Challenging Fine Art Pedagogies

ADCH 13 (1) pp. 3–6 Intellect Limited 2014 Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education Volume 13 Number 1 © 2014 Intellect Ltd Editorial. English language. doi: 10.1386/adch.13.1.3_2 EDItorIAL rebecca Fortnum Middlesex University christine Pybus CIt Crawford College of Art and Design challenging fine art pedagogies This special edition of ADCHE stems from the strand that the editors Keywords convened at Paradox, Fine Art European Forum’s symposium in 2013 at the fine art University of Granada. The strand, ‘Challenging Fine Art Pedagogies’ aimed education to examine how the evolving practice of fine art prompts new ways of teach- undergraduate ing the subject but also examined the educational challenges brought about Europe by a shifting social and political landscape. We were interested in learning skills more about how these challenges had been met in a range of contexts across Paradox, Fine Art Europe aware that, in the past, disparate approaches and curricular operated European Forum in different art school settings. However during the three-day symposium we sensed an accord that had perhaps been missing from earlier discussions and we were able to draw together a clear set of issues and responses at the conclusion of the event. The strand attracted 50 delegates from ten European countries. In all, we heard that seventeen papers and a cross-section of eight of these have now been developed for this issue of ADCHE. Our strand was organized into four sequential sessions and the legacy of this can be detected in this issue. Initially we set the scene by establishing discussion around the shift in the late 1960s that occurred in the teaching of fine art, moving it, broadly speaking, from ‘skills’ to ‘concept’ based teaching. We then began to look more widely at the current pressing issues for contemporary arts education and this led to 3 ADCHE_13.1_Editorial_3-6.indd 3 9/18/14 9:55:55 AM Rebecca Fortnum | Christine Pybus more detailed specific case studies of current innovation in contemporary art pedagogy within the academy as well as a final experimental session that attempted the use of performance and enactment to demonstrate new ways of configuring teaching and learning. The strand’s plenary summarized and drew together the pressing concerns and issues that were touched on during the symposium. In repeating them here we are aware that all the contributors to this discussion cannot be fully acknowledged in this edition and we would like to thank all the conference delegates for their energy and participation. Indeed what is clear from the new articles presented in this issue, as well as those in the strand, is the passion that is at the heart of European fine art teaching in higher education, where tutors’ own creative practices are extended into their pedagogical approaches. Many of the delegates had come to feel a certain suspicion or inadequacy when using the term ‘teaching’ in relation to their roles. A preferred term by many of the speakers was ‘facilitating’ or ‘guiding’. This chimed, in part, with one participant’s comment, ‘teachers are no longer the experts’, which appeared to resonate with many. Indeed Dean Hughes observes in his article the current prevalence of pedagogical positions adopted around Donald Barthelme’s 1987 essay ‘Not-knowing’. As fine art tutors we agreed that an important aim was to respect the individuality and the diversity of students, helping them ‘try out different voices’ and viewpoints. In the face of changing and expanding technological communication and virtual teaching envi- ronments a belief was expressed in the value of art schools’ creation of face-to-face situations for students. Delegates also noted, as Nicholas Houghton discusses in his article, that the curriculum continually expands as we accommodate different shifts within contemporary art theory and practice. A wide array of historical approaches and attitudes has left a legacy of a ‘full’ curriculum that includes a diverse range of activities, attitudes and practices. However on reflection there was a certain scepticism about whether this led to a championing of diversity. In light of this, Hughes’s proposition to examine the possible benefits of ‘remaining the same’ (both in art teaching and art making) was warmly received as a poten- tially radical, rather than reactionary, possibility. Those engaged in the delivery of teaching programmes decided they wanted to create flexible frameworks or curriculum ‘scaffolds’ rather than an endlessly expanding à la carte menu of taught subjects and approaches. This would allow the actual teaching delivery to be re-shaped and the content revised by those that use it. In light of the Bologna agreement and other national and international benchmarks, we discussed the importance of difference and concluded that when interpreting guidelines, institutions should allow for asymmetry, rather than a stifling homogeneity. Another aspect of contemporary education that was common to all was, as Marek Wasilewski’s article makes clear, the emergence of an ‘undercover curriculum’. The delegates shared the sense that, when performing our institutional roles, what we do is not always what we say we do. In brokering the demands of the students and the demands of the institution, tutors are involved in creating an unofficial narrative that often runs contrary to the official accounts and this is a way that those from very traditional or mana- gerial institutions deal with creatively stifling regimes. This ‘hidden curriculum’ is more spontaneous and responsive to the students’ needs and, as artist-teachers, we felt it was where exciting teaching and learning activities took place, often undetected. Indeed this discussion was so fruitful it will be continued at our next conference in 2015, ‘Alternative Zones; Uncovering the 4 ADCHE_13.1_Editorial_3-6.indd 4 9/18/14 6:13:33 PM Challenging fine art pedagogies Official and the Unofficial in Fine Art Practice, Research and Education’ at the University of Arts in Poznań, Poland. Another dimension of the discussion emerged around how we organized ourselves within the physical space of the institution. We heard how the places/ spaces of production within the academy have expanded and extended. We discussed the classroom, workshop, studio, library and canteen as productive sites and a good example of this thoughtful activity can be seen in Juanpere, Valera and Viladomiu’s case study published here. We also saw how the use of external residencies and projects were vital to our work, with the exhibi- tion being recognized as a crucial pedagogic strategy within fine art. Marek Wasilewski comments upon the politics and power of space in instances where space is ‘owned’ or ‘occupied’ by the professor, conversely the FL∆G group describes the democratizing possibilities of the ‘in-between’ spaces of the institution and both FL∆G and Minkin and Dawson adopt particular spaces specif- ically for their potential to challenge familiar institutional hierarchies. Sadly we also noted a common observation that, given the shifts within practice and teaching, many of the spaces we work in are often no longer fit for purpose. Another urgent topic of debate was the question of how we might teach ‘skills’ – in particular making skills – in relation to both rapid changes in technology and the ‘conceptual’ remit of contemporary art practice. We were curious about how contemporary artists often positioned themselves in relation to a split between the hand-made and the conceptual and again, as Kelly Chorpening’s powerful argument demonstrates, we concluded that viewing these aspects as divergent may not be helpful. Indeed, in this issue Dawson and Minkin’s account of a teaching project provides a very interesting example of how both can be explored simultaneously. Their advocacy of ‘understanding by doing’ through a contemporary examination of copying, also challenges the categorization of certain pedagogical approaches as outdated. This strikes a chord with Marek Wasilewski’s description of the dilemmas faced by contemporary Polish art schools in their relationship to their past pedagogical practices. We also thought about how fine art education can equip students for their futures and the value of what we provide. We agreed fine art education is characterized by problem-solving and looked in particular at how we help students to articulate their artworks and practices. We examined how often this articulation revolved around notions of ‘justification’ and ‘explanation’ and were interested to reflect upon strategies that disrupted those modes of accounting. We also began to question the assumptions, content and delivery of ‘professional practice’ in art schools, which appeared to be a statutory part of most, if not all, fine art curriculums across Europe. Finally we agreed that collaboration is important in any future vision of fine art and fine art education. The role of collaboration, between students, between staff, and between staff and students was discussed and, as the FL∆G article here reflects, there is much value in these kinds of interactions within the changing social and economic dynamic. We were therefore mindful that the tutor–student relationship is affected by ‘external’ factors such as the political climate, the fluctuations in economic priorities as well as different attitudes to class, race and gender and agreed it was important to acknowl- edge these sub texts within the teaching/learning dynamic. As with FL∆G, Sissel, Lillebostad’s article considers the relational and social engagement, fostering relations through dialogue as a pedagogical tool. Lillebostad makes it clear that good educational experiences are usually based on sustained and deep levels of commitment and fellowship. 5 ADCHE_13.1_Editorial_3-6.indd 5 9/9/14 4:56:58 PM Rebecca Fortnum | Christine Pybus What became clear in Granada was that there had been a paradigm shift within the practice and teaching of Fine Art in Europe.

Load more