 | |
|
Blog inspired by:
Elisse Chevalier. "Lessons from Dorothy Dunn (1903-1992): The Studio at Santa Fe Indian School, 1932-1937." Revitalizing History: Recognizing the Struggles, Lives, and Achievements of African American and Women Art Educators. eds. Paul E. Bolin & Ami Kantawala. (Vernon Press: Wilmington, DE, 2017). pp. 83-94
Chevalier's essay focuses primarily on the work of Dorothy Dunn as an art teacher and founder of "The Studio" over a span of five years at the Santa Fe Indian School. The essay also raises critical points (art) educators must address as we create our curricula and model arts practices for our students. For the purposes of this blog on art teacher identity, the points made and questions asked in this posting are only skimming the surface of the rich discussion and research needed to make a full exploration.
Here's my question in the form of multiple questions:
Are we considering our identities as art teachers in a larger context of the identities of our students?
Meaning, when we think of teaching our students and developing our curriculum, do we think about who we are and how it relates or not to who they are?
Let's face it, the (art) teacher demographics are overwhelmingly white and female, while data shows white students are in the minority in public schools (a). This topic is beyond the scope of this (hopefully) short blog. Tabling that for later exploration on art teacher identity, instead the focus here is on Cevalier's research of Dorothy Dunn. Part of that research begins to question the role of the white, woman art teacher in a school for American Indians, the politics both federally and locally that affect the art classroom, and the ethics of curriculum development.
The blog also highlights another influential teacher at the Santa Fe Indian School (not included in Chevalier's essay), Geronima Cruz-Montoya.
Dorothy Dunn
In 1932, Dorothy Dunn founded a painting program referred to as "The Studio" at Santa Fe Indian School. After five years as head of the program, she left the school.
So, why is this five year run important to note?
Well for starters, those five years were in the midst of the Great Depression, The New Deal, the Works Progress Administration to support workers and artists - and the progressive(ish) policies of US reformers in pushing forward policies for political and economic rights for Native nations.
Dunn's art teaching philosophy primarily centered around shaping her student's aesthetic to be "authentically Indian." To quote Chevalier's essay:
"Dunn believed her students could produce paintings that reflected both their individual and community identities, thereby securing critical recognition in a global fine arts context. Through the Studio program, Dunn (1960a) sought to expose the fallacies of assimilation, the "supposed complete superiority of the superimposed culture," by encouraging students to produce paintings with "tribal and individual distinction" within an international fine arts context. Perhaps because she intended to reverse many of the effects of assimilation policies through her teaching practice, Dunn (1960a) claimed that the "one fixed principle" of the Studio was "the painting would have to be Indian." As the Studio developed, Dunn's desire to foster a uniquely Native American style may have restricted her understanding of the authentic in her students' work."
It isn't totally fair to paint Dunn in the self-aggrandizing role of an art teacher with "white savior complex," but it's reasonable to compare. Chevalier effectively argues Dunn's perspective and pedagogy as having great intentions. Dunn, seeing the forced removal of Native American culture by the United States government's restrictions and regulations, wanted to preserve traditional symbols and aesthetics while securing a place for "Indian art" in the circles of the western art market. She did this by controlling the artwork her students produced, restricting the students to traditional Indian symbolism and aesthetic.
But
Dunn (a white, U.S. Citizen teaching in a school for Native Indian children) is in a position of privilege, authority, and power. Privileged because of her race, but not necessarily her gender. Authoritative, because of her position as a teacher. And power as a US citizen whose government was the source of repression and forced assimilation of Native people. She sees herself as a preservationist or restorer of the Native American art aesthetic, but not much (if any) was included in the essay about the student response to her pedagogy. Did some students enroll in art class to learn techniques of western and Native art-making? Were they disappointed to only create what their teacher determined was "Indian Art"? On what authority did Dunn decide if a student's work was "Indian" enough?
Several contemporary artists create work about "Indian art" and identity. James Luna is one example. He is a contemporary artist making work about Indian identity through performance and photography. In "Take a Picture with a Real Indian" (video link), the artist dresses in what westerners perceive as "Indian" clothing. The clothing is not accurate to his particular tribe and culture, because observers and participants are most interested in encountering their own preconceived, stereotyped notions of what/who a "Real Indian" is. Let's go back to Dorothy Dunn as the art teacher of "Real Indians," is her curriculum and insistence on students creating what she defines as "Indian Art" helpful, harmful, or both? Does she consider her own identity as she shapes curriculum? What can we learn from Dunn's five years at Santa Fe Indian School? Are we considering our own identities and those of our students as we shape our curriculum?
Geronima Cruz-Montoya
I would like to turn the attention to the art educator who was more likely a lasting influence on the arts program at Santa Fe Indian School. Geronima Cruz-Montoya was a student at Santa Fe Indian School, graduated valedictorian. She started as an assistant under Dorothy Dunn in the Studio and assumed the role as teacher when Dunn left. She stayed with Santa Fe Indian School for twenty four years (1937-1961). She received several accolades in the arts and in teaching including the Southwestern Association for Indian Arts Lifetime Achievement Award in 2010.
Dunn's art teaching philosophy primarily centered around shaping her student's aesthetic to be "authentically Indian." To quote Chevalier's essay:
"Dunn believed her students could produce paintings that reflected both their individual and community identities, thereby securing critical recognition in a global fine arts context. Through the Studio program, Dunn (1960a) sought to expose the fallacies of assimilation, the "supposed complete superiority of the superimposed culture," by encouraging students to produce paintings with "tribal and individual distinction" within an international fine arts context. Perhaps because she intended to reverse many of the effects of assimilation policies through her teaching practice, Dunn (1960a) claimed that the "one fixed principle" of the Studio was "the painting would have to be Indian." As the Studio developed, Dunn's desire to foster a uniquely Native American style may have restricted her understanding of the authentic in her students' work."
It isn't totally fair to paint Dunn in the self-aggrandizing role of an art teacher with "white savior complex," but it's reasonable to compare. Chevalier effectively argues Dunn's perspective and pedagogy as having great intentions. Dunn, seeing the forced removal of Native American culture by the United States government's restrictions and regulations, wanted to preserve traditional symbols and aesthetics while securing a place for "Indian art" in the circles of the western art market. She did this by controlling the artwork her students produced, restricting the students to traditional Indian symbolism and aesthetic.
But
Dunn (a white, U.S. Citizen teaching in a school for Native Indian children) is in a position of privilege, authority, and power. Privileged because of her race, but not necessarily her gender. Authoritative, because of her position as a teacher. And power as a US citizen whose government was the source of repression and forced assimilation of Native people. She sees herself as a preservationist or restorer of the Native American art aesthetic, but not much (if any) was included in the essay about the student response to her pedagogy. Did some students enroll in art class to learn techniques of western and Native art-making? Were they disappointed to only create what their teacher determined was "Indian Art"? On what authority did Dunn decide if a student's work was "Indian" enough?
Several contemporary artists create work about "Indian art" and identity. James Luna is one example. He is a contemporary artist making work about Indian identity through performance and photography. In "Take a Picture with a Real Indian" (video link), the artist dresses in what westerners perceive as "Indian" clothing. The clothing is not accurate to his particular tribe and culture, because observers and participants are most interested in encountering their own preconceived, stereotyped notions of what/who a "Real Indian" is. Let's go back to Dorothy Dunn as the art teacher of "Real Indians," is her curriculum and insistence on students creating what she defines as "Indian Art" helpful, harmful, or both? Does she consider her own identity as she shapes curriculum? What can we learn from Dunn's five years at Santa Fe Indian School? Are we considering our own identities and those of our students as we shape our curriculum?
Geronima Cruz-Montoya
I would like to turn the attention to the art educator who was more likely a lasting influence on the arts program at Santa Fe Indian School. Geronima Cruz-Montoya was a student at Santa Fe Indian School, graduated valedictorian. She started as an assistant under Dorothy Dunn in the Studio and assumed the role as teacher when Dunn left. She stayed with Santa Fe Indian School for twenty four years (1937-1961). She received several accolades in the arts and in teaching including the Southwestern Association for Indian Arts Lifetime Achievement Award in 2010. The Adobe Gallery website mentions her role as a teacher with she:
"set high standards for her students just as Dunn had. She encouraged her students to paint subjects from their homes and cultures. Montoya's influence on early Indian painters was significant. She was dedicated to her students and their work. Under her tutelage, many of her students went on to become famous." (b)
Later the article mentions she as "devoted" to instructing students and "teaching was her first priority." The photo is the cover of a book on Montoya's life (that I do not currently have access to, but would be interested in reading). I am very interested to know more about Montoya's educational philosophy. Based on her artwork (at the top of the blog post), she was heavily influenced by the aesthetic Dunn encouraged in her students and chose to continue the painting style in her career. It would be very interesting to compare the teaching styles of Dunn to Montoya and even to the lineage of artists and art educators from the Santa Fe Indian School. How did Montoya's identity as a member of the Santa Fe Indian community and student in the school influence her teaching? What other teacher preparation training did she have besides her experience assisting Dunn in the Studio? What did she think of her predecessor's teaching style? Did the "high standards" she set meant that she regulated the "Indian Art" aesthetics of her students like Dunn?
As an art educator, do you think of your identity when you create your curriculum?
Links/Sources:
(a) "The Nation's Teaching Force Is Still Mostly White and Female" EdWeek. 15 Aug. 2017. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/08/15/the-nations-teaching-force-is-still-mostly.html
Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States: Results From the 2015–16 National Teacher and Principal Survey
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017072
(b) https://www.adobegallery.com/artist/Geronima_Montoya_Potsn_b19151883327
Comments
Post a Comment