FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1030720858> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1030720858 endingPage "102" @default.
• W1030720858 startingPage "89" @default.
• W1030720858 abstract "While most art teachers recognize computer generated images as a viable art medium, many have misconceptions of it. In this study of eight pre-service art teachers' attitudes toward computer art, perceived preparation, and level of willingness to engage future students in critique and creation of such art, I found that a comparison activity between traditional and computer art emphasizing a computer's power to mimic traditional techniques and and noncritical teacher-led viewing of computer art are two detrimental approaches to art teacher preparation. These pedagogical approaches reinforced novice notions, such as that computer art is machine controlled, an imitation of real art, and lacks expressiveness and artistic skill. To counteract negative attitudes and foster understanding of contemporary art theories and critical perceptions of computer art, I discuss recommendations to: (a) require hands-on computer art-making experience along with contemporary aesthetic issues in the curricula, (b) model computer art pedagogy, and (c) obtain the necessary technology and art for critique of diverse artworks by new-media artists. With the flourishing of information and communication technology, computer-gen erated imagery dominates the scope of youth's visual culture in the United States (Freedman & Stuhr, 2004; Wilson, 2003). In everyday life, students often encounter various forms of computer-generated im agery from diverse sources such as the Internet, television, advertising, and prod uct packaging. Their aesthetic sensibility and knowledge are greatly affected by their interaction with computer-generated imag ery. Many art educators have recognized the influence of computer-generated imag ery and the need for students to learn how to critically analyze the aesthetic proper ties and interpret the meaning of such im ages (Freedman & Stuhr, 2004; Gaudelius & Speirs, 2002; Sullivan, 2002). Thus, teaching students how to respond to and understand computer-generated art imag ery (CGAI) that they encounter frequently becomes an important responsibility for art educators and teachers. Many art educators have explored new pedagogies to respond to CGAI in the prac tice of visual technologies (Carpenter & Taylor, 2003; Keifer-Boyd, 2004; Stokrocki & Buckpitt, 2002). Yet, art education has largely ignored the computer art trend in visual culture?a trend, moreover, which has been an existing phenomenon that has more rapidly diffused outside, rather than inside, the art world (Degennaro & Mak, 2002). Though computer art has existed for decades, there has been a consistent resistance to misunderstanding of, and dis regard for that medium within both the fine arts and art education communities (Degennaro & Mak, 2002; Delacruz, 2004; Gigliotti, 2001; Greenfield, 1999; Mak, 2001 ). When computer art was introduced to art education in the early 1980s, many art teachers and educators had negative reactions (Greh, 1986; Squires, 1983). Af ter nearly a decade, even as more CGAI has been gradually accepted into the art world, negative attitudes toward computer art persist among many fine-arts students (Degennaro & Mak, 2002; Mak, 2001). It is quite likely that the initial negative atti tudes of the 1980s remain embedded VISUAL ARTS RESEARCH ? 2005 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 89 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.207 on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:10:04 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms among many current art teachers and edu cators, and, as a result, such attitudes are likely transmitted to their students. Hence, there is an emergent need to probe this phenomenon, to identify what underlying perceptions contribute to such negative attitudes, and thus to provide appropriate recommendations to eliminate or mitigate their impact, because teaching students how to respond to visual imagery produced with computer technology has become a high priority in current art education prac tice and research (Duncum, 2002; Freed man, 2003; Gaudelius & Speirs, 2002; Sullivan, 2003; Wilson, 2003). To understand the latent attitudes and perceptions underlying such negative attitudes, I conducted a descriptive study of 8 pre-service art teachers' responses to CGAI. The teachers grew up with tech nology and are current fine-arts students and future art teachers. I examined how they respond to computer art, how pre pared they are for teaching computer art, and how they may include computer art in future teaching. Based on the findings, I recommend enhancements to the pre service art teacher curricula, in order to overcome or reduce negative attitudes to ward CGAI. Attitudes Toward Creating CGAI Computer art is used everywhere, from the Internet to marketing and entertainment. Supposedly, artists have been given great opportunities to use innovative technology to explore new means of artistic expres sion. Yet many traditional practitioners of the fine arts still resist this medium and art form (Degennaro & Mak, 2002). They per ceive art as a unique human endeavor, not a form of artificial or virtual creation. They consider computer art as shallow and superficial, as a mere mechanical craft that has limited aesthetic value (Helmick, 1995; Ippolito, 2002). In addition, some artists associate technology with highly technical workplaces, such as research labs or com mercial industries (Machover, 1994; Nappi, 1995). Some art educators relate CGAI to commercial and technical skills, believing that CGAI has very limited aesthetic qual ity and originality. Thus, due to such per ceptions, many museums and galleries hesitate to accept CGAI such as Internet art (Ippolito, 2002). When computers were introduced into the art education community during the 1980s, initially many art teachers reacted negatively to using computers for creating Art educators expressed concern with machines exerting control over how stu dents create art images (Ettinger, 1988; Squires, 1983). Educators believed that creating art with computers would result in students losing creativity (Crowe, 1989), particularly if students were to rely on soft ware tools and effects to create stereo typical geometric shapes and graphic ef fects (Freedman, 1993; Stockrocki, 1986). Without adequate prior art instruction, in deed, some students will succumb to this, creating only stereotypical computer-gen erated images?without creating art. Moreover, novices to computer graphics software do seem to pay more attention to technical details rather than to the concep tual or ideational aspects of art (Stockrocki, 1986). In contrast, however, Freedman and Relan (1992) have found that students develop images interactively, both during production and ideation. To be sure, stu dents can exert control over the computer when they are able to manipulate images. Freedman further noted that students would shift their focus from the manipula tive and technical aspects of making computer-generated images to conceptual aspects after having gained more com puter art experience (Freedman & Relan, 1990). Negative perceptions of CGAI have also been reported in art education literature. Some art teachers believe that CGAI lacks artistic value because it is machine-created (McCulloch, 1984). Greh (1986) found that art educators viewed computers as dehu manizing and manipulative machines which, they thought, produced dehuman ized and manipulative artwork. Greh con cluded that such negative reactions to" @default.
• W1030720858 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1030720858 creator A5044118959 @default.
• W1030720858 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W1030720858 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1030720858 title "Pre-Service Art Teacher Negative Attitudes and Perceptions of Computer-Generated Art Imagery: Recommendations for Pre-Service Art Education Programs" @default.
• W1030720858 cites W114752040 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W1754306792 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2000872506 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2009992985 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2022937524 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2033553450 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2033952602 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2065971650 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2109036477 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2175738944 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2302901623 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W240579948 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W246671108 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2531255878 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2561414514 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W276989545 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W2795191239 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W283158659 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W302688390 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W313148367 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W360923150 @default.
• W1030720858 cites W79794937 @default.
• W1030720858 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1030720858 type Work @default.
• W1030720858 sameAs 1030720858 @default.
• W1030720858 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1030720858 countsByYear W10307208582012 @default.
• W1030720858 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1030720858 hasAuthorship W1030720858A5044118959 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C2780378061 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C3305159 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C49774154 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C70789860 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C142362112 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C144133560 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C153349607 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C15744967 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C162853370 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C169760540 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C19417346 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C26760741 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C2780378061 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C3305159 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C41008148 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C49774154 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C509550671 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C70789860 @default.
• W1030720858 hasConceptScore W1030720858C71924100 @default.
• W1030720858 hasIssue "60" @default.
• W1030720858 hasLocation W10307208581 @default.
• W1030720858 hasOpenAccess W1030720858 @default.
• W1030720858 hasPrimaryLocation W10307208581 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W1547500198 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W1549539360 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W202572818 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2058024279 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2065853361 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2318368021 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W241860966 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2531377604 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2549906366 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2724978049 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2747616750 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W283818933 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2910637609 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2991456840 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W2994407442 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W3081529064 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W322953058 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W3661618 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W45066004 @default.
• W1030720858 hasRelatedWork W63532574 @default.
• W1030720858 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1030720858 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1030720858 magId "1030720858" @default.
• W1030720858 workType "article" @default.