Presently, fine arts comprise a small fraction in the study of visual culture but one author puts in that this should no longer be the core of study to fed students with knowledge on art study as well as its importance and impact in all aspects of the contemporary society. With this argument, there arises the question if fine arts should be retained as the central focus of the field, and if not, what should the educators include in creating an effective visual culture curriculum and how does one define the limit of its content.
Efland points in the difference of fine arts which are also deemed as “high art”, from the lower forms of popular culture called “kitsch.” Nevertheless, these forms of art is being affected by postmodernism, a term which means progress or development of arts in the last decades of the last century which is “often characterized by disillusionment,“ (36). He adds that as long as modernist optimism prevailed, “fine” or “high” art will be way too good in comparison to other forms of art. Thus, the concept created new form, style, and composition in the art world.
Visual art had become a point of interest among us not only because it is part of everyday life, but its presence is so immense that we cannot easily ignore how it is impacting our lives in its strictest sense. And we study these “visual as a reflection of culture and as something that has cultural efficacy in its own right, contributing to the production, reproduction, and mutation of culture (The University of Wisconsin-Madison, “Visual Culture,” par. 1). But Efland cited two problems that is affecting the visual culture, and one of which is the vast array or genre that visual cultural studies covered that it may seemed unmanageable for a time allotted in discussing arts, and if it gain consensus which particular area or content to teach, the problem would be the assessment of objective in choosing such area of study. Another