Troubling Sociocultural Narrative Pedagogy: Implications for Art Educators

Travis, Sarah; Hood, Emily Jean

doi:10.1080/00393541.2016.1204523

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…127 During the 2017 presidential election in France, clickbait and false information posted by satirical news sites were co-opted and spread by right-wing websites and user profiles. 128 In one case, Le Gorafi, a satirical news site likened to The Onion, shared an article claiming that presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron had expressed disdain for the disadvantaged and wiped his hands after coming into contact with the poor. 129 In advance of the second round of voting, this article was shared more than 600,000 times.…”

Section: Background and Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

“…127 The court compared search engines to parody in terms of their social benefit and transformative value, suggesting that search engines "may be more transformative." 128 Unlike the plaintiff in Kelly, Perfect 10 demonstrated that they had "a market for reduced-sized images." 129 However, this was not sufficient to demonstrate market harm, as the court reasoned that any potential harm "remains hypothetical."…”

Section: Digital Copying and Market Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Full Issue

Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts

2023

JLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disinformation is endemic in the digital age, seriously harming the public interest in democracy, health care, and national security. Increasingly, disinformation is created and disseminated by social media algorithms. Algorithmic disinformation, a new phenomenon, thus looms large in contemporary society. Recommendation algorithms are driving the spread of disinformation on social media networks, and generative algorithms are creating deepfakes, both at unprecedented levels. The regulation of algorithmic disinformation is therefore one of today's thorniest legal problems.Against this backdrop, this Article proposes a novel approach to regulating algorithmic disinformation effectively. It first explores why transparency, intelligibility, and accountability should be adopted as the three major principles of the legal regulation of algorithmic disinformation. Because of its market-based technology development and regulation policy, the United States has yet to adopt any laws regulating algorithmic disinformation, let alone these three principles. The Article then examines legislative reforms in France and China, where the three principles have been translated into legal rules requiring social media companies to disclose their disinformation-related algorithms, render them intelligible to users, and assume legal responsibility for curbing the spread of disinformation on their platforms.Based on a critical discussion of the major problems with these legal rules, the Article puts forward a multi-stakeholder approach to better implement the three principles. It argues that the United States should take the lead in creating and piloting an algorithmic disinformation review system. This new system would empower the administrative oversight of algorithmic disinformation and promote the dynamic engagement of social media users and experts in policing algorithms that generate and disseminate disinformation. The ADRS would thus promote the transparency and intelligibility of algorithms and hold social media platforms accountable for curbing disinformation.

show abstract

Section: Background and Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Digital Copying and Market Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Full Issue

Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts

2023

JLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Artistic activities such as painting, drawing, movement, and music, all contribute to the cultural competence of students through their ability to inform in "ways that do not heavily rely on language." 128 Overall, there is great impact that arts instruction can have on currently popular and well supported educational initiatives. Redirecting funding to support arts education, especially in ways that incorporate arts instruction in daily common core subjects, would also prove to be a further investment in many respected and prioritized initiatives.…”

Section: ]mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Chance at the Arts: Assessment of NYC Department of Education’s ArtsCount as a Violation of Title VI Implementing Regulation

Stanislaus

2023

JLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The City of New York has historically struggled with equitable funding in its public education system. As a result, funding for arts education in New York City public schools has steadily declined. This trend further perpetuates a widespread cultural attitude that undervalues the academic benefits of arts education for students. This lack of support for the arts has particularly impacted schools located in low-income neighborhoods which suffer from low engagement with—and participation in—arts programs and arts instruction. Rocco Landesman, Former Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, wrote in his study on arts and achievement for at-risk youth that “the only outcomes we should need to measure for a music class is whether the child had the chance to create, enjoy, and understand music.” The New York City Department of Education has attempted to offer all students the chance to participate in arts education through various policy initiatives. In particular, New York City’s Blueprint for the Arts curriculum initiative and its supplemental accountability program, ArtsCount, were implemented to enhance students’ access to arts instruction. The decade following their implementation, however, revealed obvious shortcomings and failures. Moreover, the lack of reform of these initiatives perpetuates the culture of unequal access that is so commonly associated with arts education. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states: “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Particularly, Title VI imposes regulations for the implementation of federal funds. Such regulations require that recipients may not “utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.” In 2014, the NYC Comptroller released a report describing the failures of ArtsCount, focusing in part on inequities in the distribution of arts instruction across New York City school districts. The results demonstrate a positive correlation between the presence of art instructors, art classrooms, and art programs to socioeconomic status and racial makeup of particular districts. These results are especially problematic as the very purpose of these initiatives is to enhance access to arts education for New York City students. This Note will explore several possible explanations for these failures, including societal and policy-based influences on school leaders in low-income neighborhoods, and how those influences were exacerbated by inefficient systems of reporting such as New York City’s ArtsCount. Prior to the implementation of BluePrint for the Arts and ArtsCount, New York City provided arts funding through Project ARTS, a grant program that provided schools with dedicated arts funding. This program required that Project ARTS funding was spent in areas related directly to the arts. Transitioning to Blueprint for the Arts and ArtsCount allows the New York City Department of Education to take a passive approach to implementing arts education funding. With ArtsCount, funding that would have previously been dedicated to the arts is now provided to school leaders through general school budgets using ArtsCount as a method to ensure accountability for investing in arts programs. However, the inadequacy of ArtsCount has led to many students in areas of lower socioeconomic status—primarily students of color—having to go without the necessary arts education curriculum as put forth by BluePrint for the Arts, the very curriculum that ArtsCount was meant to ensure. The inadequacy of this accountability program poses the question of possible Title VI violations. The several years following the Comptroller report have seen little change, despite recommendations for how to mitigate such discriminatory effects. In order to prove a violation of Title VI’s implementing regulations, proof of discriminatory effect will suffice to establish liability and proof of discriminatory intent is not needed. While it could be argued that such a funding structure is necessary and justified, offering less discriminatory alternatives would demonstrate that this structure is still indeed a Title VI violation. This Note explores potential alternatives to the current accountability framework, including reframing how arts education should and may be spent, and rethinking the way that data regarding arts education instruction is collected. Overall, the goal of this Note is to assess the current status of arts education in New York City Public Schools and how its current funding structure and accountability program impacts the presence of arts education across New York City school districts. This assessment will focus primarily on the New York City public school system, as New York City is a cultural hub of the world with communities of different races, ethnicities, and many socioeconomic backgrounds. Part I of this Note provides background information on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, societal conceptions on the value of arts education, the history of arts education funding in New York City, and the implementation of ArtsCount. Part II of this Note assesses New York City’s current accountability framework in context of Title VI’s implementing regulation, considering the history of race disparities within arts education at the national and local levels. Part III of this Note proposes an alternative which may mitigate such discriminatory implications and increase access to arts education among New York City Public School students. This solution involves a more detailed system of reporting, a mid-level compromise for discretion offered to school leaders over arts funding, and education initiatives offering incentives to increase arts integration in daily common core subject areas. Essentially, this Note articulates the need for reform of the current framework meant to create equal access to arts education for New York City public school students. While focusing on the prevalent racial and socioeconomic disparities that continue under this regime, this Note utilizes the protection offered by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to validate the right to reformation.

show abstract

“…(p. 21) I also acknowledge the difficulty of this, and I am the first to admit that I do not share everything. I have long considered the limitations of narrative pedagogical and methodological approaches because of what is left unsaid (Kraehe, Hood, & Travis, 2015;Travis & Hood, 2016), even as I also find them to be so valuable to the development of critical consciousness within educators (Hood & Travis, in press). To counter the limitations of narratives, I turn to phenomenology as a guide in consideration of that which is not yet articulated into words but instead that which is embodied, unspoken, and unwritten.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughts and Implications For Art Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confessing Critical Frictions in the Arts and Education

Travis

2022

Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the author presents visual and written documentation of engagement in a socially engaged work of art, Flashpoints: Critical Frictions in the Arts and Education. This work was enacted through a mobile art gallery, The Confessional, as part of a series of performances at an academic art history symposium entitled Fictions and Frictions: The Power and Politics of Narrative. Through confessions of critical frictions, this artistic and pedagogical intervention gestures towards reconciliation around the power dynamics of aspects of identity.

show abstract

Troubling Sociocultural Narrative Pedagogy: Implications for Art Educators

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

Full Issue

Full Issue

A Chance at the Arts: Assessment of NYC Department of Education’s ArtsCount as a Violation of Title VI Implementing Regulation

Confessing Critical Frictions in the Arts and Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About