Invisibility and In/di/Visuality

The Relevance of Art Education in Curriculum Theorizing

Bibliographic Data

ID12928697
AuthorsJames Haywood Rolling (0000-0002-0050-1935, corresponding author)
Year2009
Volume1
Issue1
Pages94-110
Publication date2009-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePower and Education (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1757-7438 • E-ISSN: 1757-7438
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2304/power.2009.1.1.94
OpenAlexW2118200637
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited30

This article investigates how representation attaches meaning to bodies, how certain bodies are categorically misrepresented and masked from normativity, and proposes a curriculum theory affording the agency of the misrepresented to de-mask invisibility. Brief historical narratives of three kinds of invisibility are presented as they are manifested in educational practice and visual culture – masking those deemed to occupy lesser physical bodies, lesser bodies of knowledge, and bodies lesser-than-normal. The author argues the relevance of art education as a transformative pedagogical practice that can inform and promote social significance, or what the author terms as in/di/visuality, the agency to reinterpret misrepresented physical or conceptual bodies. In the face of masking practices that unleash the squalls of invisibility and inequity throughout sites of curriculum practice and contemporary visual culture, the exercise of in/di/visuality acts as a watershed, displacing invisibility and affording a greater breadth of inclusion in educational concerns

Aesthetics · Agency (philosophy · Art · Curriculum · Epistemology · Inclusion (mineral · Invisibility · Masking (illustration · Meaning (existential · Pedagogy · Political science · Politics · Relevance (law · Representation (politics · Social science · Sociology · Transformative learning · Visual arts · Anthropology · Art Education and Development · Literacy, Media, and Education · Philosophy · Visual Culture and Art Theory