ABSTRACT. Jacques Rancière articulates three different regimes of cultural activity. Art production belongs to all three regimes, but only the third regime is aesthetic. Rancière’s conception of his aesthetic regime springs from the 18th century philosophy of Friedrich Schiller. Schiller’s thought also provided the initial philosophical justification for the rise of Art Education in the curriculum of public schools. Thus, Rancière’s thought adds to a continuing historical debate over how Art Education contributes to learning and the outcomes of public education by posing the question of how aesthetic education is different from the teaching of art. Although Rancière personally resists constructing educational applications from his philosophy, there are three ideas through which Art Educators might reflect on their practice: dissensus, rupture/erasure, and teaching as not knowing. These three ideas also provide an analytic lens that reveals educational partitions, conceptually legislated by the United States’ new National Core Visual Arts Standards, as well as opportunities within the context of these Standards for more democratic engagement through Art Education. pp. 61–80

Keywords: visual arts; theory practice relationship; Art Education; educational philosophy; aesthetics; national standards

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Northern Illinois University

Home | About Us | Events | Our Team | Contributors | Peer Reviewers | Editing Services | Books | Contact | Online Access

© 2009 Addleton Academic Publishers. All Rights Reserved.

Joomla templates by Joomlashine