focus on secondary || art rooms and art teaching

National Art Education Association

Art Rooms and Art TeachingAuthor(s): Richard HickmanSource: Art Education, Vol. 54, No. 1, Focus on Secondary (Jan., 2001), pp. 6-11Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193887 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 08:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.22 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:11:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193887?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


When I took over as course leader for training art teachers at my present place of work, I found three studios full of sheep skulls, esoteric machine parts, over- grown plants, wine bottles, and assorted well-worn footwear.

Art Rooms

Figure la. The Ubiquitous Skull.

I

ART EDUCATION / JANUARY 2001



Figure 1 b. Objects Lying in Aesthetic Abandon?

T * ^ he previous instructor had, I assume, attempted to re-create the feeling of a typical high school art room

for the benefit of his students who were training to be teachers of art. I eventual- ly filled three truckloads with the stuff, retaining some things that fitted with my notion of what ought to be in a studio, and I assume that my successor will go through the same routine.

In visiting schools in various capaci- ties over the years I have come to take for granted that most art rooms will be full of similar things, items that have become "school art cliches":

Kettles; Shoes; Bottles; Bicycle or Car Engine Parts; Crushed Coke Can; Cut Cabbage; Mask Making; Textures Lines and Tones; Sheep Skull; Pebbles; Swiss Cheese; Plant. (ones, 1999, p. 138) Jones went on to refer to cliches

found in other learning contexts, such as "Negative Space" and "Problem Solving" in art foundation courses and "Meaningful Marks" and

"Mythologising the Self' in art schools. Naturally, as time goes on, the art school cliche becomes the high school cliche-there is no shortage of "Meaningful Marks" in today's schools. Efland's (1976) much-cited paper on the "School Art Style," which focuses on the elementary school, described the type of art that had, even in 1976, been churned out for "forty five to fifty years" (p. 43). His remark that we should be trying to change the school in order to change the art that it generates is probably even more relevant today than it was in 1976. Binch (1994), in discussing classroom methodology, noted that much of what happens in art classrooms is based upon objective drawing, for which the "predominant sources of reference are collections of objects set up in the art room" (p. 124). Hughes (1998), in writing about the nature of the physical context for art teaching, made the important point that it is "not necessarily wrong" to have collections of, for example, natural forms and car engine parts, but:

the lives and social conditions affecting young people in the UK have changed so much over a thirty year period that the drawing of a distorted self-portrait in a kettle may no longer carry as much significance as it used to! (p. 45) Each of these commentators has

taken it as a truism that our school art rooms are still characterized by collections of sheep skulls et cetera (see Figure la). I, too, would have produced from memory a list similar to Jones's (and would have included seed heads -poppy, teasel, onion-and empty wine bottles), but how accurate a picture of current practice is this? Is objective drawing still the basis for much of what happens in high school art rooms? If, so, what kinds of things are students drawing? Are "collections of objects" much different from those collections of the 1970s or earlier? If they are not used as a basis for objective drawing, why are they there?

JANUARY 2001 / ART EDUCATION



Is objective drawing still the basis for much of what

happens in high school art rooms? If so, what kinds of things are students drawing? Are "collections of

objects" much different from those collections of the 1970s or earlier? If they are not used as a basis for

objective drawing, why are they there?

As part of their induction into classroom practice, 24 PGCE (Post Graduate Certificate in Education) art and design students from the University of Cambridge were given a task that included describing the learning environment for art in their placement schools and making an inventory of the visual resources found. The data collected made interesting reading and a pattern emerged that was verified on subsequent visits. It became clear that current art rooms, at least in this small sample, were still replete with the kinds of objects referred to above; some were catalogued and sorted, others were lying in aesthetic abandon (see Figures la, lb, & 2). Four kinds of art rooms were identified; they were representative of what appeared to be different kinds of approaches: the clean, tidy, and efficient; the anarchic art studio; the cozy home away from home; and the anthropological museum.

Each of these kinds of art room can be associated with a particular kind of art teacher, such as those identified by Smith (1980) who categorized art teachers into types, such as the "High Priests," 'Technocrats," "Social Workers," and "Pedagogues." In Smith's taxonomy, the "High Priest" is concerned primarily with facilitating individual personal expression. In this case, the art room would be more like an artist's studio, or at least like the art studio of popular imagination-

full of intrigue, mystery, and chaos. 'Technocrats" are more concerned with giving opportunities for exploration and understanding of materials, and they like their rooms to be efficient and well organized, in extreme cases bordering on clinical. The "Social Workers" are those art teachers who see their main responsibility as encouraging social awareness, treating their classrooms more as therapy rooms rather than studios, a place where pupils can feel nurtured and where they can give vent to their emotions-"painting scenes of appalling violence in which swastika- bedecked Hell's Angels or blood dripping vampires go about their all too well-imagined business" (p. 152).

"Pedagogues" on the other hand, are, according to Smith, more focused on developing the aesthetic responses of students. Their rooms are full of visually interesting items from the made and natural world. The "Pedagogue" as art teacher has a firm belief that a visually rich environment will facilitate perceptual development. There is a further type, not found in the present survey, labeled by Smith as "Anomic." It is likely that their art rooms would be uninspiring and cluttered with dust-covered "visually interesting" items or perhaps completely devoid of any potentially interesting visual resources; either way, they would be characterized by a certain sterility.

In follow-up visits to a sample of art rooms, I found from informal interviews with art teachers that there were two main reasons for acquiring and keeping collections of natural and made visual forms. The first commonly held belief was that such items were there to enhance the learning environment in an indirect way, simply by making the art room a visually stimulating place. The second reason given was that the collections of items were a ready resource for

Figure 2: Nicely Boxed and Labeled

ART EDUCATION / JANUARY 2001



observational drawing. Other reasons given were to put a personal "stamp" on the room (I found no evidence of pupils being given the opportunity to do like- wise) and as a repository for collections of visually interesting things that could not be accommodated at home. One art teacher commented: "I view it as an essential part of my job- ,i to create an environment where kids can feel free to create, where they are stimulated by things around them." Other teachers were

: i

more pragmatic in that they frequently used the items around the room as starting . points for investigating visual form: "I see something that looks interesting, a piece of tree root or something that's fallen off the car and bring it in. I look at these things in an aesthetic way and encourage my pupils to do the same." This approach can be seen to be central to developing students' aesthetic sensi- bilities. Rather than simply using the items as a focus for developing drawing skills as such, it embodies a more sophisticated view of learning in art, where the focus is on developing visual perception, through close scrutiny of visual form necessary when drawing from observation. The intended outcome is a more visually aware person rather than a more skilled drawing student. Naturally each kind of outcome enhances the other. Drawing from observation remains a common activity, although there appears to have been a shift towards using this as a starting point for further investigation rather than an end in itself. I have no doubt that the kinds of "visually interesting" items found in the art rooms of English schools, where this informal survey was conducted, are not peculiarly English.

There appears to be a continuing orthodoxy in terms of the kinds of resources that art teachers use, and

more so in the kind of ambience that they want to create. Of interest here is the fact that these teachers feel that creating an ambience is of value. This has been noted by several researchers, including Sikes (1987) and byTallack (2000), who both referred to the art room in many secondary schools as

"a kind of oasis" (Sikes, p. 143) that was special and different from the rest of the school. However, Tallack makes the point quite forcefully that such attitudes can lead to the

MI|| f ~

isolation of art from other curricular areas and, in

particular, deprive students of a balanced view of the place of art in the world.

The notion that the learning environment is of central importance to aesthetic growth has been around for over 50 years. Read (1943), for example, advocated:

the use of textile hangings, the exhibition of pictures and sculp- ture, the dresses of the children and the teachers, the display of flowers, the absence of stridency and undue haste [...] But it should always be remembered that the school is a workshop and not a museum, a centre of creative activity and not an academy of learning (p. 292) Read was writing here of education

in general, of the need for schools as a whole to facilitate creative growth through freedom of movement and exposure to interesting and beautiful things. Read also advocated the removal of barriers, both physical and mental, from between subject areas. The more relaxed atmosphere of the art room, and its associated freedoms, is sometimes cited by students as a reason they like art lessons and a positive factor in decid- ing to carry on with art at a higher level.

The "High Priest" type of art teacher would tend to expect students to rely on their own imaginations for their inspiration, rather than on external stimuli. For these art teachers, the art room is their studio and must have the ambience of a studio, which more often than not seems to involve building up a collection of masks and assorted empty wine bottles-although these are used as "still-life set -ups" only as a last resort (see Figure 3). The nature of the art room in this instance is intrinsically linked with the art teacher's self perception as "artist-teacher," who must of course have a studio (not a classroom). In terms of actually using the items that accumulate in many art rooms, it tends to be the "Pedagogue" and 'Technocrat" who will base their lessons on the visual resources available. All art teachers will use resources to a greater or lesser extent; the kinds of resources used and the way they are employed will determine the nature of the lessons. A teacher whose approach is principally resource-based would focus on the visual resources as important items in their own right (or at least representative of such items), such as artifacts from a local museum. The teacher might be using the resources to learn about the art or culture they represent, or to teach about the visual elements of art (for example, using geological specimens to study pattern, form, and texture).

While the "Pedagogue" and the "Technocrat" might both use resources in this way, the "Social Worker" is more likely to adopt an issues-based approach. This would normally involve using a particular issue, such as "equal opportunities for all," as a focus and explore the issue through various art activities. Issues- based approaches often entail making use of a range of resources and focusing on particular concepts; the extent to

JANUARY 2001 / ART ED U CATI ON



However, the use of the computer does not

appear to have had much impact upon the contents of the average art room, at least in

England. In not too many years to come we are likely see piles of redundant computers arranged in a cheerfully haphazard way as still-life arrangements or, in some cases, just to give a "studio feel" to the classroom.

Figure 3: Paint Brushes and Empty Booze Bottles.

which the learner has explored and understood the issue is in many ways more important than the nature of the art produced. Issues-based approaches have more in common with contempo- rary practice and have been gaining ground in schools in recent years.

Smith's work was published in 1980; at that time he predicted the rise of what he termed the "Visionary Anarchist" and the "Semiologist" as art teacher. Neither of these groups appears to have emerged to any significant degree, possibly because of the increasing uniformity of art curricula associated with centralization and the imposition of particular ways of organizing curriculum content. The introduction in England,

for example, of a "national" curriculum has probably tended to nurture the 'Technocrat." What could not have been foreseen is the use of (almost) immediate access to the museums and galleries of the world via the internet. However, the use of the computer does not appear to have had much impact upon the contents of the average art room, at least in England. In not too many years to come we are likely see piles of redundant computers arranged in a cheerfully haphazard way as still-life arrangements or, in some cases, just to give a "studio feel" to the classroom.

"High Priests" and their followers continue to provide the model for many art teachers. At their best, the artist-

teachers in their studio-classrooms provide first-rate education and make excellent art teachers, bursting with enthusiasm and innovation, not cowed by the imposition of rules and external assessments. These people are not government-sponsored curriculum- delivery agents, but artists working with young people to induct them into the mysteries of artmaking. They are artists who teach; their "work" is their artmaking, and their classroom is undoubtedly a studio. In this kind of situation, however, it is possible to find learners disadvantaged by not being geniuses, trying to find some meaning in the apparent chaos that surrounds them; trying to find out what it is that

| ART EDUCATION / JANUARY 2001



the teacher wants them to do, only to find that even asking such a question implies failure.

I am frequently asked "how do you find time to do your own work?". I know exactly what is meant by this (my real work must be producing art) and respond accordingly: "I get up early..." A more appropriate response might be: "my 'own' work is art education, but I have the occasional exhibition of paint- ings to keep my hand in." The notion of the professional art educator (as opposed to the artist who happens to teach) is a recurring one. Certainly Allison (1974) bought it to my attention as a beginning teacher of art a quarter of a century ago. Having then recently emerged from a degree course in fine art that more or less consisted of artist- professors saying "there's your studio space, now get on with making art while we exude our artistic auras that will benefit you immensely," I could see that there was potentially more to teaching art than creating a studio environment and filling it with a creative atmosphere. I contend that we need art teachers who are human beings first, teachers second, and artists third-in that order. We need art teachers whose commitment is to their students and whose self image is that of a professional educator operat- ing within a professional environment that is lively without being chaotic and organized without being sterile.

To return to the original questions, it seems that there is some evidence to suggest a continuing orthodoxy (in terms of the kinds of items that we find in art rooms), but this in itself is not cause for concern. In writing about "resource based learning," Burgess (2000) notes that rigidly adhering to the so called "perceptual" approach in art teaching, with "pupils fed on an exclusive diet of close observation, [tend] to develop a narrow definition of art" (p. 82). This may well be true, but it

would appear that drawing crushed coke cans and sheep skulls from observation is largely a thing of the past, but the cans and skulls remain.

Each of the approaches described above does not necessarily preclude the other; the difference would tend to be associated with the way in which resources are used and the emphasis placed upon each aspect. The way that resources are used continues to develop and says much about art teachers' abili- ties to transform the commonplace. In many cases, the items are not used at all, in the sense of being the focus for drawing from observation activities, but are just there to give a certain "creative ethos." Such an ethos may well appear dated, but at least it shows that art teachers have an awareness of the need to work in an environment that is not threatening, institutional, or just plain dull, but is welcoming, personalized, and intriguing. It is important, however, that the art classroom is seen by students primarily as a place of learning, as a place organized by professionals for the purpose of learning about and producing art.

It is axiomatic that the "best" art classrooms are those that facilitate learning in art, although there should be little difference between the ethos of the art room and the math or humanities areas of school. Rather than making art rooms more like other areas of the school, it seems more desirable to make other areas of the school more like the best art rooms. In a similar way, teachers of other subjects can gain much from emulating the range of teaching styles that characterize many excellent art teachers-art teachers who have a genuine commitment to young people's learning and an effervescent enthusiasm for their subject, bearing in mind that it is not art that is special, it is people.

Richard Hickman is a Senior Lecturer atHomerton College, Cambridge, UK, and is Course Leaderfor the University of Cambridge Post Graduate Certificate in Education course (PGCEArt). E-mail: [email protected]. uk

REFERENCES Allison, B. (1974). Professional art education.

Journal of the NSAE. 1 (1) 3-9. Binch, N. (1994). The implications of the

National Curriculum orders for art. Journal of Art & Design Education, 13 (2), 124.

Burgess, L. (2000). Resource based learning. In L. Burgess and N. Addison (Eds.) Learning to teach art and design in the secondary school (pp. 79-114). London: RoutledgeFalmer

Efland, A. (1976). The school art style: A func- tional analysis, Studies in Art Education, 17 (2), 37-44.

Hughes, A. (1998). Reconceptualising the art curriculum,Journal of Art & Design Education, 17 (1), 41-49.

Jones, T. (1999). Art and lifelong learning, Journal of Art & Design Education, 18 (1), 135-142.

Read H. (1943). Education through art London: Faber and Faber.

Sikes, P.J. (1987). A kind of oasis: Art rooms and art teachers in secondary schools. In L. Tickle (Ed.), (1987) The arts in education -some research studies, p. 143. Beckenham: Croom Helm Ltd.

Smith, I.F. (1980). Art. In R. Straughan, &J. Wrigley (Eds.), Values and evaluation in education. London: Harper and Row.

Tallack, M. (2000). Critical studies: Values at the heart of education? In R. Hickman, (Ed.) Art education 11-18 -Meaning, purpose, and direction. London: Continuum.

JANUARY 2001 / ART EOUCATION I



focus on secondary || art rooms and art teaching

Documents