Literature Review, 2015
Local Effects of and on Globalization
Tammy Hoppe
University of Florida
Tammy Hoppe
University of Florida
Abstract
This is a review of literature regarding studies and beliefs about globalization and its effects on cultures, art, and education as well as how globalization is, in turn, affected by these three areas. It includes the findings and opinions of professionals in the fields of art, education and art education, culture and visual culture education, and globalization. These findings and opinions may influence the decisions an art educator makes when writing contemporary art curriculum.
This particular literature review focuses on globalization and its effects on three key topics: global cultures, global influences, and art and art education. The topic of global cultures includes information pertaining to intercultural and transcultural competencies as well as visual culture influences and results. The topic of global influences discusses ideas and findings associated with global media and hybridity or hybridized culture. The final topic is about art and art education, which includes findings and opinions about visual literacy, contemporary art, and cybermedia.
This particular literature review focuses on globalization and its effects on three key topics: global cultures, global influences, and art and art education. The topic of global cultures includes information pertaining to intercultural and transcultural competencies as well as visual culture influences and results. The topic of global influences discusses ideas and findings associated with global media and hybridity or hybridized culture. The final topic is about art and art education, which includes findings and opinions about visual literacy, contemporary art, and cybermedia.
Introduction
Globalization is both acting and acted upon by diverse cultures (Bode, 2009; Delacruz, 2011; Kindler, 2009; Simms & Carpenter, 2009; Steers, 2009; Thompson, 2009). It is changing how people and cultures act and feel as well as what they do and how they are doing it. Simultaneously, it is pushing cultures to resist those changes in an effort to hold strongly onto their independent cultural traditions and heritage (Arnold,2009; Chung, 2009). This dichotomy of responses to the numerous effects of globalization can be seen as one discovers some of the various reactions being expressed by different cultures. Art and art education already are or are recommended by some to be the contemporary manner in which such topics are addressed.
The art practices and contemporary art that are being used by cultures to affect globalization have also been changed by globalization (Marshall, 2009). New global media and global cultures are growing prevalent forces in the media and appearance of contemporary art and in the entrepreneurial practices of contemporary artists (Castro et al, 2011; Kindler, 2009; Marshall, 2009; Simms & Carpenter, 2009). In turn, these newly introduced pieces of visual culture are provoking change on globalism.
Finally, art educators are equally influenced by the effects of globalization. They are advised by some globalization experts to revise or even reconstruct their art curriculum content so that it provides quality knowledge-building experiences relevant to the students and related to the delicate global and cultural topics that are prevalent in today’s world (Delacruz, 2009; Delacruz, 2011; Steers, 2009).
In this literature review the visage of global cultures become more apparent through the discussion of these cultures’ art forms, their responses to and through the visual arts, and their art education recommendations. Global influences such as global media and hybridization are apparent in diverse cultures, art forms, and art education, and knowing these potential influences can affect the decisions an art educator makes when writing quality contemporary curriculum. Finally, art and art education are described as both affecting and being affected by globalization so an explanation of its local and global power is offered.
The art practices and contemporary art that are being used by cultures to affect globalization have also been changed by globalization (Marshall, 2009). New global media and global cultures are growing prevalent forces in the media and appearance of contemporary art and in the entrepreneurial practices of contemporary artists (Castro et al, 2011; Kindler, 2009; Marshall, 2009; Simms & Carpenter, 2009). In turn, these newly introduced pieces of visual culture are provoking change on globalism.
Finally, art educators are equally influenced by the effects of globalization. They are advised by some globalization experts to revise or even reconstruct their art curriculum content so that it provides quality knowledge-building experiences relevant to the students and related to the delicate global and cultural topics that are prevalent in today’s world (Delacruz, 2009; Delacruz, 2011; Steers, 2009).
In this literature review the visage of global cultures become more apparent through the discussion of these cultures’ art forms, their responses to and through the visual arts, and their art education recommendations. Global influences such as global media and hybridization are apparent in diverse cultures, art forms, and art education, and knowing these potential influences can affect the decisions an art educator makes when writing quality contemporary curriculum. Finally, art and art education are described as both affecting and being affected by globalization so an explanation of its local and global power is offered.
Summary
Global Cultures
Although children’s history textbooks may recognize cultural diversity throughout history, there are contemporary global cultures that may not be mentioned but that hold a great deal of value in a child’s 21st century learning. First, one might begin by thinking about children’s culture, which is explained by Thompson (2009) as partly a peer culture in which children experience and interpret the world and each other with similar-aged peers and partly an adult-designed world of toys and learning activities created specifically for children. Even though this is a child’s culture, it is powerful in its collective voice on global issues. This culture can collectively determine suitable rules for their made-up games or decide if an adult-designed commercial product is or is not acceptable to the group (Thompson, 2009). This collective culture’s decisions produce global results.
A second consideration about global cultures includes their intercultural and transcultural tendencies. A growing result of globalization is the heightened connectedness among cultures (Marshall, 2009; Stiglitz, 2007). As these cultural connections grow, cultural influences on each other also grow (Delacruz, 2011). The influences of these cultures on each other begin to show themselves in things such as commercial products, technologies, and visual culture (Delacruz, 2011; Thompson, 2009). Sometimes such intercultural connections unify diverse cultures and sometimes they emphasize cultural inequities and even cause social conflicts (Nyaberi, 2009).
Finally, visual culture must be considered when discussing global cultures. Visual culture is a transnational intercultural dialogue that connects cultures in several ways (Garoian & Gaudelius, 2009). Kindler (2009) points out that some of the most important values of studying visual culture are that it is locally relevant, it has contemporary value, and it has transcultural communication qualities. While globalization may have the ability to concentrate power, the global system of art and visual culture disburses it (Garoian & Gaudelius, 2009).
These global cultures add to a system of cultural capital that can be distributed in a manner that indicates a political system of cultural dominance and subordinance (Delacruz, 2011; Yosso, 2005). The influence of dominant and subordinate cultures flows between each other (Delecruz, 2011). Knowledge of diverse global cultures “needs to be viewed as a circulatory system” (Bode, 2009, p. 276) because this perspective adds value and understanding to the meanings of the visual world both locally and globally and the constant flow of connections and influences between the two.
Although children’s history textbooks may recognize cultural diversity throughout history, there are contemporary global cultures that may not be mentioned but that hold a great deal of value in a child’s 21st century learning. First, one might begin by thinking about children’s culture, which is explained by Thompson (2009) as partly a peer culture in which children experience and interpret the world and each other with similar-aged peers and partly an adult-designed world of toys and learning activities created specifically for children. Even though this is a child’s culture, it is powerful in its collective voice on global issues. This culture can collectively determine suitable rules for their made-up games or decide if an adult-designed commercial product is or is not acceptable to the group (Thompson, 2009). This collective culture’s decisions produce global results.
A second consideration about global cultures includes their intercultural and transcultural tendencies. A growing result of globalization is the heightened connectedness among cultures (Marshall, 2009; Stiglitz, 2007). As these cultural connections grow, cultural influences on each other also grow (Delacruz, 2011). The influences of these cultures on each other begin to show themselves in things such as commercial products, technologies, and visual culture (Delacruz, 2011; Thompson, 2009). Sometimes such intercultural connections unify diverse cultures and sometimes they emphasize cultural inequities and even cause social conflicts (Nyaberi, 2009).
Finally, visual culture must be considered when discussing global cultures. Visual culture is a transnational intercultural dialogue that connects cultures in several ways (Garoian & Gaudelius, 2009). Kindler (2009) points out that some of the most important values of studying visual culture are that it is locally relevant, it has contemporary value, and it has transcultural communication qualities. While globalization may have the ability to concentrate power, the global system of art and visual culture disburses it (Garoian & Gaudelius, 2009).
These global cultures add to a system of cultural capital that can be distributed in a manner that indicates a political system of cultural dominance and subordinance (Delacruz, 2011; Yosso, 2005). The influence of dominant and subordinate cultures flows between each other (Delecruz, 2011). Knowledge of diverse global cultures “needs to be viewed as a circulatory system” (Bode, 2009, p. 276) because this perspective adds value and understanding to the meanings of the visual world both locally and globally and the constant flow of connections and influences between the two.
Global Influences
Influences on global cultures as well as on art and art education include global media and hybridization. With global media, new communities are brought to life. Online communities can move across geographic cultural boundaries but yet produce their own online local culture as well (Castro et al, 2011). Even though global media can be used on a local level, it still can have global effects and can be used in several different cultures (Delacruz, 2011). Global media’s addition to the element of connectivity continues to emphasize this same quality of globalization (Marshall, 2009). A con to this level of global connectivity expressed by Garoian and Gaudelius (2009) is that corporate capitalism has interfered with global media to the point of possibly restricting its potential. Art, in turn, uses these global media to disperse political powers.
Artworks produced or shared through global media are reaching a transnational community and raising some pros and cons associated with their use of global media (Frostig, 2009). The cons include the definitive decision by somebody else of what imagery will be shared on a collaborative global media along with the perceptions that may go with issues such as image quality (Simms & Carpenter, 2009). Second, global media art may not hold the communicative, intercultural, social awakening powers it is often accredited with (Kindler, 2009). The pros include the collective value of crowd sourcing, collaborative public efforts to produce a single product (Simms & Carpenter, 2009) and the fact that global media art is a relevant, enriching, and contemporary part of visual culture (Kindler, 2009).
Hybridization, as used in the literature, refers to the bringing together of two or more forms to create a whole new form while still retaining evidence of those forms originally compiled to create the new (Marshall , 2009; Thompson, 2009). Influences flow among the significant cultures as a new form evolves, retaining signs of all forms and dominance of none (Bode, 2009; Lin, 2009). While visual signs of global cultures remain, new signs are always being created as cultures generate new hybridized ideas, art forms, and traditions as a result of globalization (Marshall, 2009). In some situations this hybridization is desired (Nyaberi, 2009) and in others it is not (Bode, 2009). This is indication of the push and pull of globalization.
Influences on global cultures as well as on art and art education include global media and hybridization. With global media, new communities are brought to life. Online communities can move across geographic cultural boundaries but yet produce their own online local culture as well (Castro et al, 2011). Even though global media can be used on a local level, it still can have global effects and can be used in several different cultures (Delacruz, 2011). Global media’s addition to the element of connectivity continues to emphasize this same quality of globalization (Marshall, 2009). A con to this level of global connectivity expressed by Garoian and Gaudelius (2009) is that corporate capitalism has interfered with global media to the point of possibly restricting its potential. Art, in turn, uses these global media to disperse political powers.
Artworks produced or shared through global media are reaching a transnational community and raising some pros and cons associated with their use of global media (Frostig, 2009). The cons include the definitive decision by somebody else of what imagery will be shared on a collaborative global media along with the perceptions that may go with issues such as image quality (Simms & Carpenter, 2009). Second, global media art may not hold the communicative, intercultural, social awakening powers it is often accredited with (Kindler, 2009). The pros include the collective value of crowd sourcing, collaborative public efforts to produce a single product (Simms & Carpenter, 2009) and the fact that global media art is a relevant, enriching, and contemporary part of visual culture (Kindler, 2009).
Hybridization, as used in the literature, refers to the bringing together of two or more forms to create a whole new form while still retaining evidence of those forms originally compiled to create the new (Marshall , 2009; Thompson, 2009). Influences flow among the significant cultures as a new form evolves, retaining signs of all forms and dominance of none (Bode, 2009; Lin, 2009). While visual signs of global cultures remain, new signs are always being created as cultures generate new hybridized ideas, art forms, and traditions as a result of globalization (Marshall, 2009). In some situations this hybridization is desired (Nyaberi, 2009) and in others it is not (Bode, 2009). This is indication of the push and pull of globalization.
Art and Art Education
Contemporary art and art education are subject to globalization as well. Visual literacy is an element of contemporary art education and is broadly defined by Lin (2009) as “an individual’s ability to communicate visually” (p. 199). Regarding art education Lin (2009) generally defines it as the students’ “comprehension of works of art and other visual forms of expression and related cultural productions” (p. 199). The mass growth of global media has accelerated the call for visual literacy education, yet Lin (2009) explains that art education focused on new media, global concerns, and local situations is the recommended solution for preparing students to be global citizens. She points out that this is because visual literacy education should be accepted as a means to learning and not emphasized as an end product of learning (Lin, 2009).
In following with Lin’s findings, others discuss the necessity for visual literacy education as a means for better comprehension of contemporary art as well as a means for creating contemporary art that more effectively responds to globalization. Art seen as a creation of local realities addresses critical issues of globalization and their effects on individual artists and populations (Marshall, 2009). This local art also incorporates images of the global visual culture and then presents its own hybridized representation of the effects of local and global issues. Visual literacy education provides some of the skills necessary for both the production of and then understanding of this hybridized contemporary art (Marshall, 2009).
Art education that is to sustain efficacy in learners needs students “to go beyond absorbing information to developing global consciousness” (Marshall, 2009, p. 96), which is explained as making conscious, intentional personal connections within the globalized world. Contemporary artists inspire this philosophy with their artwork that provides new insights on global realities in an attempt to push viewers to think more deeply about their own perspectives on culture and humanity (Arnold, 2009; Frostig, 2009). Kindler (2009) would add to this the potential for intellectual growth through art education can be achieved only when the art being studied or produced has local and contemporary relevance and has aesthetic and personal heritage value.
Contemporary art and art education are subject to globalization as well. Visual literacy is an element of contemporary art education and is broadly defined by Lin (2009) as “an individual’s ability to communicate visually” (p. 199). Regarding art education Lin (2009) generally defines it as the students’ “comprehension of works of art and other visual forms of expression and related cultural productions” (p. 199). The mass growth of global media has accelerated the call for visual literacy education, yet Lin (2009) explains that art education focused on new media, global concerns, and local situations is the recommended solution for preparing students to be global citizens. She points out that this is because visual literacy education should be accepted as a means to learning and not emphasized as an end product of learning (Lin, 2009).
In following with Lin’s findings, others discuss the necessity for visual literacy education as a means for better comprehension of contemporary art as well as a means for creating contemporary art that more effectively responds to globalization. Art seen as a creation of local realities addresses critical issues of globalization and their effects on individual artists and populations (Marshall, 2009). This local art also incorporates images of the global visual culture and then presents its own hybridized representation of the effects of local and global issues. Visual literacy education provides some of the skills necessary for both the production of and then understanding of this hybridized contemporary art (Marshall, 2009).
Art education that is to sustain efficacy in learners needs students “to go beyond absorbing information to developing global consciousness” (Marshall, 2009, p. 96), which is explained as making conscious, intentional personal connections within the globalized world. Contemporary artists inspire this philosophy with their artwork that provides new insights on global realities in an attempt to push viewers to think more deeply about their own perspectives on culture and humanity (Arnold, 2009; Frostig, 2009). Kindler (2009) would add to this the potential for intellectual growth through art education can be achieved only when the art being studied or produced has local and contemporary relevance and has aesthetic and personal heritage value.
Key Concepts
Globalization is a worldly force that is both acting on and being acted upon by local and global cultural influences (Bode, 2009; Delacruz, 2011; Kindler, 2009; Simms & Carpenter, 2009; Steers, 2009; Thompson, 2009). Global cultures are changing with the element of connectivity being emphasized by globalization (Garoian & Gaudelius, 2009; Marshall, 2009). As one culture connects with another, the two cultures influence each other. The results of this are seen in the visual culture, which shows a hybridization of cultures or even a whole new concept or culture (Chung, 2009). Yet the qualities of the two connected entities still remain apparent. With globalization, some cultural traits and traditions will be succumbed by the more dominant ones, and not all cultures are willing to give up those notable unique qualities (Chung, 2009). The critical balancing act is in knowing how to celebrate the new while maintaining the old, and formal art education has the potential to support such a cause (Nyaberi, 2009).
Another powerful tool in maintaining subordinate cultural traits and traditions in knowing that the tools of globalization that are forcing global change can also be used to resist the forces of change and to, in turn, change the system of globalization itself (Chung, 2009; Thompson, 2009). As contemporary art responds to globalization it does three things. First, it addresses critical global issues generated by connectivity; second, it uses common images of contemporary visual culture; and, third, it employs the strategies of globalization to convey ideas (Marshall, 2009). This means contemporary art uses the global media tools that affect its content, media, and meanings to, in turn, affect the system of globalization itself. Global issues such as connectivity, hybridity, and visual culture are equally produced by globalization and affected by the local resistance to or influences upon globalization (Marshall, 2009; Thompson, 2009).
Another powerful tool in maintaining subordinate cultural traits and traditions in knowing that the tools of globalization that are forcing global change can also be used to resist the forces of change and to, in turn, change the system of globalization itself (Chung, 2009; Thompson, 2009). As contemporary art responds to globalization it does three things. First, it addresses critical global issues generated by connectivity; second, it uses common images of contemporary visual culture; and, third, it employs the strategies of globalization to convey ideas (Marshall, 2009). This means contemporary art uses the global media tools that affect its content, media, and meanings to, in turn, affect the system of globalization itself. Global issues such as connectivity, hybridity, and visual culture are equally produced by globalization and affected by the local resistance to or influences upon globalization (Marshall, 2009; Thompson, 2009).
Insights, Applications, and Reflections
If globalization is both acting upon and being acted upon by diverse cultures and forces, my personal response is that I sense their forces falling upon me more than my own force upon them. Initially I blindly believed that contemporary art has the power to affect change through social impact and visual communication of meaningful ideas. After reading Kindler’s (2009) chapter, “Art and Art Education in an Age of Globalization,” I was encouraged to consider the ideas that contemporary art may be misrepresented as a language that conveys messages, as a vehicle that promotes creativity, and as an avenue with which to meaningfully address social action.
This philosophy challenged me as an artist and as an art educator. As an artist I am comforted by the belief that I am producing art that conveys meaningful messages about critical social issues and that can actually draw awareness to such issues. Kindler’s suggestion, that such artwork raises far less social consciousness than believed, called to question my purposes for creating art and the intended messages of my art. Apposing Kindler’s findings are Marshall’s (2009) findings, which state that contemporary art quite successfully provides inspiration and fresh insights in global issues through meaningful use of cultural icons and connections to other visual culture. My reassurance in Marshall’s message is that it acknowledges the power of the individual to promote changes in the whole of globalization, while Kindler’s claim appears to be overlooking this local power. My initial belief about globalization putting more force upon me than I am upon it has now been somewhat altered.
As an art educator, I found the above findings very insightful for art curriculum content. Kindler (2009) suggests that art education be a visual culture studies program. She says art be taught as a division of visual culture, emphasize the big picture of global issues, and then allow the individual to discover a local position within that big picture. Chung (2009) says somewhat the opposite: art education should focus on the local and individual first, teaching students specific skills “that will enhance [their] democratic participation and cultural emancipation” as they explore global issues and global media. In the middle, Delacruz (2009; 2011) explains that art education needs to reflect the knowledge that global issues do affect students’ worlds and their learning but that students also have the local power to impact what is happening globally. In the classroom, this philosophy looks like civic-minded students pursuing global issues such as global media, connectedness, and consumerism on a personal, local level. Students will responsibly engage emerging technologies and critically address global issues such as environmentalism that show their affects all the way down to the local level. Students will know that globalism does act upon them but that they have the power to act upon it using its own global tools and media.
This philosophy challenged me as an artist and as an art educator. As an artist I am comforted by the belief that I am producing art that conveys meaningful messages about critical social issues and that can actually draw awareness to such issues. Kindler’s suggestion, that such artwork raises far less social consciousness than believed, called to question my purposes for creating art and the intended messages of my art. Apposing Kindler’s findings are Marshall’s (2009) findings, which state that contemporary art quite successfully provides inspiration and fresh insights in global issues through meaningful use of cultural icons and connections to other visual culture. My reassurance in Marshall’s message is that it acknowledges the power of the individual to promote changes in the whole of globalization, while Kindler’s claim appears to be overlooking this local power. My initial belief about globalization putting more force upon me than I am upon it has now been somewhat altered.
As an art educator, I found the above findings very insightful for art curriculum content. Kindler (2009) suggests that art education be a visual culture studies program. She says art be taught as a division of visual culture, emphasize the big picture of global issues, and then allow the individual to discover a local position within that big picture. Chung (2009) says somewhat the opposite: art education should focus on the local and individual first, teaching students specific skills “that will enhance [their] democratic participation and cultural emancipation” as they explore global issues and global media. In the middle, Delacruz (2009; 2011) explains that art education needs to reflect the knowledge that global issues do affect students’ worlds and their learning but that students also have the local power to impact what is happening globally. In the classroom, this philosophy looks like civic-minded students pursuing global issues such as global media, connectedness, and consumerism on a personal, local level. Students will responsibly engage emerging technologies and critically address global issues such as environmentalism that show their affects all the way down to the local level. Students will know that globalism does act upon them but that they have the power to act upon it using its own global tools and media.
References
Arnold, A. (2009). Jan-Ru Wan: A transcultural journey. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 314-322). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Bode, P. (2009). The circulatory system of oil contamination, visual culture, and Amazon indigenous life. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 269-277). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Castro, J. C., Danker, S., Delacruz, E. M., Fuglestad, T., Roland, C., & Stokrocki, M. (2011). Do-it-Yourself professional development through online personal learning networks as a 21st century form of self-initiated, non-hierarchical participation in communities of practice. Canadian Art Journal, 9(2), 38-53.
Chung, S. K. (2009). Art education and cybermedia spectacles in the age of globalization. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 186-192). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Delacruz, E. M. (2009). Art education in the age of new media: Toward global civil society. Art Education, 62(5), 13-18.
Delacruz, E. M. (2011). Mapping the Terrain: Globalization, art, and education. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. x-xviii). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Frostig, K. (2009). Transnational dialogues dealing with Holocaust legacies. In Delacruz, E. M., A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 60-67). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Garoian, C. R., & Gaudelius, Y. M. (2009). Transnational visual culture: Indecipherable narratives and pedagogy. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 142-150). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Kindler, A. (2009). Art and art education in an age of globalization. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 151-157). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Lin, C. C. (2009). Beyond visual literacy competencies: Teaching and learning art with technology in the global age. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 198-204). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Marshall, J. (2009). Globalization and contemporary art. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 88-96). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Nyaberi, D. (2009). A policy analysis of formal education in modern multiethnic Kenya: A case for cultural hybridization. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 76-84). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Simms, M., & Carpenter, S. B. (2009). Putting the world together: Virtual globes and the changing nature of (digital) global representations. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 135-141). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Steers, J. (2009). Some reflections on globalizing (visual) culture. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 314-322). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Stiglitz, J. (2007, Feb). The most global issue. Our Planet Magazine: Globalization and the Environment, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/pdf/OurPlanet/OP_Feb07_GC24_en.pdf
Thompson, C. M. (2009). The global and the local: The hybridity of children’s culture. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 164-170). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A Critical Race Theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Bode, P. (2009). The circulatory system of oil contamination, visual culture, and Amazon indigenous life. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 269-277). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Castro, J. C., Danker, S., Delacruz, E. M., Fuglestad, T., Roland, C., & Stokrocki, M. (2011). Do-it-Yourself professional development through online personal learning networks as a 21st century form of self-initiated, non-hierarchical participation in communities of practice. Canadian Art Journal, 9(2), 38-53.
Chung, S. K. (2009). Art education and cybermedia spectacles in the age of globalization. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 186-192). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Delacruz, E. M. (2009). Art education in the age of new media: Toward global civil society. Art Education, 62(5), 13-18.
Delacruz, E. M. (2011). Mapping the Terrain: Globalization, art, and education. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. x-xviii). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Frostig, K. (2009). Transnational dialogues dealing with Holocaust legacies. In Delacruz, E. M., A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 60-67). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Garoian, C. R., & Gaudelius, Y. M. (2009). Transnational visual culture: Indecipherable narratives and pedagogy. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 142-150). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Kindler, A. (2009). Art and art education in an age of globalization. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 151-157). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Lin, C. C. (2009). Beyond visual literacy competencies: Teaching and learning art with technology in the global age. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 198-204). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Marshall, J. (2009). Globalization and contemporary art. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 88-96). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Nyaberi, D. (2009). A policy analysis of formal education in modern multiethnic Kenya: A case for cultural hybridization. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 76-84). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Simms, M., & Carpenter, S. B. (2009). Putting the world together: Virtual globes and the changing nature of (digital) global representations. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 135-141). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Steers, J. (2009). Some reflections on globalizing (visual) culture. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 314-322). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Stiglitz, J. (2007, Feb). The most global issue. Our Planet Magazine: Globalization and the Environment, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/pdf/OurPlanet/OP_Feb07_GC24_en.pdf
Thompson, C. M. (2009). The global and the local: The hybridity of children’s culture. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. 164-170). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A Critical Race Theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
