INTRODUCTION

The present article aims to make public some results of an investigation that aimed to apprehend certain effects of the encounter of art with education in Brazil, in the period from 1995 to 2013. The aim was to describe the device of pedagogization of art, inspired by the genealogy or archeogenealogy of a device, in the Foucauldian sense, that would inform artistic practices with pedagogical objectives, conjugating the fields of education, psychology and art.

Thus, as a study in Social Psychology, the aim was to problematize certain places occupied by art today and, more specifically, the processes of subjectivation current in the educational field that take the practices of art as their instrument and/or principle of action. We have tried, finally, to bring up the system of enunciability and the type of rationality that allows some educational discourses to exist to the detriment of others, or how the relations between art and educational practices are postulated and valued, through the absorption of artistic practices by what Michel Foucault designated as governmentality. To this end, we take as our theoretical reference the critique undertaken by Foucault about the production of social practices that subjectivize individuals around certain devices, aiming at the productive control of the populations' living conditions.

In order to accomplish this task, an archive of empirical sources was constituted and analyzed. The notion of archive, in this work, is related to the theorizations of Michel ^{Foucault (1979}). The archive in question conjugates the two previously mentioned fields of Brazilian intellectual production: art and education. To constitute it, a set of articles published in 19 Brazilian journals was chosen, ten from the area of education and nine from the area of art, classified as A1 and A2, in the period between 1995 and 2018, with about 7200 texts.

These journals are the following: from the area of education - Cadernos Cedes, Cadernos de Pesquisa, Educação & Realidade, Educação & Sociedade, Educação e Pesquisa, Educação em Revista, Educação Temática Digital, Educar em Revista, Pró-Posições, Revista Brasileira de Educação (free translation: Cedes Notebooks, Research Notebooks, Education & Reality, Education & Society, Education and Research, Education in Magazine, Digital Thematic Education, Pro-Positions, Brasilian Education Magazine). From the arts area: Ars, ArtCultura, Percevejo, Porto Arte, Visualidades, Revista - ABEM - Associação Brasileira de Educação Musical, Revista Brasileira de Estudos da Presença, Urdimento, Sala Preta (free translation: Ars, ArtCulture, Bedbug, Art Harbor, Visualities, ABEM Magazine - Brazilian Association of Musical Education, Brazilian Magazine of Presence Studies, Warp, Black Room).

From this universe, 410 articles were selected based on the following criteria: texts in periodicals in the area of education which touched on themes related to art and texts from art magazines which dealt with themes related to education. To analyze each article, the following organizational criteria were chosen: year; area/sub-area; subject; function of art and art teaching; characteristics of art and art teaching; displacement; problematization or general plan of the text.

Through these general categories, it was possible to describe the fundamental lines of the referred archive; to delineate its forward and backward movements, in relation to a certain subject, function or characteristic; to locate some of the positions in which the researchers found themselves and, many times, to visualize their standards. However, one of the most fruitful results of the research referred to the repetitions and displacements that present themselves as changes in direction, abandonment, or opposition to a certain idea or practice previously developed among the texts, allowing us to compose a tracing of the argumentative lines operated by the several researchers and, mainly, of the problematizations they proposed themselves. It is also important to point out that we adopted an analysis and writing procedure that we call triggers³. The triggers would be specific moments extracted from the archive and used in a tactical way as a writing and argumentation resource presenting in a very clear way the contrast game that one wants to mark.

In addition, it was possible to go around the problematizations proposed by the authors. In this kind of orientation, our task should be not only to describe these processes, but also to act in the middle of the problematization. What we did, in this work, was the problematization of the problematizations around one of the notions that Michel Foucault suggests for analytical activity, that is, "[...] to define the conditions in which the human being 'problematizes' what he is, what he does, and the world in which he lives" (FOUCAULT, 2012, p.193 ) and, in this way, "[...] to analyze not behaviors nor ideas, not societies nor their 'ideologies,' but rather the problematizations through which being presents itself as able and ought to be thought, and the practices from which they are formed" (p.194, emphasis added).

It is also important to emphasize that we do not research how each area or subarea of art or artistic modalities (theater, dance, visual arts, music, etc.) relates to pedagogization, but we seek to understand how pedagogical intentionalities behave, regardless of the specific practice. The way of relating to pedagogization process is clearly variable, both within the same artistic modality and between different modalities. Moreover, there are not only authors who are restricted to their own areas, but also authors who circulate among several modalities or who do not speak from any artistic modality, but from aesthetics, art theory, art history, art education⁴, etc. Thus, it would be innocuous, in order to meet the objectives of this work, to separate the analyses by modalities.

In this way, the aim was to critically analyze a device which, in the current historical moment of the country, would dispose art - or certain attributes and actions coupled to it, by different social practices - as a prominent governmentalizing principle.

This principle would be operated through what we call practices of art pedagogization. We conceive as pedagogization the dissemination of statements coming from certain fields of knowledge (art, philosophy, science, etc.) to other domains of human life, with the purpose of improving man or educating him, according to the imperatives of the social, economic, and political agenda of the time.

***

Ana Mae Barbosa (1990/2008a, p.4), in a text dedicated to the history of art education, states that, after the Estado Novo (1937-1945), there is the beginning of the pedagogization of art at school. This process is characterized by the author in the following way: 1- artistic practices did not reflect the "specificity of art"; 2- the use of art practices in school was done in an "instrumental way to train the eye and the vision"; 3- artistic practices were used as a liberation of an emotional psychic function; 4- the use of artistic practices sought the "development of avant-garde originality and creativity understood as beauty or novelty". In this approach, classroom activities were characterized by the resumption of geometric drawing, the learning of pedagogical drawing, and the copying of prints used in other disciplines.

According to a set of works by Barbosa (1978/2010b, 1982, 1991/1994, 1998, 1990/2008a), art-education in Brazil would go through different moments and historical ruptures, by the emergence of new practices and knowledge, which add to or influence each other, or coexist in parallel: Traditional Teaching or Pedagogy, which would have its "roots" in the 19th century, with the coming of Dom João; Modern Teaching or Pedagogy, under the influence of the New School; Technicist Teaching or Pedagogy, erected after the 1964 coup; and Postmodern Teaching or Pedagogy, which develops at the end of the dictatorship.

But effectively, in this text, we aim to update a question proposed by Barbosa in the beginning of the 1990s, in which the Orpheonic Singing (Estado Novo, 1937-1945) (free translation: New State, 1937-1945) is brought up as a point of emergence (^{FOUCAULT, 1979}) of pedagogized art in Brazil.

An illumination of this moment of art-education in Brazil indicated by Barbosa may be the excerpt from an article published in 1995, in which the author discusses the midst of the Orpheonic Singing movement and cites Villa Lobos:

It was necessary to put all our energy at the service of the Homeland and the community, using music as a means of formation and moral, civic and artistic renewal of a people. We felt it was necessary to direct our thoughts to the children and the people. And we decided to start a campaign for the popular teaching of music in Brazil, believing that today the Orpheonic Singing a source of vitalizing civic energy and a powerful educational factor [...] But for this teaching to be profitable and to complete, and not disturb the natural evolution of the child, it must be taught simultaneously with the knowledge of national music. Therefore, facing the problem of musical education of children under this aspect, the teaching and practice of Orpheonic Singing in schools imposes itself as a logical solution, not only for the formation of a musical conscience, but also as a factor of civism and social and collective discipline. (^{VILLA LOBOS, 1946}, p.502-504 apud ^{GOLDENBERG, 1995}, p.107).

If the Orpheonic Singing effectively illustrates the emergence of the pedagogized art in Brazil during the Estado Novo, what could be the forms of a pedagogized art seven decades later? With such problematization, we would like to place in a critical analysis grid (^{FOUCAULT, 2003}) the proposals of Visual Culture Education (VCE, from the Brazilian Portuguese ECV) indicated by several authors of our corpus of analysis as the most recent and advanced proposal of art education in Brazil. ^{Dias (2006}, p.104) points out:

The education of visual culture situates questions, institutes problems and visualizes possibilities for education in general, characteristics that we do not currently find highlighted anywhere else in the art/education curriculum. This is because it leads subjects to critical consciousness and social critique as a preliminary dialogue, which leads to understanding, and then to action. In this analysis, the best word to describe this process is "agency": a critical consciousness that leads to settled actions to resist processes of superiorities, hegemonies, and domination in our daily lives. In this direction, visual culture education is open to new and diverse forms of knowledge, promotes understanding of covert means of oppression, rejects the culture of Positivism, accepts the idea that facts and values are indivisible, and above all, admits that knowledge is socially constructed and intrinsically related to power. Necessarily, visual culture education encourages passive consumers to become active producers of culture, revealing and resisting in the process the hegemonic structures of the discursive regimes of visuality.⁵

In a schematic way, let's see what would be these problematizations that gravitate around the notion of Visual Culture: the problem of instrumental rationality and its subjugation of the body and feelings (^{FERREIRA, 2010}; ^{PENNA, 2010}; ^{SILVEIRA; PEREIRA, 2010}); the emergence of the notion of the student's interest, the importance of context, daily life and the student's voice (^{FERRARO, 1999}; ^{ARROYO, 2000}; ^{CASTILHO, 2001}; ^{PENNA, 2002}, ²⁰⁰⁶; ^{LAZZARIN, 2005}; ^{MORAES, 2006}; ^{CABRAL, 2008}; ^{ICLE, 2009}; ^{GALIZIA, 2009}; ^{RIBAS, 2009}; ^{BRITO, 2010}; ^{PEREIRA, 2010}; ^{POPU, 2012}; ^{MARQUES, 2012}); the questioning of heteronormativity and machismo, carried out by feminist pedagogies and queer theory (^{STINSON, 1995}; ^{SHAPIRO, 1998}; ^{MARTINS; TORNINO, 2005}; ^{GUIMARÃES, 2005}; ^{DIAS, 2006}; ^{PINEAU, 2010}; ^{RODRIGUES, 2010}; ^{CUNHA; SOUZA, 2011}); the problematization of authoritarianism over childhood (^{LOPONTE, 2008}; ^{SILVA, 2012}); the change in the role of the spectator, first from passive spectator to interpreter and then to co-author (^{DESGRANGES, 2008}; ^{ARROYO; SANTOS, 2009}; ^{CRUZEIRO, 2009}; ^{NEVES, 2010}; ^{POPU, 2012}; ^{MARQUES, 2012}); the discussions about formal and informal education and the questioning of the need for schooling (POPU, 2008; ^{PAIS, 2009}; ^{RIBAS, 2009}; ^{WAZLAWICK, 2009}; ^{SANTOS, 2011}); the concern to think about the student, not only as a citizen, but as a consumer of image, music, etc. (^{VITELLI, 2009}; ^{COELHO, 2009}; ^{SEBBEN; SUBTIL, 2010}); the creation of positivity in relation to the Cultural Industry as a pedagogical tool (^{FERRARO, 1999}; ^{URIARTE, 2005}; ^{PENNA, 2005}; ^{ANDRADE, 2009}; GALIZIA, 2009); the criticism to the European ethnocentrism and the end of the notion of universalism (^{OLIVEIRA, 2001}; ^{LOPONTE, 2005}; ^{BARBOSA; PARDO, 2005}; PENNA, 2006; ^{BRANDÃO, 2009}; ^{JOLY; JOLY, 2011}); the dispute between the popular and the erudite and between fine arts and crafts (^{PENNA, 2005}; ^{VICTORIO FILHO, 2008}; ^{BRANDÃO, 2009}; ^{KEBACH; DUARTE; LEONINI, 2010}); and the aesthetic issue of the end of art (^{LAZZARIN, 2007}; ^{FANTIN, 2009}).

We have in view two processes of subjectivation, that of Orpheonic Singing and that of VCE, which expose two subjects of art education and perhaps two educational practices and enunciates. In brief, it would be possible to state that the first one is marked by processes of subjectivation characterized by the practices and knowledge of obedience and subjection and by containing its condition of differentiation limited by the lines drawn by its social group. It is a subject who would seek to make possible life in a collective, via the concept of humanization as a species, and would have, as keywords, terms such as humanity, erudite art or simply Art, citizenship, national homeland, etc.; the Cultural Industry would be demonized, for its alienating and bestializing character and, therefore, should be overcome by the creation of a national identity, along the lines of what would be called a true art.

In the second stratum, there would be the production of subjectivation processes that would aim to stimulate the forging of a subject capable of differentiating himself, of thinking, of situating himself in the world and producing differentiations through the effectuation of his authenticity. A subject that lives in a collectivity, via the concept of humanization, as a differentiated unit, or that simply affirms the notion of diversity and the right to be different. This individual no longer belongs to that collective to which he or she should obey, but is a subject that creates, that longs for change, that challenges power on behalf of a notion of the human, as diversified individualities, that self-manages and that would constantly create new rules to manage himself or herself and the world. Therefore, the human group would appear as a collection of diversities and the multicultural paradigm would be taken as a reference. Moreover, this subject would have the image and the interpretation of the image as an object of work, more than the notion of work, and would see the Cultural Industry as able to be used in pedagogical practices, without major problems.

These two pictures present two modes of subjectivation, but the same immanence plane to be worked on: the action on the body. In a simplified way, the actions that targeted the subject of the Orpheonic Singing created direct forms of intervention on the body, just like what ^{Foucault (2013}) would call an anatomical-political. In this sense, the teaching of art and its variations would have a disciplinary function, aiming at the submission of the individual, its location as a specific element within a population. On the other hand, the subject circumscribed in the practices of the VCE would be under the aegis of a self; its revival, as an element of the population, is done indirectly, through offers of ways of life and stimuli, so that the individuals themselves make variations in these ways of life and create others. We would be, perhaps, in the whirlpool of what Foucault took as, beyond discipline, the question of control, but also of ethics and the care of the self.

Faced with such conjectures, we were urged to reflect on the provenances (^{Foucault, 1979}) of this subject of pedagogization. Would there be any heredity or denial of a heredity between the pedagogical subject of Orpheonic Singing and the subject of VCE? Despite the great variation of forms suffered by teaching in the last seventy years, what lines of force and knowledge remain? A relationship that we could notice in the lines of the archive of academic articles impels us to start the reflection from the strategies of humanization.

PEDAGOGIZATION AS HUMANIZATION AND SENSITIZATION TO DIVERSITY AND DIFFERENTIATION

When analyzing the corpus, we could notice that the issue of humanization through art is a constant. The idea of humanizing is seen by almost all the authors as a redemption for the human condition, as a beacon in the relationship between people and as a north for the educational process. In this context, the authors' efforts and artifice were explicit so that art and its teaching were seen as a humanizing element. However, we found one text in our corpus that problematizes humanization through art.

In 2009, an arts magazine published the text From Actor Pedagogy to Theater Pedagogy: truth, urgency, movement, written by Gilberto Icle. This text is very important, for it is one of the only ones in the universe of this research in which the author admonishes, without concessions or reparatory proposals, the pedagogies of art. The author censures Theatre Pedagogy for changing the objectives of the spectacle to a social practice of humanization; discusses the promise of theatre pedagogy to transform individuals; problematizes the pedagogization of art, the banalization of theatrical improvisation and the emergence of the pedagogical director; repositions the Theatrical Pedagogy as a truth constructed in the games of true and false; and, finally, locates, in the passage from Actor's Pedagogy to Theatrical Pedagogy, the process where this humanization of the show's goals occurs. For the author, if, in the Actor's Pedagogy, the objectives were to improve the efficiency of the performance, within the theater, in the Theatrical Pedagogy, the intention will be to respond to the "[...] urgency of humanization of the subjects in contemporary life." (^{ICLE, 2009}, p.5). According to the author (2009, p.5), Theatre Pedagogy has made theater a social practice of humanization - and ironizes, "Is it really possible to 'transform' individuals into citizens with a few hours of improvisation practice?"

In this sense, according to Icle, we would be urged to infer that humanization was one of the primeval elements, in this process of pedagogization of art, where it becomes possible to state that in order to pedagogize, one must first humanize. It is important to stress that this notion was already present in Villa-Lobos' time, as a civilizing practice, and it would continue until our days, but with profound changes in its constitution.

Another text worth mentioning is Mutations of the sensitive: the delocalized art and the disembodied body, by Cynthia ^{Farina, published in 2011}, in an art journal. If Icle's text is the only one that questions the notion of humanization, this will be the only one to deal with sensitization as an object of problematization.

The author questions the current paradigms of the body and discusses the issue of sensibility. She presents the views of Jean Claire and Paul Virilio, as a tool to think about abject and perverse art, and art without place. It points to a shift in the politics of the sensible, in which art becomes pure energy. An art without a body, without encounters, without aesthetic experience, without politics and without place, which attacks morality, the rational, the limits of what is acceptable and tolerable in perception, and attacks the sensibility. It calls into question the body in what it is fragile, contingent, susceptible, and impactful, and exposes the fiction of which these forms are made: the morality, sensibility, and reason of their configuration. The author no longer alludes to concepts, such as contemporary art or culture, but to contemporary aesthetic practices. These appear as a form of rupture with morality and with the urge to save the human being and the feeling of humanity, widely defended in academic articles.

The radical nature of this text is rare in our archive. The theme of sensitivity or sensitization is also contextualized in a large number of the articles consulted, but, in general, with another content linked to humanization. These articles assert that the improvement of the human person depends on the sensitizing process (^{BRITO, 2012}), that sensitivity and humanization can build human beings for creative thinking (^{SITTA; ORMEZZANO; POTRICH, 2005}); or even that sensitivity allows for sharper relations with otherness and is able to make universal morality more palatable (^{HERMANN, 2008}).

Therefore, there is an abyss between these two approaches on sensibility and humanization and the other texts of the studied corpus. Farina's text, as well as Icle's, occupies a rarity in the studied context. Due to the temporal proximity to our days, we can rehearse the possibility that we are moving towards what highlights this politics of the sensitive indicated in Farina's text. However, the overwhelming majority of the texts echo the idea of sensibility as humanization. The latter appears as a primordial element in the process of art pedagogization, and sensibility works as its complement. In our context, the maxim that represents most of the authors studied is: to teach, it is necessary to humanize, and to humanize, it is essential to sensitize and make the individual more sensitive to the world.

According to Frayze-Pereira (2003), one of the authors in our archive, this notion of sensibility that, as we have indicated, is used by most of the authors, is tributary to a specific form of the concept of difference. For the author, in the same way as for Nietzsche (2001) or ^{Foucault (2014}) or even ^{Deleuze (2018}), the notion of difference should refer to a non-identity and never to a diversity. Distinguishing both this sense of difference presented by Frayze-Pereira and the proposal of a politics of the sensitive, mentioned above, humanized sensitivity would constitute an administration of diversity, in the logic of tolerance. In this position, to become sensitive would be to accept the differences of the other as an identity and not as the possibility of becoming different, in the contact with the Other, that is, to transform oneself from the relationship with what one is not, or yet, the difference as a process and not as a condition.

We are also urged to read the text For a Critique of the New Philosophy of Music Education, by Luís Fernando ^{Lazzarin (2008}), which, besides being aligned with a critical position in relation to the pedagogization of art, launches us directly into the issue, presented above, concerning the binomial diversity/difference. This text examines the notion of multiculturalism as an administration of coexistence based on strategies of seduction using more democratic and less ethnocentric tactics. The author states that in the field of art pedagogy, multiculturalism has been naturalized as a response to questions of difference and identity. But, again, difference appears here as diversity or a collection of elements that are tolerated and organized by an essential normalizing logic. These different elements of culture would be seen as exemplars of pure cultural identities, or as "[...] a colorful and happy collective heritage." (^{LAZZARIN, 2008}, p.122). In a sense, the notion of multiculturalism and diversity constituted a kind of taxonomic practice in which the elements of different cultures should be preserved.

Therefore, we have, besides the concept of sensitization, the idea of diversity and difference. The sensitive, in the context of art education, applies as an elixir that would enable the production of diversity.

It is worth mentioning that, for the two authors mentioned above, despite the multiculturalist pedagogy promoting good coexistence among cultures through tolerance, heritage preservation and prevention of their acculturation, this would generate their weakening, since the absence of cultural clashes among different groups would create a stagnation due to the lack of exchanges. What goes through the aspect focused on by these authors is a general change of paradigm, including anthropological. Cultural preservation would no longer be based on the isolation of cultures and the notion of acculturation, but on the subsumption of boundaries, the encouragement of hybridity, fluidity, consideration for the interests of those involved, and the appreciation of particular situations. Thus, there would be an encouragement of differentiation and production of new cultures and the non-"freezing" of existing cultures.

However, the notion of sensitivity to diversity, exposed in almost all the articles studied, instead of creating hybrid, fluid cultures, which accept the new and consider particular interests, ends up making the subject more rigid, in a supposed identity, because it cannot stand the opposition that can make it change. In the process of pedagogization, to sensitize is to organize and respect differences, without the commitment to differentiate or affect oneself. In this sense, the notion of multiculturalism would perform a kind of pasteurization of life and mixtures, which removes the tragic suffering of change, with its scientific-positivist reading of the world and man (^{LAZZARIN, 2008}). Moreover, this limited notion of sensibility would promote a kind of neutralization of the student's education, in which being sensitive would go through the stereotyped drawings to color, the commemorative dates, the easy recipes, the notion of gift and the myth of the creative teacher (^{LOPONTE, 2006}).

Thus, pedagogization establishes relationships in which clashes and possible suffering resulting from them should be avoided. This sensibility, or rather, sensitization is the moment when a continuous a priori consensus would be established, in which whatever comes through feelings, emotions, from within the person, should be respected for its supposed singular veracity. In this aspect, art and its variations become the balm of this process. So here, under the auspices of a kind of internalized sensibility, art would be joined to a kind of psychology to give a possible place for the speech of a subject's deeper self to be audible.

These psychologized artistic practices would aim at the development of the subject's characteristics and functions delimited by psychological paradigms, and not the development of artistic activity, and would have as reference authors some theorists traditionally linked to psychology and psychoanalysis (Piaget, Vygotsky, Roger, Dewey, Freud, Jung), and not authors from the artistic universe.

To illustrate this modus operandi, we have the example of an author (^{OSTETTO, 2009}, ²⁰¹⁰) who suggests some psychologized functions for art and its teaching, such as: bring sensitivity into the school, create autonomy, humanize, create, tread the unknown, cultivate the sensitive being, promote a rapprochement of reason with emotion, integrate differences (in this case, diversity), restore balance, do not privilege the use of technique, but the space of sharing, do not seek skills, but the desire, the encounter, the exchange and the belonging to a group. In this place, art practices take on a content dictated by a psychology, in which relationships would become didactic, with a prescribed psycho-pedagogical intentionality, losing their possible tragic or cathartic content and of becoming.

The end of the tragic in art was discussed by Nietzsche, since his first works. And it is known that, first, Socrates and Plato and, later, Christ were imputed by the author as the torturers of this artistic mode. We bring this up because Plato's influence on the relationship between art and education is still being discussed today. And, more than that, some authors credit the pedagogization of art with a Platonic heritage.

Authors of our corpus, such as Richter or Rodrigo, put Platonism under suspicion, problematizing the polarization between useful and useless in education, and the submission of art to the word. And, citing Rancière, they point out that, although today we no longer take the "[...] simulacrum as the opposite of the Idea, ‘we are still’ [...] possessed by Plato" (^{RICHTER, 2005}, p.190), so that education would kill, for example, in painting its unpredictability of the meeting of bodies, in order to find the perceptual truth. These authors would sustain that there is an insubordination of painting to the word and the world, and criticize Platonism, which would relate sophistry, poetry and painting to the field of false, that is, in which only that "[...] which is tasteless is truly beautiful and good" (2005, p. 195), thus breaking the charm of poetry in favor of utility (^{RODRIGO, 2006}). However, there is one author (^{BRANDÃO, 2001}) of conciliatory impetus who reaffirms, based on Platonic thought, the notion that art needs the pedagogical function for its dignity. However, at the same time, he points out that education needs the power of poetry to reveal the truth (essence, which does not imitate the real, but recreates it) that not even philosophy can access. Thus, art could not claim to be autonomous, nor could education dispense with the services of art. However, both should have as their ultimate goal the formation of citizens and the construction of a better and fairer life.

Supported by these debates, we can argue that the pedagogization of art would imply cleaning up other effects that art may have, only to highlight its educational function. Going back to Farina, Loponte and Lazzarin's reasoning, it is possible to infer that today this remnant of Platonism extracts from art its devastating phátos, its violent, harmful or radical content against the collectivity or against individualities.

This kind of Platonism indicated, at a certain time, for that subject that had been exemplarily produced in the practices of the Orpheonic Singing, the project of man and of an education that placed rationality and the collective purpose above the individual. However, what we have today is no longer this Platonism in its primordial form because the ultimate goal of the formation of the citizen proposed by this idealism has undergone great variations. With the emergence of the VCE, the student is no longer presented only as a citizen to be trained, but as a consumer of images, music, gestures, sensations, etc. We also have the questioning of rationality because it subjugates the body and feelings, the emergence of the notion of the student's interest, the importance of context, of daily life and of the "student's voice". There is still the notion of citizenship, but it coexists with the overvaluation of individual interests. There is still the sense of usefulness of art teaching, which no longer has an absolutely public meaning and reason, as in Plato's case, effectively constituting something in the order of daily life and the subject's private forum. The current educational proposals, themed in art and culture, reveal the search for a collective life, but which is organized from the individual, or better, from the non-subjected subject, voluntarily subjectivized, or, as Foucault would say, a free subject, even if governmentalized.⁶

In view of such analyses, we would have the following provenance for today's art teaching process: in order to teach, it is necessary to humanize, sensitize to diversity and instruct the subject on how to present to the collectivity his interests and his idiosyncrasies, in a simple, intelligible and urban way, without directly hurting the identity of the other.

THE PRODUCTION OF THE VCE SUBJECT

We agree that we are witnessing the forging of a subject that is no longer that of the Orpheonic Singing. We also know that between that subject of the Estado Novo and today's subject there was a series of variations and other characters. However, at this moment, we would like to question how a student internalizes a way of self-management⁷ through practices such as those of the VCE? How is this proposal organized? What would be the measures and procedures for the production of this subject?

In order to answer such questions, we will demonstrate how the authors of the corpus explain the development and the actuality of this process, in some specific areas. There are authors (^{CABRAL, 2008}) who problematize, through the history of theater, the ways of teaching since the memorized text, passing by the free expression and arriving today to another kind of mediation which has the theatrical game, the dramatic game and the drama as new parameters of creation. This form of theater is characterized by rereading, fragmentation, non-linear approach, appropriation of classical themes, constant change of perspective, interdisciplinarity, heterogeneity, and interculturality. It is a teaching that aims to be able to promote the changes resulting from the inseparability of the cultural, personal, and political dimensions, through the expansion of cultural and linguistic capital associated with emotional engagement. In this condition, intimate or psychological functions are proposed for art and its teaching, such as: to look inside oneself; to seek the approximation of daily life; to develop expression; to develop the cognitive function in the sense given to the knowledge that the student acquires when interacting with the text on stage. We can see this proposal of theatrical pedagogy summarized in the speech of Brian Way, a disciple of Peter Slad (^{CABRAL, 2008}, p.37): "[...] we are concerned with the development of people and not of theater."

This idea hinges on two important issues in pedagogy. One of these is older and consists in knowing beforehand what to develop in the student and what competencies are to be stimulated with a given activity. What is the pedagogical intentionality of the act (^{LIMA, 2006})? The second introduces the problem of context. This notion of context, followed also by the idea of everyday life, is widely explored by several authors, in the analyzed journals, some of which start from anthropology, while others resort to social psychology. In an article on music education, the author draws on anthropological knowledge to question whether the different meanings of music at school and in the community can generate students' disinterest in music. In the sequel, she asks, "What happens in that place, in students' lives and experiences, that will influence my pedagogical approaches?" (^{RUSSELL, 2006}, p. 12). Thus, in addition to the pedagogical intentionality of the act, the art instructor or teacher must know the context/life of their students in order to provide adequate teaching.

In order to demonstrate some movements inside the archive and to parameterize the discussion about this need that presents itself as pressing about knowing the daily life, we highlight a text from the 1996 corpus in which the author (^{TROJAN, 1996}) brings up the discussion about the importance of art as a humanizing source for man. Within a Marxist framework, she proposes art as non-commodity and as a surpassing of the useful, criticizing its fetishization by the Cultural Industry, although, at the same time, she sustains that the lack of access to erudite art, namely European art, makes people produce "less elaborate" art. Therefore, in an attempt to humanize the subject to be educated, the author narrates, based on a humanitarian register, which, in 1996, is still ethnocentric and hints at a conception of non-European art as less elaborate. Updated and contrasted with the ideas advocated by VCE, what this author suggests is an art teaching based on European canons and on an idea of universal art. From 2005 on, there will still be some records in the same sense adopted by this author, but they will be absolutely rare. When comparing these last two texts, we notice that, in a decade, the notion of art universalism loses space for the idea of the student's context and its correlates (daily life, student's voice, etc.).

Therefore, since 1999, we would have the growth of a pedagogy based on the student's everyday life and context. It is also pointed out that Contemporary Art would shift its focus from the product to the process and to the reception. This would require the public to reflect about the relations that artistic productions establish with the history of art, with mass culture, with the market, with politics and with technologies. This reflection would generate a certain denaturalization or end of the innocence of art. Such discussion brings up the statement that not working with Contemporary Art, at school, is a political attitude to keep the general public subordinated to the consecration process of the current cultural production, and that one should think the teaching of art in a less romanticized way, also indicating the notion of everyday life and mass culture as a way to approach art (^{FERRARO, 1999}).

In 2009, we have a small variation on the theme of context/common life. Based on Paulo Freire's approach, the context of Youth and Adult Education is problematized in the teaching of music. The modern scientific paradigm is criticized and, with the notion of everyday life from Albion Small's sociology, it is stated that school experience is not necessary to educate and that spaces, such as the community and everyday life, can structure the student's education (^{RIBAS, 2009}). The discussion about everyday life ends up leading to the problematization of schooling itself, considering the school institution only as one of the possible places for this education in society, alongside the community, the family and the new information and communication technologies.

In the same direction, but in a slightly less radical manner, there is the author Fernando Stanzione ^{Galizia (2009}) to whom the teaching of music should not break with the student's daily life, nor disregard new technologies. In this sense, the Cultural Industry, for having an important presence in this daily life, should be used pedagogically.

The notion of Cultural Industry, in the Frankfurtian perspective, is a highly recurrent theme among the researched authors. It is used both as an instrument to problematize art and its forms of teaching and as an object of problematization.

In this first form of use, Adorno's analysis is exalted as a guide for the organization of art teaching. Such analysis emphasizes functions related to social emancipation, identity production, and participation in society. Thus, art and its teaching will serve to give pleasure and to inform and raise awareness, besides, and mainly, stimulating people's intelligence, imagination and creativity (^{BERTONI, 2001}). The harmful face of the Cultural Industry will also be pointed out, which, according to the authors, reinforces cultural marginality, alienates people from their culture, dishonors aesthetic values (^{KATER, 2004}; ^{LOUREIRO, 2009}) and reifies the subjects (^{FABIANO, 2003}).

As an object of problematization, it is enunciated the need to absorb the Cultural Industry as a culture of the student (^{PENNA, 2005}), to think the possibility of mass culture as a way to approach with art (^{FERRARO, 1999}), as a pedagogical source capable of helping the individual to rescue his subjectivity and the ethics of coexistence, in the collective sphere (^{URIARTE, 2004}).

However, there is also the text by Hans-Thies ^{Lehmann (2011}), which, despite apparently being in the same circuit of criticism to Adorno's notion of Cultural Industry, displays propositions of another order. The author questions the directions and courses that children's theater can and should take, categorically proposing a triple abandonment: of the didactic function of theater, the overcoming of the doctrinaire character and the use of art to raise awareness. Supported by Walter Benjamin's idea, to whom it is not possible to teach good behavior without giving examples, as well as by the historical reading of youth theater, the author advocates the return of art as an aesthetic game with an end in itself. To this end, he resorts to Friedrich Schiller, in his opposition to the transformation of the theater into a space of indoctrination and enlightenment, moral and religious didacticism, so as to suggest, based on the author, the notion that only in free aesthetic play can beauty indirectly become a political issue, which transforms the educated individual, in this playful sense, into someone with a behavior "[...] as social and right as possible." (^{LEHMANN, 2011}, p.284). In this perspective, despite the criticism, in the end, art would have a social function of adjusting the subject.

In summary, as a provenance for the art teaching process we would have today the need to humanize, sensitize to the different and, mainly, a greater focus on the development of people than on the arts, being this development of the art-educative subject grounded on the discussions about context/common life.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The criticisms extracted from the corpus of this research and used here oscillate between two extremes: criticisms that aim at the affirmation of an art education subject and criticisms that break the need for a social or educational sense for art or its teaching.

In the first kind there are the criticism to the idea of a universal art that enthrones mass culture and daily life, as a way to approach the student to the world of art; the criticism to the schooling of education, which exalts the notion of community in the place of school; the criticism to Adorno, for not considering the Cultural Industry as the student's culture; and Lehmann's criticism to the didactic function of theater, the overcoming of the doctrinaire character and the use of art to raise awareness, but that, in the end, promotes a socially right subject. Still in this position there would also be the criticism to the idea of difference as tolerance to diversity and, in its place, the exaltation and the search for a process of differentiation in the contact with the Other.

We notice that these authors, despite criticizing ^{Adorno's vision (1988}), still stick to the core of his aesthetic theory, according to which, with the autonomy achieved by art in the 20th century, it would have lost its social justification and, therefore, its right to exist. These authors, despite their criticism of the supposed elitism that may come from Frankfurt's theory and its fight against all aspects of the Cultural Industry, have not left aside the discomfort instilled by Adorno, when diagnosing the catastrophic existence of an art without a social meaning, and start to propose art forms that have a justification for their presence in society.

At the other extreme there are the critique of the notion of art as an instrument of humanization; the negative response to any social, emancipating, or conscientizing function of art; the critique of the sensitive as an affirmation of a form already established in the interiority of a psychologized subject; the attempt to restore art as the creator of its own frames of reference or the creator of worlds for the human being to inhabit; and, finally, as the possibility of being a mode of thought.

These criticisms are a sample of the sophistication in which the production of the subject of today's artistic-pedagogical practices finds itself. Art, or that which in the face of so much criticism we can no longer call art but its correlates and derivatives, is a mechanism that best brings together, in an always indirect, conscious or unconscious, individualized or collective way, the ways of being and producing existence in our days. When we turn our gaze to the analytical corpus, it becomes clear in our analyses that this mechanism has been organized in the midst of a process of pedagogization and psychologization of life.

Icle’s and Farina’s texts stand out because they are the only ones that do not, at any moment, refer to the subject of art or education as a man to be humanized or that has himself and his interiority as the first reference of the world. Although we work with a smaller temporal stratum, we could see with Barbosa (¹⁹⁹⁰/2008a) that this notion had already started to be outlined in Brazil, in the Estado Novo period, with the Orpheonic Singing as a National State project, in which art and the vicissitudes of aesthetics should be used to compose the civilized Brazilian man.

Our analyses indicate that, in these seventy years, there was: first, a great intensification of the individual's sense of freedom; second, an intensification of pedagogical issues, with an unprecedented didacticization of life and, with it, a depreciation and infantilization of the possible violent acts of art, which has an innocent aura in school; and, third, the spread of a specific type of psychologism, which aims to make the subject's look and culture gravitated around himself, in such a way that he becomes incommunicable to others. This psychologism holds the notion of multiculturalism as diversity and tolerance. Soon after, with the criticism of this notion of difference as diversity, it is suggested that this subject must play itself out, immerse itself in multiple identities, must become flux. As ^{Loponte (2006}, p.44) points out, when problematizing the pedagogization of art in the face of the precariousness of teacher training, it is not about producing a complete resolution of the problems or a total emancipation, but a "[...] difference that [...] does not cease to produce itself [...] in the invention, aesthetic creation of itself." This would allow the production of a subject not subjected to his present, his culture or territory.

However, for this to be possible, throughout the 20th century, with great intensification between the 1990s and the first decade of 2000, some conceptual and practical vortices were offered to school practices: the intensification of the Platonic vision of art for the purpose of the development of the citizen and not of the polis; the change in the objective of art, previously centered on itself and now focused on the development of people; the intentionality of the pedagogical act redirected to the context and the daily life of the student and not to the universal knowledges of pedagogy; the criticism of schooling; the denial of European universalism and ethnocentrism, in favor of the popular and local knowledge; mass culture and the Cultural Industry seen as a bridge between the student and knowledge, and no longer as a target to be fought. In this sense, these changes gradually offered to education by psychology, pedagogy, and the art world itself - and here synthesized in the VCE proposal -, allowed the production of the subjectivized subject in a psychopedagogy of art.

However, we suspect that conducting the subject's education through this process would not bring about his emancipation as a man who can conduct himself, as almost all the authors of the researched corpus want, but rather places him in the center of the mechanism of societal organization of our time. By studying only some of the lines that are part of the forging of this subject of the VCE, by verifying which power effects they imply, observing their materialities, and by describing the part of their history linked to the problematizations of the art/psychology/education triad, we saw that he is absolutely committed to power games and becomes a central character in the formation process of the entrepreneurial subject of the self (^{COSTA, 2009}), today essential for the functioning of capitalism.

Moreover, we are led to emphasize that these educational practices of the VCE end up producing the consensus and the profusion of identities, which always resemble its own, thus preventing the realization of the political dimension of aesthetics and art, in the disarray of identity practices and the rupture of universal models of equality, which tend to maintain the process of domination and subordination (^{RANCIÈRE, 1996}).