Art & Media Studies

Critique of Several Approaches to Art Education with Emphasis on Deleuze’s Value Perspective

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Student in Philosophy of Education, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor of Philosophy of Education, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to critique the existing approaches to art education with an emphasis on Deleuze’s value perspective. The research method is critical analysis. There are various approaches to art education that, according to Deleuze’s approach, have been criticized, including the traditional approach, the production-oriented approach, the approach of receiving emotion and meaning, the approach of cultivating superior intellectual origins, the aesthetic knowledge approach, and the discipline art education approach. Based on Deleuze’s approach and his activist vision, there are criticisms of each of these approaches to art education. The results of the study indicate that Deleuze’s attitude is an intermediate and comprehensive approach to art education. Deleuze relates art education to moral virtues and offers a rhizomatic and transversal approach to art education. The results indicate that Deleuze’s value-oriented approach has important points for art education, such as changing the media role of art by relying on the transition from representation to representation and the transition from art as a conduit and transmission of facts to influence. It is investing and activism.

Keywords

Bamford, A. and Wimmer, M., (2012), “The role of arts education in enhancing school attractiveness: a literature review”, European Expert Network on Culture (EENC), Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.eenc.info/wp.
Bissola, R. and Biff, Alferdo, (2016), “A rhizomatic learning process to create collective knowledge in entrepreneurship education: innovation beyond boundaries”, Management Learning, pp.1-21, http://ow.ly/GNhn309Xzr4.
Broudy, H. S., (1967), Building Aphilosophy of Education, R.E. Kriger publishing company.
Colman, F., (2005), “Rhizome”, Deleuze Dictionary, ed. Adrian Parr, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cronje, J. C., (2018), “Learning 3.0: rhizomatic implication for blended learning”, Educational Technology to Improve Quality and Access on a Global Scale, eds. Kay A. Persichitte, Atwi Suparman and Michael Spector, Berlin: Springer.
Deleuze, Gilles, (1983), Cinema 1: The Movement-Image, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, Gilles, (1991), Bergsonism, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles, (1992). “Postscript on the Societies of Control”, The MIT Press, vol.59. pp.3-7.
Deleuz, Gilles, (1998), Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, trans. Robert Hurley, San Francisco: City Lights Books.
Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix, (1977), A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix, (1994), What is philosophy?, trans.Hugh Tomlinson and Graham burchell, New York: Columbia University Press.
Dobbs, Stephen Mark, (2004), “Discipline-based art education”, HandBook of Research and Policy in Art Education, ed. Elliot W. Eisner and Michael D. Day, London: Erlbaum associates.
Eisner, Elliot, (2002), The Art and the Creation of Mind, London: Yale University Press.
Fleming, David H., (2016), “Affective teaching for effective learning: a deleuzian pedagogy for the (corporate era and) chinese context”, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(10), pp.1160-1173.
Judith, Wambacq and Tuinen, Sjoerd, (2017), “Interiority in Deleuze and Sloterdijk”, Palgrave Communications, vol.3, pp.1-7.
Jun, Nathan and Smith, Daniel W., (2011), Deleuze and Ethics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Laruelle, Francois, (2011), Philosophies of Difference: A Critical Introduction to Non-philosophy, New York: Continuum.
Laurie, Timothy and Stark, Hannah, (2017), “Love’s lessons: intimacy, pedagogy and political community”, Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 22(4), pp.69-79.
McMahan, A.; Klopper, C. and Power, B., (2015). “Excellence in arts based education-One school’s story”, International Journal of Eduation & the Arts, 16(5). Retrieved from http: //www.ijea.org/V1n5/.
Robinson, K., (2000), Arts Education’s Place in a Knowledge-Based Global Economy, Available at: Learning and Arts: Crossing Boundaries/Proceedings From an Invitational Meeting for Education, Arts and Youth Funders Held January.
Santaniello, Weaver, (2001), Nietzsche and God United States, New York: University of New York Press.
Semetsky, I., (2007), “Towards a semiotic theory of learning: Deleuze’s philosophy and educational experience”, Semiotica, no.164, pp.197-214.
Sommer, Andreas and Ansell Pearson, Keith, (2006), Nihilism and Skepticism in Nietzsche, Published Online: 10 DEC2007. Retrived November 2014, from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/9780470751374.ch14/summary.
Vartabedian, Becky, (2018), Multiplicity and Ontology in Deleuze and Badiou, Springer International Publishing, Palgrave Macmillan US.
Art & Media Studies
Volume 2, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
February 2021
Pages 113-138
  • Receive Date: 16 October 2020
  • Revise Date: 27 November 2020
  • Accept Date: 28 November 2020