National Art Education Association

Visual Culture: Developments, Definitions, and Directions for Art Education

Author(s): Paul Duncum
Source: Studies in Art Education, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Winter, 2001), pp. 101-112
Published by: National Art Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321027
Accessed: 16/12/2010 12:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Studies in Art Education.

http://www.jstor.org
Copyright2001 by the Studiesin Art Education
NationalArt EducationAssociation A Journalof Issuesand Research
2001, 42(2), 101-112

Visual Culture: Developments, Definitions, and

Directions for Art Education

By Paul Duncum

Universityof Tasmania
Launceston,Australia

The author describes a shift in art education from studying the art of the institutional artworld Paul Duncum can be
to what many call "visual culture." The author accounts for this shift in light of contemporary contactedat the Faculty
cultural life, which is increasingly visual. Secondly, the author attempts to define the contested
term visual culture by reviewing the literature of the emerging field of visual culture. Finally,
of Education,University
some suggestions are made about a curriculum for visual culture. It is argued that instead of of Tasmania,Launceston,
specific content a curriculum for visual culture should be organized around provocative questions. Tasmania,7250,
Australiaor by e-mailat
Within art education a shift is discernible from studying the art of the Paul.Duncum@utas.edu.
institutionalized artworld to studying the more inclusive category of au

visual culture. Increasing numbers of art educators, many of them among

the most eminent in our field, are defining their topic not as art but as
visual culture (e.g., Chalmers, in press; Freedman, 2000; Barnard, 1998).
The shift from art to visual culture appears to represent as fundamental a
change in the orientation of our field as the shift from self-expression to a
discipline base in the 1980s. Arguably, the present shift is more funda-
mental because the previous shift involved a different approach to at least
recognizably the same kind of artifacts. It was a shift of approach, not of
subject matter. Previously, there were proposals to study popular arts (see
Duncum, 1987 for a survey), and to be more inclusive generally (e.g.,
Chapman, 1978), but these appeals for a broader scope were always
framed in additive terms. The fine arts always remained the dominant
kind of artifact studied so that the approach to the breadth of imagery
outside the artworld never threatened to fundamentally reconceptualize
our field.
With the current shift, the artifacts have significantly changed, and,
with even the name of the topic having changed, the question raised is:
How long can we continue as a distinctive field? In this paper I have
more modest aims than to consider the long-term future of our field. I
concentrate, first, on understanding what developments in contemporary
cultural life have given rise to the shift to visual culture. Secondly,
because the shift is occurring with little debate and, arguably, even less
clarity, it is important to attempt to define visual culture. Art educators
are using the term-for example Smith-Shank and Schwiebert (2000)
use it to cover visual memories-but, as Mirzoeff (1998) says, "visual
culture is still an idea in the making" (p. 6). Furthermore, as Mitchell
(1995) says, visual culture seems like an idea whose time has come, but it
is not entirely clear how it should be studied. My third purpose, there-
fore, is to survey suggestions on curriculum for visual culture.

Studies in Art Education 101

 PaulDuncum

The Development of Visual Culture

The shift towardsvisual culture is occurringfor many reasons, but
principalamong them is a recognitionthat, whethereconomicallydevel-
oped society is seen as "a society of the spectacle"(Debord, 1967/1977)
or a society "ofsurveillance"(Foucault,1977), thereis little doubtingthat
the "culturalturn"(Harvey,1989) societyhas takenis also "avisualturn"
(Jay, 1989, p. 49) or a "pictorialturn" (Mitchell, 1994, p. 13). Never
before in human history has imagerybeen so centralto the creationof
identity or the gatheringand distributionof knowledge(Chaplin, 1994).
Never beforehas the aestheticstylingof productsbeen so intense (Lash&
Urry, 1994), image production and distributionso obvious, and image
technology so easily manipulable (Rochlin, 1997) or so immersive
(Doheny-Farina,1996). Never beforehaveimagesbeen so self-referential,
arguablyso seductive(Baudrillard,1988), or the manipulationof people
throughimagerybeen so importantto authority(Postman, 1985). Now,
more than ever, the economiesof developedcountriesarefoundedon the
production not of utilitariangoods and services,but the production of
images and the styling of goods (Harvey, 1989). Today, this operatesin
highly competitiveconsumermarketsthat span the globe. Whether the
triumphof the image is welcomed (Stephens,1998) or feared(Guinness,
1994), whetherit is seen as a modernistor a postmodernphenomenon,
there can be no doubting its importance in developed contemporary
societies. Heidegger (1977), for example,believed that "the world con-
ceived and graspedas a picture... is what distinguishesthe essenceof the
modern age" (p. 130) while Mirzoeff (1998) insists that the modernist
fascinationwith the visual and its effects has engendered"a postmodern
culturethat is at its most postmodernwhen it is visual"(p. 4).
Foreshadowinga streamof postmoderntheorizing(Baudrillard,1988;
Derrida, 1976; Eco, 1987; Jameson, 1991), Debord arguedas early as
1967 that "Everythingthat was directly lived has moved away into a
representation" (p. 2). Images,he said, have becomeso common they not
only fusewith realitybut also havebecomereality.Imagesnow often refer
to each other ratherthan anythingpreviouslythought to be real.Debord
arguedthat, while in a previousphaseof capitalistdevelopmenttherewas
as shift from being to having,there is now, in the societyof the spectacle,
a shift from havingto appearing.
The triumph of the image has caused greatalarm,not least of which
has been the allegeddetrimentalimpactof visual technologyon children
(Buckingham, 2000). While much of the alarm may be unwarranted
(Johnson,1997), thereis no doubtingthereis causefor concern.Since, as
Postman (1985) argues,"the clearestway to see through a culture is to
attend to its tools for conversation"(p. 8), and television and now the
Internet are our dominant tools, educating in and about images has
become a criticalmatter. In a society where, for example,mass media is

102 Studies in Art Education

 VisualCulture:Developments,
Definitions,and Directionsfor Art Education

concentrated in only a few hands, and television news presentation is like

a vaudeville act, the seriousness, clarity and even the perceived value of
public discourse turns, as never before, on understanding visual images.
This is because observing the new visibility of culture is not the same as
understanding it. As Mirzoeff (1998) writes, "the gap between the wealth
of visual experience in contemporary culture and the ability to analyse
that observation marks both the opportunity and the need for visual
culture as a field of study" (p. 3).
The shift to visual culture represents a recognition of a vastly changed
cultural environment, which includes a new symbiosis between new tech-
nologies, new economic arrangements, and changed social formations
(Duncum, 1999). During the heyday of modernism, social class reinforced
a divide between the arts and the rest of social life, but now with the
reconfiguring of social class, the distinction between art and social life has
imploded. The once clear distinction between high and low culture no
longer holds, as each borrow freely from one another and both producers
and audiences move between them (Morley & Chen, 1996).
Consequently, culture is seen not as something that is high and refined,
but, rather, as Williams (1981) says, culture is ordinary. Culture is an
everyday experience. Mirzoeff (1998) writes, "In the present intensely
visual age, everyday life is visual culture" (p. 125). Visual culture then is
not something special, but something we all possess and practice all the
time. Even literacy educators, who have long focused on words alone, now
refer to multiliteracies where language texts are related to audio, behavioral,
and visual modes of making meaning (e.g., Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).

Defining Visual Culture2 2The literaturereviewed

Any definition should be viewed as provisional and contestable. is limited to books, thus
Definitions of art, for example, vary significantly. But with visual culture excludingthe burgeoning
the problems are multiplied significantly because, unlike art, there is no literatureof course
materialand Internet
single institutional framework with which to associate visual culture. B.
Wilson (2000) elegantly captures the difference between art and visual sitesthat use the term
visualculture.
culture in contrasting the relative ease with which he felt able to map the
field of art education with the impossibility of similarly mapping visual
culture. Following Deleuze and Guattari's (1987) distinction between
tree-like structures and a rhizome, he argues that, whereas art education is
like a tree with roots, a trunk and branches, visual culture is like a rhizome.
A paradigm example of a rhizome is grass, where "a continually growing
complex underground system ... puts out lateral shoots or roots or tubers
at intervals " (B. Wilson, 2000, p. 31). Rats' nests, ant colonies and the
Internet are other examples. With tree-like structures it is possible to trace
paths of movement or influence, whereas rhizomes are too complex to
diagram. Rhizomes work, first, on the basis of connection and homogene-
ity where, instead of universals, there exists a "throng of dialects," no ideal
maker and no homogeneous audience, but, instead, numerous makers

Studies in Art Education 103

 PaulDuncum

and communities (p. 31). Rhizomes also work on the principles of multi-
plicity and rupture, where a connection might be made to any other thing
and, even where a connection is broken, the rhizomatic structure will
rebound time and again with new developments along old lines or the
creation of new lines.
In attempting a definition, then, we should look for something that is
useful rather than something that is neat. Much depends on the discipli-
nary background of the proponents. In surveying definitions of visual
culture it is immediately apparent that this emerging field is far more
inclusive than anything we would want to be involved with as art educa-
tors. What I will do here, therefore, is to search out what is useful for our
purposes. I will take the position that as art educators we are concerned
with artifacts that are, first, significantly visual and, second, constitutive of
attitudes, beliefs, and values.
In one sense, visual culture refers to a field of study. The field is emerg-
ing from different disciplines, though principally sociology, and draws
upon numerous theoretical perspectives. Nevertheless, the field is usually
thought to be composed of two closely related elements: a focus on ways
of seeing, often referred to as "visuality";and an expanded range of visual
artifacts that lie beyond the art institution. Henderson (1999), for exam-
ple, defines visual culture as "what it is to see and what there is to see"
(p. 26). Enlarging the canon is a prime task (e.g., Bird et al., 1996), but
equally significant is an emphasis on ways of perceiving and reflecting
upon visual experience (e.g., Heywood & Sandywell, 1999). As a field,
visual culture is generally informed by the view that artifacts and their
perception are alike in being context bound, that is, they are historically,
socially, and politically determined and cannot be studied in isolation
from these factors (Barnard, 1998). Moreover, it is usually recognized that
visual artifacts exist in relation to other semiotic codes and appeal to sen-
sory modes other than sight, such as language, sound, music and human
gesture, and cannot be grasped without taking those modes into account
3Even among this (Mirzoeff, 1998).3
limitedrangeof literature Often the term is left either undefined (e.g., Chandler et al., 1996;
differentemphasesare
Marling, 1994; Morgan, 1999) or underdefined, for example, as "images"
apparent,with some rather than "art" (Bryson, Holly, & Moxy, 1994, p. xvi), as "visuality"
authorsbeing more
(Jenks, 1995, p. 1), as "a materialist analysis of art" (Bird, et al., 1996,
concernedwith the
morphologyof visual
p. 3), or as a "hermeneutics of visual experience" (Heywood & Sandywell,
cultureand othersmore 1999, p. 6). One way we need to understand the term then is to see how
with waysof viewing. it is used in practice. It is commonly used, as Llewellyn (1992) does, for
example, to refer to "prints and pictures" as well as "visual artifacts"
(pp. 7, 8) associated with a particular human activity and historical
period. Llewellyn examines the visual culture of death rituals, while
among the many other studies using the term visual culture are studies of
boxing (Chandler et al., 1996), American Protestantism (Morgan, 1999)

104 Studiesin Art Education

 VisualCulture:Developments,Definitions,and Directionsfor Art Education

and Americanlife in the 1950s (Marling, 1994). Each of these studies

examinesthe originalpurposesof the imageryratherthan their stylistic,
formal, or chronologicaldevelopment. Images are viewed in the broad
context of social processesand pressures,and, this being so, the lines are
seriouslyblurredbetween the study of images and sociology. As to the
kind of artifactsstudied,the canon is certainlychallengedby the study of
religious tracts, advertisementsfor boxing matches, and 1950s kitchen
design,supermarketpaintings,and the developmentof freeways.
Among those who have specificallyattemptedto define visual culture,
by comparisonto those who use the term, the texts of Mirzoeff (1998;
1999) and Barnard(1998) are most notable. Mirzoeff (1998) begins by
attackingthe view, implied, for exampleby Jenks (1995), that the visual
has an independentexistencefrom both other senses and other cultural
forms. Visual forms today are linked to other communicativecodes that
appealto sensorymodalitiesother than sight. Mirzoeff(1998) sees visual
culture as a tactic with which to "studythe genealogy, definitions and
functions of postmodern everydaylife" (p. 5). Mirzoeff provides the
followingdefinitionof visualcultureas:
visualeventsin which information,meaningor pleasureis soughtby
the consumerin an interfacewith visual technology [which is] any
form of apparatusdesigned either to be looked at or to enhance
naturalvision, from oil paint to televisionand the Internet. (1999,
p. 3)
While inclusiveof many imagesbeyondthe canon, I believethis defini-
tion is problematicin three ways. A definition that is dependent upon
technologyappearslimited. It would seem to excludenaturalscenery,for
example.Perhapsthis can be allowedif observingreallife directlyis now
consideredto be, as postmoderntheoristsargue,a matterof seeingthrough
a veil of media images.Second, it must surelybe possiblestill, even in a
consumer society, to consider people more broadlythan as consumers.
And third,in a point I will developfurtherbelow,arteducationis centrally
interestedin meaningand pleasure,but not visualinformationper se.
Barnard(1998), by contrast, avoids these difficulties. Effectively,he
offers two kinds of definition, one that attends to the visual in visual
cultureand the other that attendsto the word culture.His definitionfor
visual is: "anythingvisual produced, interpretedor created by humans
which has, or is given, functional,communicativeand/or aestheticintent"
(p. 18). His definition for culture involves adopting Williams's (1981)
notion of the "signifyingsystems"of a society, which are "(the institu-
tions, objects,practices,valuesand beliefs)by meansof which a societyis
visuallyproduced,reproduced,and contested"(p. 7). Barnard(1998) also
offersan extensivelist of sites/sightsof visualculture,including:
fashion, textiles, pottery and ceramics, hairdryers,shavers, cars,
architecture,gardendesign, advertising,personal,public, corporate

Studiesin Art Education 105

 PaulDuncum

and popular images, film, television, computer environments, and

games, Internet home pages, newspaper and magazine design,
typography, products and packing of all kinds. (p. 108)
With such a broad range of visual sites it may be objected that visual
culture appears to be borderless and therefore the term is of little value,
but what each of the above cultural forms have in common is that they
can be viewed as constituting people's attitudes, beliefs and values. To
make this clear it is useful to distinguish between what Brook (1981)
called first order and second order symbolization. A road sign, for example,
normally refers to a specific road, and for the purposes of art education is
of no particular interest. Used in a strictly utilitarian way, a road sign is
information only. It is of interest to design educators, but not to educators
of art. However, if the road sign is taken to refer to an idea of, or belief
about, or attitude toward roads-if the sign addresses what roads mean or
should mean, the road sign is a visual artifact concerned with meaning
and becomes interesting to art educators.
I introduced this article by noting the distinction between a society of
the spectacle and a society of surveillance. As art educators, we are inter-
ested in spectacle because the society of the spectacle refers to our tendency
to turn our attitudes, beliefs, and values into images. But we are not inter-
ested in routine surveillance. We may be interested in surveillance as a
characteristic feature of our society (Fiske, 1998), and we may examine
examples as illustrative, but the plethora of surveillance imagery is of
interest to bureaucracies and the military, not to art education. We would
be interested, however, in particular surveillance pictures when they come
to embody aspects of our society such as the Rodney King video and the
video of the two youths who abducted a 2-year-old from a shopping mall
in Liverpool, England. The first video came to embody racial injustice in
the United States, and the second embodied the problematic nature of
childhood.
If a visual artifact has the status conferred upon it of a descriptive, pre-
scriptive, or proscriptive model, it is of interest. If it tells us something
about who or what we are, where we want to go or do not want to go,
then it is of interest. Purely instrumental visual objects are not of interest,
but once addressed in terms of beliefs and values, they, and the social
worlds of which they are a crucial part, become the subject matter of an
art education conceived in terms of visual culture.
In summary we can say that the term visual culture implies two things.
The term visual suggests that we are concerned with substantially visual
artifacts. Artifacts often involve codes other than visual ones and engage
sensory modes other than sight, but we are interested in artifacts to the
extent to which, or when, we infer that they have meaning that is substan-
tially visual. Secondly, the term culturesuggests an interest in more than the
artifacts themselves. It suggests an interest in the social conditions in which

106 Studiesin ArtEducation

 VisualCulture:Developments,Definitions,and DirectionsforArt Education

the artifacts have their being, including their production, distribution, and
use. Images are viewed in their contextual richness, as part of an ongoing
social discourse that involves their influence in social life.
If such a definition of visual culture is adopted as the focus of art
education, the role of the art educator, at least from a social reconstruc-
tivist position, will not significantly change. The range of artifacts we
study will be greatly enlarged, but we will continue to focus on the social
worlds of visual imagery as they are constitutive of attitudes, beliefs and
values.
Curriculum Directions for Visual Culture
As commentors have made clear (including Barnard, 1998; Hughes,
1998; Jenks, 1995; Mitchell, 1995), there are many ways to approach
visual culture. Art educators have already suggested some of these.
Chalmers (1981), Chapman (1978) and Duncum (1993), for example,
have sought to examine how images function within and across different
societies at different times. For example, Chalmers approvingly cites
Gowans's (1981) contention that popular art found in comic books,
television, and political cartoons, plays similar roles to those played by
painting in years gone by. Following this track, it is possible to link a
home page photograph with a Van Gogh portrait on the basis that they
are both substitutes, or to link Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling
with a soap opera on the basis that they are both narratives.
While the artworld canon is greatly expanded, artworld images
continue to be included. As Mitchell (1995) writes,
The genius and the masterpiece will not disappear in the context of
visual culture but the status, power, and the kinds of pleasure they
afford beholders will become objects of investigation rather than a
mantra to be ritually recited in the presence of unquestionable
monuments. (p. 210)
Freedman (2000) implies one way in which fine art invariably would
be incorporated when she points out that media images of gender owe
more to fine art images of gender than they do to contemporary reality.
Studying gender representation in the media, will then properly involve
studying gender in fine art images.
B. Wilson (2000) and M. Wilson (2000) also explore connections
between the artworld and popular culture. They point out that the
Internet provides seemingly endless possibilities for building hypertexts
that combine the images students create or prefer with the images and
ideas of others. Where access is possible to nearly every aspect of visual
culture, the challenge is to build and act upon these connections.
The above approaches simply combine artworld and popular imagery
on the basis of shared subject matter or themes. They might be appealing
to art educators because they extend to the unknown from the known.
However, I wonder if they are commensurate with the contextual embed-

Studies in Art Education 107

 PaulDuncum

dedness of visual culture. As described below, more radical approaches

have been proposed. Together, they emphasize, at least more explicitly
than the approaches above, the socioeconomic and political embedded-
ness of imagery as well as different ways of seeing.
In developing curriculum, Barnard, for example, has recourse to
Williams's (1981) categories of cultural production, though he adapts
and fills them out. He looks at how artists and designers have organized
themselves as individual producers, and into craft guilds, academies,
professional societies, co-operatives and unions. He looks at consumers,
markets, publics, and audiences, for example, at patronage systems of the
church, the court, the public, private arrangements, and the state, as well
as different kinds of market and sponsorship arrangements. Four kinds
of market relationships are noted: artisan, post artisan, market professional,
and corporate professional, the latter two being the most important for
the production of most imagery today. He examines access to and owner-
ship of visual media, including imagery that is hand-made, tool-made,
machine-made, and computer-generated. Again following a distinction
made by Williams (1981), Barnard describes cultural products in terms of
internal and external sign systems. An art gallery, for example, is described
as an external sign that signifies what kind of artifacts are housed within
and what kind of behavior is required. Also examined is the question of
how different kinds of visual culture are produced for and in part consumed
by different social classes largely for the purpose of distinguishing one
class from another.
Finally, Barnard borrows from the well-established frameworks of
media and cultural studies to consider the various ways in which visual
culture relates to broad social processes. Do cultural producers challenge
the established order, remain neutral towards it, or reproduce it? Do audi-
ences passively accept the values producers seek to convey, negotiate these
values, or resist them? In what ways does visual culture produce as well as
reproduce a society?
Mitchell (1995) writes that, while there is no systematic critique on
which to construct a curriculum of visual culture, there is a body of
questions and debates he calls the "'dialectics' of visual culture" (p. 210).
He rejects as impossible the idea of organizing a curriculum as a compre-
hensive survey and the idea of conventional cultural forms as simply
replicating existing disciplinary divisions. Instead, he argues that "the
point of studying visual culture would be to provide students with a set of
critical tools for the investigation of human visuality, not to transmit a
specific body of information or values"(p. 210). Some of his own
questions include:
What is the boundary between visual culture and visual nature?
What is an image? (Are all images visual?) How do images function
in consciousness, in memory, fantasy, and perception?... How do

108 Studies in Art Education

 VisualCulture:Developments,Definitions,and DirectionsforArt Education

images communicate and signify? What is a work of visual art?

What is the relationship between art and visual culture in general?
How do changes in the technologies of visual reproduction affect
visual culture?
Rogoff (1998) offers her own list of possible questions, some of which
are:
Who we see and who we do not see; who is privileged within the
regime of specularity; which aspects of the historical past actually
have circulating visual representations and which do not; whose
fantasies are fed by which visual images?... What are the visual
codes by which some are allowed to look, others to hazard a peek,
and still others are forbidden to look altogether? In what political
discourse can we undestanding looking and returning the gaze as an
act of political resistance?Can we actually participate in the pleasure
and identify with the images produced by culturally specific groups
to which we do not belong? (pp. 15-16)
I would like to add my own questions, which emerge from a considera-
tion of the new sense-saturating visual experiences like shopping malls,
theme parks, and virtual reality. Such encompassing visual experiences do
not appear to allow for either the deep or distanced perception encour-
aged by conventional aesthetics with its concern for internalized control.
With the new and emerging technologies one may appear out of control.
To what extent then, can these new experiences involve a sense of con-
trolled decontrol, or what Featherstone (1995) calls a "calculated hedo-
nism" (p. 59)? Can one be simultaneously, or at least successively, deeply
involved and distant? How is it possible to manage swings between
intense participation and the kind of more distanced critical detachment
that is necessary for critique and understanding?4 4These questionsare
expandedupon in P.
Looking to the Future Duncum & T. Bracey
It is impossible to say to what extent art education in schools will take
(Eds.). (in press) On
visual culture on board. Will visual culture find a home in literacy educa-
knowing:Art and visual
tion? Will it develop separately?There is much debate about its location culture.Christchurch,
and how it should operate within the academy (Barnard, 1998; Mirzoeff, New Zealand:University
1998). What is clear is that the need for a study of visual culture will not of Canterbury.
diminish within the foreseeable future. As developed societies increase
their reliance on visual imagery, so will the need for understanding it
increase. Because of our particular knowledge of visual imagery, we art
educators are in a good position to contribute to the emerging field of
visual culture by reconfiguring our own.
Rogoff (1998) suggests that in place of the cultivation of the "good eye,"
the cherished goal of connoisseurship, we should cultivate "the curious
eye." Whereas the good eye was intended to discern properties that already
existed, and only needed time and effort to develop, the curious eye implies
that not everything is understood or articulated. The curious eye is able to

Studiesin Art Education 109

 PaulDuncum

discover something not previously known or able to be conceived before.

It is the curious eye we need to develop, not only in our students but as
the informing principle for our field.

References
Barnard, M. (1998). Art, design, and visual culture. London: Macmillan.

Baudrillard, J. (1988). Jean Baudrillard: Selected writing.In M. Poster (Ed.). London: Polity Press.

Bird, J., Curtis, B., Mash, M., Putnam, T., Robertson, G., Tickner, L., & Stafford, S. (1996). The
BLOCK reader in visual culture. London: Routledge.

Brook, D. (1981). The social role ofart: Six recentpapers on related themes. Adelaide: Experimental Art
Foundation.

Bryson, N., Holly, M. A., & Moxey, K. (1994). Visual culture: Images and interpretations. Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England.

Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood: Growing up in the age of electronic media.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chalmers, F. G. (1981). Art education as ethnology. Studies in Art Education, 22(3), 6-14.

Chalmers, G. (in press). Knowing art: In defence of purple haze. In P. Duncum & T. Bracey (Eds.), On
knowing: Art and visual culture. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury Press.
Chandler, D., Gill, J., Guha, T., & Tawadros, G. (1996). Boxer: An anthology of writings on boxing and
visual culture. London: Institute of International Visual Arts.

Chaplin, E. (1994). Sociology and visual representation. London: Routledge.

Chapman, L. H. (1978). Approaches to art in education. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design ofsocial futures.
Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.

Debord, G. (1977). Society of the spectacle. Detroit, MI: Black & White. (Original work published 1967).

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Derrida, J. (1976). Ofgrammatology. London: John Hopkins.

Doheny-Farina, S. (1996). The wired neighborhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Duncum, P. (1987). Why study popular culture? A review. Canadian Review ofArt Education Research
(14), 15-22.

Duncum, P. (1993). Children and the social functions of pictures. Journal ofArt and Design Education,
12(2), 215-225.

Duncum, P. (1999). A case for an art education of everyday aesthetic experiences. Studies in Art
Education, 40(4), 295-311.

Eco, E. (1987). Travels in hyperreality:Essays. London: Pan Books.

Featherstone, M. (1995). Undoing culture: Globalization, postmodernism and identity. London: Sage.

Fiske, J. (1998). Videtech. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.), The visual culture reader (pp. 153-162). London:
Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline andpunish: The birth ofthe prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.).
Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin.

Freedman, K. (2000). Social perspectives on art education in the U.S.: Teaching visual culture in a
democracy. Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 314-329.

110 Studies in Art Education

 Visual Culture:Developments,Definitions,and DirectionsforArt Education

Gowans, A. (198 1). Learning to see: Historical perspectives on modernpopular/commercial art.

Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Popular Press.

Guinness, O. (1994). Fit bodies,fat minds: Why evangelicals don 't think and what to do about it.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Harvey, D. (1989). The condition ofpostmodernity: An inquiry into the origins ofsocial change. Oxford,
England: Blackwell.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The age of the world picture. In W. Lovitt (Ed.), The question concerning
technologyand other essays.New York: Garland.
Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics
in design engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Heywood, I., & Sandywell, B. (Eds.). (1999). Interpreting visual culture: Explorations in the hermeneutics
ofthe visual London: Routledge.

Hughes, A. (1998). Reconceptualising the art curriculum. Journal ofArt and Design Education, 17(1),
41-50.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism: Or, The cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.

Jay. M. (1989). In the empire of the gaze: Foucault and the denigration of vision in 20th century French
thought. In L. Appignanesi (Ed.), Postmodernism ICA Documents (pp. 49-74). London: Free
Association Books.

Jenks, C. (Ed.). (1995). Visualculture. London: Routledge.

Johnson, S. (1997). Interface culture: How new technology transforms the way we create and communicate.
San Francisco, CA: HarperEdge.

Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies ofsigns andspace. London: Sage.

Llewellyn, N. (1992). The art ofdeath: Visual culture in the English death rituals, c. 1500 - c. 1800.
London: Reaktion Books.

Marling, D. A. (1994). As seen on TVI The visual culture of everyday life in the 1950s. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Mirzoeff, N. (1998). What is visual culture? In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.), The visual culture reader (pp. 3-13).
London: Routledge.

Mirzoeff, N. (1999). An introduction to visual culture. London: Routledge.

Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, W. J. T. (1995). What is visual culture? In I. Levin (Ed.), Meaning in the visualarts: Viewsfom
the outside (pp. 207-217). Princeton, NJ: Institute for Advanced Study.

Morgan, D. (1999). Protestants and pictures: Religion, visual culture, and the age ofAmerican mass
production. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Morley, D., & Chen, K. H.(1996), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies. London: Routledge.

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age ofshow business. London:
Heinemann.

Rochlin, G. I. (1997). Trapped in the net: The unanticipated consequencesofcomputerization. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rogoff, I. (1998). Studying visual culture. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.). The visual culture reader (pp. 14-26).
London: Routledge.

Smith-Shank, D. L., & Schwiebert, V. (2000). Old wives tales: Questioning to understand visual
memories. Studies in Art Education, 41(2), 178-190.

Studies in Art Education 111

 Paul Duncum

Stephens,M. (1998). Theriseof theimage,thefall ofthe word.Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress.

Williams,R. (1981). Culture.London:Fontana.
Wilson, B. (2000). Of diagramsand rhizomes:Disruptingthe content of art education.2000
Internationalvisualartsconference:
Art educationand visualculture(pp. 25-52). Taipei:Taipei
MunicipalTeachersCollege.
Wilson, M. (2000). The text, the intertext,and the hypertextual:
A story.2000 Internationalvisualarts
Art educationand visualculture(pp. 89-107). Taipei:Taipei MunicipalTeachersCollege.
conference:

112 Studies in Art Education