Contact

A common theme found in postcolonial histories of art education is the influence of dominant cultures and the impact of theories and practices across political, social, educational and artistic divides. In most cases the pressure for change occurs in a one-way direction, which reflects a difference in power and authority and a capacity to adapt to changing situations in response to perceived needs. The enviable or the exotic is hard to resist, especially if there is a desire to look beyond immediate circumstances in the quest to improve things. Effective change, however, is hard to manage if the source of change is believed to reside with others. Importing theories of art education from other cultural geographies therefore creates problematic patterns because art education theories do not travel well. Whether viewed as a colonial artifact in the past, or as a global commodity today, art education theories carry with them excess conceptual baggage that is difficult to dislodge. This is not a surprise, for any educational theory has its own provenance, position, and praxis, and these are crafted in response to particular needs and contexts. Curriculum theory in art education, for instance, comes equipped with definitions of art, assumptions about cultural values and the role of art, and descriptions of art learning and art teaching. If art education theories resist migration, is this the case with art ideas generally? Perhaps it is ideas rather than the theories that grow and flourish in othe