Art Criticism

The two articles by Tom Anderson relate to each other in terms of evaluating and critiquing art.  Two aspects of art that must be considered in a critique of the work are intellectual meaning and aesthetic qualities.  The article Talking with Kids About Art stresses the concept that a critique must take place in specific steps, including description, interpretation, and evaluation.  This idea can directly be related to Bloom's Taxonomy, which breaks down the process of thinking, beginning at knowledge and ending at evaluation.  Both of these pyramid-style theories stem from the idea of using prior knowledge gained in previous stages to help develop a better understanding to make a better evaluation.  The second article, Aesthetics as Critical Inquiry, dives deeper in encouraging students to ask questions and think through them using their knowledge about art.  Anderson states that students must have their own ideas about what art is before they can begin to critique it.  These ideas can be useful in a classroom where students help improve each others' art and discuss why certain elements may or may not work.  Students are also required to back up their statements with concrete explanations or examples.  This strategy of having students work through their own questions and thoughts helps promote critical thinking and skills that are important for any classroom environment.

Interpreting and Making Art

Terry Barrett's book Interpreting Art:  Reflecting, Wondering, and Responding has some great insight into the world of both art critics and everyday people who look at art.  Much of the first chapter describes what it means to interpret a piece of art, claiming that is what makes it meaningful to different people, perhaps even different to the audience than the artist himself.  After various extensive analyses of The Postcard by Rene Margritte, I thought it was interesting that a quote was included by the artist who said himself that he strives for his paintings to promote curiosity, and that "people who look for symbolic meanings fail to grasp the inherent poetry and mystery of the image..." (p. 14).  Barrett tells us that even though the viewer's interpretation may differ from the artist's, it does not make anyone wrong.  I thought this was an interesting concept, because sometimes a work is made for a particular reason or with a certain value in mind, yet Barrett supports the idea that everyone's informed opinions or interpretations are allowed (though some are better than others, p. 225).  I feel that the book is claiming that a work of art only comes alive when it is displayed for others to interpret, however I also believe art can have meaning for the artist himself during the making of the piece, and even if no one else sees it, does Barrett believe no meaning exists? I wonder about this implication.
While Interpreting Art discusses analyses of specific works, Barrett's article "Approaches to Postmodern Artmaking" and Gude's article "Principles of Possibility" relate to ideas of actually making art.  Both articles begin by addressing some sort of breaking free; in Barrett's case it is designing pieces outside the confinements of an interior art gallery, while Gude discusses the need to break away from the national art education standards in order to create a stimulating curriculum.  Barrett's article describes modernist art as focusing on an "aesthetic experience" as opposed to conceptual thought, and similarly, Gude says modernism supports the use of standard elements and principles are no longer the only components to make exciting art or a successful curriculum.  Gude then directs her article towards the importance of play and allowing students to have a part in the development of a curriculum.  Gude mentions how the Surrealist games promote the emergence of students' imagination.  This article addresses many important factors and global themes that could potentially enrich an art education curriculum, including multicultural studies, social issues such as pollution, and the environment.  This article is valuable as Gude seems to be in favor of incorporating postmodern artistic practices into the classroom and moving forward, expanding upon more traditional exercises.

Games and Values

Most games in today's society seem to fall into the typical mainstream category of having "family values."  The two assigned articles discuss the creative thinking that occurs in creating a game specifically moving away from this mainstream idea and deliberately focusing on moral, social, and political issues.  "Grow-A-Game" does this by assigning its participants a variety of categories, a type of game to mimic, and a value to consider.  This is called the "values conscious" approach to designing a game with all elements involved.  Both articles state that even mainstream games portray values, some may not be as prominent or they may not have been intended at all, although they are still there.  "Grow-A-Game" forces participants to focus on these values and use them in their design.  This type of creative process can be used for a variety of age groups, both students and professional designers alike.

I have not given much thought to the values that are either emphasized (or not) in games.  I now appreciate how these values can be used to start new creative thinking and problem solving that relates to real issues, outside of those "family values."  I believe this sort of activity would be a great addition to an art class's curriculum.  It would give students a chance to explore a topic and educate others about aspects of their topic while integrating values at the same time.  A group working on one game also stimulates collaboration of ideas and problem solving that may prove to be a richer experience that working alone.