Notes
1 This is not simply my opinion, but Pariser himself often proudly proclaims his positivist positionality and modernist credentials. For example, see Pariser and van Den Berg (Citation1997).
2 While the article was coauthored, this commentary is written by the first author with the full permission and endorsement of the second author.
3 For example, in one article, Pariser (Citation2009) accuses me of using a shibboleth—a biblical term that establishes a rupture between groups—as well as being St. George, both in relation to my position on aesthetics in art education.
4 Indeed, 35 years ago, Povey (Citation1983) wrote that art curriculum theory is “rhetorical verbiage that leads to indigestion not clarification” (p. 118).
5 In a Lacanian sense, the need for determining what constitutes “real” practice in art education is needed precisely because of real art education, which can never be contained, and as such, is a core site of anxiety (see Tavin, Citation2010a, Citation2010b).