ARTH-DSGD 176A  - History and Theory of Graphic Design

About the Textbook

Smarthistory

Description:   

The Khan Academy Smarthistory is uneven in terms of coverage, continuity, and choice of elements. Some sections include lengthy narratives that present historical context, factors of use, biographical information, terms, and other highly relevant information directly related to the practice and teaching of art history. Other sections consist of short videos largely dominated by a specialist’s focus on a single work or, conversely, lengthy formal analyses in lieu of actual content of the sort that gains credit on exams. It often seems that the goal of being “relatable” precludes sustained or in-depth content. Experience teaching with and evaluating instructor-compiled readers has shown that few students do well with resources they consider inconsistent or presenting sections of disparate quality, approach, or expectations. This is not an answer to different styles of learning; rather, the SmartHistory is characterized by its inadequate engagement with the multiple and intersecting requirements of a successful textbook. In addition, the overall emphasis on artistic formalism goes against best practices of the discipline it is intended to serve. 

Authors: 

• Beth Harris - Smarthistory
• Steven Zucker - Smarthistory

Formats:  

Smarthistory is accessed online.

Supplemental resources:  

Test banks and other supplemental resources are of questionable value to college- and university-level courses. Essay questions can be bizarre; see the Teachers’ resources, “Renaissance to Romanticism” essay, “Believing what you see,” which deals ostensibly with Baroque sculptor Bernini. The question quotes Marvin Gaye lyrics, references Photoshop, and ends by asking, “Do you find yourself doubting the truthfulness of images? Is this a good thing or is it a problem?” At no point does the question engage the work of Bernini or its context, nor the religious rationale for works that “helped people believe in the miraculous”. What is left is an entirely subjective question bolstered by fatuous pop culture references.  See, "Art History Basics"

Peer reviews: 

This book has been reviewed by a CCC faculty member, a CSU faculty member and a UC faculty member  from within the California higher education systems. 

Cost savings:  

With the exception of the selection used in this study, the sole advantage of the SmartHistory is that it is free. The three leading art history survey textbooks are Janson, History of Art, Kleiner, Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: The Western Perspective, and Stokstad, Art History. While there are ongoing disputes within the discipline on issues ranging from the problematic focus on Western art in the 21st century to the role of a canon itself, these are the most widely accepted titles for lower-division art history survey courses. For example, these three jointly comprise the California State C-ID sample textbooks for the Survey of Western Art I and II. 

Costs of these books reflect the legal necessity of image permissions fees for a full inclusion of canonical images. Even so, the cost to students for a semester of use is $77 for a used textbook (that can be sold back) and $80 for an eBook offering a superior range of interactive media and digital features; books can also be rented. While these costs exceed those of the SmartHistory, they do not seem exorbitant, especially when the distinguishing feature of the SmartHistory and the other OER alternatives proposed for this discipline is that they are free.

Accessibility and diversity statement: 

The publisher does not address accessibility or diversity.

License:

Khan Academy may make available on the Website certain educational videos, exercises, and related supplementary materials that are owned by Khan Academy or its third-party licensors (the “Licensed Educational Content”). Khan Academy grants to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and use the Licensed Educational Content as made available on the Website by Khan Academy solely for your personal, non-commercial purposes. Unless expressly indicated on the Website that a particular item of Licensed Educational Content is made available to Users under alternate license terms, you may not download, distribute, sell, lease, modify, or otherwise provide access to the Licensed Educational Content to any third party.

About the Course

ARTH-DSGD 176A: History and Theory of Graphic Design

Description: 

This course presents a thematic and chronological examination of major historical trends of graphic design and its reception. It uses the slide lecture format to contextualize main historical, technological, and theoretical concerns that influenced individuals and movements in graphic design.  

Prerequisites: ARTH 72, completion of Area Z, or instructor consent

GE credit: 3.0 units 

Learning outcomes:

The objective of this course is for students to acquire a broad perspective on the changing technologies, cultural ideals, and popular tastes that have historically influenced design as a whole. A secondary goal is to develop the communication skills necessary for translating your visual perceptions into words and, more generally, to securing your academic and professional success. As professionals, the ability to effectively communicate your ideas in team settings and client relationships is as important as the designs you create. 

Students in this course will: 

• Master basic terminology, concepts and issues in graphic design;
• Gain knowledge of the work and ideas of major graphic designers and movements;
• Gain knowledge of the history and context of graphic design innovations, knowledge which will, in turn enable strategic problem solving and encourage coherent design methodologies;
• Develop and/or reinforce skills in communicating about graphic design;
• Develop skills in translating visual perceptions into verbal and written communication;
• Develop skills in thinking critically about graphic design; and
• Write clearly, effectively, and critically using terminology appropriate to the history of design. 

Curricular changes:

The single section adapted for use in Fall 2015 was incorporated into the existing curriculum.  Lecture and Study Guide questions expanded accordingly.  No other changes were required.

Teaching and learning impacts:  

The teaching and learning impact will be assessed through completed study guides and one or more questions appearing on the course final exam.  As such, data is not available at this time.  

Collaborate more with other faculty: No

Use wider range of teaching materials: Yes

Student learning improved: Unsure

Student retention improved: Unsure

Any unexpected results: No 

Sample assignment and syllabus:

Sample Assignment
This is a Study Guide that I created for the class.

Syllabus
This is the syllabus I used for the Fall 2015 course.

Textbook Adoption

OER Adoption Process

The main motivation in participating in this study and partially adopting an open textbook is to help ensure that any adapation of OER materials is pedagogically sound and in the best overall interest of students (i.e., advantages must include more than the fact that materials are free). In this case, the Khan Academy "SmartHistory" represents the best of three significantly flawed proposed OER "textbooks." Its format and possibilities are very intriguing for a study of visual materials, and much of it suggests the advantages of a fully realized digital textbook. In its inconsistent coverage; lack of clear organization from section to section; and near-total absence of source citations, evidence of peer review and all other standards of academic scholarship expected of a college-level textbook, however, it is not possible to recommend the vast majority of this work for use in college or university classrooms. In addition, many standard works of art required by an art history survey are copyrighted, and in this the possibility of an adequate free resource is problematic.  It is hoped that larger decisions to use a resource of this type will be based on its relevant content, clear acknowledgement of source materials, peer review, and all other standards of academic publishing.

The limited section used in this study supplements a very good Yale University Press textbook, primary sources, and university-level secondary source articles and book chapters.

Student access:  

Access to the "SmartHistory" is online. Other options do not seem to be available.

Student feedback or participation:

The teaching and learning impact will be assessed through a completed study guide assignment and one or more questions appearing on the course final exam.  As such, data is not available at this time.

Instructor Reflection

Use of the KhanAcademy.org "Smart History" in this upper-division course was limited, in part, because so little of it is suitable for university-level instruction. The primary advantages of the site are its ease of use, layout, and connection to videos and outside links that have the potential to illuminate works of art and especially sculpture and architect. In this, the KhanAcademy.org "Smart History" possibly anticipates a very good online offering from publishers of the three standard art history textbooks.

This trial used “Futurism and the Great War” by Emily Casden. Ms. Casden holds an MA from Hunter College, and her Master's thesis, "La Femme Vitale: Boccioni's Futurist Women," is distinguished by the Hunter College 2011 Shuster Award for Outstanding Master's Degree Theses. (Art history instructors at my university are required to hold a doctorate, the terminal degree for this discipline.) Unlike the majority of "Smart History" offerings, Ms. Casden's section is competent and reflects best practices within the discipline. Please note, however, that while this was a very good section indicative of future directions for digital and/or online textbooks, the overwhelming majority of the KhanAcademy.org, "Smart History" proposed as an OER textbook fails to meet even the most basic standards of a college-level resource and fails utterly in terms of academic scholarship.   

This trial period has done little to ease the grave concerns noted in my earlier review of this online source and proposed CA-OER textbook. As summarized in that review, “The Khan Academy SmartHistory announces its goals clearly and early on. It is to be ‘relatable,’ and this appears to make subject matter an interesting issue. Some sections are very good, with clear, factual articles supported by thoughtfully selected sets of images and links to legitimate sources. See, for example, the comprehensive section on Futurism and its many links to relevant supporting information. ‘Warhol, Marilyn Diptych’ provides a bibliography of five items, four of which are the leading scholarly accounts of the work; the fifth links to the work’s page at the Tate. That said, a surprisingly large number of topics lack extended narratives, and few present citations or bibliographies of standard and authoritative texts. Where do data come from, and shouldn’t a textbook model the same attention to scholarship and citation required of student research papers? Other sections seem to conflate historic art production and reception with their contemporary counterparts, and many present the past through a lens derived from popular culture and tourist interests. Most are tightly focused on one or a few aspects of their topics, an approach that neglects contextual issues and precludes adequate preparation for later discussions [….] Questionable and poorly written statements appear as well; e.g., “Buddhism, born in India, was transmitted to China…”. [Coverage of many topics] consists of one or more short videos with little-written narrative or other clear connection established between components.” Other reviewers commented on the lack of strong coordinating principles necessary for establishing an equitable discussion of art from the prehistoric era to the present, and for basing cross-cultural comparisons and otherwise engaging diversity.   

The overall unevenness of KhanAcademy.org "Smart History" content makes it necessary to parse out those sections suitable for use as a scholarly resource, and this sends a mixed message. On the one hand, students were required to use the "Futurism and the Great War"; on the other, they were cautioned that surrounding sections presented simplistic coverage and/or were so lacking in factual content as to not constitute a valid source for university-level research. While the parallel would be using a single chapter from an otherwise flawed anthology, the “Smart History” hyperlink organization made it difficult to specify limited use. In sum, the trial underscored the highly problematic consequences of using a "textbook" that is only partially accurate.   

Six specific recommendations for improving the proposed CA-OER textbooks include:   

1.) Improve the OER textbook to reflect current standards in art history as it is taught in 21st-century university classrooms. The KhanAcademy.org "Smart History" was the best of four such available CA-OER “textbooks,” and its focus on formal analysis and affect are at odds with the best practices in this discipline.   

2.) The "Smart History" emphasizes description and videos that focus on affect (roughly, one’s subjective reaction to an artwork). While perhaps of interest to the general public, very little of this content is of substance or value to a college- or university-level course. If the goal is to link or otherwise coordinate OER textbooks with State of California C-ID courses, the two need to share a common ground. In my prior review and now semester-long work with the KhanAcademy.org "Smart History," I find little correlation between it as a whole and the C-ID Course Objectives for the ARTH 110 (Survey of Western Art from Prehistory through the Middle Ages) and ARTH 120 (Survey of Western Art from Renaissance to Contemporary). For example, the C-ID ARTH 120 requirement that a student passing an art history survey be able to "Identify, examine, and assess representative works of art and architecture from the Renaissance to the contemporary period employing appropriate art historical terminology" is ill-served by text and media content that focus on formal analysis and affect. This is inconsistent with the larger State of California C-ID goals and definitions for art history.   

3.) A factor in the high costs of art history, design history and visual culture textbooks is the legal necessity of image copyright. The KhanAcademy.org “Smart History” frequently sidesteps this issue by using lesser works in the public domain. While this allows for a free online resource, it also erodes the canonical images that constitute the joint subject of the standard Art History Surveys of Western Art I and II, ditto the core discussions of these courses. Unless the goal is to create new disciplinary narratives independent of the canonical works standard to the discipline, the factor of copyright alone will make OER textbooks in art history, design history and visual culture highly problematic.   

4.) Eliminate sections that skirt factual discourse and/or diminish their subjects in an (apparent) effort to be 'relatable'. For example, discussion of Jacques-Louis David somehow focuses on "a certain Dr. Joseph Guillotine"; the historic and material facts of Celtic interlace are jettisoned in favor of a sentence identifying it as "a dizzying jumble of animal limbs and face masks, which has led some scholars to describe the style as an 'animal salad'”. These and other similar statements would earn little or no credit if repeated verbatim on an exam or in a paper, and this is a problem in an online content provider under consideration for use as a textbook.   

5.) Make clear where text ends and the highly speculative and typically inaccurate Questions section begins. See, for example, the interesting stuff appearing at the bottom of the webpage "Leonardo, Mona Lisa". This is at best an ever-changing version of the problems associated with parsing out valid scholarship from more generic, typically anonymous content.   

6.) Many sections appear predominantly or solely in video format (e.g., "Romanticism in the United States"). This is fine, perhaps, for native English speakers, but my campus is distinguished by a high number of ESL students who may not be well-served by this format.  

Conclusion 

The state goal of providing students with free online educational materials is admirable; however, the discipline of art history is not well served by the KhanAcademy.org “SmartHistory,” the best of the four content providers currently under consideration. If the goal is to locate a single online resource for use throughout the state, the better alternative would be one of the existing electronic versions offered by the three leading art history textbook publishers. Another option is to use existing educational shells such as Canvas (already in use in the CSU). My campus requires faculty to use the Canvas educational shell, and this in turn already allows us to post copyright material and link to high-quality electronic peer-reviewed scholarly materials maintained by the university library. Students are able to read and download both types of items free of charge. Faculty materials posted to the Canvas site (or library electronic reserves) to supplement or supplant traditional textbooks. While these shells are through paid outside providers (at least for now), it seems Canvas and similar online educational shells already satisfy the CA-OER goal of providing students with free online materials without sacrificing quality, coverage, accuracy or academic appropriateness of all course materials.   

Share any plans to disseminate/publish the findings  

 None at this time (though I would be interested in assisting with the final reports generated by this trial).

Dr. Beverly K. Grindstaff Associate professor of design history at San José State University. Her areas of specialization are critical theory and nineteenth- and twentieth-century art and design. Themes unifying her work include formal theories of aesthetics and the construction of identity through the fine arts, design, popular culture, and the museum. She received her doctorate at the University of California Los Angeles.