STATEMENT OF TEACHING PHILOSOPHY

My teaching philosophy is that different methodologies, especially those considered hostile or mutually exclusive, such as critical theory and connoisseurship, are actually supplementary and even complementary.  I came to art history as an art student, and am now an art historian as well as a curator.  My education has taught me the value of synthesizing various approaches for interpretation, understanding, and appreciation of art, and has prepared me for teaching art history from a wide variety of perspectives.  I believe that students who are exposed to many different approaches find the material much more open to analysis and more understandable than courses based on just one or another methodology.

In a way, a philosophy of teaching presupposes an approach to learning.  One of the marks of an excellent teacher is to recognize the inherently different learning approaches of students.  My goal is to apply diverse methodologies in order to connect with the various students, as well as to challenge them to learn how to learn in a variety of ways.  The greatest potential for teaching and learning occurs when both the teacher and the students are aware of their respective philosophies/approaches and are open to new and different ones.  The burden of self-consciousness and openness lies equally with teachers and students.  Thus, my teaching philosophy may be rightly called both “learner centered” and “teacher centered.”  As the historian Erwin Panofsky, quoting Leonardo da Vinci, remarked: “Two weaknesses leaning against one another add up to one strength.”  The best education, in other words, is a two-way street.

This duality in education mirrors a similar duality in the philosophy of art history.  Traditionally classified as part of the “humanities,” the history of art is notably one aspect of “humanism,” with its attendant emphasis on the uniqueness and value of the individual.  However, more recently the study of art history engages with other disciplines that emphasize groups of individuals or societies, as in the social sciences.  One may lament or applaud either of these accents, individual art history or social art history and/or their various manifestations (e.g. formalism and socio-economic history), depending on one’s disposition.  Yet, I believe that there are benefits to each approach; students gain knowledge of self- as well as social-expressions, attitudes and limitations.  Hence, I feel most comfortable teaching a variety of theories and methods to provide greater insights into the issues at hand.

The field of modern and contemporary art, in all its complexity and diversity, compounds this “double duality” into a true plurality.  Late nineteenth, twentieth, and now twenty-first century art frequently defies simple definition or even inclusion into the very categories of “art.”  In fact, it often questions these divisions and provokes the viewer.  Paradoxically, modern and contemporary art is often that with which individuals and societies are the most familiar, but also that with which they are the least comfortable.  Perhaps no medium has been more difficult to define or has encountered more vehement opposition to inclusion within the categories of art than the distinctly modern medium of photography (one of my main areas of interest and current research).  Hence, diverse methodologies—gender studies, criticism, critical theory, connoisseurship, historicism, etc.—seem especially necessary for professors and students of modern and contemporary art in order to engage the full richness of the subject.

Below are some additional examples of how I implement my teaching philosophy in a variety of courses:

§         addressing a wide range of modern and contemporary art media: painting, sculpture, architecture, photography, film, video, installation and performance art

§         focusing on multiculturalism and including minority and underrepresented artists

§         exposing students to art museums, performance spaces, archives and other relevant collections around campus and in the surrounding community

§         inviting local and visiting guest speakers—artists, historians, theoreticians, performers, etc.—to engage students with ongoing art practices

§         complementing my teaching with the example of my own research and production

§         testing with multiple choice exams and essays, grading for memorization and argumentation, so that students know key works and are also comfortable exploring important ideas

§         encouraging students to try producing works of art to give them exposure to the practical and technical problems that artists face

§         valuing student and collegial feedback inside and outside the classroom in individual or small group discussions and meetings

Finally, I strongly believe in the power of an enthusiastic teacher.  If having a philosophy of teaching presupposes a desire to teach, then having a desire to teach presupposes a desire to learn.  One learns in order to teach and then teaches in order to learn.  I have always had a desire to learn about art.  Enthusiasm for one’s work can overcome the anticipated disconnects between teaching philosophies and learning approaches, and can overwhelm boredom or disinterest in the classroom.  We teach by our own example.  An inspired teacher yields inspired and well-educated pupils.