Digital learning of art theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28925/2518-766X.2020.5.14Keywords:
digital art didactics; cluster approach; semasiological approach; virtual art class; error laboratory; blended learning.Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to substantiate of the pedagogical design of digital education of future art teachers, in particular, the study of art theory in a virtual art class. The essence of the author’s concept is manifested in the metadialogue (oscillation) of two approaches: cluster (focused on statistical visualization of neural a network of genre-style signs outside the spiritual context, i.e. on the “wealth of art”)
and semasiological (focused on the anthropological interpretation of these genre-style signs as icons, indexes and symbols, i.e. “wealth of understanding of art”). The proposed project is based on the concept of research-oriented professional education (Inquiry Based Science Education) and technology of advanced learning (Technology Enhanced Learning), which provide bachelors with many opportunities to conduct art research as a performance. The organisation of the design environment of the virtual art class involves non-linear scaffolding in the process of remote virtual experiments on the portal Go-Lab (“Search Facility”, “Inquiry Spaces”, “Related Labs” or the link “Online Labs”); GRAASP environment for the implementation of author’s developments and pedagogically structured programs in the process of performative interaction between teacher and students. The systematic thinking and methodology of the proposed project — the methodology of performative action — implements the phenomenological-hermeneutic method of coherent modeling and expert
evaluation of the theory of conceptual integration, connective theory of metaphorical interpretation,the concept of nonlinear epistemology, synthesis, principles of antinomy. The advantage of digital learning in creatively integrated art theory is that in the computer space the student feels unprecedented freedom of creativity and gets unique opportunities for performative action. Thus, the understanding of the causality of historical changes in the theory of art is the result of a performative act, in particular in the laboratory of errors. This requires the introduction of nonlinear logic of functional and meaningful expansion of artistic didactics, implementation of computational visualization technologies, network analysis, thematic intermedia modeling. The visualised results of the study demonstrated the successful integration of performative methodology of cognition as artistic creativity in the process of professional training of future art teachers.
Downloads
References
Bailey, C., Graham, M. (2000). The Corpus and the Art Historian. CIHA London 2000, Thirtieth International Congress of the History of Art, Art History for the Millenium: Time. Section 23, Digital Art History Time, London, 3–8 September 2000 (in English). http://rd.uqam.ca/AHWA/Meetings/2000.CIHA/Bailey.html
Ballon, H., Westermann, M. (2006). Art Studies and Its Publications in the Electronic Age. Houston: Rice University Press, pp. 57–58 (in English).
Beaudoin, J. (2005). Image and Text: A Review of the Literature Concerningthe 4. Information Needs and Research Behaviors of Art Historians. In: Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 24, 2, pp. 34–37 (in English).
Bender, K. (2015). Distant Viewing in Art History, a Case Study of Artistic Productivity. In: International Journal for Digital Art History 1, pp. 100‒110 (in English).
Bishop, C. (2018). Against Digital Art History. In: International Journal for Digital Art History, no. 3 (July 2018) (in English). https://doi.org/10.11588/dah.2018.3.49915
Bresler, L. (Ed.) (2007). International Handbook of Research in Arts Education. Part 1, pp. 7‒30, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer (in English).
Brown, W. (2015).Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books (in English).
Bruzelius, C. (2017). Digital Technologies and New Evidence in Architectural History. In: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 76, no. 4 (December 1, 2017), pp. 436–39 (in English). https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah. 2017.76.4.436
Cassim, F. (2013). Hands On, Hearts On, Minds On: Design Thinking within an Education Context. In: International Journal of Art & Design Education 32, no. 2 (June, 2013), pp. 190–202 (in English).
Gasper-Hulvat, M. (2018). Active Learning in Art History: A Review of Formal Literature. In: Art History Pedagogy & Practice 2, no. 1, pp. 1‒32 (in English).
Kondratska, L. (2016). Theory and Methodology of Teaching Art in the Digital Age. A guide for students of art faculties, Ternopil: TNPU (in Ukrainian).
Liu, A. (2013). The Meaning of the Digital Humanities. In: PMLA 128, Vol. 2, 414 p. (in English).
Manovich, L. (2015). Data Science and Digital Art History. In: International Journal for Digital Art History, vol. 1, pp. 12–35 (in English). http://www.dah-journal.org
Maritain, J. (2018). Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry. Published by Cluny Media, 236 p. (in English).
Martikainen, J. (2017). Making Pictures as a Method of Teaching Art History. In: International Journal of Education & the Arts, no. 19 (April 29, 2017), pp. 1–25 (in English).
Parker, J. (2014). Disciplinarity vs. Creativity? Of design thinking and ‘the metacognitive mind’. In: Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 13, no. 4 (October 1, 2014), pp. 329–36 (in English).
Patkowski, J., Reiner, N. (2013). Inventing Abstraction, Reinventing Our Selves. Material World blog (in English). http://www.materialworldblog.com/2013/02/inventing-abstraction-reinventing-our-selves/2013/2/23
Rintoul, J. David (2017). ‘That Tricky Subject’: The Integration of Contextual Studies in Pre-Degree Art and Design Education. In: International Journal of Art & Design Education 36, no. 2 (June 2017), 215–225 (in English).
de la Rosa, J., Suárez, J.-L. (2015). A Quantitative Approach to Beauty: Perceived Attractiveness of Human Faces in World Painting. In: International Journal for Digital Art History, Vol. 1, pp. 112–29 (in English).
Sienkewicz, J. A. (2016). Against the ‘Coverage’ Mentality: Rethinking Learning Outcomes and the Core Curriculum. In: Art History Pedagogy & Practice 1, no. 1 (in English). http://academicworks.cuny.edu/ahpp/vol1/iss1/5 2016/11/16
Teaching art History with New Technologies: Reflections and Case Studies (2008). Ed. Donahue-Wallace K., La Follette L., Pappas A. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing (in English).
Trish, R. (2002). Technology’s Impact on the Information Seeking Behavior of Art Historians. In: Art Documentation, Vol. 21:2, pp. 35–42 (in English).
Vanada, D. I. (2014). Practically Creative: The Role of Design Thinking as an Improved Paradigm for 21st Century Art Education. In: Techne Series-Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A21, no. 2, pp. 21–33 (in English).
Watson, K., Salter, A. (2016). Playing Art Historian: Teaching 20th Century Art through Alternate Reality Gaming. In: International Journal for Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, Vol. 1, no 1, 100–111 (in English).
Wilson, S. E., Zamberlan, L. (2017). Design Pedagogy for an Unknown Future: A View from the Expanding Field of Design Scholarship and Professional Practice. In: International Journal of Art & Design Education 36, 1 (February 1, 2017), 106‒17 (in English).
Yavelberg, J. A. (2016). Discovering the Pedagogical Paradigm Inherent in Art History Survey Courses, a Delphi Study. Ph. D. George Mason University (in English).
Zorich, D. M. (2012). Transitioning to a Digital World: Art Studies, Its Research Centers, and Digital Scholarship. A Report to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, George Mason University, May 2012 (in English). http://www.kressfoundation.org/news/article.aspx?id=35338