2000Journal of Art & Design EducationRequires access

Critical Discourse and Art Criticism Instruction

George Geahigan

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

In formulating models of art criticism for schools, educators in the United States have focused most of their attention upon the language of art criticism. Typical prescriptions for art criticism present a series of activities such as describing, analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating, activities that are linked to the performance of specific kinds of statements. The widespread acceptance of such models raises questions about their accuracy as reflections of actual critical discourse, and their practicality and efficacy as prescriptions for classroom instruction. In this article, I argue that current models of criticism both distort the actual discourse of critics and they force educators to rely upon a problematic instructional method: classroom recitation. After critiquing this method, I conclude by suggesting that critical inquiry, rather than critical discourse, is a more fruitful concept for structuring art criticism instruction.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In formulating models of art criticism for schools, educators in the United States have focused most of their attention upon the language of art criticism. Typical prescriptions for art criticism present a series of activities such as describing, analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating, activities that are linked to the performance of specific kinds of statements. The widespread acceptance of such models raises questions about their accuracy as reflections of actual critical discourse, and their practicality and efficacy as prescriptions for classroom instruction. In this article, I argue that current models of criticism both distort the actual discourse of critics and they force educators to rely upon a problematic instructional method: classroom recitation. After critiquing this method, I conclude by suggesting that critical inquiry, rather than critical discourse, is a more fruitful concept for structuring art criticism instruction.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In formulating models of art criticism for schools, educators in the United States have focused most of their attention upon the language of art criticism. Typical prescriptions for art criticism present a series of activities such as describing, analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating, activities that are linked to the performance of specific kinds of statements. The widespread acceptance of such models raises questions about their accuracy as reflections of actual critical discourse, and their practicality and efficacy as prescriptions for classroom instruction. In this article, I argue that current models of criticism both distort the actual discourse of critics and they force educators to rely upon a problematic instructional method: classroom recitation. After critiquing this method, I conclude by suggesting that critical inquiry, rather than critical discourse, is a more fruitful concept for structuring art criticism instruction.

Key concepts: Criticism, Structuring, Art criticism, Theatre criticism, Epistemology, Critical theory, Sociology, Literary criticism

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Critical Discourse and Art Criticism Instruction — Research Paper | ScholarLens