Citation

Tavin K. Art Educ. 2014; 67(3): 44-45.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, National Art Education Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In an era that is rife with aggression and hostility, most art educators hold close to their hearts the belief that they, and their students, can contribute to making the world a better place. Through their acts as teachers and the daily work of art education, they often strive toward creating a space of "non-violence." For K-12 teachers, this might be attempted through classroom management strategies, interpreting and making art, cooperative learning practices, and subscribing to the general belief that dialogue and discussion can ameliorate misunderstandings. It seems common sense, then, that art educators (indeed everyone) should work toward potentiality for non-violence, especially through language--through relationships of dialogue and agreement, through working it out by talking. Yet, in this commentary, the author argues that the very tool for mediating non-violence involves unconditional violence. Violence is inherent in language itself, through a human desire to speak, name, and categorize difference, which, in the end, can never be fully articulated in the way "we" desire. Even the most progressive practices of art education may be considered objectively violent when they are understood through symbolic articulation, through the social world of language (codes, rules, and symbolization). According to this author, art education is violent because language fails to live up to "its promise," and because the promise of a subject position through art education can never be fully obtained.

Language: en