1. Do you agree or disagree with Elkin's stance on art education? Explain?
For the most part yes. Some things can't be taught, but it doesn't mean education is pointless.
2. Explain your understanding of Elkin's definition of "taught"
I think he uses it to describe a way in which someone learns a specific skill.
3. How does structure within academia foster or inhibit the creation of art?
Obviously this is subjective, but for me, I think it has helped me be more confident showing my work, and experimenting with different things.
4. Do you think that art can be taught? Do you agree with the weak view of nothing can be taught, pgs 101-‐102?
I think things cant be learned, but the teacher will never teach the student exactly what he/she intended to.
1. Do you feel Ringling has prepared you for when you're working outside of a structured academic setting? Why?
I think Ringling has not done that for me, but I have tried to work on that for myself.
2. In relation to “Why Art Cannot Be Taught”, do you think that my work could have been made during a more traditional style of
teaching? Does innovative teaching lead to non-‐traditional work?
I really cannot answer this question.
3. Do you think that compared to your peers in this academic setting that you are successful? What about the academic setting do you
think has caused a major shift in my work in the last year, i.e. more freedoms leading to faster advances?
I think I am successful compared to my peers.
4. Do you think that art practice being taught through an academic setting which is structured by materials (painting class, sculpture class,
printmaking, etc) helped or hindered my using non traditional mediums to make art objects, ex: candy? Why or why not? What about in
your own work? What would you like to alter about your academic experience?
I think classes have been pretty open from the start, despite the structure the administration places on them. I think if you felt hindered, it was probably your on presuppositions that lead you to make decisions.