3.2 Two Reflections on Kylie Peppler and Nancy Baym

1. Kylie Peppler Reflection: I think the main point of Peppler's argument is crucial for potential art teachers because we must work to understand what students are already doing creatively, and then tap into that to create lesson plans. While there's no inherent problem with traditional art education, I do believe that in certain regards it must evolve with the times to reflect what young students are concerned with in the modern era. If you have a classroom full of kids who are already creating videos, animations, podcasts, graphics, and other things that they can use to build their "brand" in the digital world, there is scarcely a need for them to regress back into the formulaic monotony of Drawing Foundations or Painting 101(of course both drawing and painting are fantastic, but these are just examples). What I think Peppler is getting at is that interest-driven learning affords more flexibility for students to use their skills in the modern world, and apply what they are learning to things that they truly care about. While standard art education programs might inform these things as well, its more important to put student interest first in order to best gage what creative sensibilities need to be stimulated in the classroom.
2. Nancy Baym Reflection: The most interesting part of the Baym reading came when she described the "deterministic" relationship that we have with new technologies, wherein in we view technology as a cause-and-effect sort of deal; If some new form of technology arises, it becomes the cause, and we immediately jump to conclusions about the effects that it will have on our humanity or even our basic human conduct. Baym states that this deterministic relationship isn't necessarily the case with new technologies, and shouldn't be the case--and I have to agree wholeheartedly with her. We are deterministic in our view of technology, and I think this stems from a looming fear of how society might change for the worst (rarely ever do we have concerns about the potential positives of new technologies). However, just as Baym articulates, we determine how technology will factor into our lives with our use of it and adaptation to it. It isn't particularly fair for us to villainize our own creations simply because we are the ones who are misusing it. If ever a new technology arises which radically shifts the landscape of our world, we must understand that any developments that may result are the product of human action. This idea--that we are the catalysts, not new techologies--is the key to understanding technology, as well as its relation to our world; and perhaps this is what Baym was attempting to illustrate.