Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
It has been several years since I read this, and it seems even more true today than when I first read it. The description of the ways that the lines between the author and the public are blurred and, in his words, "about to lose its basic characer" is so appropriate for today.
What do we as educators do when our power (our being people with sanctioned knowledge) to inform is completely dismantled? I see this as a positive move in education. However, it is not without its problems. What will happen when our students make a wiki page or a podcast and it has incorrect information? Obviously, most things are open to interpretation, but what about when it is patently wrong - ie they say that Guernica was painted in 1972.
How does the availability of the Web 2.0 and various read/write technologies of the web affect how we teach and what we encourage students to do? How do we , as educators, monitor (or really police?) what our students make public?
Comments
I feel that this has been an on-going problem that comes up with any new sort of communication device. And sometimes I think that it comes down to having to taking the good with the bad. However I feel that as art educators we are maybe able to communicate with students the power that they have with their communication and this may lead into the importance of posting or distributing accurate information
Posted by: Sasha | February 7, 2007 4:28 PM
We have to be willing to let our students make mistakes don't we? If they post incorrect information, then their peers or other webusers will let them know won't they? It seems that if we allow our students space to mess up, then we have to accept that not all the information they put out there will be 100% accurate but that is part of the learning and writing process isn't it?
Posted by: k80 | February 11, 2007 12:34 PM
This is such an interesting issue. My father is in Russia now and recently mentioned in an email that they were at a Russian history museum. The museum was of contemporary history and the perspectives presented by the museum were vastly different than what would be presented in a museum in the U.S. I think it was easier to have accurate information when we had fewer interactions with other people and other countries. It is harder now to know what constitutes accurate. With all the information available to us, how do we know what to believe and why? How can we help students come to resolve conflicting interpretations of artworks? Shoudl be act as if conflicts about interpretations are normal, are problematic, are healthy, etc?
Posted by: Melanie | February 12, 2007 1:45 PM
This is such an interesting issue. My father is in Russia now and recently mentioned in an email that they were at a Russian history museum. The museum was of contemporary history and the perspectives presented by the museum were vastly different than what would be presented in a museum in the U.S. I think it was easier to have accurate information when we had fewer interactions with other people and other countries. It is harder now to know what constitutes accurate. With all the information available to us, how do we know what to believe and why? How can we help students come to resolve conflicting interpretations of artworks? Shoudl be act as if conflicts about interpretations are normal, are problematic, are healthy, etc?
Posted by: Melanie | February 12, 2007 1:46 PM
I think conflict is totally normal and that we are greatly able to affect student's abilities to use flexible thinking and critical analysis by facing some of these issues in the classroom. We do need to know which sources are reliable and which are not. The fact that incorrect information is out there and readily available means that we have to be critical consumers of that information just as we have to be critical consumers of all the products we use and buy. It presents an excellent opportunity to bring up some of these issues in the classroom I think.
Posted by: k80 | February 13, 2007 12:54 PM