Talk:Visual arts education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Art education)
Jump to: navigation, search

Link Moved[edit]

Moving link from Art article. I didn't find an already-existing Art Education article so I made a stub. --sparkit (talk) 05:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Arts" or "Art"?[edit]

Shouldn't this article be called 'visual art education'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Arts" education is a catch-all term, used for better or worse to mean all disciplines usually considered to be artistic (dance, music, literature, visual art), and usually in a school setting. "Art" education in the vernacular generally means education in the visual arts (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.) without reference to the other arts. It's not clear which application this author intends, as the wording implies both at different times. 00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)-- 00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is the aim of art education or rather what is it's objective as a field of study? This has certianly changed over time and one could argue that while Arthur Dow (1908) would explain it is "the education of the whole people for appreciation" others today would likely diagree with this notion. What are we talking about here?

Proposed move of article[edit]

To Art education in the United States. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. Art Education exists worldwide, and as a subject should consider all applications of it, not just those in the United States. (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


I gave it a shot. Removed the following passage of original research, which was restored with cite tags soon thereafter:

  • In many studies it has been found that technology facilitates and promotes learning, from special education classrooms to vocational schools. However, many school districts are lagging behind in this area within the Fine Arts Program, specifically the Visual Arts. Many teachers have proposed the implementation and integration of technology within the visual arts curriculum (K-12), not just through the use of technology equipment such as smart boards, ipads, computers, drawing tablets, digital photography, video and similar media but by teaching courses such as animation, graphic design, game and character design, fashion design illustration, advertising design and illustration, etc. The main goal being to improve student retention, offer new skills to our students, and advance their technological knowledge which in turn might entice them to pursue their college education within the visual arts. Most educators feel the need to continue integrating the art curriculum with core subjects and create innovative classroom solutions to attract, motivate and support the new Common Core Standards being implemented in many states.

The passage includes In many studies it has been found , many school districts are lagging behind, Many teachers have proposed, offer new skills to our students, and advance their technological knowledge and Most educators feel. Ostensibly it sets up the cited passages that follow, but with or without tags, this is editorial commentary constructed on weasel words, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic entry. More eyes appreciated. JNW (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I did the restore adding the cite tag & template. Our readers are now alerted that this paragraph has issues. WP:AGF suggests any ediotor concerned about the lack of citations, go back through and ask the editors who worked on this paragraph to add citations. If that fails to to make a decent effort to find some yourself (a few hours? - it's a broad area). Lentower (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest otherwise--it's so poor an addition that it falls to the restorer of the content--you--to find relevant references. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source, a basic tenet at WP:UNSOURCED, which takes precedence over the assumption of good faith. We do not publish unsourced commentary, or even what we might assume is a synthesis of unsourced references. JNW (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I call total BS. It's terribly, terribly written; I can't make heads or tails of it. Yes, it's unsourced, and it also contains weasel words and seems totally soapboxy. I removed it. I'm not going to spend "a few hours" sourcing some poorly written jibber-jabber, even though I'll assume the good faith of whoever put it in there first. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
That was sort of the tip of the iceberg. There was much more unsourced commentary throughout the article, mostly advocating for increased art education. Well, yes, but we don't use Wikipedia articles as soapboxes. JNW (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit [1], which has stood for several years, appears to be self-sourced. It was added by an L Taylor, and includes primarily content from their discussion with an educator whose notability is not established. It's not clear that the interview was published anywhere. Any thoughts on whether this be retained? JNW (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────WP:UNSOURCED also states: Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.. Which is what I did. It's very clear to me what this text is saying, though I agree it has WP:Weasel words. I restored a version of the text without them and considerable shortened, with the citation needed tag. Lentower (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus that I see above is:

  • the weasel words need to be removed;
  • the writing needs to be cleaned up;
  • the text needs to be moved towards WP:NPOV;
  • citations need to be found.

The paragraph currently reads (and has progress to all four points of this consensus):

  • Technology facilitates and promotes learning. There are school districts that are lagging behind in using technology for Arts Education. It's been proposed that the visual arts curriculum (K-12), be extended beyond just using technology (such as computers, tablets, digital photography, and video) to teaching skills (such as animation, graphic design, game design, fashion & advertising design). There is also a need to continue to integrate the arts curriculum into core subjects.[citation needed]

Lentower (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

    • Lentower, while this version addresses several of the concerns, it also underscores the the text's core emptiness; without sources the claims are rather meaningless. It's a textbook example of why references need to be established at the outset. Lacking cites, this is still unsourced commentary, an issue that was prevalent throughout the article, which you recognized when you added cite tags in the past. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Article quality and lack of reliable sources[edit]

That the article is poorly written and sourced becomes clear by comparison to this website [2], a chronological overview of art education assembled by graduate students. It's good, and offers an example of where this article can be directed, though content published by recognized scholars would be better. JNW (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Slightly Short[edit]

The article is short, and I feel that they should also put in the other forms of art under the same article, and put it back to just Art Education in order to make the article longer. (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)@2015 Oct 21

"Cultural appropriation within the classroom" bit.[edit]

I was wondering, as this bit comes out of the blue, if there is really need of that "cultural appropriation within the classroom". It makes this whole article euro/western-centric, like art education works in the west and elsewhere art just happens and is funneled into the west. (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)