Abstract
The studio model of art instruction remains dominant in art education despite perceived needs for change and numerous proposed alternatives. The failure of other instructional models to be adopted, the theory-practice schism in art education, and the character of art teacher recruitment may be related to the economics of art studio materials. The investment of art supply companies in a range of highly visible promotional activities appears to reinforce the status quo. An informal, mutually supportive edifice has been constructed between pedagogy and economics, with the studio model of instruction providing psychic security to the art teacher and monetary rewards to the art supplier.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Karen A. Hamblen
Karen A. Hamblen is assistant professor of art education, California State University, Long Beach.