ABSTRACT
This paper address the contested domains of hegemonic praxis and art education; distinguished by opposition and argument between policy formulators and art education professionals which sometime result in frustrations and despairs. Though considerable progress has been made through policy innovation combined with professionals’ collaboration and consultations. The continuing interference of hegemonic practice complicates much of the problems confronting art education and compound the difficulties of art educators which are warning signs. Therefore, a critical examination will be made, focusing on current issues, the generalisation of differences, prescribed praxis, mutable progeny between ascendancy, and art education. Any way(s) of (dis)engaging both. Evidently, both need systematically firm grip of the connection to enhancing learning skill in art and to engage in critical thinking.
Perhaps, a new way of thinking about art education and explore the potential for the engagement or disengagement of hegemonic praxis or action. Art education position is challenged by the unique pressure on educators, thereby relegating the subject to the background. The particular contribution of art education to sanction both these components and to prompt adapted form of subjectivity would be look into. The paper concludes with some reflections on the needs for collaboration and coherence in partnership.
INTRODUCTION
Hegemony could be explained to mean the notion of dominance, influence and acquisition of the consent subject to certain accepted regulations or norms. Gramsci (1971) view hegemony as very close to the concept of ideology. It is the notion of exercise of ascendant or dominion through political legitimacy rather than through force. In this process, which is ‘’fraught by encounter, some social relations are neutralized and coercively enforced while others are made unthinkable and unviable’’ .
The engagement of hegemonic practice is often assumed of betraying the cause of art and its credibility. There are some related unwelcomed issues on art education that go under official scrutiny or dogmas, and art with its reduced relevance. But the position is always made even delicate when the link is denied, and being where the half burned brig is riding on unknown current, in a set of political view point. Often, there is need among art critics, art educators and those solemnly concerned who have vested interest in art education for clear explanation that deal with the main issue of modern art policy or curricula and influence. In a way that could enable understanding or a reliable account of issues arose of its ascendant position and argument about what necessary steps to take. In modern hegemonic praxis, art education issue is not priority, economic culture has gradually replaced art. It is unclear what art and culture entails still in this present dispensation and the immersed confusions.
Art education has been turned into a mere spectacle of integration and to promote program that has long bearing on the society. There are fundamental problems behind what have been identified and present diatribe, moderate mistrust that persists. For educational objective, prescribed praxis could be important, also for neutrality imposing policy for future education; brusquely acknowledged that its limitations are extensive as a consequence interference differs in strength and purpose with which the conviction and framework create a controversy in art educational policy.
Baudelaire (1851), stance against ascendancy precisely came up with the idea of modern time policy. This has exercise more pressure for art education autonomy against the quest for political control. Accordingly, policy has failed repeatedly in the domain of art education which resurfaced the question of its role and achievement, its ideas and consent with the future of art curriculum in schools which is considerably side-lined. But increasing dominance of technology and sciences rendered art education fallibility to control that conform with the reality of present day trends which it does not necessarily share much function.
Applying a political attitude is to whirl things around to suit the immediate purpose for which it’s designed. This is clear in the strength of ascendancy, hence art education must adapt to its (whims and caprices) form of socio-economic issues. Therefore, declining to adhere to the define regulations require a basis for assessment and undesired alienation. Then the ultimate is to be part of the cogs in the machine, in the sense that reflect art education demand and policy that fulfil its role for a dominant performance. It could be part of the change, and determination to feel that there is an aspiration in the setting of possibilities for the future.
Here, it is obvious that no end of engagement is envisioned nor to imagine disengagement. The potential is still imminent, and could satisfy all the conditions that enhances art learning. Opposition to policy does harbour in an imagined possibility that is secured of offering means for the future. Therefore, demand close collective participative art education curricula formulation. There is always an alternative consideration to be essentially mutually useful for the future faced with anxiety or fear, maybe an explanation for art education nostalgia. Pedagogically, this form of partnership submission aims to avoid the predominantly product of conflictual outcome that still characterise much of art education.
The word partnership is commonly referred to as a variety of relationships. It includes working relationship designed and combining resources, competencies, and shearing the risk towards achieving agreed objectives. While each may differ in their own objectives procedures but aim at a common goal. Partnership between art education and hegemonic praxis with different missions and interest can be difficult to achieve. It requires commitment and new form of relationship, a collaborative stand point and specific purpose, management and outcome focussed initiatives. In this sense, is the necessity to adhere the core principles of partnership, and to move through convenient partnering process in other to ensure the greatest chance of success. With this critical element in place, art education and authority through partnership can achieve real impact. Without, partnership is likely to underperform or fail altogether. Hegemonic praxis mission, in my opinion should be to drive effective partnering and support art education initiative to develop art curriculum, and enhance effective control.
CONTROL PHILOSOPHY
Hegemony responds to the challenges and change. The custodian (art educator), compelling willingness to respond to a request or an insistence for a cue to follow for outcome. In his observation, Rousseau (1762) remarks that ‘’everything depends on power and control and nothing more specific than what authority makes of it’’ . Thereby adjusts to the procedure of the need to meet with the hegemonic demands. Perhaps the active manner is best suited to the prescribed praxis where the process of control scheme is strong and sophisticated, hence manifest in a passive mode. The active mode of operandi is a way the process of requesting and set objectives are imputed into the force of hegemony. An antidote innovation whereby a continuous modification is empowered suited to the hegemonic praxis. Whereby, the control permits inflexibility diagnostically, taking further advantage of its influence. Recent example is the position of the UK. Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan (2016) argues that ‘‘when it comes to Government education policy there is no reverse gear’’ Another breakthrough maintained the power operation and perform the monitoring and diagnostic function such as external and internal variables of policy. Comparison of policy focus, application and evaluation, also integration into the mainstream of art education. A wide range of cogs in the machine concept can thus be built to allow the custodian relevant requirement to be easily assimilated in the envisioned (basic functioning mode) objectives design for art education. Power directed towards linear based pre-programmed policy and confirmed.
CONTEXT
Art education no doubt has enjoyed in relative past privileged relationship with politics. Art in conjunction with the latter have made available materials resources and processes that have aided art learning. Obviously prescribed praxis is favourable for its demagogues accompanied by purpose and conventions. Art educators are continually striving to adapt and bring into awareness the layered program of art education. Its evolving relationship and the audacity of ascendancy is evident wielding its power on issues deemed important against those ineffectual in its ramification. Certainly, it plays such role in redefining and rewriting the aim of art in schools. Presently, it is clear that the decline of art education has political and economic cause; it is not due simply to the irrelevance influences of sort, but an institutional approval pattern that keep its consciousness deliberately in the fore front. This create effect of slovenliness for art. Effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so indefinitely. Hume (1952). Therefore, challenge art educators to consider what experience allows to ascertain about cause and effect. Hence a tenuous grasp on casual efficiency aid in given rise to problem of induction due to conjunction.
The point is that the process is reversible noting that predominant praxis is assumed to have flexible transient habits which can be avoided if only there is wiliness to take the necessary engagement. The courage to discard it clearly is an advantage step towards art education regeneration. So the struggle against unfavourable policies is not frivolous or trivial but exclusive concern of art professionals because hegemonic praxis illustrates various mixture of ambiguities and sheer incompetence’s are the most marked characteristics of art education policy. Art education is a field that has profoundly invested in its own domain, the very concept of itself. Evidently, today art can be understood only in reference to artist final production framed by institutional support or approval and the subsequent impact on the society requires intellectual consideration. From the perspective of Springgay (2013) art education remain an object of ascendancy , perhaps challenge the thinking of art educators through Deleuze and Guattari, (2000) argument which accustomed educators to an effective and rational comprehension of pedagogy . Thereby helping in articulating those elements that thought and prescribed praxis desired, as elusive but reoccurring, a means of enabling thinking, probably reopening process that create possibilities.
Looking again at the instances I gave initially, Kalin (2012) calls for exploring and positioned power by focusing critically on contexts and reinforcing practice . A dynamic process of meaning making and contingency for searching for connection between what is apparent, suggested and imagined. Making further sense without undue and avoidable pieces of ineptitude which increases the general obscurity of prescriptions concerning art curriculum planning. Authority adopt what seem impossible plan of action and advocate new strategy in debilitating by constant pressure to apply policy, eventually becomes demoralizing, like walking the path worn in the grass and beat through the leaves of the brush. In this fashion, art education is far more important to succumb to combing force of prescribed praxis. Hegemony position is currently shifting to more competitive economic form of education as a mean of addressing the perceive problem of the society, disengagement which is made manifest in the relegation of art education and its striking phenomena. It is remarked that prescribed praxis no longer serve the need of art education in the present dispensation. Therefore, a need for mutual structures are required to fully implicate art education in discerning what is relevant in relation to art program. Today, it is that everything is politically oriented, what exist is as result of constant struggles between divergence forces. And what the key issue is that the ideas of hegemony and art education as collaborative forces can be applied to learning in creative skill setting.
Adorno (1961-69) characteristically sets out in his theory of aesthetic that it has become an issue that not much is being conveyed in art, even not in its inner self, nor its relation to the present social-economic situation as a whole and not even its right of existence. If the existence of art education cannot be considered, is the entire program of education then inconceivable from the beginning? Adorno did evoke ‘’future emancipatory possibilities, even for policy that conformed with art curriculum’’ (without will be pointless) he emphasised. His position about art education as it remains the means of sustaining its significance. What is then in question is nothing less than policy itself rather than the position of art education. This situation that interrogate policy is the same situation that prompt Adornos’ assumption on art, when it can no longer fulfil its promise. It is this development that warrants interference of hegemonic praxis and policy manipulation. But Derrida (2004) was a bit careful of Adornos’ observation. He explained that there is no art education without specific distribution of ostensibly ‘’attaching it to certain form of (Democracy)’’ prescribed praxis. Art is the right to freedom, and this became explicit. This is essential between both for it has the privilege of independence of expression, and yielding tension between art educators and policy formulation.
Also, Heidi (2011) notes that there should be an ‘’active impartial interest in art education’’. Therefore, voiced concern about the ability to use equality of exchange to respond to series of emerging issues that militate against art education in the interest of learning. Lyotard (1974-79), also argues that the structured dominant national art education scheme has not live up to expectation to address the purpose it was formulated, with the instances of social inherent issues associated with creative skills development that is saddled with meticulous aim. Art education according to Cunliffe, (2008) paradigm of knowledge illustrating formation capacity of life sustainability is devoid of ‘’rationality in response to primary objective of art education.’’ Art is not a subject to declarative and procedural knowledge that portrays misrepresentation of what is ought to and what is ought not in art curriculum. Thereby attempting to subdue the very objective of art program mainly for the interest of aiding the system rather than enhancing learning.
UNEASY PARNERSHIPS: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
Art is the ascendant of prescribed praxis, which interrogate by representing every area in opposition to art education. The function of ascendancy is to represent the disarray of its time not in a way to relieve or arrest the surging problem but to compound it further and to be left unattended. To attribute the position of Gablik, (1991) the purpose of hegemony praxis is to ‘centralise, have full control, and nothing else. Gablik explain that, if it is accurate to trace many of art education dilemmas to what has been called the cynicism of ascendancy, then the answer presumably, should somehow include a process that break the stint and band of routines formulated by socio-economic interest. And start a transition into alternative mainstream of experience. Thus brought into focus, according to Swift, (2005) a pattern of ‘’ideology which was developed to centrally dominate all aspect of art’’ . I add primarily by a deliberate quest for a change about ideas, some current and eloquent predominant, socio-economic stance not essential to art education. Political action strike more much profound. It is an attempt to besiege and astound the sentiments, to extend further and spring the art educators psychological state in order to effect a change in the way they feel or react. Consequently, everything about art education and art educators may discover in the near future the risk that make it impossible to remain at the position historically before. Ultimately, may found themselves where the bull advance to his masculine work, and the stud to the mare, and the cock is breading the hen.
Given what the prevailing regnant climate demand, I have to say about the position of the Education Ministry, UK., plan to systematically remove creative art culture from the education system under Gove, arguing a dramatic fall in percentage of students taking the art subject is a deliberate and the greatest enemy of clear language against art education. As an artist and educator, I am particularly disturbed about this attitude and other events which tend to silence art especially in schools. In term of curriculum design revealed with uncommon clarity the new ideology situation of art education. Though, there is an indication that 5% of British economy valued at £76.9bn., as contributions from art and humanities , is no yardstick to stifle art in schools.
According to Haywood, (2015), Warwick Commission report: affirmed that two of the most vivid aspect were concerned with cultural education and lack of diversity in art audience. Also, pointed out that creative economies were complex network that needs to be protected, arguing that ‘’if you fiddle around with education system at one end then something at the other end goes monkey’’ it is indicative of downward trend art is heading because of low level pre-eminent ingenuity towards art education. But, artist Brill, Patrick aka; Bob and Roberta Smith attributed the problem to ‘’two distinct culture’’ that surely is divided between science, art and humanities: have been made irrelevant by emergence of the power of digital technology. Therefore, call for complete overhaul of the important aspect of art education. In addition to this, Haywood, noted that progress on equality of participation opportunity is too slow and portray a poor art culture, and economic outcome. Lord Bragg Melvyn (2015) echoed a different view of benefit of art education if well financed enhances lives of millions and contribute to the economic wellbeing of the state . Hegemonic praxis is always at odds with itself over its evaluation of art education which is fundamental to, and defines all other subjects in schools. The attendant attitude is evident in denying access to learners to creative experiences through art. It is lamentable and sad mostly today to see art schools subjected to mere fuss. Authority prescribed policy that view other form of knowledge as paramount and art as a frill or gilding, something that portray art as exclusively reserved class oriented (community of art and artists) is an incomprehensible and utterly unhealthy dictum.
Art education is required to promote a widespread creative life counterpoises the forces of mass production and reproduction for continuous consumption in a habitual materialistic society like ours. Its’ role in this sense is indisputable. It is an impulsion for evolution, and positioned itself to challenge the common negative perspective from any other point of vision or offering new original interpretations of useful and familiar ideas. Authority sees itself as previously mentioned, purposeful while art education is regarded as not possessing any real purpose today. From the point view of modern political praxis, art education braces a vision of volatile picturesque leading a laissez-faire attitude of any impediment by routine constraints that beset the socio-economic society. This indecisive ascendant disposition is translated into schools thereby doubtful of what art education provides and worthwhile outcome. Policy formulation tend to avoid or ignore arts, worst still confuse art education with entertainment regarding art activities in schools. Basically, as non-serious and effortless undertaking, less significant, therefore accommodated by only the edged curriculum. But Atkinson (2011) question the negative sanction to enforce normative behaviour in the curriculum of art , with reference to Derrida (2004), and the attendant issues of the present specifications as mere assessment evident of new UK policy on art education not well detailed but presented on two pages of paper. Perhaps, Education authority could suggest a more inclusive curriculum framework rather than limited conception about art education.
Furthermore, while Authority doesn’t seem to cherish much of art education in school per se, art educators in their own effort, particularly recognise that art assist with the development of other domain subjects, like glowing coals which turn back into sticks for skill development. The use of artistic skills lend weight to technological success.
SOME ASSUMPTIONS ON THE (DIS)ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN HEGEMONIC PRAXIS AND ART EDUCATION
There are some hegemonic assumptions holding sway in prescribed praxis which tend to widen the gap between it and art education . These have been articulated by Taylor (1986) as follow:
– It is given as a feeder subject (supplement) this is an incontrovertible aspect of art education.
– The same attribute characterized art curriculum and art educators’ commitment, and focus in their profession.
– The low level of attention generated by active engagement of ascendancy and influence will rob-off on the learning process. The underlying premise is that art educators will have less passion to transmit what art entails thereby learners in turn will not be excited by the subject and the possibilities offered. Teachers can offer students first-hand knowledge about art and they will respond to the genuine and credibility of the teacher who is actively engaged.
– Funding is at the cutting edge of art discipline. Art education funding is perceived as a leak in the economy. It is not up to date with the latest development as compared to other fields, therefore, affect resources allocation.
Meanwhile, proponents of autonomy have not been particularly vocal or eloquent in their support. What actually is striking about the incessant argument is how the underlying assumptions that added value of government expense on art education is negative, mostly left unattended for long and undisputed. Funding as mentioned above, for art program is not considered valuable investment for either economy. Any empirical proof of a positive spin-off for art is simply neglected. Perhaps one of the reason why assumptions remained unchallenged, is in fact rooted in attitudes within the art education circle itself.
Also, proponents of creative art education endeavours are reluctant to embrace the debate fully, since the dominant discourses still based on an antagonistic relationship between art and policy formulation. Therefore, requires an urgent dialogue to better understand the contemporary dynamism within hegemonic praxis and art education.
REASONS FOR DISENGAGEMENT BETWEEN HEGEMONIC PRAXIS AND ART EDUCATION
Reasons have been proved for the disengagement between art education and hegemonic praxis, constraint of equality is at the base of this disengagement. Sisson (89), explained that to ‘’divorce intellectual critical inquiry from the school is to impoverish art practice and art education’’ . Accordingly, the excessive commitment and the dimension which will have a negative impact on the performance in art learning. He affirmed that the trait is different from other fields. Art education is generally distinct, individualistic, creative and private without rival as well as art teaching is an interactive activity. Also, government mode; pleased with the earnest words of the sweeting Methodist preacher or any preacher…looking seriously at the camp meeting, and despite giving lip services to the importance and genuine position of art subjects in schools still posited inaction. The basic criterion for sustaining art education is to promote awareness and career prospects primarily linked to research, industrial skills development and production. National curriculum policies for promoting art education appears to damage the existing relationship with systematic shylock conditions as barrier therefore makes it hard for art to be positively harmonized. Endeavours for art as a career have tended to be considered by mere low status and only valuable than teaching. Even in a seemingly opposition to the new ideology of art education, the effort is plunged more and unearth the most exacting and negative setback for what it reveals about art education curriculum. The power control and creativity conflicts; pretext to impose the uncreative hollowed out skill acquisition. This underlies a displaced anxiety that its wielding of defence-ego upon art education and educators. This could predict what make both pre-occupations (art and teaching art) a radical opening of vital force to its self, the claims of an order of sentiments that goes much more than pity and fear in revealing the disturbing experience. It seems rather like a ‘’butcher insisting that he is maintaining hygiene in his shop by keeping the ham in the fridge and ignoring the rest of the meat .’’ Pick (1980). In contrast constitute the most effective manner ascendancy develop and manage situation in a way that distances, protect it the treat of disruptive experiences.
I feel it become a tactile and exhibiting high and difficult experience. The disturbing event is the effect because it ventures to severe the negative directives and sustain a new effort through assumed tangible design policy. Somehow, manifest a new action permissible in an attempt to give thought to progressive necessities, perhaps another implication for those in defiance. For the purpose of scrutiny, I can note the effort of hegemony and art educator partnership to restore art program to which that effort regenerate conflict that requires sacrificing everything about art education that doesn’t serve the interest of art learning program. It is only by surpassing that the issue of informed development of the new art experiences can be engaged. An apparent of something else that challenges or menaces to disintegrate the leverage of power. Actually, what might sustain is the concession of any repel by right that the collapse of an idea (obviously) supposedly to make an incursion into art education, despise and counter-hegemonic, was at the origin of inappropriateness of curricula suggestion. Eisner (1987) therefore, questioned; ‘’should new aim for art education be created’’? Another challenge is to deal with the opposition, with the backlash now emanating from art educators steeped into new formulated policy for whom art teaching and learning appears to threaten their most cherished ideals. A possible conclusion and at that which I would like to avoid as an art educator by plebiscite. Art education historical drift from its position evoke a sort of idea that possessing the right autonomy is not deliberate estrange intention and of no effects but a commitment to aspiring condition exemplified appeal for a non-dormant situation. A position that ensure condition sustainable for laying depoliticised dilemmas merely enhancing a complete adherence to prescribed policy. Could there be any palpable avenue of sort to follow suite as alternative? A declaration in which art education can wholly be defensive and be protected from all vices. Here, Lecan (1953), suggestion seems strikingly reactionary per se, a sort of art education renewal or revival and of endless commitment based on no real assumption or prescribed praxis for socio-economic reason, as rather preferable options.
ENGAGING IN HEGEMONIC PRAXIS AND ART EDUCATION (CUSHY PARTNERSHIP)
Hegemonic influence is not depicted apart from the realm of value and intention, but starts and finishes with that domain. This is even more true of its’ position and action. As instances of purposeful art educators’ reaction in line with policy formulation that in a sense, refer to a state of affairs in the short and long term but engage in actual confrontation and attitudes of ‘’government agency who is in control of professional life’’ in a given specific working situation. The strongest contention of ascendancy is that all policies are to be examined and the importance of all that contentions is neatly illustrated by the argument for or against, promising, ordering, questioning, warning and suggesting. These actions are subject to the condition of prescribed praxis, and appropriateness are constantly in opposition to more liberal or conservative stand point vice-versa. This distinct differences, however, does not survive due to expectations, thus subsume the intension that is not yielding envisaged objectives. What actually take its place, is disillusionment and unattractive wish-fulfilment, but a commitment and objective assumed. In short, Authority statement or policy is extraordinary because at its height is precisely that domain of values, intensions and purpose which is often assumed to be exclusive reserve of, and within the confines of the authority. Foucault (1977) acknowledged that hegemony produces ‘’thought and merely not by encouraging its’ application, but it is useful’’ . The significance of this for the relationship between art education and hegemonic praxis is enduring and larger still. I began by noting the critical objections to unequal level of both art education and prescribed praxis in area of policy and privacy; extended influence becomes a piecemeal. But this objection loses much of its force and need for distinguishing between both of their rational to restore legitimate status. Either by re-uniting or re-integrating ascendancy with reciprocal notion of art education that follows necessary from its ambits, nor by the exigencies which that choice creates.
Any longer or sooner art educators, are bound to procedures that merely confirm and extend the narrowing options implicit in the original distinction as stated earlier in the essay. Possibilities open up; alternative can be freely explored and the exploration will be aided by the formal, yet value-laden characterizations of hegemonic action and art education, and the ideology increasingly in the making.
I have said in this paper that hegemonic praxis of course, in the demeaning sense with which art education is positioned, needs to reconcile, accommodate the two institutions. Make effort to draw a frame work that indicate a favourable climate. Also, to examine with particular consciousness that set out a direction for choice and the enhancement of objectives. Built a compromise into evaluative criterion of formal unity of purpose. If the only defined condition is necessary because of its extraneous objectives, can be tolerated as far it contribute to its expression of good will. This could lead to the same condition that is lucid with each other. Prescribed praxis suggest different forms of contexts, and conceptual frameworks and art education suggest creativity, skill acquisition and cultural integration strategies, application and respond critically to learning needs. Therefore, a holistic nature of knowledge, convergent relationship between both creative art and ascendancy. The manner in which both ‘’sphere have shifted to prospect and possibilities from coercion’’ . Jagodzinski (2002).
Though, hegemonic praxis is not a flounce for art making, preferences are available to escape the many problems it may pose that perhaps need attention through new pedagogies. Authority direct pedagogy and more concerned with how and for what to do; rather than using and exploring art for its sake, outside its tradition, relevance in the area of curriculum and direction are of crucial importance. However, art educators need to harness the connection that can help in accomplishing efficiency of teaching and learning in the classroom as applied to the interpretation of any event or art process.
CONCLUSION
Hegemonic prescribed praxis exigencies do not and cannot possess much of the kind activity which elaborate a schematic program for art, but aid systematically and stimulate art education exertion and development. A condition whereby the interest show aside the mental expansion evolution, and the learning outcome. A semblance manner of which its practice transcend skill development objectives, has sacrificed everything for want of vital power and control.
The previous paragraphs, however, identifies the need for indulgence, impartial means of balancing these differences. Every issues seems to be adequate and justified of the initial idea of art educational aims. Perhaps, it may be compactible in relation with the character of the progress that can embrace aspect of intellectual and emotional development, for which it would once have been viewed as quite inappropriate. Although, some ascendant position still favours art education program as indispensable. Therefore, remain an issue and the reluctant effort to prevent what policy impede the overwhelming nature of art education. Though, criticism might be abandoned by the assumption or claim that art education has much wider, more liberal curricula, including the motivation and effective learning coupled with complete development of learners’ personality, latent, mental and physical development. As I have observed, broad hegemonic ideas of sort, are repeated endlessly in formal official art education curricula. What actually lack is not sincerity of purpose but cogency. An appropriate response is that if it squeezed in the crowded curriculum at all it will be by forcing it into the procrustean bed of skill conception of learning that is actually inimical to the realisation of those very ideas initially.
Art educators, like Froebel (1840) and Montessori (1936), explained how policy structured in conformity with art experience reflect the importance of learning. It was in recent times that art curriculum has been marginalized as recreational without clear intellectual cultural significance. But surveys had provided art education enhances strategic decision making, management, and structured learning within the field. Dewey (1916), further explained that the experience of engagement in art education also in partnership with hegemonic praxis through interaction offer opportunity for cooperation, performance and the good response to art education policy.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, D. (2011). Art Equality and Learning: Pedagogies against the State, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bernstein, R J. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hume:
Chappell, V. C. (ed.), (1966) Hume: Modern studies in Philosophy, London: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in Education, New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. (2002). The Arts and the creation of the mind, New Heaven & London: Yale University Press.
Elkins, J. (2001). Why Art Cannot Be Taught: A hand book for Art Students, Illinois: The University Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed, with introduction by Macedo, D. London: The Continuum International Group Ltd.
Gablik, S. (1991). The re-enchantment of Art, New York: Thames and Hudson
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selection from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, New York: International Publishers
Hardy, T. ed. (2006). Education and the Postmodern World, Bristol, UK: Intellect Books.
Haywood, A. (1994). Political Ideas and Concepts: An introduction. London: Macmillan.
Jagodzinski, J. (2002). The hijacking of Creativity: The dilemma of Contemporary Art Education, in Addison, N., Nicolas Burges., and Lesley., Debate in Art and Design Education. London: Routledge.
Kalin, N. M. (2002). (De)fending Art Education through pedagogical turn. The journal of Social theory in Art Education (Curating and Educational turn) D’appel Art Centre; Open Editions
Mean, A. (2011). Education and the Art of Citizenship: Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, vol. 33, Issue 1, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
McHoul, A., and Wendy, G. (1993). A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
Milosevic, I. (2005). Educational Features, London: Routledge.
Nicholas de Ville, and Forster, S. (1993). The Artist and the Academy: issues in fine art Education and the wilder cultural context. England: John Hansard Gallery, University of Southampton Highfield.
Pappas, G. (1970). Concept in Art and Education: Anthology of Current Issues, London:
Collier-Macmillan.
Pick, J. (1980). Art Administration, London., New York: E. & F. N. Spon in association with Methuen, Inc.
Powell, J. (2006) Jacque Derrida: A Biography, London., New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Robert, J. (1990). Postmodernism, politics and Art, Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Romans, M. (2005). ed., History of Art and Design Education Collected Essays. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books.
Sisson, E. circa 89, art education supplement: www.recirca/backissues /c 89/supp-ssison.sh t ml
Soucy, D., & Stankiewicz, M. A. (1990). Framing the Past: Essay on Art Education, Virginia, USA: National Art Education Association
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2004). A Dangerous Business: Visual Theory and Education Policy’, Arts Education Policy Review, (pg. 105, no. 6, pp. 5-13)
Taylor, R. (1986) Educating for Art: Critical Response and Development, Essex, UK: Longman Group UK Limited
Mark, Brown. (17/2/2015) Art and Culture being ‘systematically removed from the UK. Education System’www.theguardian.com/eduation/2015/feb/17arts-and-culture-systematically-removed-from-uk-education-system
Warwick Commission Report: www.2.warwick.ac.uk/researchwarwickcommission/futureculture/finalreport/warwich_commission_final
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wild, C. (2013). Who Owns the Classroom? Profits, Pedagogy, Belonging, Power: International Journal of Art and Design Education. Vol. 32 Issue 3. p. 297
Will, B., and Esche, C. eds., (2007). Art and Social Change: A critical Reader, London: Tate Publishing in Association with After all.
Wokler, R. (1995) Rousseau: A very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Photo, Artwork Images: pages- 5, 16, and 18 are Internet source.