Manisha's Reading Responses

Bresler, L. (2006). Towards Connectedness: Aesthetically Based Research in Studies
in Art Education A journal of issues and research. 48(1), 52-69. Reston, VA: National
Art Education Association

This article presents the promise of dialogic process in artistic and research processes and the obstacles presented to this process. Its premise is that perception, conceptualization and engagement for both makers and viewers are habits of the mind – inherent ways of thinking and being that can act as models for the practice of qualitative research; an aesthetic theory- of art as experience- working within a tri-directional space of what Bresler terms “I-thou” and the space of examination and understanding leading to making. She stresses upon caring for participants and caring for the message to be conveyed to the community as core considerations of qualitative research. Drawing from art appreciation and artistic process, the author acknowledges arts based research as a way in which to think of meaning making as a methodology. In this process, she indicates the arena of comparative studies made possible through soft boundaries and border crossings (p 2) and introduces her idea of aesthetically based research. Bresler mulls over the dichotomy of affect/ cognition or the struggle to find balance between distance and caring – emotional and cerebral in research, as in arts, to bring about new knowledge and innovation with the mindfulness of past experience and knowledge.

This article is about the commonalities of artistic and aesthetic as well as qualitative research on the process of looking – within and without, forwards and back. That being involved in these arenas is about investment and risk, both emotional and cerebral, and a focus on the particular.

Bresler describes the difficulty of maintaining balance as the obstacles to empathetic dialogic process: this includes making the leap from knowing about to knowing it, finding the space between over and under-distancing from the subject/topic and finding the time and space to maintain empathetic connection to that which is to be created – be it research or art.

I like that the author posits that the stress of the arts and research is on the effort to communicate. Bresler’s evoking of Sullivan, Thomson and Bale etc strikes a strong chord as she discusses the connections between creativity, imagination and vision and artistic production and how the exploration of personal and public aesthetic IS research (the ordering of ideas and making as articulation of that ordering).

I find myself reflecting on the idea of aesthetics of the personal – the Indian –specifically Hindu/Buddhist idea of a personal aesthetics is not focused on, rather the focus is on the collective, a public perception. The idea of audience being key to the ‘social commitment’ to the intellectual-emotional process of ethnography jumped out at me – a reiteration of making connections (p 6).

Noddings, N. The Ethics of Care and Education. http://www.infed.org/thinkers/noddings.htm

Caring about what and who you teach, what affect that teaching may have and practicing what you preach to promote positive thinking and behavior really shouldn’t be a novel idea to the service-centered field education is, but it is. Noddings’ articulation of this idea is beautifully set forth and not incognizant of the difficulty of its practice. The core of this idea is reiterated across the work of postmodern art educators including Bresler’s article and its call to develop habits of mind (2006), Stout’s writings on Post-representational telling (2007) etc. The notion that troubles me in this idea is that of morals. Too often and too easily do discussions of the moral slip into discussions of the religious and particulars of cultural mores. As Noddings says, creating meaningful, non judgmental dialogue that does not affirm a particular way of thinking/ being/ making as ideal or higher requires time and continuity as well as care and as Bresler (ibid.) notes, making empathetic connections are a luxury contemporary academics (or even school teachers for that matter) are not often afforded. How do we practice what we want to preach, write about it, make our art and still manage to have lives of our own?

Remen, R. (1996). Preface. In Kitchen table wisdom. New York: Riverhead.

The simplicity and directness of the writing and the many points in this preface that resonated with me led to feel that to overanalyze it was unnecessary and that to do so would lessen the effectiveness of the writing for me. The points that touched me prompted me to dissect not the writing but myself. And my reactions to them. That’s effective writing!

This preface is not just a glimpse into the contents of the book but about the processes of writing, research and service. It is about caring and affirmation of the core of our belief as those involved in humanit(ies), that everyone matters.

Remen highlights what for me are key concerns as a qualitative researcher: writing stories that also talk about stories; reflecting on how I understand research and writing as a “natural process”, and identify myself as author/ writer. Making connections with her audience she acknowledges the anxiety of writing/ creating and being read and most importantly, the anxiety and reward of finding out that that effort has, after all, made some difference to someone, somewhere.

Eisenhauer, J. (in press). Writing Dora: Creating community through autobiographical zines about mental illness. Journal for Cultural Research in Art Education.

Jennifer Eisenhauer is a compelling storyteller. I think about this idea that fills my head as I read her words. It makes me want to listen to what she has to say about her writing and read more. It makes me want to write in response, to read and hear what others have to say about the experiences she writes about. I am engaged in a discourse of her making.

How did she accomplish this? I correct myself: How did we accomplish this? I cannot disengage myself from this dialogue. The honesty and bravery required to create this platform of conversation is inspiring. It is simultaneously, deeply personal and universal, simple but provoking. “Why do we whisper our stories?” she questions. Although this article along with the core of her body of work is about disability studies, I suspect any issue she chooses to explore would display similar trend of inquiry - a habit of mind (Bresler, 2006).

She sets the premise of discomfort in engagement in dialogue due to lack of experience, or knowledge of how to negotiate an experience. This acknowledges and addresses an unfamiliar reader, allowing a way into unfamiliar, possibly uncomfortable territory.

As other writers in our readings in this course have done, she reiterates that as a writer, researcher, educator it is vital - to allow readers to feel a connection with what is written. As she writes about her personal journey in allowing her personal experiences to be reflected in her academic musings, I acknowledge that it is in this area I struggle to find my balance - my autobiographical musings appear to me as yet as a personal journal, relevant to my academic questionings. What can I do to make the leap to allow others to connect to the questions through empathetic understandings? What is it that makes my personal experience transcend to a universal question?

Eisenhauer says, “One significant question that arose from my reading of these zines and writing my own was, "Why do this?” This makes me pause in my reading and think of the connection of my ideas to artmaking, the understanding of ‘art’ in art education. what is my connection and to these two, my clarity in how I approach these connections in my practice as an art educator and researcher and how this clarity or lack of it might affect how others connect with my work as artist and researcher.

Her grappling with the personal and universal in art and research making makes the meeting of academia and art – creating learning in the form of metaphor, the creation of poetry of sorts. Is this arts based research in education? Is this art education? Is this art? (It definitely is an education!)

It makes me think that as writers, readers, thinkers, we must be aware of our strengths and vulnerability as constant producers and consumers - of cultures of ignorance and knowledge.


Crumb, R. (2009). The Book of Genesis. In The New Yorker June 8 & 15, 2009. 90-100

Graphic novels: entertainment or propaganda?

What’s so funny about comic books?

The infomercial value of graphic novels in contemporary kinder culture.

I am thinking in titles for possible papers and it’s a curious realization. Speaking of God and graphic novels – Crumb’s take on The Book of Genesis is funny in a way but seems too important to be called a comic book. Words and labels are important to consider.

Reading this text it is strange to think of the idea that a God would want his creations to live in ignorance. Do not partake of the tree of knowledge? How does that work? my Hindu/Buddhist worldview is puzzled.

Crumb’s God looks old and a bit angry. When did he create this and what does his other work look like? I am not familiar with this artist. Christian depictions of gods are few and far between but tend to be old bearded men as are the wise men – think of images of Plato, Aristotle and their ilk. I think also of the aversion and fear the contemporary western world has of long bearded men, especially non-white men with long beards and wonder if Crumb’s God in a black and white illustration would be clean shaven or tidier, facial hair-wise. Could a Christian god be less clearly Caucasian? Thinking of stereotypical imagery, I would expect God to be taller than Crumb has made him.

The first panel (p 91) tells of the void, the lack of form. Yet the void has a form (I know to call it negative space because I took art classes). How does one show nothing in illustrative form? Indian art is traditionally conceptual and the idea of the depiction of a void has been a point of fascination for Indian aesthetics since ancient times. I love Crumb’s rendition of it.

On page 94, I am fascinated by the stunned, hypnotized eyes of Adam and Eve and God’s perpetual anger as he gives instructions/orders on how to be.. Does this imply that we are all preprogrammed as human beings or just Christians? Is this Crumb’s critique on this antithesis of critical thinking and a comment on a perceived paradox or conflict between faith and critical thinking? And don’t even get me started on the feminist read of the words… I compare and contrast this rendition of the Bible with the Amar Chitra Katha comic I grew up with and think of the line between propaganda and faithful retelling of a story in visual media.

As art educators, as guides and questioners of ways of thinking, it is imperative we be aware of the trap of propagating our beliefs on trusting students. Crumb presents a story. He appears to do it factually, yet it is clearly interpretive although the words are unchanged. Its exciting me to think of at least three different ways I can engage my students in a dialogue around this piece. It’s exciting.


Check, E. (2006). My working-class roots in an academic war zone: Creating space to grieve and honor. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education , 24, 23-35.

Check’s article, like Eisenhauer’s intends, I think, to serve as a model for caring in educational research and the possibility of art in inquiry as a healing process. It seeks to exemplify what Noddings outlines in her model of research inquiry since Check tackles connected identity-based issues of class, religion and sexuality in the United States towards an agenda of social justice through autobiographical cogitation. He critically echoes a prevalent academic doubt that storytelling is not real research, despite the strides made by qualitative researchers in dispelling the artificial divide between intellectual and emotion inquiry. However, he himself appears to ratify the notion that art is more emotional (healing) and less intellectual than other disciplines (p 31-32). This is troubling and I feel lessens the impact of the message I assume he wants to convey.

This article also critiques academia and its biases, as does Eisenhauer’s work but the latter’s critique comes across as more thought-provoking than Check’s, which sounds startlingly negative and discouraging, which I think serves no real purpose other than highlighting his struggles, which I think are validated in other more convincing and inspiring ways.

The terms activism and social justice are sometimes used rather casually and as a current buzz word, incorrectly. Check’s description of his work and his struggles in identifying, grappling with and coming to an understanding with queer issues on a personal and community level clearly articulate the scope of social justice and art education and explain the core meaning of feminism to be a quest for equality. To strive for social justice, to educate about issues of equality disciplinary borders, ideals and belief systems must be troubled and crossed and Check’s work, like Eisenhauer’s exemplifies our collective intellectual and emotional duty to be caring, confirming social performers, as artists, educators and in being these, inherently becoming reflective researchers.


Ewald, W. (2001). Introduction. In I wanna take me a picture (pp. 7-15). Boston: Beacon.

This piece is an introduction to a book about the development of a methodology of teaching photography for visual literacy, based on three decades of experience, observation and reflection on art education and visual literacy practices.

In the beginning of the article, Ewald mentions (p7) that not so long ago visual literacy was part of the curriculum but offers little information beyond that. As a reader, I wish she had provided more detail or expanded upon this. She also mentions a lack of understanding of visual literacy amongst teachers but offers no description newcomers might consider, entering the article.

Her descriptions of classroom arrangements and their pertinence to instruction and learning however raise the issue of visual (il)literacy in a way that encourages engagement with the concept in a meaningful way. However on p 9, she describes her observations of the photographic choices of her students in Labrador saying, “the children’s pictures were more complicated and disturbing than mine- and I began to realize, much closer to what it felt like to be there” and offers poignant elucidation on this statement.

On p12 Ewald describes her project in the Texas school system, illustrating the efficacy and potential of the Literacy through Photography project in a pedagogy of multiculturalism. On p14, she describes the development of collaboration between university and elementary school students and her identification of the need for teacher training programs for greater impact. I expected to (wanted to?) read also about the need for community and parent education on the children’s work in visual literacy and LTP but this doesn’t seem to be a focus in the book although it is indicated in the closing paragraph of the chapter which describes the organization of the contents of the book.

The writing feels a bit choppy to me, with Ewald’s passion and involvement is certain aspects of the LTP project made clear in the way the chapter is constructed. It provides intriguing evocative detail in parts but glosses over summarily in other parts, making for somewhat uneven reading. From this introduction I cannot gauge the tone of the book to follow – whether it will be a practical instruction manual, an ethnographic description that acts as a model, or a blending of both approaches.


Tierney, W. (2002). Get real: Representing reality. Qualitative Studies in Education , 15 (4), 385-398.

In this article, Tierney presents what he terms a ‘crisis in representation’ in narrative inquiry and calls for innovation in the utilization of narrative voice. He then considers the responses to this crisis and offers suggestions to move beyond the status quo qualitative researchers are in now to consider new ways of writing and representation of voice. One of his foremost concerns appears to be the defensiveness qualitative researchers adopt in their narrative telling, i.e. the creative element of their writing of valid research.

Tierney presents the argument that a crisis may be desirable in order to bring about change in a stagnant situation (p 386-387). It seems ironic in an article warning about generalization while caring for the larger message, that crisis in representation be presented as individual lack of direction rather than a collective philosophical dilemma about the purpose and need for academic writing and research. It is nonetheless important, because if individual academics are ambivalent about their purpose in society then how can the writing produced be convincing to others?

This is also an important dilemma to ponder as fledgling researchers who hover between optimistic idealism and fear of irrelevance in and for the societies they study.

On p 389, he uses terms like ‘ostensibly” generously, sounding critical of the researchers using incidents in their own personal lives to illustrate or reflect upon issues undertaken. It is clear from his comments in the following paragraph that he means to write in support of these explorations but somehow he ends up giving mixed messages as to his stance and opinion – the article flits between engagement – him acknowledging the author’s narrative self in the writing- to distanced observer, which is disconcerting, given the nature and content of the article.

I find the key to his discontentment on p 390, “Simply to insert myself into a text in a personal manner or to assume that I am able to write short stories because I no longer wish to write traditional texts is an insufficient remedy to the problems of the positivist text”. I agree wholeheartedly with his assertion that being a good academic writer does not qualify one for writing an English Literature/ Creative writing major, nor is it fair to expect traditional academicians to jury experimental writing. However, I am perplexed by Tierney taking issue with the writing being dictated by the nature of the research itself. “Aside from personifying an inanimate object, Stoller makes the mistaken assumption that stories need to be told in a certain way”. It seems like Tierney is assuming a lack of reflexivity on the part of the writers in this regard. I do feel that the nature of the writing is sometimes dictated by the nature of the project/ experience and that it in fact takes sensitivity and insight on part of the writer to recognize and execute this need in order to best convey the story and issue.

Tierney at times over-argues himself into a corner and like Laurel Richardson and himself, I am inclined to yawn in boredom at his sometimes belabored agonizing of a perceived lack of reflexivity on part of modern, postmodern, positivist and personal narratives.

This article makes some excellent points but the author finds many holes and traps of the art of writing that he himself falls into – whether it is reflexively or un-reflexively, I am yet to determine. I especially liked the concluding thoughts in the section on the “focus on the author’s voice” and “focus on the real world” but there are way too many “ought to”s and “ought-not”s in the article for my liking.


Newman, J. Cusick, E. & La Tourette, A. (Eds). (2004). Working with myth. In The Writer’s workbook. 2nd ed. London: Arnold. 19-26.

In this chapter in a book on writing, Cusick offers a practical workshop on reading and writing with mythology with clear exercises suggested.

This, for me, was one of the most enjoyable, engaging pieces of writing as it was crisp, clear, concise and demonstrated the author’s enthusiasm and knowledge of the subject. Finding the exercise we did in class on writing a 100 word autobiography prompted me to purchase the book at once and also experiment with some of the other writing exercises suggested in the brief but informative chapter.

Cusick’s descriptions of myth such as the construction of an inner room, analysis and depiction of dreams (p 25), channeling of intuition (p 24), translation of ideas into symbols (p 23, 25) and embodying ideals into heroes (p 22) all point towards reflection and meditation on self and the world, the real and the constructed in individual and collective form. This is spirituality, caring, consciousness: everything research should be, everything critically thinking people should be. I loved this text and am going back for more!

Note: I considered inserting my self and experience as a teacher of writing based in the discipline of art education, but paused as Tierney’s words came back to me “Simply to insert myself into a text in a personal manner or to assume that I am able to write short stories because I no longer wish to write traditional texts is an insufficient remedy to the problems of the positivist text” (Tierney, 2002.p 390). And so, I did not.