art/vision/voice - Maryland Institute College of Art

v Shared authorship.
v Shared resources.
v Community celebration and recognition.
Ultimately the successful pedagogies and practices in these cases are
based in mutuality, respect, and the equality of relationship. Building
meaning between college students and community youth enhanced the
aesthetic practices of both.
guiding principles
Through the work we have done in assembling these stories, the discussions,
and the analysis, we have come to some guiding principles that cut
across all the work we do. These central beliefs of the possible guided
participants through the difficult times:
v Thinking and working inter-generationally.
v Acting reciprocally in partnerships.
v Witnessing community knowledge.
v Developing alliances.
v Adapting to change.
v Challenging your institution.
institutional implications
conclusion: la resolana 109
The development of the cap grants allowed schools that had various
forms of community work to expand and intensify the move toward
community-based arts education. In some instances, the grants provided
a legitimacy and advocacy for those who had struggled to meet goals
of access and diversity. In their history of community partnerships, many
of these institutions had been perceived by the community as large
and unresponsive to community needs.
The question that arose was whether mainstream higher education
institutions can really prepare artists to work beyond the environment
of the art world. Time and again, the agendas of administrators, entrenched
faculty, and even resistant students reflected the gap between what
was philosophically desired and what could actually be achieved in
community-based partnerships. Issues of resource sharing, authorship,
pedagogical models, and aesthetic canons often impeded the work
to be done. Nonetheless these partnerships flourished, and insights to
the institutional pitfalls developed.