| dc.contributor | 教育學院 | en |
| dc.creator (作者) | 謝燕惠；溫雅惠；陳木金 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2010-12-04 | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 21-Dec-2010 19:16:08 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 21-Dec-2010 19:16:08 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 21-Dec-2010 19:16:08 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/50302 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | A Primer Study of Public Art on Campus and Post-occupancy Evaluation-- The Case in Tai -Chuang Elementary School of Huailien ABSTRACT Since 1992, the ‘Guidelines for Promoting Culture and Art’ are declared and the public art on campus establishment special case arisen at the historic moment. The public art on campus established reflects the importance of public art in schools. However, as its introduction, the arts education link aesthetic education？ This study discusses the setting of public art on campus, through the administrators, teachers, students, parents, community people`s point of view of the use of public art on campus after the assessment, explores if the campus public art establishment achieves the pedagogical meaning and researches the difference between art creators and users of public art on campus for educational setting. This conclusion are : 1. The elementary school model in pre-planning, the views of teachers and students are only for reference, so the participating of students is mere formalities. 2. Owing to the amount of candidacy works limited, the affecting of the real needs of public art on campus is restricted. 3. The public art on campus does not match the overall planning, so it doesn’t play the role in getting a bonus point for the overall environment and the location is usually confined, too. 4. Public art on campus is not in-depth participation by students, so students just think them articles. Consequently the increase in aesthetic education and art education seems to need discussed. 5. It’s difficult to pass creator’s ideas of public art to students. 6. The material of public art on campus was vulnerable to financial constraints. The aforesaid results are presented and the researcher propose suggestions as follows: 1. The design of the public art on campus should consider student’s mind development. 2. The design of the public art on campus should coordinate the campus and the community characteristic. 3. The design of the public art on campus should coordinate the school-based curriculum and Humanity Education materials 4. The design of the public art on campus should coordinate the approval for school environment and the concern idea for environment.. | en |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 自1992年公佈「文化藝術獎助條例」以來，校園公共藝術設置專案應運而生，一件件校園公共藝術設置反應出學校對公共藝術的重視，實際上真如其所言和學校的藝術教育、美感教育相連結嗎？ 本文以花蓮縣碧雲國小為例，討論校園公共藝術品的設置，透過行政人員、教師、學生、家長、社區民眾的觀點來探討校園公共藝術的用後評估，嘗試探討藝術品創作者和使用者之間的差異，是否達到校園公共藝術品設置的教育意義？ 本文得到的結論有：（一）碧雲國小校園公共藝術參與模式為規畫前的參與，師生的意見僅供參考，使得師生參與徒具形式。（二）參選作品的件數數量有限，影響校園公共藝術的真正需求亦有所侷限。（三）校園公共藝術和校園整體規畫並不符應，對校園整體環境的美感提升並無加分作用且設置地點易受限制。（四）校園公共藝術因學生參與程度不深入，所以對學生而言只是一件物品，對於增加學生美感及藝術教育有待討論。（五）校園公共藝術作者想傳達的創作意念並無法傳承下去。（六）校園公共藝術品的材質易受學校經費限制。 從以上結論提出以下幾點建議，希望提供未來或後續研究的參考： （一）校園公共藝術應配合校園學童的身心發展。（二）校園公共藝術應配合校園和社區特色。（三）校園公共藝術應配合校本課程的教材或人文教育的素材。（四）校園公共藝術應配合學校環境認同的願景，環境關懷的理念。 | en |
| dc.format.extent | 324973 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language | zh_TW | en |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 中華民國學校建築研究學會舉辦「 2010學校建築研究：學校校園生態工法學術研討會」論文集 (p.323~335) 。 | en |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 校園公共藝術 | en |
| dc.title (題名) | 校園公共藝術設置與用後評估之初探：以花蓮縣碧雲國小為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.type (資料類型) | conference | en |
