- Kenneth M. Lansing, “Addendum to ‘Why We Need a Definition of Art,’”
Aristos (December 2004) http://www.aristos.org/aris-04/lansing2.htm. On abstruse-
ness and other lapses in scholarly writing, see my “Scholarly Engagement: When It Is
Pleasurable and When It Is Not,” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 5:1 (Fall 2003), 105–110
<www.aristos.org/editors/jars-lt.pdf>. - Charles R. Garoian and Yvonne M. Gaudelius, “Performing Resistance,”
Studies in Art Education, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Fall 2004) https://www.questia.com/library/
journal/1P3-724580471/performing-resistance. On buzzwords, see above, note 7. - [a] Carpenter is now Associate Editor of Studies in Art Education. He is also the
“chief executive artist” for Reservoir Studio, a “social action collective.” His “visual art-
work” is said to “confront social issues and critique historical, cultural, and political con-
structs.” https://sova.psu.edu/profile/b-stephencarpenter-ii.
[b] The current editor of Art Education is James Haywood Rolling Jr., chairman of
Syracuse University’s graduate and undergraduate art education programs. As a visual
artist, Rolling focuses on “mixed media explorations and portraiture of the human con-
dition, viewing studio arts practices as an essential form of social research.” He is
actively involved in “instigating the reconceptualization of the art education discipline
as a natural nexus of interdisciplinary scholarship where visual art, design, and other
creative practices intersect as an avenue of social responsibility.... His scholarly inter-
ests include... visual culture & identity politics... social justice & community-
engaged scholarship, and narrative inquiry in qualitative research” http://vpa
.syr.edu/directory/james-haywood-rolling-jr. See also his March 2013 article in Art
Education, in which he suggests that in “The Hijacking of Art Education” (Aristos, April
2010 http://www.aristos.org/aris-10/hijacking.htm) Michelle Kamhi may have mis-
construed “socially responsible art education practices” as “the intrusion of teachers’
personal political agendas” (“Art as Social Response and Responsibility: Reframing
Critical Thinking in Art Education as a Basis for Altruistic Intent,” 7 http://tinyurl
.com/Carpenter-ArtSocialResponse).
[c] In a recent Art Education editorial, Rolling notes: “[O]ur very different encoun-
ters with the art world and our varying experiences of art practice and arts pedagogy help
shape our definitions of what art is” and often work “to obscure the rich interwoven
nature of the larger story of the Arts” (“Interwoven Arts Education Pedagogies: From the
Formalist, to the Informative, to the Transformative, to the Performative,” May 2015
http://tinyurl.com/RollingJr-InterwovenArts). In that light, he should realize that his
own experience obscures the rich nature of the traditional contemporary art that Kamhi
and I write about in “What About the Other Face of Contemporary Art?,” Aristos, June
2008 http://www.aristos.org/aris-08/otherface.htm, originally published in the March
2008 issue of Art Education. - Olivia Gude, “Postmodern Principles: In Search of a 21st Century Art
Education,” Art Education, January 2004 http://tinyurl.com/Gude-PostmodernPrinciples, - Gude is now on the Editorial Advisory Board of Studies in Art Education.
- Gude, “Art Education for Democratic Life,” <https://naea.digication.com/
omg/Art_Education_for_Democratic Life>. Gude’s radical view of art’s function in
shaping the “democratic life” of students is apparent in such assertions as “[q]uality art
education provides access to the art and practices of making through which today’s youth
can actively investigate local and global themes”; and “[i]n challenging outmoded
worldviews, contemporary art prepares people to engage, to shape, (and sometimes to
preserve) aspects of our ever-changing world.”
226 Notes to Pages 182–84