This article examines positions in favor of the inclusion of popular culture in an education curricula by Vincent Lanier, June King McFee, Laura Chapman, and Brent and Marjory Wilson. It is argued that their work, both individually and collectively, focused on the realm of the everyday and helped posit popular cultural images as legitimate objects of study in art education. Mindful of the differences between popular culture and visual culture, it is argued that their positions help form some of the antecedents of visual culture today. These antecedents are investigated through the trope of the palimpsest, where previous writing is written over again, with new re-marks and re-visions.
Over 40 years ago Vincent Lanier remarked, "An examination of the literature in art education reveals several new and newly colored old ideas, which in their conception of the process and function of art education describe the direction of movement in the field" (1961, p. 5). Although Lanier was describing other movements in art education, his words help frame the recent shift toward visual culture as a new movement informed by ideas from the past, with substantial differences between older theories and practices. On the one hand, visual culture is a new idea in part because of the current inventory of images and technologies associated with global virtual culture, new relationships between humans and their experience as networked subjects, new levels of theorizing about visuality, and the growing number of sites/sights/cites1 within the field of art education (Freedman & Stuhr, 2004). On the other hand, visual culture is a newly colored old idea, in part because of previous work in art education dealing with the relationship between popular culture, new media, and social theory (for example, Chapman, 1967; Hobbs, 1977; jagodzinski, 1981; Lanier, 1966a; McFee, 1961). Thus, new and newly colored ideas about visual culture intermingle through layers of palimpsestic discourse in art education.
Palimpsestic discourse is text that is written, then partially erased, and written over again. It "both erases and retains the past [and] disrupts a sense of temporality; and the kind of history facilitated by its retentive function is at once restorative and violating" (McDonagh, 1987, p. 214). As intertextual writing, palimpsestic discourse situates text within the field of other text(s) and the past within the present, while always accruing new layers of meaning. As Vidal ( 1995) notes, palimpsestic writings are re-visions: "literally, a second seeing, an afterthought, erasing some but not all of the original while writing something new over the first layer of text" (p. 6).
Palimpsests are also remarkable texts. They can be marked upon literally, then erased and re-marked. In this sense, the word mark "refers to both the written word and to the drawn image," and die prefix re- "positions the subject as a re-examiner, a re-flector, a re-interpreter who comments again, re-reading, re-writing, and re-drawing the frames of art and education that frame us" (jagodzinski, 1989, pp. 128-129). By uncovering the historical accretion on the palimpsest of art education, we find antecedental marks about art, culture, and everyday life that in turn open up a space for re-marks about visual culture.
Tom Anderson, Paul Duncum, Kerry Freedman, and Kevin Tavin have, in their own ways, attempted to interpret the antecedental re-marks of visual culture in art education.2 In 2001, Duncum investigated the development of visual culture in part by "reviewing the literature of the emerging field of visual culture" (p. 101). Two years later, Duncum (2003) addressed what he called three starting points or parent fields for the emerging paradigm: "Cultural studies, material cultural studies, and contemporary art practice" (p. 19). Anderson (2003) examined visual culture in its historical context, exploring its "conceptual roots in psychology, the social sciences, and art education" (p. …