Domain Poisoning: The Redundancy of Current Models of Assessment through Art

Tom Hardy
{"title":"Domain Poisoning: The Redundancy of Current Models of Assessment through Art","authors":"Tom Hardy","doi":"10.1111/J.1476-8070.2006.00493.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the National Foundation for Educational Research concluding that schools which include Contemporary Art Practice (CAP) in their curriculum add significant value to their students' art experience, [1] and at a time when much of the discussion around contemporary art questions the value of the art object itself, this article addresses the question: how are we to engage students with the contemporary and, at the same time, make value judgments of their own work? \n \n \n \nAnd, while the professional fine art world subscribes increasingly to the ‘rhizomatic’ [2] template of art processes, how do we square this with current assessment criteria which require that students produce work where the preparation and finished product occupy separate domains and rely on ‘procedures and practices that reach back to the nineteenth century’? [3] By way of a postscript to the inconclusive findings of the Eppi-centre art and design review group [4], this article will also address what we have lost in the drive for domain-based assessment and how to regain some of the ground lost since the introduction of Curriculum 2000.","PeriodicalId":296132,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Art and Design Education","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Art and Design Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1476-8070.2006.00493.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

With the National Foundation for Educational Research concluding that schools which include Contemporary Art Practice (CAP) in their curriculum add significant value to their students' art experience, [1] and at a time when much of the discussion around contemporary art questions the value of the art object itself, this article addresses the question: how are we to engage students with the contemporary and, at the same time, make value judgments of their own work? And, while the professional fine art world subscribes increasingly to the ‘rhizomatic’ [2] template of art processes, how do we square this with current assessment criteria which require that students produce work where the preparation and finished product occupy separate domains and rely on ‘procedures and practices that reach back to the nineteenth century’? [3] By way of a postscript to the inconclusive findings of the Eppi-centre art and design review group [4], this article will also address what we have lost in the drive for domain-based assessment and how to regain some of the ground lost since the introduction of Curriculum 2000.
领域中毒:通过艺术评估的当前模型的冗余
美国国家教育研究基金会(National Foundation for Educational Research)得出结论,将当代艺术实践(CAP)纳入课程的学校为学生的艺术体验增加了重要的价值,[1]并且在围绕当代艺术的许多讨论质疑艺术品本身价值的时候,本文解决了这个问题:我们如何让学生参与当代艺术,同时对自己的作品做出价值判断?而且,当专业美术世界越来越多地订阅艺术过程的“根茎”[2]模板时,我们如何将其与当前的评估标准相结合?评估标准要求学生创作的作品在准备和成品占据不同的领域,并依赖于“可以追溯到19世纪的程序和实践”?[3]作为对eppi中心艺术与设计审查小组[4]的不确定结果的后记,本文还将讨论我们在基于领域的评估的驱动中失去了什么,以及如何重新获得自课程2000引入以来失去的一些基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信