Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Mel Alexenberg's Educating Artists for the Future Mel Alexenberg (Ed.). (2008). Educating Artists for the Future: Learning at the Intersections of Art, Science, Technology and Culture. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books/ Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 344 pages. ISBN 978-1-84150-191-8 (hard cover)Educating Artists for the Future: Learning at the Intersections of Art, Science, Technology and Culture is a rare find. Editor Mel Alexenberg has done a remarkable job of bringing together outstanding artist/educators who are grappling with issues related to technology, ecology, creativity, agency, identity, and community. Each individual author provides rich written descriptions of projects they have undertaken, the conceptual underpinnings that frame their work, and the implications of their practices for art education in informal and formal learning contexts. I am certain that readers reviewing this book will feel a profound sense of collectivity knowing we are at the edge of transforming the world in which we live.The volume is divided into the following five sections, book-ended with an introduction and epilogue by the editor: Beyond the Digital, Networked Times, Polycultural Perspectives, Reflective Inquiry, and Emergent Praxis. Each section has four chapters making this 22-chapter book an extensive array of ideas from authors representing Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, India, Israel, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Its international character alone makes this book a must read for educators wanting to understand the arts and education at a global level.One of the most prominent threads running throughout the book (for me) is its references to complexity theory. A number of authors refer to complexity theory being an influential theory coming from the mathematical sciences, while other authors may not refer to complexity theory but rather, the language of the chapter reiterates the characteristics of the theory. One of my colleagues, who coincidentally is a mathematics educator, has joined forces with two curriculum scholars to write several books on complexity theory in education (e.g., Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 2007). I was delighted to see how artists, scientists, and educators have taken up this theory in such strong yet innovative ways and can hardly wait to introduce this book to the many complexity theorists I know working in education, and particularly art education. It is on this basis that I would highly recommend the book to undergraduate and graduate students as well as to instructors who want to re-imagine how we perceive and understand education, art, science, technology, and culture now and in the future.Why complexity theory? Everywhere we look today, we are networked in decentralized (and centralized) structures and through a variety of interactions (with lots of feedback loops) taking place within these structures, creating selforganizing communities or projects. Complexity theory, as developed by several authors in this book, discusses four characteristics of complex systems: differentiation, interaction, self-organization, and emergent behavior. For artists and art educators, differentiation is about how we use materials in a variety of ways and how our connections with people can be accessed differently from what may have been expected. Interaction refers to the direct relationships viewers and authences have with people and processes that, in turn, provide opportunities for participants to alter the artworks or what is learned. Selforganization applied to the arts would suggest that while artists may start an artistic project, others would also participate in the development of the process and/or product, and as such, the project would be attributed to all of the creators. Emergent behavior is very exciting for artists and educators. Here is where a complex system naturally evolves and adapts into a number of possible structures, perhaps even simultaneously, knowing that the end product may look incredibly different from the original proposition. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».