Toward a Playful Pedagogy: Popular Culture ... - naeaworkspace.org

Copyright 2009 by the National Art Education Association

Studies in Art Education A Journal of Issues and Research 2009, 50(3), 232-244

Toward a Playful Pedagogy: Popular Culture and the Pleasures of Transgression Paul Duncum University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Author’s Note I wish to thank my colleagues Dr. Laurel Campbell and Dr. Michael Parsons for their helpful comments on this article. Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed to Paul Duncum, School of Art and Design, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail: pduncum@ uiuc.edu 1For a comprehensive review, see Duncum, 2007. 2Other contributions include the development of critical thinking, exploring identity, learning the conventions of popular genres and postmodern concepts, and teachers learning more about their students (See Duncum, 2007 for a review). 3Transgressive art cuts across basic norms or mores, and it often causes offense or is considered shocking. According to Julius (2003) and Mey (2007), transgressive art falls (continued)

232

In defining popular culture as inherently pleasurable, including the pleasures of transgression, the author argues that while art teachers now critique popular visual culture for its often-dubious ideologies, they are yet to come to terms with its transgressive pleasures. Teachers fail to engage with its carnivalesque, subversive qualities because they conflict with the rationality upon which schools are founded. Transgression involves challenging teachers’ authority, and its oftentimes-reactionary nature raises serious moral dilemmas. However, unless the transgressive nature of popular culture is acknowledged, critique will not engage with students’ affective investments and will be dismissed as irrelevant. The considerable experience of media educators in the United Kingdom suggests that popular culture must be approached through a playful pedagogy that negotiates moral ambiguity, accepts that students’ reactionary and progressive attitudes often fold into one another, and leavens critical theory with fun and pleasure.

Many K-12 art teachers are now addressing popular culture in their classrooms. They have critically examined, for example, ethnicity (Cummings, 2006), gender (Gillespie Perkins, 2006), consumerism (Stokrocki, 2001), beauty, anorexia, bullying, divorce (Plummer-Rolhoff, 2006), teen pregnancy, crime (Lovett, 2006), and violence (Chung, 2006). Through their own visual productions, K-12 students have talked back to media representations of national politics (Tavin & Toczydlowska, 2006), celebrity (Briggs, 2007), family photography, sitcoms (Cummings, (2006), music videos (Taylor, 2000), and cigarette advertising (Chung, 2005).1 While many positive contributions are claimed for teaching popular culture—including student motivation and students’ more complex imagery2— virtually no attention has been paid to the contradiction between the irrational, often-subversive nature of popular culture and the rationality normally required within formal education. If one of the primary pleasures of popular culture derives from its transgressive nature, how are teachers to react when students in schools produce work that is either utterly inane or politically incorrect? Art teachers interested in studying transgressive artists (e. g., Darts, 2004; Darts, Tavin, Sweeny & Derby, 2008; Garoian & Gaudelius, 2008), including in K-12 classrooms (e. g., Darts, 2006; Tavin & Toczydlowska, 2006; Springgay, 2008), is one thing; it is altogether different when students transgress.3 The former is contained within the rationalism of critical critique and constrained by the normative expectations of schooling; the latter breaks loose from both. When students produce work that is just plain silly, or ostensibly sexist, racist, homophobic, vulgar, offensive to people with physical disabilities, and so on, what are teachers to do? So far, art teachers have dealt with popular culture largely by avoiding such dilemmas; it is as though they do not exist. But, if

Studies in Art Education

Popular Culture and the Pleasures of Transgression

teachers are truly to engage with the popular culture of their students, the pleasures of transgression cannot long be ignored. I contend in this article that art education has much to learn from media education, the prime focus of which is mass media. In the United Kingdom, studying popular culture has been a part of school curriculum since the 1930s (Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 1994), and today, media specialist schools are able to develop pedagogy in-depth. Moreover, for over two decades media education classroom practice has been subjected to a sustained research endeavor (e.g., Buckingham, Banaji, Burn, Carr, Cranmer & Willett, 2005; Sefton-Green & Seop, 2007), so that a considerable body of knowledge exists about popular culture pedagogy. Many countries are now modeling their own programs upon this knowledge (Buckingham, et al., 2005). In this article, I look to media educators to suggest directions for future developments in pedagogy since art education, especially in the United States, is still at an early, experimental stage in developing a pedagogy for popular culture, and some reported practices appear to be at odds with what media education has found to be both defensible and effective.

into three categories: (1) art that breaks its own rules such as Duchamp’s readymades, (2) art that breaks social taboos such as Serrano’s Piss Christ, and (3) politically resistant art such as Heartfield’s photomontages. Almost all the art discussed by these art educators primarily falls into categories 1 and 3 whereas the art produced by students discussed in this paper primarily falls into category 2.

Popular Culture and Transgression This article acknowledges a crucial, paradoxical characteristic of popular culture; namely, that it reinforces dominant social values and so contributes to social cohesion while simultaneously offering pleasures associated with resistance to and even subversion of the social order (Storey, 2003). Popular culture is both conformist and transgressive in nature. Moreover, these opposed tendencies frequently operate within the one site, as if folding into one another. Conformity and transgression mark the mass culture of television and cinema, advertising, magazines, and so on which is produced by salaried or outsourced professionals, and often now working on behalf of global corporations (Storey, 2003). Mass culture is sometimes called the dominant culture because it is closely tied to dominant forms of economic production, and it tends to convey the principle values of a society based on that economic system (Williams, 1977). Thus, popular culture is a rational expression of widely-shared social assumptions. In a consumer economy, the dominant message of mass culture is to consume, though many other mainstream messages about class, gender, ethnicity, and so on are also embedded, all of which has the effect of reinforcing social inequalities (Barnard, 1998). This is despite the fact that mass popular culture also offers fun and pleasure as well as an appearance of liberality by including transgression. This fusion of conformity and transgression applies not only to popular culture as mass culture; it is equally true of popular culture as a synonym for folk or vernacular culture, the culture of ordinary people (Storey, 2003). And transgressive tendencies apply as much to ordinary people as audiences of mass culture as they do to ordinary people as producers of their own cultural artifacts. People everywhere negotiate what meanings they take from mass culture, often employing subversive readings that undercut intended meaning in what SeftonGreen and Seop (2007) call “creative media consumption” (p. 839). Equally,


233

Paul Duncum

4This is not to advocate the death of didacticism; I see didacticism remaining a vitally necessary ingredient of a pedagogic mix.

234

many people produce work of their own, often derived from mass culture, in what Jenkins (1992) calls “textual poaching” (p. 1). For example, today this includes tattooing (Blair, 2007), children’s bedrooms (Mitchell & Reid-Walsh, 2002), music videos (Jenkins, 1992), fan cultures (Wilson, 2003), and 70 million blogging sites (Keen, 2007), not to mention social networking Internet sites and YouTube. Either as creative media consumption or through their own productions, the popular culture of ordinary people is often subversive as officially approved culture is turned on its head in a carnivalesque celebration of hedonistic irrationality (Langman, 2008). People’s own productions often involve the exploration of alternative sexualities (Jenkins, 1992), the grotesque, the obscene, and the completely nonsensical (Langman, 2008). The latter is variously referred to as “metaphoric rubbish” (Mitchell & Reid-Walsh, 2002, p. 21) or, in Fielder’s (1975) words, “privileged insanity” in the face of “the crypto-puritans” (pp. 36, 41). Where the dominant social discourse, including that of schools, is one of “purposefulness, economy, rationality and productivity,” the carnivalesque involves a symbolic inversion that celebrates what prima facie appears to be “sheer purposelessness” (Manga, 2003, pp. 193, 179). Mass culture is ever seeking opportunities to appropriate the vernacular for its own commercial purposes, and people’s own culture feeds off mass culture so that, while distinct, a dynamic, symbiotic relationship exists between the two (Storey, 2003). I contend that while art teachers now are attempting to deal with popular culture by subjecting it to a critical lens, they are ignoring popular culture as irrational fun and pleasure seeking, and that to fully address popular culture in the classroom we need to develop pedagogy that acknowledges fun and pleasure. Art educational approaches to popular culture are often altogether serious affairs, having an earnest quality that belies the pleasure, the sheer fun, and the utter lack of seriousness for which popular culture is, in a word, popular (Duncum, 2007). Thus, to date, one of the chief defining characteristics of popular culture is missing in action from reports by art teachers in their approaches to popular culture.4

Transgressive Pleasure Of course, students have fun with their teachers, but this is fun under the control of teachers; it is fun with a purpose and thus more like Barthes’ (1975) plaiser than jouissance. Plasier refers to the pleasure one has in relating to the social order, a conservative and accommodating, conformist pleasure. It is an adults’ view of pleasure. But, as every teacher––and every student––knows, there is another kind of pleasure, that of jouissance, an intense, blissful ecstasy produced by evading and transgressing the social order (Kenway & Bullen, 2001). This is the pleasure children have in shocking their parents and teachers. When children are constantly under pressure to conform to adult demands, including to grow up and not to act like children, children’s own culture becomes one of resistance and transgression: inane, risqué, scatological, and politically incorrect (Mitchell & Reid-Walsh, 2002). Through their selfinitiated drawings, children frequently adopt an ironic, even sarcastic, attitude



towards media representations. They play topsy-turvy with conventional gender roles (Wilson & Toku, 2004), produce grotesques in response to sexualized media stereotypes (Ivashkevich, 2008), relish depicting violence and cruelty in humorous ways, and celebrate the most ridiculous aspects of mass media (Duncum, 1987). Now, children are using social networking sites like Facebook as well as video sharing sites such as YouTube to produce a seemingly endless stream of transgressive material.5 In turn, the media appropriate children’s resistance to adult rationality by offering programs that celebrate inanity like Sponge Bob Square Pants or others like Bevis and Butthead and South Park that constantly transgress rationally held values and beliefs. In this way, children’s own culture and popular mass visual culture feed off one another in a common resistance to reason and good sense.

In Pursuit of Rationality The transgressive dimensions of children’s culture and popular mass culture stand in marked contrast to schools (Janks, 2002). Schools are still modeled on 19th-century efficiency-driven, assembly-line factories, which, in turn, were modeled on the early 19th-century prison system that curtailed the body by disciplining the mind (Foucault, 1977/1975). Schools appeal to reason as the supreme authority on matters of opinion, belief, and conduct. They stress logical argument, predictable outcomes, sound judgment, and good sense. They are rule-governed, evidence-based, and whenever possible and by whatever means, they suppress their opposite. Irrationality is condemned as childish, for a primary aim of schools is to produce rational beings willing to serve a rationally ordered, adult society. Such is the pervasiveness of rationality in schools that, despite claims to the contrary, art education has always had more to do with it than the unpredictable and irrational elements of either art or children’s culture. During the heyday of the creative self-expression movement, advocates claimed to offer students genuine freedom to explore and express as they pleased (Viola, 1946; Lowenfeld, 1957), but their classroom practice belied their claims. Prominent proponents of creative self-expression were highly directive; they managed to draw from their students the appearance of spontaneity only by careful manipulation (Wilson, 2007; Smith, 1984). Efland (1976) showed that what he called the “school art style” served the rhetoric of individual freedom while being demonstratively a creature of school culture (p. 37). Early formulations of DisciplineBased Art Education made conformity to the rationality of schooling explicit by advancing the systematic acquisition of well-established fine arts skills and knowledge (Greer, 1984). Today, under the rubric of Visual Culture, rationality is being pursued by other means. The range of acceptable imagery has been democratized by including popular culture. And the chaotic, endless, and unpredictable nature of popular culture is acknowledged (Wilson, 2005), but it has been rescued for rationality through the strategy of deconstructive analysis. Popular culture is scrutinized for its sexism, racism, its commodity values, and so on—an inherently rational approach (Brown, 2003). Critiquing popular culture is often


5Examples by schoolaged children on Facebook include videos and artwork parodies of popular culture such as Hairy Pothead (referencing the Harry Potter novel and film series). There is a group that designs its own South Park characters, and the Pastafarian group, a portmanteau on pasta and Rastafarian, claim to worship The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The latter site includes an image titled Touched by His Noodly Appendage of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel painting of Adam with a Medusa-like deity.

235

Paul Duncum

motivated by a concern for moral protection and conceived in terms of logical reasoning and argument arising from evidence; the approach is entirely logocentric (Janks, 2002). It is as if, in sensing the degree to which popular culture is beyond anyone’s control, art teachers at once felt the need to order it, to tidy it up, by subjecting it to the control of reasoned interpretation. The mindful, purposeful act of deconstruction has become a buttress against popular culture’s oftentimes inane, oftentimes intentionally transgressive nature. Seeming to view their primary task as inculcating a critical consciousness, some art teachers have ended up prescribing what is to count as valid knowledge. Some have been so determined to extract politically correct responses from their students that popular culture has been dealt with by carefully curtailing any other possible response (See Herrmann, 2005 for a critique). In one case, students were shown violent imagery and then instructed to produce positive, non-violent imagery. In another case, students were given stencils to follow. So prescriptive were these teachers that the very possibility of transgression was eradicated. Other teachers note student transgression, but lament it, seeing students’ subversive productions as inadequate or inappropriate critique (e.g., Chung, 2006; Tavin & Toczydlowska, 2006; Polaniecki, 2006). Mostly, art teachers ignore student transgression; or at least, they fail to mention it when reporting on their teaching of popular culture (Duncum, 2007). Presumably, they ignore transgression because it is such a normative part of classrooms and the very thing they habitually strive to combat. Wilson (2003, 2005) acknowledges children’s pleasure in transgression, and he celebrates it; but, he equally sees it as impractical within the classroom. He (2005) argues for what he calls a “transactional pedagogy” whereby students are allowed to display their out-of-classroom drawings within the classroom (p. 19). But, he rightly notes that teachers are commonly reluctant to allow such productions in the classroom where children’s satirical approach to personal relations, romance, desires, and so on “might be viewed as inappropriate” (2003, p. 121). Higgins’ (2007) practice is illustrative. A fifth-grade teacher, Higgins spends his lunchtimes with his students creating a safe, unstructured space where students are encouraged to pursue their own interests in drawing, but he contrasts this with the structure of his formal lessons. Moreover, Wilson (2003) doubts whether popular culture can ever be introduced into the classroom without killing it, without turning fun into mere curriculum plans and motivational strategies.

Transgression in the Classroom Media educators in the United Kingdom have not been so cautious. Transgressive pleasure and the official, rational culture of the school have not always been viewed as inherently incompatible (e.g., Alvermann, Moon & Hagood, 1999: Buckingham, 2003; Janks, 2002). Rather, media educators have understood that transgression in the classroom is an inevitable consequence of the repression normally demanded by teachers. They have accepted that a classroom culture founded on rationally will inevitably beget its opposite. Just as popular culture transgresses in response to an overwhelmingly rational society,

236



and children’s own culture, including their self-initiated drawing, subverts the general repression of the adult world, so in the classroom children either subvert rational critiques of popular culture or ignore them. In this way, transgression in the classroom parallels the transgressive pleasure of popular culture beyond the classroom. While sometimes unnerved, media teachers have allowed transgression to erupt within their classrooms and negotiated the consequences. I believe that their experience signposts what art teachers need to consider if their current interest in popular culture is not to be one-sided. Transgression is highlighted by a practice common in media education of having students work in teams, where carried away in a spirit of camaraderie, students produce parodies not only of popular culture genres, but their immediate, shared environment, namely, school life and their teachers. Buckingham (2003) notes that with parody students can simultaneously acknowledge the ideological imperatives of their teachers while disavowing any commitment to them.6 Parody offers a safe space in which flirting with what students know to be politically incorrect is sanctioned. Parodies of school life allow students the jousiance of seeing what they can get away with. Grace and Tobin (1998) provide many examples of such parodies from third graders. These include short videos of children enjoying “butt jokes”, singing off key, and performing silly antics. The children constructed visual stories involving disastrous school field trips with “tyrannical teachers, ridiculous rules and rebellious students” (p. 49). The videos were later watched where “performers and audience were fused in a surge of camaraderie, a spirit of oneness joined by laugher” (p. 42). Similarly, Burn and Durran (2006) observed students video editing who, while searching for technical competence, laced their dialogue with social chat and outrageous humor, including the witty dismissal of pretension among teachers. Buckingham and Sefton-Green (1994) provide examples of parodies from high school students that mock both their cultural models and school life. Students constantly pushed up against the boundaries of acceptable school behavior. With Slutmopolitan, for example, which parodied the magazine Cosmopolitan, a group of girls not only sent up their own gender construction as weak minded––photo articles included “A step-by-step guide to your frozen peas dilemma”––but explored their sexuality in ways their teachers found confronting (p. 201). In describing the project, one of the girls identified a “tart” as, where “the lipstick is the cheapest thing going, apart from herself that is…. [Someone] who can’t control her urges, who pastes makeup on, who flirts, who goes out, drinks, smokes” (pp. 196-197). Setting the tone was a photograph of one of the girls simulating oral sex with a chocolate bar, with text that read, “30% extra. Only the biggest will do” (p. 198). In another parody, a group of white girls created a photo story involving, like their real selves, a group of white girls fantasying about a group of scantily clad, black male dancers. In the photo story, the fictitious girls have a group of boys in their school undress and act out their fantasies, but then reject the boys in


6Buckingham also observes that parodies provide escape from any possible embarrassment that students’ work falls short of the professional skills of their models. Passing off their work as parody avoids any embarrassment students have in play acting in a group, and parody can act as post-hoc justification for whatever they produce.

237

Paul Duncum

favor of their initial fantasies. In the act of producing this story, “the [real] girls created as much subversion as possible” (p. 98). They began by trying to set up an audition to evaluate physical deficiencies among some of the boys in their class which, predictably, set off anxieties among the boys. They then considered developing a narrative around their teacher! Eventually, they decided to use popular, though unruly, boys from another class. By choosing all black boys and posing them as sex objects, the girls managed to transgress the racial divisions within the school, privilege prohibited behavior, and overturn the usual male/ female power relationships that dominated their everyday experience of gender. Also, they had the boys fail to fulfill their fantasies, even killing off one who “fancied himself ” and who had annoyed them (p. 99). In these various ways the girls played topsy-turvy with normative relationships between black and white, good and bad behavior, male and female, and students and teachers. Bragg (2000, cited in Buckingham, 2003) describes another parody, this time in the form of a trailer for a horror film involving a serial killer, in which a 16-year-old girl located the killer’s motivation primarily in his gender, age, and ethnicity. The killer was Spanish, was prejudiced against the English, and considered helpless elderly women expendable. Thus, the story involved a heady brew of gratuitous violence, xenophobia, ageism, and misogyny, all of which flew in the face of political correctness.

Parody and Provocation Violating the rationality of schools is clearly problematic for teachers. First, it confronts how they view their role as authority figures. It is unnerving, for example, for a teacher to listen to a group of students enthusiastically describing a film in which “a dumb guy … a total idiot” becomes a teacher (Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999, p. 33). Describing themselves as “rapidly aging middle-aged males,” the teachers who oversaw the production of Slutmoplitan confess to being uncomfortable about the explicit exploration of sexuality it involved (Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 1994, p. 199). Equally, the elementary teachers whose third graders produced butt jokes and mean teacher parodies were initially equally uncomfortable (although they came to view their authority as teachers in new ways) (Grace & Tobin, 1998). Secondly, this work raises serious moral dilemmas. With Slutmopolitan, Buckingham and Sefton-Green (1994) were unclear as to whether the girls were satirizing sluts or people who are critical of them, whether it was preferable to be a slut or the well-behaved girls from traditional families they actually were, whether sluts were powerful or not, or even whether the girls thought sluts were real or purely imaginary figures. Yet, Buckingham and Sefton-Green concluded that the exercise provided an opportunity for the girls to explore their sexuality by trying out alternative gender masquerades in ways they would never have been allowed otherwise. Bragg (2000, cited in Buckingham, 2003) too argues that the girl who produced the serial killer movie trailer was able to work through complex emotions and contradictions by allowing her to adopt the identities of both killer and victims. Bragg further argues that this was equally

238



true of a male student in her class who, she claims, worked through his unacknowledged fantasies of male masochism in a parody of the splatter film genre. Thus, media educators argue that students’ apparent reproduction of repugnant ideology derived from media models is often a calculated resistance to their classroom culture of political correctness. The views students express are often as much, if not more, a function of the institutional context in which they are uttered than what they truely believe. Consider the following commentary from upper elementary boys about a horror film: “Jason’s better than Freddy. Jason kills more people. One movie he kills like 15 people. The most Freddy ever kills was five, six, total….” (Alvermann, et al., 1999, p. 36). Here, as with the students who told their teacher about a “total idiot” who became a teacher, the valorization of violence may have little to do with views actually held by the student. Perhaps its purpose is simply to shock. And of the third graders mentioned above, Grace and Tobin (1998) comment that the students’ scatological interest and inane antics were not mirror reflections of students’ actual views but were like funhouse mirrors where everything is distorted and exaggerated for comic relief. The parodies allowed students to “represent their desires, work through their fears and concerns and to play with their identity as children” (p. 53). What may appear to be a highly offensive expression of ideas that should be either crushed from the outset, or at best earnestly critiqued, may simply be a matter of students playing with the authority of schools and teachers. On the other hand, there is no gainsaying the fact that reactionary, abhorrent views are entailed. While parody offers no evidence of students adopting reactionary views, neither does it offer evidence of students developing a politically approved critical consciousness. Parody involves both resistance and reproduction, not only to the form of what it parodies but its ideologies. Ideological resistance and reproduction fold into one another to produce, at best, ideological ambiguity (Sefton-Green & Seop, 2007). It is the very ambiguity of parody that is at once its power and pleasure (Grace & Tobin, 1998). The relationship between reproduction and resistance is often unclear to teachers and, seemingly, to students alike (Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 1994).

Crossing the Line But can students go too far? Is there a line in the sand or does anything go in pursuit of incorporating transgression? Media educators respond with a decided no (e.g., Alvermann, et al., 1999). Buckingham (2003) argues that, where transgressive pleasure is deeply abhorrent, to merely celebrate it is to avoid social responsibility and to acquiesce in the face of consumer hedonism. You cannot, he argues, remain silent when, for example, a group of 14-year-old boys construct a predatory gay character because, as they declared, they hated gays. Grace and Tobin (1998) similarly argue that not all parodies or satires are harmless, and teachers must use their intuitive judgment to make “case-by-case decisions” (p. 60). Grace and Tobin were unsure about videos that lampooned every single group in a school. Everyone was subjected to satire, and while befuddled kindergartners, boring teachers, and school bullies seemed fair game,


239

Paul Duncum

the lampooning of the disabled students was unnerving. Was this an unusual form of inclusion or deeply insulting? They were unsure. They were relieved when one child’s interest in animal cruelty was met with disinterest from his peers, and they intervened to stop a video project that seemed to promise to open up rather than narrow racial divisions within the school. They also stopped another parody on religion because it appeared to cross the boundary between religion and the state. On the one hand, an anything goes policy is socially irresponsible, and on the other hand, attention only to serious critique is unlikely to engage students in the deeply emotional way required for transformation. It is all too easy for critique of popular culture to slip into criticism of its audience, for an analysis of popular culture to be perceived by students as a negation of their pleasures and, by extension, of themselves. Elitism comes in many forms, as much a creature of those who condemn popular culture for its ideologies as those who view it as decadent (Brown, 2003). Thus, Buckingham (2003) calls for “more playful forms of pedagogy that engage directly with young people’s emotional investments in the media and with their sense of agency” (p. 5). Others call for a “post-critical pedagogy” (Green, 1998, p. 177) that goes “beyond reason” (Janks, 2002, p. 7), “beyond radical pedagogy” (Richards, 1998, p. 132) to involve humor and students’ affective investments. We can expose the faulty logic of popular culture, identify its telling absences, examine its underpinning values, and expose its assumptions, and as Janks (2002) says, “When we have finished, students can produce a reasoned critique that is not in any way transformative” (p. 9). Students learn the rules of deconstructive critique, but deconstruction is no match for the seductive powers of popular culture. Popular culture offers sites of desire and identification and “where identification promises the fulfillment of desire, reason cannot compete” (p. 10). The difficulty of being taken seriously by students is compounded by mass media that frequently caricature teachers as dull and overly earnest, as “incompetent nincompoops or rigid authoritarians” (Kenway & Bullen, 2001, p. 73), and media educators argue that teachers of popular culture frequently do themselves no good by in any way conforming to these stereotypes (Buckingham, 2003; Green, 1998; Richards, 1998). Finding themselves the butt of humor and schooling as represented as irrelevant to students’ lives, it is easy for teachers to respond by denigrating the media, seeing it as the enemy, but this, in turn, only further alienates students from school (Kenway & Bullen, 2001). When media culture has become a site for subverting authority, seriousness, and conformity, and students see attempts to impose authority over their affective investments in popular culture––be it moral, cultural, or political––teachers are unlikely to be taken seriously. From the outset, attempts at cultural inoculation are alike with attempts to have students condemn what they enjoy (Buckingham, et al., 2005), and students need to be “given permission to be other than sensible and serious” (Comber in Janks, 2002, p. 9). This does not mean that transgression becomes something taught, something that is timetabled straight after lunch on a Wednesday, or that it needs its own state-sanctioned standard. It means that transgression should be allowed

240



to erupt when it will and play its disruptive role. Neither does this mean abandoning the pursuit of a critical consciousness among students; it means that without an acknowledgment of students’ pleasure-taking, developing a critical attitude is virtually impossible. Richard (2007) appropriately writes of a pedagogy for popular culture that engages “playful yet critical practices of the transforming self ” (p. 24). What makes a difference is providing students with a recognition that they, not their teachers alone, possess the power to think, feel, and act according to their own volition. Thus Alvermann, et. al. (1999) argue that teachers need to act as guides, pushing students along when they get stuck and needing to speak out when they feel they can make a positive difference by adding their voice “to the mix” (p. 129).

Conclusion Introducing the pleasures of popular culture, including its frequently transgressive nature, is to teach not only about popular culture but through it. Unless teaching students to critique popular culture is undertaken by acknowledging its pleasures, critiques will remain on only one side of the ledger, dealing with ideology but ignoring fun. Art educators have long recognized that to teach fine art in a way that has the measure of its complexity and depth means not only to teach about it but through it. It follows that if we are to teach popular culture, it must be taught in a similar way, for popular culture is no less complex than fine art. Only thus will the learning be deeply felt; only then will understanding reach the intangible, ineffable level we have sought to teach fine art. To achieve this, we must be willing to go beyond an entirely rationalistic approach, to leaven critique with a playful pedagogy. This means acknowledging that outcomes cannot be carefully prescribed. It means being willing to be unnerved by students who challenge traditional sources of authority, including one’s own, and accepting that moral ambiguity is unavoidable. This said, it is also to adopt pedagogy commensurate with the complex, paradoxical nature of popular culture, which is simultaneously conformist and transgressive, both an organ of social cohesion––including social inequalities––and a vehicle for sheer hedonism. Only by moving away from rational critique is it possible also to engage with it. Only a playful pedagogy promises the possibility of success.

References Alvermann, D. E., Moon, J., & Hagood, M. C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Barnard, M. (1998). Art, design and visual culture: An introduction. London: Macmillan. Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text. (R. Miller, Trans.). New York: Noonday Press. Blair, L. (2007). Tatoos and teenagers: An art educator’s response. Art Education, 60(5)39-44. Briggs, J. (2007). Celebrity, illusion, and middle school culture. Art Education, 60(3)39-44. Brown, N. C. M. (2003). Are we entering a post-critical age in visual arts education? Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 285-289. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education and the end of the critical consumer. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3). Available at: Retrieved November 23, 2005, from http://www. edreview.org/harvard03/2003/fa03/f03buck.htm


241

Paul Duncum Buckingham, D., & Sefton-Green, J. (1994). Cultural studies goes to school: Reading and teaching popular media. London: Taylor & Francis. Buckingham, D., Banaji, S., Burn, A., Carr, D., Cranmer, S., & Willett, R. (2005). The media literacy of children and young people: A review of the research literature on behalf of Ofcom. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/ medlitpubrss/ml_children.pdf Burn, A., & Durran, J. (2006). Digital anatomies: Analysis as production in media education. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital generations: Children, young people, and new media (pp. 273-293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chung, S. K. (2005). Media/visual literacy art education: Cigarette ad deconstruction. Art Education, 58(3), 14-18. Chung, S. K. (2006). The challenges and promises of visual culture art education. In P. Duncum (Ed.), Visual culture in the art class: Case studies (pp. 109-116). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Cummings, K. L. (2006). A journey of change. In P. Duncum (Ed.), Visual culture in the art class: Case studies (pp. 89-98). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Darts, D. (2004). Visual culture jam: Art, pedagogy, and creative resistance. Studies in Art Education, 45(4), 313-327. Darts, D. (2006). Head game$: Engaging popular vi$ual culture. In P. Duncum (Ed.), Visual culture in the art class: Case studies (pp. 99-198). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Darts, D., Tavin, K., Sweeny, R, W., & Derby, J. (2008). Scopic regime change: The war of terror, visual culture, and art education. Studies in Art Education, 49(3), 200-217. Duncum, P. (1987). Middle childhood spontaneous drawing from a cultural perspective. Doctoral dissertation. The Flinders University of South Australia. Duncum, P. (2007). What we are learning about teaching popular visual culture. In M. A. Park (Ed.), Art education as critical cultural inquiry (pp. 216-233). Seoul, Korea: Mijlnsa. Efland, A. (1976). The school art style: A functional analysis. Studies in Art Education, 17(2), 37-49. Fielder, L. A. (1975). Toward a definition of popular literature. In C. W. E. Bigsby (Ed.), Superculture: American popular culture and Europe (pp. 28-42). London: Paul Elek. Foucault, M. (1975/1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the modern prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Garoian, C. R., & Gaudelius, Y. (2008). Spectacle pedagogy: Art, politics, and visual culture. New York: State University of New York. Gillespie Perkins, E. (2006). The visual road goes ever on: A quest for never ending stories. In P. Duncum (Ed.), Visual culture in the art class: Case studies (pp. 47-55). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association Grace, D., & Tobin, J. (1998). Butt jokes and mean-teacher parodies: Video production in the elementary classroom. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Teaching popular culture: Beyond radical pedagogy (pp. 42–62). London: UCL Press. Green, B. (1998). Teaching for difference: Learning theory and post-critical pedagogy. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Teaching popular culture: Beyond radical pedagogy (pp. 177-197). London: UCL Press. Greer, W. D. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 212-218. Herrmann, R. (2005). The disconnect between theory and practice in a visual culture approach to art education, Art Education, 58(6), 41-46.

242


Popular Culture and the Pleasures of Transgression Higgins, B. (2007). Visual culture in elementary school. Paper presented at the Annual National Art Education Association Conference, New York. Ivashkevich, O. (2008). Constructing meaning through popular culture: Self initiated drawing in the lives of preadolescent girls. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign. Janks, H. (2002). Critical literacy: Beyond reason. Australian Educational Researcher, 29(1), 7-26. Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans & participatory culture. New York: Routledge. Julius, A. (2003). Transgressions: The offences of art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Keen, J. (2007). The cult of the amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2001). Consuming children: Education, entertainment, advertising. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Langman, L. (2008). Punk, porn and resistance: Carnivalisation and the body in popular culture. Current Sociology, 56(4), 657-677. Lovett, M. (2006). The subject is us: Photography and video production with Montreal youth. In P. Duncum (Ed.), Visual culture in the art classroom: Case studies (pp. 178-188). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Lowenfeld, V. (1957). Creative and mental growth (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Manga, J. E. (2003). The cultural politics of daytime TV talks shows. New York: New York University. Mey, K. (2007). Art and obscenity. London: I. B. Taurus. Mitchell, C., & Reid-Walsh, J. (2002). Researching children’s popular culture: The cultural spaces of childhood. London: Routledge. Plummer-Rohloff, R. (2006). Beyond the circus: Grounding a visual culture pedagogy. In P. Duncum (Ed.), Visual culture in the art class: Case studies (pp. 65-72). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Polaniecki, P. (2006). Teaching through TV: Transformative encounters with constructed reality. In P. Duncum (Ed.), Visual culture in the art class: Case studies (pp. 39-46). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Richard, M. (2007). Engaging “looking-glass” youth in art through visual narratives of the transforming self in popular culture. Visual Arts Research, 33(2), 24-37. Richards, C. (1998). Beyond classroom culture. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Teaching popular culture: Beyond radical pedagogy (pp. 132-152). London: UCL Press. Sefton-Green, J., & Soep, E. (2007). Creative media cultures: Making and learning beyond the school. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp.835-854). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Smith, P. (1984). Natalie Robinson Cole: The American Cizek? Art Education, 37(1),36-39. Springgay, S. (2008). Body knowledge and curriculum: Pedagogies of touch in youth and visual culture. New York: Peter Lang. Stokrocki, M. (2001). Go to the mall and get it all: Adolescents’ aesthetic values in the shopping mall. Art Education, 54(2),18-24. Storey, J. (2003). Inventing popular culture: From folklore to globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Tavin, K., & Toczydlowska, B. (2006). Constructing a (virtual) president: An uneasy classroom case study. In P. Duncum (Ed.), Visual culture in the art class: Case studies (pp. 56-64 ). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Taylor, P. (2000). Madonna and hypertext: Liberatory learning in art education. Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 376-389. Viola, W. (1946). Child art (2nd ed.). Peoria, IL: Chas. A. Bennett.


243

Paul Duncum Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Wilson, B. (2003). Three sites for visual culture pedagogy: Honoring students’ interests and imagery. The International Journal of Arts Education, 1(2), 107-126. Wilson, B. (2005). More lessons from the superheroes of J.C. Holz: The visual culture of childhood and the third pedagogical site. Art Education, 58(6), 18-24, 33-34. Wilson, B. (2007). Child art and other-than child art: A philosophical /historical mediation on adult/child visual cultural collaboration. In M. A. Park (Ed.), Art education as critical cultural inquiry (pp. 134-153). Seoul, South Korea: Mijlnsa. Wilson, B., & Toku, (2004). “Boys’ love, yaoi,” and art education: Issues of power and pedagogy. In D. Smith-Shank (Ed.), Semiotics and visual culture: Sights, signs and significances (pp. 94-103). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

nued)

244
