It has changed so much.
I have been teaching art history for some 15 years and 
 when I went to school to study art history, 
we were passive recipients of information.
We memorized names, places, dates, the who, what, where, and when.
We memorized slides; the visual presentations of the art works.
And then we repeated that information in exams.
The next phase, though, in art history, 
and this is where I became very excited about teaching art 
 history and being a student of art history, 
was when the social context began to be important.
In which we would examine art works and we would look 
 at them in terms of the cultural meanings, 
the social uses, the political and economic factors that were 
 important to the meanings of the art work.
That made art more alive for me, and it did for the students.
The phase now that we're in is to 
introduce theoretical frameworks for asking those questions about the societal context.
Which makes the study of art and history, 
again as I've been saying, much more relevant 
 for use when we leave the classroom.
That has been the major change.
And there also have been changes in teaching 
 strategies that have gone along with that.
I would like them to walk in, this is a teacher's 
 dream, and see the students alive and engaged and interested.
And that's a challenge, because these are large lecture hall classes.
And a number of the students are there because they have to be there.
And a number of the students may be there because 
they have to be there and they really can't understand 
 why they should be studying history at all.
So, in the approaches that I and others are taking in teaching history, 
our goal is to share with the students ideas 
 that not only make history come alive 
but make a study of history pertinent to daily life.
