An Australian federal government report argues for visual education, or “visuacy”, to take its place alongside literacy and numeracy as a fundamental part of the country’s curriculum. The National Review of Visual Education calls for “a rethinking of arts education in schools to end the distinction between art and other images.”
“In much the same way that one might conceptualise a continuum of texts in the context of the English classroom, one might similarly do so in relation to a continuum of images from the most banal to the most aesthetically complex and challenging,” the report says. Translation? The newspaper the Australian says: students should study Picasso alongside pictures of Elle Macpherson’s underwear as part of a recasting of visual arts education away from traditional forms to include images of all kinds.
[The report] cites the example of scrutinising the “conditions of value and meaning” in images as diverse as Macpherson’s bras and briefs on the back of a bus or on a billboard, a blood-strewn road safety advertisement on television, Picasso’s Guernica reproduced in the pages of a book of 20th century European art and the television transmission of a collapsing World Trade Center.
Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools chair Su Baker is already playing defense, arguing images are words in a visual language that have to be taught in the same way as English or any other language. “This report isn’t about dumbing down, it isn’t about trivialising things. It’s about the breadth of visual imagery we are confronted with and engaging with in the world we live in, which is heavily saturated with images. It’s about teaching kids to navigate, interpret and control those images.” she tells the Australian.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
The argument might be persuasive if they would articulate how “visuacy” aligns with and contributes to long-term goals of education.
That would help. So would even a modicum of PR savvy — no, common sense. The point that kids need to learn to be as careful “readers” of visual information as printed information is a reasonable idea in our image-saturated age. But to use a lingerie ad as an example and to coin an irritating and pointless neologism (visuacy?!?) to make your point is to invite ridicule and scorn. Which based on the press accounts I’ve read about this is precisely what’s happening.
I know nothing about art, so my first thought is to make no comments. However it has occurred to me in the past that maybe I should know something about art. More specifically, I would ask - should I have learned something about art in elementary school? I remember doing art on a pretty regular basis in elementary school, but that, I believe, is the problem. Art was always presented as something to do, never as something to learn, and therefore I learned nothing. Should that be different? Could it be different? I was aware now and then in elementary school that an occasional kid would have a talent for drawing, and I was very aware that I could not draw. Can drawing be taught? If so, how?
I think the difference between how art is taught and how music is taught is worth considering. Music, at least instrumental music, has to be something to learn, not just something to do. You can’t do anything with an instrument without a lot of learning - focused, conscious, hard core learning. As a result a lot of people (though certainly not all) do learn a lot of music. Can art education learn something from that? I’m not sure.
With thoughts such as these, I find I am not willing to casually dismiss a call for more or better art education. And I’m not willing to totally dismiss the term “visuacy”. However I did read the article in The Australian, and I don’t get a good impression of their approach to the matter.
Bad neologisms inspire distrust in me: I have an old-fashioned belief that bricks and mortar are not interchangeable substances, even though you need both for a brick building.
You can only have the -cy (or -sy) suffix when there is a corresponding word with a “t.”
Clement, clemency. Private, privacy. Autocratic, autocracy. Hypocrite, hypocrisy. Idiosyncratic, idiosyncrasy. Controvert, controversy. Papate (obs.), papacy.
The adjective “numerate” exists. Hence, numeracy. The adjective “visuate” does not exist (and I hope it never does–”visualization” has given us enough trouble).
Other terrible neologisms: “bibliolatry” (coined by John Byrom in the 18th century). He takes “idolatry” and makes “bibliolatry” from it, dismissing the fact that the “ol” was part of the root. (Yes, in Greek it was a suffix of sorts–but once it got to English, it was a suffix no more.)
Also, the dreaded Kaplan “SkillTivities”… under what “Skillusions” are they operating?
The root-suffix mush seeps into teacher trainings as well. Once, at a PD or meeting, we were given a sheet with prefixes and suffixes to teach the kids. One of those suffixes on the sheet was -tation. Ah, so “incantation” is “incan” plus “-tation”? Maybe it has something to do with the Incas!
It is fine to work with pictures–but must it be at the expense of verbatures?
SkillTivities??!? A clear example of stupidiocy and verbal overkillishness. Ick-makingly painful.
Maybe we can reverse engineer this neologism, Diana. If we want our students to be literate and numerate, perhaps we should also expect them to be visuate!
Great grammar lesson, teacher. A grateful nation thanks you.
Thanks Robert! But my mind kept pestering me with exceptions. Lunacy? Yes, there is a word “lunate.” Legacy? Yes, there is “legate.” But supremacy? There is no “supremate.”
So I looked a little further, and found something interesting:
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology | Date: 1996
-cy suffix corr. to F. -tie, †-cie, originating in L. -cia, -tia, Gr. -k(e)í?, -t(e)í?, f. -k-, -t- + -?a, etc. -Y 3; occurs chiefly in -ACY, -ANCY, -CRACY, -ENCY, -MANCY. On the model of prophet/prophecy was formed idiocy from idiot, and thence secrecy from secret. The correspondence of agent and agency and consequently of lieutenant and lieutenancy gave rise to captaincy, chaplaincy, from captain, chaplain. The suffix is added to some words ending in t, as bankruptcy, baronetcy, paramountcy.
Now, the word “prophecy” goes back to about 1255. It is possible we derived the initial t->c transformation from the French, after the Norman invasion. More -cy words were later formed in accordance with this pattern. But then came the various rule-breakings: captaincy, chaplaincy, bankruptcy, paramountcy, etc.
In that case, SkillTivities are almost as good as morate bankruptcy, and we can visuate away!
Let’s not get hung up on the grammar people, although you seem to be very well educated in that. Just imagine if you could intrepret images as deftly.