Main Article Content
Dialogic pedagogy is a teaching method to encourage individual leaners to understand and accept different opinions without conflicts. Instructors have to bring up issues that provide opportunities to the learners to express themselves and have an interaction among peers. Street art is a project which is open publicly to different people to participate in sharing their ideas of economic situation, political disputes, cultural issues, and personal opinions on the social phenomena. Presently, street art widely attracts many audiences and have a huge impact since it can be easily disseminated from the wall art to photograph that share in social media. In this regard, the research utilizes street art project to encourage students to develop their personal identity and collective identity. The project started from design process, wall drawing and painting, until the ending process. In order to gather the data during the project, the researchers use ethnographic methodology to study a space-time of the project in which interactions among participants and their identities in the art creation are emerged. It was an 8-month data collection from October 2018 to May 2019. The outcomes found that there was an interactional process among students, resulting in 2 types of identity development:
1) personal identity; 2) collective identity appearing as a place of contestation where the creation of identities is limited under the institution bounds. Participants then reconcile the conflicts by develop their project conforming to both their personal needs and requirements of the institution. Moreover, there are 4 stages of identity development: 1) the symbol designation is the process of self-expression through the use of symbol and images to represent the self-identity; 2) positioning the self in the social structure is the process that students finding their own manners and skills in creating artwork; 3) art expression is the process that students experience in the drawing and painting on the wall; 4) affirmation of social position occurred in the ending process when students finished their artwork and expressing their proudness in participating in the artwork through sharing their story, photograph, and related content on social media.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
2. Amann. Interview by Chaopreecha, J. Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus, November 7, 2018.
3. Aukerman, M. “Rereading Comprehension Pedagogies: Toward a Dialogic Teaching Ethic that Honors Student Sensemaking”. An International Online Journal, 1 (2013): 1 - 31.
4. Chanawut, C. “Kānsưksā Khunkhā Dān ʻattalak Khō̜ng Sinlapa Khāng Thanon Phư̄a Kānsāng Mūnlakhā Sū Sētthakit Sāngsan”. [The Study of Street Art’s Identities for Creating Creative - economic Value]. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 49, no. 3 (2017): 247 - 267.
5. Chang, EunJung, Lim, Maria, and Kim, Minam. “Three Approaches to Teaching Art Methods Courses: Child Art, Visual Culture, and Issued-based Art Education”. Art Education, 65, no. 3 (2012): 17 - 24.
6. Desai, Dipti, and Chalmers, Graeme. “Notes for a Dialogue on Art Education in Critical Times”. Art Education, 60, no. 5 (2016): 6 - 12.
7. Dirk, Paesmans J. “Art in the Age of Digital Distribution”. In New Media Art, edited by Mark Tribe and Uta Grosenick, London: Tashen, 2006: 6 - 25.
8. Duncum, P. “Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: towards a Post-critical, Dialogic Pedagogy for Popular Visual Culture”. International Education through Art, 4, no. 3 (2008): 247 - 257.
9. Freire, P. “Kānsưksā Khō̜ng Phū Thūk Kotkhī: Chabap Khrop Rō̜p Hāsip Pī”. [Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary]. Translated by Saiphin Kunkanokwan Hamdani. Bangkok: SuanNguenMeeMa, 2017.
10. Fillitz, T. “Anthropology and Discourses on Global Art”. Social Anthropology, 23, no. 3 (2015): 299 - 313.
11. Fortunati, A. “Utopia, Social Sculpture, and Burning Man”. In After Burn: Reflection on Burning Man, edited by Lee Gilmore and Mark Van Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press, 2005: 151 - 169.
12. Furuness, Shelly, and Lysaker, Judith T. “Space for Transformation: Relational, Dialogic Pedagogy”. Journal of Transformative Education, 9, no. 3 (2011): 183 - 197.
13. Gell, A. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
14. Golubović, Z. “An Anthropological Conceptualisation of Identity”. Synthesis Philosophica, 51, no. 1 (2011): 25 - 43.
15. Gunn, Wendy, Ton Otto, and Rachel Charlotte Smith. Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice.London: Bloomsbury, n.d.
16. Helguera, P. Education for Socially Engaged Art: A Materials and Techniques Handbook. New York: Jorge Pinto Books, 2011.
17. Jom, K. Interview by Jakraphan, C., Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus, November 14, 2018.
18. Kō̜n. Interview by Jakraphan, C., Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus, November 24, 2018.
19. Matusov, E. “Guest Editor’s Introduction: Bakhtin’s Dialogic Pedagogy”. Journal of Russion & East European Psychology, 42, no. 6 (2004): 3 - 11.
20. Mcauliffe, C. “Graffiti or Street Art? Negotiating the Moral Geographies of the Creative City”. The Journal of Urban Affairs Association, 34, no. 2 (2012): 189 - 206.
21. Mư̄ang. Interview by Jakraphan, C., Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus, January 18, 2019.
22. Mui, Ma So. “Dialogic Pedagogy in Hong Kong: Introducing Art and Culture”. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education i>, 12, no. 4 (2013): 408 - 423.
23. Nakwatchara, J. “Thawiwatkhāmchāt: Kranīsưksāchœ̄ngʻatchawaprawatthāngwichākān”. [Cross-Cultural.Dialogue:.Case.Studies.from.an.Intellectual.Autobiography]. Songklanakarin: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 23, no. 1 (2017): 5 - 43.
24. Nat, Kan, and Phlœ̄ng. Interview by Jakraphan, C., Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus, May 1, 2018.
25. Niziolek, Katarzyna. “Art as a Means to Produce Social Benefits and Social Innovations”. Art and the Challenge of Markets, 2 (2018): 117.-.143.
26. Niziolek, Katarzyna. “One World, Many People. Towards Art for Multiculturalism”. POGRANICZE Studia Społeczne, 18 (2011): 156.-.178.
27. Niziolek, Katarzyna. Art and Civil Society: From Protest to Cooperation. LIMES: Cultural Regionalistics, 3, no. 2 (2010): 145 - 160.
28. Openphuketmag. “Pœ̄t Wāpa Sām Čhut Chek ʻInfin Wœ̄ Wœ̄ @ Phangngā Sanē Mư̄ang Rō̜ng . Thī Mai Penrō̜ng Khrai”. [Three Check-in Locations at Phangngā: The Charm of Minor City as it Never be the Second]. Openphuketmag. (April 1, 2019). Accessed May 5, 2019.http://www.openphuketmag.com/2019/04/01/เปิดวาร์ป-3-จุดเช็คอินฟิ.
29. Poshyanon, A. “Khwāmpen Thai: Hok Thotsawat Hǣng Sinlapa Samai Mai Læ Rūamsamai”. [Thainess: 6 Decades of Modern Art and Contemporary Art]. An Exhibition in Honor of Majesty the King: The Art in the Reign of King Rama IX, 6 Decades of Thai Art, 2006.
30. Powers, Lynn A. “Whatever Happened to the Graffiti Art Movement?”. Journal of Popular Culture, 29, no. 4 (1996): 137 - 142.
31. Rothenberg, Diane. Social Art/ Social Action. TDR, 32, no. 1 (1988): 61 - 70.
32. Royal Institute. “Photčhanānukromchabaprātchabanthittayasathān 2011”. [Royal Institute Dictionary]. Accessed March 3, 2019. http://www.royin.go.th/dictionary.
33. Schroeder, Jonathan E. “Andy Warhol: Consumer Researcher”. Advances in Consumer Research, 24 (1997): 476 - 482.
34. Siroros, P. “Prachāthipatai Bǣp Sān Sēwanā Khwām Chư̄a Khwām FanLæ Khwāmpenpaidai Nai Sangkhom Thai”. [Dialogical Democracy: Beliefs, Dreams, and Possibilities in Thai Society]. Journal of Management, 26, no. 1 (2009): 75 - 90.
35. Stewart, S. “Bakthin’s Anti-linguistics”. Critical Inquiry, 10 (1983): 265 - 281.
36. Sökefeld, M. “Debating Self, Identity, and Culture in Anthropology”. Current Anthropology, 40, no. 4 (1999): 417 - 447.
37. Tangnamō, S. “Graffiti - Krāpfiti Kān Takōn Kō̜ngrō̜ng Hā Sērīphāp Khō̜ng Khonthī Rai Tūaton”. [Graffiti: The Expression of Freedom from the Marginalized]. Oknation (2001) . Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.oknation.net/blog/ashitastudio/2007/07/06/entry-1.
38. Taočhīeo. Interview by Jakraphan, C., Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus, January 16, 2019.
39. TAT Chiang Mai. “Street Art…Art on the Walls EP. 2”. TAT Chiang Mai (March 9, 2019). Accessed November 4, 2019. https://www.facebook.com/tatchiangmai/posts/2562687770472132.
40. Tate. “Art Term: Community Art”. Tate (2019) . Accessed November 4, 2019. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/community-art.
41. Tengya, M. “Čhāk Watthanathamkrāpfitī Sū Ngān Sattrī Thaʻāt Nai Prathēt Thai”. [From Graffiti Cultures to Street Arts in Thailand]. Veridian E-Journal, 9, no. 2 (2016): 2424 - 2436.
42. Thaipost. “Sīsan Chāidǣn Tai Mư̄ Sattrī Thaʻāt Thai Tāng Chāt Sāng čhut Shek ʻin Sungai – kalōk”. [The Color of Southern-Thai Borderland: Foreign and Thai Street Artists Create Check-in Points at ‘Sungai – kolōk’]. Thaipost. (December 24, 2018). Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.thaipost.net/main/detail/24929.
43. Thonglert, G. “Phāp Sattrī Thaʻāt Phư̄a Kānsư̄sān Kānthō̜ngthīeo Nai Khēt Phư̄nthī Yān Mư̄ang Kao Pīnang Læ Song Khlā”. [Street Art for Communication in Tourism in the Old Towns, Penang and Songkla]. The Review of Communication, 1, no. 2 (2017): 49 - 62.
44. Turner, V. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure. New York: Routledge, 1969.
45. Whitehead, Jessie L. “Graffiti: the Use of the Familiar”. Art Education, 57, no. 6 (2004): 25 - 32.