On Reviewing: A Response to Mary Ann Stankiewicz

[...]Stankiewicz recalls in some detail her own extensive participation in the Getty's educational venture in art education. [...]the failure to trace to their logical conclusion the largely negative inclinations of deconstruction - notably its rejection of art's special status - encourages mediocrity and calls into question the very existence of what is commonly understood as art. Because it was thought important to convey the tone as well as the substance of the literature, some items were included that radically misconstrued the purposes of DBAE, others that understood such purposes but strongly objected to them, and still others that presented balanced accounts. Some of the included items did not discuss DBAE specifically but were considered compatible with it.8 The literature identified was subsumed under the following topics: aims and policy, antecedents and evolution, disciplines (art making, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics), curriculum (organization and the role of the four disciplines), implementation and evaluation, research and aesthetic development, professional development, museums and museum education, issues (elitism, multiculturalism, feminism), a miscellaneous category for items that did not fit anywhere else, and dissertations.