture Art Education
(VCAE).
Why Visual Culture?
Visual culture is a focal point for many, diverse
concems, but all have in common the recognition
that today, more than at any time in history, we are
living our everyday lives through visual imagery,
what Jameson calls "a whole new culture of the
image" [7]. As a description of our times, the
culture of the image refers to two phenomena: a
whole way of life, or ways of life, that is lived
through imagery, and a particular kind of image
culture. Evans and Hall see visual culture as one
in which the use of images is a major defining
characterístic [8]. They approvingly cite Alphers,
who is usually credited with first using the term
visual culture. Alphers writes, "a visual culture is
a culture in which images, as distinguished from
texts... [are] central to the representation (in the
sense of the formulation of knowledge) of the
world" [9]. According to Mirzeoff ours is a visual
culture because of our "tendency to picture or
visualise experience" ; for him, the visual appears
both as global in scope and as part of ordinary,
everyday life [10].
Ours is not only a visual culture, however, it is a
visual culture with a particular character. Today's
particular image culture is characterised by depth-
less and self-referential images, more concerned
with surface than substance, and more with play
than significance [11]. These so-called postmod-
ern images involve immediate, short and intense
sensations. They are said to refer to each other
rather than anything beyond other images; for
example, magazine advertisements refer to tele-
vision programs that refer to the cinema that refer
to product brands that appear in magazine adver-
tisements. A loop of reference is created that
always tums back upon itself.
Both developments -a visual wayof lifeand a
culture of self-referential, depthless images-
causes much angst among scholars, many of
whom -including Jameson- deplore the ascen-
dency of images over words. They see in what
they regard as the epistemological inadequacy of
images a serious debasement of logical thought
that threatens civil society [12]. Echoing Plato's
distrust of the image, they claim that nothing less
than the future of democracy is at stake. Forthem,
any image culture would be deeply concerning,
but the postmodem culture of depthless images
is deplorable. Not only is there now more imagery
than ever before, not only is imagery tied more
then ever to the economy and inserted into every-
day life, but also imagery itself refers increasingly
to itself rather than anything real. Postmodern
images privilege form over content. signifiers over
signification, surface play over narrative, spectacle
over characterisation and plot. To those suspicious
of visual culture, how can these characteristics be
anything but dangerous?
Alternatively, others see today's visual culture
as offering people a new freedom of expression
involving a knowing willingness to play at their
own games of signification. People are thought
often to resist preferred meanings and to create
their own [13]. People are alsoseen to revel in the
pleasures offered by the formal characteristics of
postmodem imagery. which have long historical
precedence [14]. Thus, these critics argue that
previous manifestations of what today are seen as
contemporary, postmodem characteristics did not
destroy civilisation as we know it, and, furthermore,
gave pleasure and meaning to people, slives. The
implication is that today's indulgence in postmod-
em characteristics is likely to be no more harmful.
Whichever perspective is held, no one appears
to doubt the ascendency of the image. If pictures
have not come to replace words, then at least they
have an unprecedented influence in what we
know about the worfd, and how we think and feel
it, beyond personal experience. According to Kress,
this revolution in communications is forcing us to
rethink "the semiotic landscape ofWestem 'devel-
oped' societies" [15]. This rethinking involves an
attempt to theorise the visual as a form of commu-
nication that applies broadly across disciplines
and social circumstances rather than just a
specialised form of expression and aesthetic
good taste. Visual culture represents an attempt
to theorise the visual as part of a general theory of
communications, not just a specialised activity.
Conceptualising the visual in this way, away from
Art, is necessary given the proliferation of imagery
as part of everyday life. It has also been made
possible because the older, modernist distinction
between high and popular art has eroded at both
the levels of production and reception. During the
modernist period, art educators focused on art
imagery and thereby helped to maintain a clear
separation between high art and popular art [16],
but art educators are now acknowledging that
the separation has broken down. Many artists
draw upon popular references, and the small
audiences who once showed an almost exclu-
sive interest in high art are now more than likely
as not to range freely between high art and popu-
lar art [17]. Whereas once high art provided for its
minority public a frame of reference, a major point
of which was to distinguish it from the popular
rabble, now, increasingly, a reflexive indulgence
in popular pleasures is knowingly sought [18]. For
most people a vast array of images provides both
pleasures and reference points for everyday
living. Thus, at both the levels of production and
reception, the once powerful distinction between
high art and popular art has broken down to be
replaced by constant traffic between the two.
Increasingry it makes more sense to think of high
and popular culture, not as binary opposites, but.
..a much more pluralist -or indeed 'multicultural'-
model of culture.. [19].
Developed economies are increasingly infor-
mation driven or knowledge based, and the
technologies of information are increasingly
visual because for many purposes the visual turns
out to be more efficient than older forms of writ-
ten communication [20)]. Indeed, it always was
[21], Kress and van Leeuwen [22] argue further
that in homogeneous societies, literate commu-
nications are able to dominate because language
does not lend itself to quite the plurality of mean-
ings that images enjoy. Images come into their
own, they argue, in heterogeneous societies
such as our own. For a message to reach the
whole population it has to be adaptable to a vari-
ety of cultural and ideological constructions, and
images meet this demand. Because our's is a
complex, diverse, even divided, society, images
provide a sense of common culture which is alto-
gether more diverse than a literacy-based one.
In a capitalist society the underlying purpose
of communications is, of course, the continued
expansion of consumer markets. Writing of the
logic of capitalism, Jameson says, "Aesthetic
production today has become integrated into
commodity production". [23].
The frantic economic urgency of producing fresh
waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from
clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of
turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential
structural function and purpose to aesthetic inno-
vation and expeninentation. [24]
Herein lies the primary motive for a visual culture
approach to art education. From recognition that
consumer society and civil society are funda-
mentally at odds, with the former emphasing
individualism and the latter emphasising civic
responsibility, comes the need to address how
consumer markets employ images. As Chapman
asks, "Who benefits most when artistic skills are
widely deployed by a few, in ways not critically fath-
omed bythe many?" [25]. Chapman argues that it
is unwise to have students ill-equipped to know
how and why they are seduced by images and a
connection must be made between their study
of imagery and everyday life. Similarly, Tavin
argues that all forms of imagery should be stud-
ied as political texts forthe purpose of developing
critical citizenship in the cause of social recon-
struction [26]. Duncum and Freedman agree that
education in visual culture is underpinned by the
impulse to maintain democratic processes and
institutions [27, 28]. Students, they claim, need a
space in which to become articulate about their
involvement in visual culture. Since much of visual
culture is politically reactionary and anti-social, its
study is seen as a way to counter its negative
effects and to offer the tools for transformative
thinking and action.
What is Visual Culture?
So far I have described visual culture as a descrip-
tion of our times, but what is visual culture when
considered as a field of study with implication for
art education ? In one sense, the term visual
culture is a reworking in contemporary terms of
an earlier art education project described as visual
literacy [29]. This project also sought to broaden
the cannon to involve a wide range of imagery,
but whereas visual literacy focused primarily on
the image as a text, visual culture is concerned
with the contexts of texts, the real, material condi-
tions of image production, distribution and use.
In this sense visual culture has more in common
with another more recent project in critical peda-
gogy and art education called cultural literacy [30].
What is new is that visual culture has attracted
interest well beyond art education, and even crit-
ical pedagogy, to incorporate many disciplines, to
the point where it now constitutes an emerging,
trans-disciplinary field in its own right. There
appear to be three main threads to this emerging
field: a broadened cannon offering a very inclu-
sive list of images and artefacts, a focus on how
we look at images and artefacts and the condi-
tions under which we look, the study of images
within their context as part of social practice. I will
deal with each thread in turn.
The most contentious is the first thread, the
broadened cannon. The key issue is: Just how
broad is the cannon to be? Mitchell was among
the first to deal with this question where he
succinctly summed up the tensions inherent in
developing a working definition of visual culture
by saying that we have both to reckon "with those
parts of culture that lie outside the visual, and
those parts of the visual that lie outside of culture"
[31]. On the one hand visual culture is neverwholly
visual. The term is being used even while some
recognize that it is inadequate to describe actual
cultural experience. Today, more than ever, visual
images are accompanied by otherforms of repre-
sentations that appeal to sensory modes other
than sight [32]. As Chapman says in addressing
theme park rides that rely on sound and kinaesthetic
effects. "The culture of consumerism is not just
visual" [33]. Television and the Intemet, paradigmat-
ically, combine imagery with human gesture and
behaviour, music, sound, and written and spoken
texts. For the New London Group of literacy educa-
tors this recognition has given rise to the term
multiliteracies and an emphasis on mulitmodalities
[34]. They are attempting to grasp what is new
about the interactions of communicative forms
that have traditionally been studied separately.
On the other hand. the field of visual culture is
much broader than either the traditional focus of
art education on art or even to a new art educa-
tion focused on a much-expanded range of
cultural sites. As the new Joumal of Visual Culture
makes clear, the area of visual culture includes
many areas that are of a primarily scientific nature
and, at best, of marginal interest to art educators;
for example, dreaming, blindness, the micro-
scopic, cartographies, and topographies [35].
How are we to discriminate? Clearly, not every-
thing visual could conceivably entertain art
educators. A very wide range of imagery does not
mean all imagery. For this reason the following
two definitions from introductory texts on visual
culture appear too broad.
...those material artefacts, buildings and images,
plus time-based media and performances,
produced by human labour and imagination,
which serve aesthetic, symbolic, ritualistic, or
ideological-political ends, and/or practical func-
tions, and which address the senses of sight to a
significant extent ...[36]
anything visual produced; interpreted or created
by humans which has, or is given, functional,
communicative and/or aesthetic intent [37]
My hesitation to accept these definitions lies in
their inclusion of images whose sole purpose is
functional. Brook helps clarify what is of interest
to us, and what is not in his description of culture
generally [38]. He dismisses the idea that we are
interested in just any visual communications, in,
for example, road markings because while they
are meant to communicate they do not, at least
as they are intended and are normally used, repre-
sentative of anything. We are interested in what
is "symbolic and communicative, and not just
mechanically effective" [39]. He writes,
Perhaps culture is second order communicative
artifacture, in which communication floats on
represention: the production of artifacts whose
prime signficance is to be about something else.
So a drawing of a landscape might not be a
cultural product if its purpose is, let's say, wholly
and solely to guide us to the spot," but it becomes
a cultural products as soon as it guides our
thoughts about how; and in whose interest, the
wildemess has become a garden. [40]
Thus, if the word functional is dropped from the
above definitions, I believe they can stand as defi-
nitions of visual culture that are of interest to art
educators. When images act only in a functional
way they are of interest to design educators but
not art educators. As soon as they are viewed as
representational, however, they become part of
our purview. As already noted, observers of post-
modern visual sites often complain that images
today refer to nothing other than other visual
images [41], but, crucial for the definition of what
interests us, such images do represent even if it
is only other images.
The second strand of visual culture as a field is
what some call uvisuality: the process of attribut-
ing meaning to what we see [42]. For Mitchell [43]
attributing meaning involves the various ways we
look, gaze, observe, survey and take visual plea-
sure. To this, Walker and Chapin add glancing and
voyeurism [44]. Much of the debate among
cultural observers involves the different kinds of
looking that are characteristic of modern and
postmodern cultural sites/sights: prolonged
gazing at depthful images versus quickly glanc-
ing at depthless images. Visuality also involves
the conditions under which we are allowed to
look and underwhich conditions looking is forbid-
den or variously regulated. We attempt to prevent
children from looking at images of violence and
sex for example, and many religions have strict
rules about whom, when, and where people can
view sacred artefacts.
The third major strand of visual culture as a
field of study is a concentration on images as
social practice rather than just textual analysis.
This, in turn, involves three dimensions: people's
lived experience and their subjectivities, socio-
economic issues, and the history of image
production and reception. Williams' term for this
enterprise, cultural materialism, captures the
attempt to study images as part of the actual lived
conditions in which they are produced and used
[45]. The aim here is to understand images in
terms of people's actual social relationships, as
they attempt to make sense of the materials at
hand, often squaring impossible circles. This is
culture as "sensible practice" [46]. The emphasis
is on the wide range of meanings people make of
images, as they not only accept preferred mean-
ings but also resist and negotiate meaning. It
involves understanding images in terms of how
they are slipped into people's daily rituals, rather
than as self-contained texts. Meaning is not
simply read off the images themselves.
Understanding images as social practice
equally involves seeing images as part of power
struggles between opposing social groups.
Barnard, for example, sees visual culture as a
tactic or strategy in the multiple ways in which
power is exercised, which today is principally
through the institutions of government and
corporate capitalism [47]. A concentration on
contemporary images, however, does not mean
discounting the history of imagery. Indeed, an
essential context for contemporary images is the
history of images because contemporary images
often have more to do with longstanding conven-
tions of representation than they do to today's
realities. The history of visuality is not the same as
the history of art however. Alphers distinguishes
between visual culture history and art history [48].
She studied the way 17th century Dutch looked at
the world -their scopic regime- through, among
other means, their painting. Traditional art historians
work in the opposite direction. They begin with the
physical fact of the artworks and connect them to
their cultural context. To illustrate further, Mirzeoff
develops a very different history to that of art to
understand contemporary science fiction films; it is
a history that involves psychoanalytical interpreta-
tions of the gaze and fetishism he claims is inherent
in 19th century photographs of African natives [49].
In analysing the aliens in such films he does not
draw upon the history of the fantastic in art, but the
tendencyto make "other" people of different races.
In summary, visual culture involves three
strands that are of interest to us as art educators:
a greatly expanded but not all inclusive range of
imagery; visuality; and the social contexts of
imagery including histories of imagery.
How Should Visual Culture be Studied?
What would VCAE be like? Space prevents more
than an outline of principles, and it is important to
signpost the provisional nature of these princi-
ples. As Kress says of the shift towards visual
culture, "the implications. ..have not in any sense
begun to be drawn out or assessed in any coher-
ent, overt, full and consistent fashion" [50].
However, between two undergraduate texts on
visual culture [51] and two anthologies of read-
ings [52] there is some general consensus that
the study of visual culture should follow the char-
acteristics and content of the field as a whole.
These include not only a much-broadened canon
of artifacts but also the study of the institutions of
production and distributionas well as the subjec-
tivities of the viewing audjence. It should be
focused on the contexts of texts as much as the
texts themselves, which means moving beyond
semiotic readings to include both the phenome-
nology of people's lived experiences -the
meaning of imagery as part of people's daily rituals
-and institutionalised frameworks- the socio-
economic and political functions of imagery. As
Bolin writes, with reference to the associated field
of material culture studies, questions need to be
raised not only about the artifacts but "also about
those who make, use, respond to, and preserve
the artifact" [53]. This includes, as Bracey argues in
relation to art, the institutional practices that help form
the discourse of artefacts [54]. The institutional prac-
tices of visual culture are much more diverse than
the artworld, however: Aconsideration of television,
for example, should include the phenomenological
experience of watching television but also who
owns television networks, what else they own,
how television operates financially, how program-
mers operate within government regulations,
how programmers survey their audiences and
how they deal with public criticism? Context
also includes the social nature of reception.
Buckingham and Sefton-Green demonstrate that
adolescents make sense of imagery not as isolated
individuals but as part of the social interaction of
everyday chit chat [55]. Furthermore, a focus on
contemporary cultural sites would be contextu-
alised by the critical perspective offered by
comparing past and present visual culture. Thus.
VCAE would go beyond visual texts to their vari-
ous contexts -phenomenological, institutional,
and historical.
Second, VCAE should be based on both the
making and appraisal of images. While the impe-
tus for studying visual culture is to develop critical
consciousness and transformative action, VCAE
would not abandon the traditional emphasis of art
education on making imagery. Through making
images students learn about visual culture as a
practitioner; they acquire insight into the thinking
process of the salaried and outsourced profes-
sionals who construct the images of corporate
capitalism. I put the issue this way to make the point
that, while making images in a visual culture curricu-
lum remains important, it would not be the same as
it exits in most art classes now. Professional institu-
tionalized art today often involves an experimental
investigation into the intricacies of the self and
deeply private experience, and art in schools some-
times follows this model. Making images in VCAE,
by contrast, would allow students to discover their
own personal positions in relation to questions and
issues specifically of cultural experience rather than
anything in which students might be interested. It
would involve issues such as the demography of
audiences, media ownership, and the reproduction
of society through stereotypical representation. It
would assist students to understand the construc-
tion of their own subjectivities by visual culture and
how they can reconstruct themselves through
imagery. Thus image making and critique would
continue to go hand in hand. the one supporting the
other, where critique is used to focus making and
making infonns critique.
Third, a curriculum should be organised
around central questions rather than reproducing
the study of separate media [56]. We need to
avoid the art school model of curriculum which
consists of painting, sculpture, textiles and so on,
and of media studies where the curriculum is
similarly organised around television, video and
so forth. Instead. VCAE should arise from the
questions it asks and the issues it seeks to
address. VCAE should be based on the broad
questions we ask ourselves as a society; how, for
example, do we represent race, class, gender, and
unequal power, as well as what we leave unrep-
resented and why? Questions should address
both the imagery itself and their contexts. includ-
ing ways of viewing. Examples of questions
include those posed by Dartey about new media :
What, specifically, do concepts such as simula-
tion, hyperrealism, pastiche, interaction, and
immersion designate? How do they manifest
themselves in cultural practices? What are the
implications with respect to questions of aesthet-
ics and spectatorship? What is the significance of
the changes that are involved and how are we to
makesense ofthem? [57]
For example, how are we to understand the
nuances of aesthetic experience between, say,
shoot-em-up computer games, simulation rides,
and blockbuster, eye-candy Hollywood films?
How do we compare the slow languid investiga-
tion of a painting with the intensity of these
postmodern experiences? If. as many claim, this
is a typically postmodern phenomenon, what
does this say about what is happening in society
more broadly?
Fourth, we need to acknowledge that increas-
ingly there are generational differences in the way
cultural sites are experienced. To many people of
a certain age the characteristics of contemporary
culture sites mentioned above are an anathema.
They see these sites as representing a dumbing
down of cultural experience and a shift from
natural and authentic experience to the artificial
and inauthentic. These sites are said to deny or
even to destroy our basic humanity. However, the
history of new technologies is one of gradual
naturalisation, so that we have to accept that
what is unnatural for one generation, is not neces-
sarily unnatural for another. What begins as an
intrusion into daily life comes to be accepted as
the natural backdrop to daily activity. The Internet,
still a confounding new technology for many, is
for many youngsters quite ordinary because they
have never lived without it. What for teachers
remains perplexing, for youngsters forms the
basis of their references for living [58].
For this reason -and this is the fifth point-
visual culture should be taught through a dialogi-
cal pedagogy. Students have a lot to teach their
teachers about new and emerging cultural sites.
About the details of particular sites they often
know more and learn faster than their teachers.
Buckingham and Sefton-Green (1994) argue that
in this context teaching needs to be conducted
through dialogue between student knowledge
and teacher knowledge. They describe how for
decades media studies in Britain was taught
through a transmission model whereby students
leamed how to pass tests by regurgitating the
language of media studies but failed to transfertheir
lessons to their everyday lives. Thus we would want
to avoid visual culture becoming just another acad-
emic subject. another form of cultural capital that
served the distinction between the haves and the
have-nots. It should not be seen as "Leaming to 'talk
posh' -as our students would say- about things
that everybody else just talks of normally" [58].
Rather, while validating students, lived experience,
education needs to reframe that experience in light
of historical precedents and theory.
Conclusion
I believe the reconceptualisation and reconstruc-
tion of art education is urgent. The image genie
long ago escaped from the bottle of the artworld,
and it has spread across the entire planet and
permeated everywhere. While change to our prac-
tices will not be as rapid as the issue demand, we
can do two things immediately. We can take up
visual culture as an urgent matter to consider and
we can begin the process of changing our prac-
tices, one contemporary cultural site at a time. By
reading just one book on one contemporary
cultural site and working out ways to deal with it in
the classroom, the proces begins.
References
1. Eisner. E. [2001] Competing conceptions of art
education: Just where do we stand? Paper
presented at the National Art Education
Associate Conference, New York.
2. Dobbs, S [1998].A guide to discipline-based
art education: Learning in and through art. Los
Angeles. The Getty Education Institute ofthe
Arts, p. 9.
3. Freedman. K. [2001] 'Context as part of visual
culture.' Journal of Multicultural and Cross-
Cultural Research in Art Education. Vol. 18. p. 41.
4. Tavin. K. [2001] 'Swimming up-stream in the
jean pool: Developing a pedagogytowards criti-
cal citizenship in visual culture.' Journal of Social
Theory in Art Education. Vol. 21. p.153.
5. Smith Shank, D. L. [1999/2000] 'Mirror, mirror
on the wall: Searching forthe semiotic self.'
Art and Learning Research Journal. Vol.16,
pp.93-96.
6. Irwin, R. [1999/2000] 'Facing oneself:
An embodied pedagogy.' Art and Learning
Research Joumal. Vol.16, pp. 82-86.
7. Jameson, F. [1984] .Postmodernism, or the
culturallogic of capitalism.' New Left Review.
No.146, p. 584.
8. Evans, J., & Hall, S. [1999] 'What is visual
culture? in Evans. J., & Hall, S (Eds.) Visual
culture: A reader. London: Sage. pp. 1-8
9. ibid, p. 3.
10. Mirzeoff, N [1999]An introduction to visual
culture. London, Routledge. p. 3.
11. Darley. A. [2000] Visual digital culture:
Surface play and spectacle in new media genre .
London: Routledge.
12. For example. Baudrillard. J. [1987] The evil
demon of images. Sydney: Power Institute of
Fine Arts.
13. Fiske,J. [1994] Television culture. London:
Routledge
14. Darley, op cit He argues that in their formal
characteristics of non-narrative spectacle,
of immediate, short, and intense sensation,
they share much with the dioramas and
phantasmagoria of the late 1700s and 1800s.
15. Kress, G [2000] Mulitmodality in Cope, B.,
& Kalantiz, K. (Eds.) Mulitliteracies: Literacy
learning and the design of social futures.
pp.182-202 Melboume: Macmillan, p.182
16. For example Kaufman, I. [1966]
Art education in contemporary culture.
NewYork Macmillan
17. Featherstone, M. [1991] Consumer Culture
and Postmodemism. London Sage.
18. Darley op cit.
19. Buckingham, D. & Sefton-Green, J. [1994]
Cultural studies goes to school: Reading and
teaching popular media. London: Taylor & Francis, p.214.
20. Kress, op cit.
21. Ivins, W. M. [1953] Prints and visual
communication. Cambridge MIT press.
22. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen [1996] Reading
images: The grammar of visual design.
London: Routledge
23. Jameson, op cit. P.56.
24. ibid p.57.
25. Chapman, L. H. [2000] Notes: Arts of
aesthetic persuasion in contemporary life.
Paper presented at the National Art Education
Association Conference, Lost Angeles, p.1.
26. Tavin, op cit.
27. Duncum, P.[2001] "How are we to under-
stand art at the beginning of the twenty-first
century." In Duncum, P. & Bracey, T (Eds.), On
knowing Art and visual culture.Christchurch,
Canterbury University Press. pp. 15-32.
28. Freedman, K. [2001] How are we to
understand art?: Aesthetics and the problem of
meaning in curriculum. In Duncum, P. & Bracey,
T (Eds.), On knowing Art and visual culture.
Christchurch, Canterbury University Press.
pp. 34-46
29. For a review see Borhton, D. [1986] Visual
literacy: Implications for cultural understanding
through art education. Journal of Art and Design
Education, Vol 5 nos.1-2, pp.125-142
30. For a review see Duncum, P [1991] "Varieties
of cultural literacy art education." Canadian
Review of Art Education Research, Vol 18, no2,
pp. 45-59.
31. Mitchell, W. J. T. [1995] "What is visual
culture?" in Levin, I. (Ed.), Meaning in the visual
arts: Views from the outside. pp. 207-217.
Princeton, Institute for Advanced Study, p. 208.
32. Mirzeoff, op cit.
33. Chapman, op cit, p. 6.
34. Cope & Kalantiz, opcit.
35. This comment derives from advance public-
ity. The Journal of Visual Culture is published by
Sage, and the first issue is due out in April 2002.
36. Walker, J. A. & Chaplin, S. [1997] Visual
culture: An introduction. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, pp. 1-2.
37. Barnard, M.[1998] Art, design and visual
culture: An introduction. London: Macmillan,
p. 18.
38. Brook, D. [1983/1984] Reflections on the
state of art: The art of state. Artlink, Vol 39,
No 6, pp. 2-3.
39. ibid, p.2
40. ibid, p.2
41. Darley, op cit.
42. Jenks, C. (Ed.) [1995] Visual Culture.
London: Routledge.
43. Mitchell, op cit.
44. Walker & Chaplin, op cit.
45. Williams, R. [1981] Culture. London:
Fontana.
46. Slater, D. [1997] Consumer culture and
modernity. London, Polity Press, p. 164
47. Barnard, op cit.
48. Evans & Hall, op cit.
49. Mirzeoff, op cit.
50. Kress, op cit, p. 182
51. Barnard, op cit; and Walker & Chaplin, op cit.
52. Evens & Hall, op cit. and Jenks, op cit.
53. Bolin, P. [1992/1993] Artifacts, spaces, and
history: Art education and material culture
studies. Arts and Learning Research,
Vol 19, no1, p.154
54. Bracey, T. [2001] "What does it mean to
know art? An institutional account", in Duncum,
P., & Bracey, T. (Eds.), On knowing: Art and visual
Culture. Christchurch, Canterbury University
Press pp. 47-65
55. Buckingham & Sefton-Green, op cit.
56. Mitchell, op cit.
57. Darley, op cit, pp. 76-77
58. Thomas, A. [2001] "Cyber children:
Discursive and subjective practices in the
Palace." disClosure: A Journal of Social Theory,
No 10, pp 143-175
59 Buckingham & Sefton-Green, op cit.
60. ibid, p. 212
|