This week we are reading the third and final section of Paley's book, the section titled "Shooting Back." You may also want to read some or all of "Partitives," pp. 167-184, if you have questions about Paley's research methods or analysis. I don't know about you, but by the end of section 3 I definitely had questions.
Here are some questions or topics I'd like to explore this week in our blog conversation -
Question/Topic #1
All three sections of Paley's book expressed a very negative viewpoint of public schooling. I myself made some negative comments that I wish I had not, out of respect for those whose dedicated service makes the public education in the U.S. possible. Several of you are public school teachers. How did Paley's, Rollins', Bennings' and the Shooting Back participants' condemnation of public schooling made you feel? Several of you are not public school teachers. How did the negative judgement of public schooling affect you?
Question/Topic #2
The Shooting Back project involved hundreds of participants working in different areas and serving various roles in the program. Paley's research exposed a multitude of diverse, competing and/or contradictory viewpoints. What does this tell you about the benefits and potential pitfalls of making "socially conscious" art with young people in non-school community settings?
Question/Topic #3
In my reading of the text, I felt the author turned up evidence that warranted further investigation. In at least two places, I felt the author failed his responsibility as a researcher to ask critical questions of the programs and people he was researching. The interview in the "Partitives" section, like the interview with Jim Hubbard before it, gives some insight into the author's thought process.
At what point or points in the text do you think Paley overlooked evidence that a more "socially conscious" individual - someone like you - would have recognized? What would you have done differently?
I look forward to hearing your responses to these questions. It should be an interesting conversation~!
carolyn
Topic #1: I can see how the three sections of Paley's book could have easily made me feel more negatively towards the public school system. Honestly, last year my experiences teaching public school was so stressful and I was very hesitant to vent to anyone. I felt alone that whole year because I was under the impression that I was the only one going through that pressure. Reading this book and being able to talk to fellow public school teachers at Junction helped me understand that this is something that's been going on for a while now! So instead of it being a downer, it actually gives me relief to hang in there a little bit longer.
ReplyDeleteAna I remember you and Liz had some harsh years. I am glad your both keeping your head up as your both badass teachers who make a REALLY big impact on your kids. I could tell just from your stories over 4 weeks of programing.
DeleteThanks Daniel....means a lot!! So far so good this year though, but only time will tell!
DeleteTopic #2: The benefits will (and should always be) the students in making these "socially conscious" art. Paley talks about projects that give the children the understanding that they can change their situation, whether it is through the critical analysis of a novel or by simply learning how to use a camera. Sometimes I talk to my students about what their own interests and hobbies are or what they might want to do when they graduate from high school and there is too many times when the answer is "nothing" or "I don't know". So for me, the greatest benefit from the Shooting Back project is what it gives to the kids.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I feel that a potential pitfall is Hubbard's call for changing the government and society's view of poverty. Although the project has given a lot of publicity and more than likely changed some viewer's mindset about the subject, there are still so many people out there that "remain insensitive to blame the poor for their struggle". It's not that I'm trying to be negative (I work for a school that is located in the center of poverty and I teach quite a few homeless kids [who I love!]) about the situation, but let's face it…there are a lot of hard headed people in this world. I think that it might take more than a few pictures to turn the right heads.
Question #1: My opinions about public education were not swayed from our readings in "Finding Arts Place." My thoughts about the public education system vary based on the particular issue we're discussing. Public education does a great job in equalizing access to material. That is it's primary purpose. With passage of the "NCLB" act, public schools nationwide were forced to work with children that learned differently, and as a parent of one of those children, I was pleased at the efforts that were made, including accommodations, that allowed him to succeed. With those positive thoughts in mind, I also have lots of critical thoughts that stem from my experience as a student, and as a parent.
ReplyDeleteAs a student, I felt warehoused into a lock-downed jail that bored me. It felt like it was primarily run by the social strata of the student body, instead of being skillfully managed by educated adults. Sadly, grades were the driving force behind the endeavor of schooling, instead of the development of whole individuals who could think, be compassionate, problem solve, be contributors to society, etc. I'm not sure if the grading system was put in place by teachers who needed validation that they were doing their jobs, or by administrators who needed to prove the system was working. it certainly wasn't devised by the children. The entire grading system produces stress, anxiety, undue competition, and a propensity to cheat or work around the system. Grading itself does not promote learning.
With all of that said, I chose to send my son to private school for 8th-12th grade. Although he was doing okay academically, I knew that based on his personality (which tends to be passive), and his learning differences, (he has ADHD and is gifted in STEM, but has processing issues with writing, etc.), that he needed a smaller environment, with more direct attention in order to be successful. Public high schools are populated based on allocation of funds available to build new schools, fund salaries for more teachers, and dollars to provide materials. So based on fund allocations (or lack of adequate funds) in different school systems, classes are overcrowded, putting more stress on teachers. Stressed teachers who are overworked, typically underpaid, and thus unhappy, translate into ineffective nurturers of the creative spirit in our kids. Based on this fact alone, it's hard to cheer for the structure of our public education system. With that fact acknowledged by most, the politicians still are afraid to ask for more money in taxes to improve the situation. (We won't even discuss the waste of funds by poor administration, etc.)
It's very easy to indite the entire public education system as a failure, but it really does work for some. In my opinion, parental/adult involvement is THE major factor in determining the success or failure of an individual child. Knowing your child, advocating for them, doing homework together, spending the time to find out what's really going on. That is what has made a difference in my child's experience. I'm not super parent by any definition, but I think we do have to take some responsibility for our kids education. It's not all up to schools and teachers.
Gail I would arguee that to some degree the grading system prepairs students for the reality of society. Life in many ways is a competition, there are inevitable winners and loosers. I think hiding that or ignoring it would be shorting changing students and leave them unprepaired for the real world.
DeleteIn many ways NCLB has forced public education to focus more on the things you mentioned from your own experence in public schools. This takes away from teachers abilities to teach critical thinking, compasion, ect. Not that it is impossible to still teach these life skills and produce well rounded students, just difficult.
Yes I agree about parental involvement being the key factor - We cannot expect to affect change without parental involvement. Even good parents today drop off their kids at the door and almost never come inside. They leave the educating up to the school! We all know that a childs ability to learn is a direct result of his early life and his support system. Yet all criticism is aimed at the school and the teacher and the system. We who teach know that we cannot fix what is broken at home. We can help - we can raise the level of some - but the children who have no support system will always lag behind those who have actively engaged parents. Not politically correct to discuss it! However it is also the way to become more relevant to the students as well. WHat do you want your child to be able to achieve? DO you see him going to college? or building houses? or running your autobody repair shop? How can we help you reach real goals for your children? I dont think a lot of people would answer that they want their child to go to college - They would like for their child to be able to earn a satisfactory wage and support himself if he does not have the mental aptitude or desire for further education. Currently schools are told to make all children fit into the same mold - lower some and raise others but bore a lot of them and make them all more alike. Its not working very well!
DeleteThe Shooting Back project, like all other well meaning endeavors, has benefits and shortcomings. The intentions of the project developers was well meaning in it's efforts to educate the "unknowing public", but I have to agree with Marie Moll in her assessment that developing "socially conscious" projects with no context in which to truly educate is a waste. The intention of programs like these is laudable, but unfortunately, the programs can be flawed, or lacking "pull through" to truly make any real difference. As stated in the reading (paraphrase) media attention to a project, doesn't make the project a game changing event. Awareness and action are two very different things.
ReplyDeleteI always chide myself for being too jaded and cynical when it comes to these types of "do-gooder" projects. I know that they mean to do good, but so many times, the project organizers get so caught up in the media circus and attention for all of their philanthropic intent, that they actually loose site of the genuine altruism that sparked the original idea. This can and does in so many situations lead to the resentment of the participants for whom the program was developed. I think that Dion said a lot when he stated (paraphrase) that he felt the program might have been a waste of his time, until he figured out how he. himself could make money from it. He intimated that it wasn't enough to inform and educate the public to the plight of the homeless, or for "Jim/the program" to make money selling the prints. In his opinion, the program needed to make a difference for the participants.
The best of intentions.... the devil is in the details..... no good deed goes unpunished......see....I'm feeling cynical again....
That was obviously Question #2
DeleteQuestion #3: I can't directly fault Nick Paley, as I feel that he was acting as a passive reporter/fan of these programs. At times he seemed to be a participant in the story himself. might have been more critical in my questions during the interviews with the participants, but for me the truth is that hindsight is 20/20, meaning that he was writing/reporting about these programs in his present without the luxury of being able to look back at them for the vantage point of time passed. Being so close to the programs as they were taking place, does not allow for full appreciation of the ripple effects of the programs.
ReplyDeleteIf I were writing this book today I'd interview all those involved and ask their thoughts and opinions on the programs impacts. I'd ask what they would have done differently, and what they though were the most effective parts of the projects. What legs of the program made a difference, and what did not.
Our greatest value can come from assessing the projects impacts on the participants and society from the distance of time. Paley wrote as a reporter on the art news of his time. We would assess the impact of these programs as historians or critics I think it's the old adage of about not seeing the forest from amongst the trees.
I have to agree! I got the same feeling from Paley and his passive nature.
DeleteQuestion #1
ReplyDeleteThe commentary in the articles about Tim Rollins work with KOS and Jim Hubbard’s Shooting Back were particularly critical of their inner city schools’ curriculum and standards based approach to education. Both programs worked with children from some of the worst public schools in the country. However, sadly enough, their criticism is applicable to most of the schools that I am personally familiar with. I have taught public high school for 15 years and I see the same attitude in a majority of my students of “going to school to get out.” ( Nelson, p.44) Although our drop out rate is not as high as theirs, “50-60% of inner city children are dropping out” (Hubbard ,P.156), Texas high schools have a drop out problem. Failure to meet federal standards last year in my own school had not to do with meeting educational achievement standards, but with graduation rate. I believe that one of the most telling comments was made by Nick Paley and completed by Jim Hubbard when they said, ”The things that kids love ……Are not in school. And why cant they have what they love?” Hubbard goes on to discuss how he does not believe that a transformation of our schools is possible as long as they are a part of the educaton bureaucracy. I agree – most of what happens in schools today is a direct response to standards set by state and federal bureaucracy in order to receive funding.
One common factor in these programs was that the young people were actively involved in creating the experience – they were given opportunity to follow their own paths. Some of the best educated young people I know are home schooled. Their interests direct their curriculum as often as possible and they are still receiving academic scholarships for college. The closer we bring content to the interests of the students and their families, the more applicable it becomes. Nick Paley said that children can raise powerful, critical questions about complex cultural and ideological ideas when provided the opportunities to do so. They can also pursue solutions with the aid of caring, well educated, and energetic adults. I say energetic because the problem will not be solved as long as everyone is willing to accept the status quo, go on sending their children to the school building to” be educated” and day cared for, and never become involved in what is being taught. As art teachers, we are still free from the curriculum regulation that core teachers work with. We still have the freedom to make art a place that some students love and to encourage and develop their agency as young adults through their experiences in our classrooms. SO – how does the negative judgment of public schooling make me feel - frustrated - because it was all valid.
I agree the negative criticism is valid but is it constructive? Also are the alternative methods used at KOS and shooting back constructive or are they mearly systems that create a whole new set of issues and short comings?
DeleteQuestion #2
ReplyDeleteThe section called Taxonomy perhaps best revealed the multiplicity of interpretations that will result from socially conscious art work. Everything from Morales’ response that the very label “political” and the institutional response to it prevents artists from fulfilling their function.( SO why do it???) On the other end of the spectrum, Ron Green talked about how art shows people what it’s like to live in someone else’s shoes and see through their eyes. Any adult leader, teacher, artist, mentor must today cover his legal bases prior to beginning a “socially conscious” endeavor. From full disclosure of subject matter to administrators, parents and guardians, through permission to display work and interview minors – all of this must be done in advance. Without the proper planning and procedures in place, the results could be disastrous for all.
Young people must be prepared for the wide spectrum of response prior to public showing. The personal value of the active experience must be stressed - their growth, their change, their ability to create something important whether there is ever any concrete action or response made on the part of the community or institution of power.
Question #2
The section called Taxonomy perhaps best revealed the multiplicity of interpretations that will result from socially conscious art work. Everything from Morales’ response that the very label “political” and the institutional response to it prevents artists from fulfilling their function.( SO why do it???) On the other end of the spectrum, Ron Green talked about how art shows people what it’s like to live in someone else’s shoes and see through their eyes. Any adult leader, teacher, artist, mentor must today cover his legal bases prior to beginning a “socially conscious” endeavor. From full disclosure of subject matter to administrators, parents and guardians, through permission to display work and interview minors – all of this must be done in advance. Without the proper planning and procedures in place, the results could be disastrous for all.
Young people must be prepared for the wide spectrum of response prior to public showing. The personal value of the active experience must be stressed - their growth, their change, their ability to create something important whether there is ever any concrete action or response made on the part of the community or institution of power.
OOPs - It printed it twice! I dont know why! SOrry - Jennifer
ReplyDeleteQuestion #3
ReplyDeleteI certainly would not claim to be a more “socially conscious individual” than Nick Paley! However, I felt that that his investigation of these experiments in contemporary education was mudddled by his method or lack of one. He said that he wished to use analytic writing that avoided the recognitions of “already constituted reason.” (P.168) In his attempt to creatively present his findings through the use of multiple modes of address, he either accomplished exactly what he desired by leading us through a series of “multiply positioned intertextualities rather than towards a sequence of serially arranged arguments leading to a fixed ideological point” (P.7), or he failed to establish the validity of his investigation by drawing no conclusions of any kind.
He presented three highly creative and powerful artistic endeavors, and he never asked the student participants for their perceptions of the effect of their involvement on their own lives – the effect of the lived experience. As we discussed earlier, response by a community or agencies of power to socially conscious art work is all over the place so I would like to haves heard more of the participants own evaluation of the projects. If his intent was indeed to explore these experiments, he made no attempt to quantitatively or longitudinally evaluate them. That still leaves qualitative analysis and he didn’t do that either. Both with KOS and with Shooting Back he failed to gain much insight on the experience of the participants. He only presented experiential commentary from 3 students from Shooting Back (Charlene, Dion , and Daniel) and two from KOS (Nelson and Angel). Nearly all of the serious interview time was given to Rollins and Hubbard and what were they going to say – that it had all been a failure? of course not. They both profited personally from doing it. There was no personal interview with Bennings – only her comments pulled from her own videos and other’s comment about her work. SO – even though he told us he was not following accepted forms of presenting new information, I still wanted to know more about the long term effects of these programs. I thought they were ground breaking and exciting steps toward improving the current malaise in American secondary education. If we are to ever make an impact and change current educational practice, we have to have sound research to validate our opinions.
Question #1
ReplyDeletePaley’s book definitely has a negative viewpoint of the public school system. I have not had the opportunity to teach in public schools, but my mother taught for twenty-some odd years in a low income, south Austin elementary school. I remember her always talking about how she wished she could do something to change the way they taught the kids. Reading Nick Paley’s book just reaffirms that negative viewpoint that I was raised with. But as far as how much it affects me, I don’t really know. I feel that because of work like Rollin+KOS and Shooting Back make such an impact more people should be on board for change with in the school system. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Is it because there are such a small percentage of people that actually care? Or is it just Art teachers? I guess I just don’t get where the idea of limiting creativity or not allowing something because it may not be relevant to everyone. Without positive judgments in the school system won’t it just stay the same, old, continuous negative perception?
Stephen, I too wondered why more people haven't done things like Rollins & Hubbard. But actually there are a lot of examples. The Community Arts Network (CAN) is sort of a clearing house for such projects. Here's the website - http://wayback.archive-it.org/2077/20100906194747/http://www.communityarts.net/
DeleteHubbard is also correct in pointing out that he wasn't the first to put cameras in the hands of homeless & low income kids. The British photographer Jo Spence was doing the same thing in the 1980s. More recently, the Zakira Project in Palestine lets child refugees document their everyday lives with cameras - website http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/refugee-child-photographers
The Iraqi Children's Art Exchange is another cool example - http://iraqichildrensart.org/
It takes money to make these things happen. The kids' families can't pay anything, nor should they be expected to. So how does the artist-teacher get paid? They survive on grant money, but what happens after the grant money is gone?
For all of its difficulties, you can't deny that public school teaching is a good job. Some Visual Studies MAE students who are teaching full-time make more money than their professors. If you make it past your first 3 years of teaching (the hell years) and continue to improve, you have relatively good job security. This is especially for teachers who are certified in more than one subject (preferably an "essential" subject like reading/writing, math, science, social studies or special ed).
I think this is why most educators don't undertake community arts programs. It's not that they don't care. They care, but who can afford to lose their paycheck and bennies?
I feel like the first 2 years of teaching where the hardest adjustment of my life. After you get in your groove it gets better! I agree with Dr. Erler its hard to walk away from a steady pay check especially when Wells Fargo Education Financial Services owns your soul.
DeleteQuestion #2
ReplyDeleteThe multi-faceted nature of Shooting Back is in large part the reason for its success. Granted without the initial concept and original work it would not have had the opportunity for success. To have a socially conscious concept where homeless and impoverished children are documenting their surrounding, and portraying it in a positive light, not the guilt ridden and violent portrayals of the media. It seems to offer the viewers a new insight. Which in turn made people want to expand the programs. Moving workshops to Native American reservations and communities and conducting similar social experiments offer a new dimension to Shooting Back. Giving the power to the kids is a benefit, giving them a creative outlet. It helps expand his or her minds in a way maybe no one else could. However the only question I have is how much does a concept expand just by changing the group taking the pictures? Or is it just showing a different view of poverty? It makes me wonder if it should be viewed as a social experiment, more so than a teaching tool. But overall it seem the benefits outweigh the pitfalls.
Question #3
ReplyDeleteI don’t necessarily think Paley overlooked evidence. I think he just didn’t explore some things to the full extent. I agree a lot with what Gail said. I think he was investigating the kids and their stories as to why they liked taking pictures as opposed to trying to impact the process. Paley is very involved in the “reporter” side of the role. Like in his walk with William when he follows and documents the boys picture taking, and in his interview with Dion and the other children.
I don’t know what someone like me would have changed or recognized in this situation. I’m unsure how to answer. I suppose I would have to be more involved with why the children were doing what they do. As well as their thoughts about there own work. Instead of just investigating the surface and “reporting” about the event.
The kids (Dion, Daniel & Celestine) brought up serious ethical issues in the Shooting Back program. I am REALLY surprised that no one in the class has mentioned this yet. THe kids said Hubbard was selling their photographs for hundreds of dollars and not sharing the proceeds with them, their families, their communities or the homeless shelters they were living in.
DeleteWhy didn't Paley confront Hubbard about this in their interview? WHy didn't Paley try to find out if what the kid said was true? They said Hubbard had broken their trust. This is a serious issue when dealing with children, especially children living in impoverished conditions. Hubbard's first obligation was to put the kids' needs above all else - to "do no harm".
It was as if no one heard what the kids were saying. The inaction of people who COULD have done something, if something unethical was indeed going on, suggests a pervasive view of the children as voiceless and ultimately inconsequential. Ironically, Paley and Hubbard appear to be as indifferent as the society they say they are trying to change.
I thought that Hubbard spoke of the children with strange detachment. It was as if he saw them as SYMBOLS of social/economic injustice in the US - not as three-dimensional people with real thoughts, feelings, hopes and aspirations. Paley's failure to confront Hubbard with hard ethical questions makes him, in my view, equally culpable.
I was deeply disappointed! Does anyone else share my view???
I tottally agree, I feel like they were almost pawns to be used by the adults and professionals. Even when Dion was talking about his experence at the White House and Peter Gennings request of them to ask "fun" questions. The kids were actually living these big social problems and that seems to get pushed to the way side.
DeleteAs far as Hubbard selling the kids work I didn't jump to the conclusion that he was personally profitig that money. I assume since the rights to the images belonged to Shooting Back some of that sales profit in all likely hood went back into the program purchasing supplies and such. However I agree, as I previously said, the adults in the room so to speak didn't do the kids justice.
DeleteYes! Carolyn, that's part of what I meant when I said Paley did not attempt to get much insight into the lived experience of the student participants. He questioned them but did not follow up when they responded. He only included brief interviews with 5 total students and did not delve very deeply into their perceptions of the program. He did not invest much in their interviews as compared with the length and depth of the interviews with Rollins and Paley - which made the book much more about ROllins and Paley and their art interests rather than the broader social concern of doing something for the kids and their neighborhoods. The value of the program for the students was not really examined very seriously.
DeleteHubbard didn't have to deposit the proceeds directly into his bank account to personally profit from the money. All he had to do was reinvest the money in ways that did not directly benefit the children and their families. If he was doing something to improve their quality of life besides making homelessness more visible to middle and upper-class people, then the kids weren't aware of it. Even if they had signed over the property rights to their work (a practice with a long track record of exploiting unsophisticated people, for example the early blues musicians and more recently, producers of outsider art) they still had a right to know how it would be used. Their name was on it, therefore they had a right to know. Hubbard had an obligation to explain it in ways they could understand.
DeleteI think Hubbard might have lost his way in the glitz of success, or at least lost sight of the daily reality of kids who have to no escape from the meanest or mean streets.
Jennifer, I see your point. You just didn't clobber everyone over the head with it like I did! Sorry for my long diatribe. I wasn't angry with you or anyone in this class. I was upset with Hubbard but Paley also let us down because, as you said, "the value of the program for the students was not really examined very seriously."
DeleteIn my view, the book was an uncritical celebration of three art stars, two of whom used vulnerable populations in ways that demanded close attention to the ethics and responsibilities of the artists. Paley came out looking utterly inadequate to the task. Like the artists, he was a well-intended liberal nice guy, totally unprepared to deal with the sensitive complications of race, class and gender in this (still) deeply divided country.
I agree totally and furthermore, I did not think Benning's work had any thing to do with the other two. It was not at all similar in scope or intent. Innovative - yes but purely personal. Nne of us have talked about Benning much- ??
DeleteGood point about the misappropriation of the proceeds Dr. Erler. I agree with you that Paley did a poor job of following up and was more focused on the artist than the outcome and benefit for these very vulnerable populations. I also agree that both Rollins and Hubbard lost sight of what they (hopefully) originally intended to do, help at risk kids. I usually play devil’s advocate when I am critical of something though, so can I say with total conviction I might not make the same mistakes? I like to think I would stay true but having never been in a situation like this who knows? Even still I think this serves as warning to all who hope to instigate change in our communities.
DeleteActually, now that I think about this I have some first hand experence with something like this. Right after undergrad during my first year of teaching, I had a friend in the Visual Studies program student teaching on the East side. David Wragg, now one of my best friends, was heading up the classroom that was doing a low rider art bike program that was a collaberation between the S.O.A. and the TTU mechanical eng. dept. at TTU. I helped out after school cleaning, priming, and custom painting the bike frames and parts.
DeleteLong story short when the big show of the finish pieces came around, the kids, the TTU faculty, and the media show up at the S.O.A unvieling show. The Mechanical Enginering people could give two cents about the kids, they were in front of the media plugging themselfs and their programs. I remember feeling really jaded about the way there were dealing with the whole situation. Naturally the Visual Studies people, myself included were a bit more focused on the kids.
However I cannot help look back and think the same thing I think about KOS and shooting back. How much did the kids really get out of the program. I am sure at least one kid fell in love with Art and it changed his or her life, but could we have done more? In all likely hood yes.
You are right, Daniel. This is why I think all of you are more "socially conscious" individuals than Hubbard and Paley. The bottom line is this - Would anybody in this class ever ask a student to sign the rights of their artwork over to them, sell the artwork for hundreds of dollars and not give the money to the student? I'm pretty sure you'd answer "absolutely not!". I'm also sure that if you found out a teacher in your district was engaging in this practice, you would report it. Imagine if an art teacher did this with your own child. You might file a lawsuit. But if you were a homeless person, an immigrant struggling to learn English or illiterate (as many Americans are), you might not feel confident enough to stand up to the teacher. You might not know what to do.
DeleteYes, definitely Shooting Back serves as a warning for what can go wrong in a community-based arts initiative meant to help people in desperate need.
Q1
ReplyDeleteAnytime a negative view is put forth of public education it is almost never followed up with an actual practical solution. This is my personal experience at least. The issues at hand in the public education system are large in scale and depth, but I find myself arguing that more often than not the issues stem not from the education system itself but from society. While the programs such as KOS and Shooting back have wonderful creative freedom they have zero accountability. As a public educator I am constantly bombarded by the concept of accountability. Test and results drive education in America as a result of NCLB legislation. I cannot help but draw some comparisons between this system of end results and accountability in public education and the programs of Rollins and Hubbard. While the afterschool programs have almost zero evaluation of their effectiveness and no real defined goal besides getting kids involved and let’s face it, promoting the organizer’s own agendas, public education has what I cannot help feel is an unattainable goal. In this way they are both fundamentally flawed.
Shooting back has no method or even any real interest in evaluating how the program is actually affecting its participant’s lives down the road. Not only that is doesn’t seem to really even have a plan of action beyond raising the profile of the problem of homelessness in America. While I applaud the work, what is the ultimate goal here? If it is to bring about social change, specifically domestic policy to combat homelessness, is that goal actually being achieved or as Marie Moll said in her interview “Are these people really being motivated to action, or are they just looking at photos?”
Q1 continuted.
ReplyDeleteAt the other end of the educational spectrum we have the standards set for public education via testing and accountability mandated by NCLB. Here we have clearly defined goals but far from the frame work with which to achieve it. First off I am sorry if I offend with my view point here, and let me be clear I am not 100% about my opinions on the matters. With that said, are all students’ college material? NCLB states that essentially all students must be made so. I don’t think that is a realistic goal. First and fore most I think it is a bit insulting to insinuate that gaining a good trade and making a living off it is neither fulfilling nor economically viable. Potentially kids would thrive studying these things (trades) but we have them crammed into a college readiness system. The afterschool programs we looked at have students who are perusing what interest them. They contrast this with what they experience at school, the dull and painful exploration of subject matter that neither connects with their personal experiences or their interest. How do you reconcile that? I don’t know. What I do know is many teachers work extremely long hours to bridge that gap for subjects ranging from science and math to social studies. It is certainly not from a lack of effort, which I often find is the insinuation when people are critical of school programs and elevate their own alternatives, while ignoring the realities of public education and the pitfalls of their own programs. It is easy to point out your own success and the public education systems failures when you play by a very different set of rules. With that said I also feel that a majority of the public education systems failures have more to do with student’s home life than anything else. I listened to a very interesting NPR show recently about this actually; it focused on a long term study of the effect stress has on a person’s cognitive development. It essentially showed that high levels of stress at home chemically altered a person’s brain during the developmental years of one’s education. Naturally lower income subjects were exposed to more stress, such as one might experience growing up in a homeless shelter. So is that student’s trouble with cognitive development the school systems failure or society’s failure? Any issue of importance is almost always far too complex for simple answers. If not the problems would have been fixed long ago.
At the end of the day I feel accountability is vital to public education, but goals need to be re-evaluated. I think the same could be said for the afterschool programs we looked at in the readings. That said I feel you would be hard pressed to say that either is making young people’s lives worse.
I think a potential pitfall of a program like this is that is takes away from the kids enrichment to some extent when adult, specifically professionals, use the program to push their own agenda and ideas, even if the agenda is something worth commending such as raising awareness of homelessness. In shooting back you have, at the beginning at least, adults making key decisions in the process such as image selection, development of prints, and venue selection for display. I can’t help but feel that the kids are almost being used as a tool in a way to push what the adults and professionals would have done regardless. How does this actually impact the child on an individual level? No evidence is put forth that any real impact beyond the program hours has been made at all. I think this goes back to what I said about accountability; Jennifer mentioned this in her post as well. I felt this was especially true with the interns working on their portfolios and projects. Who is really benefiting here?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDaniel,
DeleteMany people started asking "who is really benefiting here" after the publication of Paley's book and reports of other artist-run community programs. By the mid-1990s, artists, critics and theorists became wary of art projects that purport to help less fortunate people.
When working with minors, educators/researchers/cultural workers are expected to be sensitive to the power imbalance inherent in teacher-student, adult-child relations. The demands are even greater for middle-class, educated white people who work with kids at or near the bottom of the socio-economic food chain. Minors, elderly people and people with disabilities (I would add lab animals to this list) are among the most vulnerable members of society. It is absolutely essential for people who work with vulnerable populations to "first do no harm."
Grant money recipients are usually held accountable, but for-profit ventures and volunteer programs still fall through the cracks and bad things can happen. Jerry Sandusky is a recent example. Tim Rollins and Jim Hubbard weren't sexually abusing children, but three former Shooting Back participants said Hubbard had broken their trust. Specifically, they felt Hubbard had used them for his own benefit. Allegations like this made by children MUST be taken seriously.
I will have a response for the 3rd question as well as feed back to everyones post I just read tomorrow. I was in Dallas for a wedding this weekend and ran a half marathon this morning so I am a bit physically and mentally drained. Also my knee and ankle are killing me, time for ice and sleep.
ReplyDeleteQ3:
ReplyDeleteIn the book, the articles, and the videos, I often felt there points to be critical off. From Rollin’s reading selections to Hubbard’s lack of clearly defined outcomes and goals. Paley starts the book off by dedicating it to children who have no place for art in their lives, and states all the proceeds will go to the various programs highlighted in the book. So he is a benefactor for KOS, Shooting Back, even Sadie Bennings. Might he be overlooking certain things to avoid showing short comings in the programs he believes in? Or is he just ignorant. At the end of the day I’m not sure it matters. I think he has a responsibility to either be informed on the issues he is reporting on or has the ethical responsibility to point out the problems. Had I been in his shoes I like to think I would be more informed and do my due diligence. Again playing devil’s advocate, I have never been in a situation like that and don’t know what the publisher or editor might have done if anything. I would not put my name on something I didn’t believe in though so at the end of the day I feel a little disappointed in Paley in some regards.