I was assigned reading 3 (Osler et al, Storying the self) but I wanted to focus on reading 2 (Orr and Shreeve, 2018), 1 (McDonald and Michela 2019), and 5 (Willcocks and Mahon, 2023), and if time 4.
[Might have to come back to question why I was not drawn to/resisted the other text in due course…]
Overall the assigned readings approach the specificity of art and design teaching in different ways.
- The implicit ‘morality’ of the crit
- The signature methods/tropes of art teaching
- The multiple voices of teachers and teachers own biographies ‘mixing’, and allowing something else to emerge [‘metissage’ literally meaning miscegenation]
- the social/political context of teaching in a post colonial [& post-USSR] context
- the application of social justice and intersectionality to teaching, using ‘object based learning’ in an ‘online’ context – i.e. Recent iterations of social justice and climate issues, as they have played out recently at UAL, using UAL signature pedagogy and in the Covid/post-Covid environment
Overall, I was sometimes doubtful about aspects of the methodology employed in some of the texts but the descriptions of the contexts and practices felt familiar to my own experiences at art school.
- Macdonald et al: On the ‘Moral’ ‘Realism’ of the ‘Crit’ [or, why art/design teachers think crits are a *good* thing]
The descriptive aspects of the text and use of interview as a way of collecting qualitative data were helpful for me to see, and the descriptions of teaching environments had some similarity with those I had experienced.
By drawing attention to the implicit morality of the crit it helped to make it something one could evaluate better, explicitly. I am not quite sure I fully understand what was implied by ‘moral goods’ /?outcomes) but in categorising them maybe it helped each of these areas to be reflected on in one’s own practice.
[Side note: Why refer to Heidegger, not Kant when discussing ‘Critique’ and Moral evaluation? Is Morality really about “Being”, rather than that of “Becoming”? (i.e. ‘what is’ rather than ‘what ought to be’? But then maybe ‘Moral Realism‘ placing emphasis on ‘existing practices’ and outcomes is why it appears to be about Being?? Not sure]
But it was useful never the less to hear the colloquial understandings of ‘crits’ from the teachers interviewed (‘feedback’… ), and what they saw their role to be in these situations.
There was also an attempt to parse out the different aspects of critiques.
‘Practice’ is also defined.
It would have been interesting to know more about the mode of the interview and the prompt questions. It was also not a very large number of people interviewed.
The essay acknowledges to the lack of ethnic or cultural diversity among the interviewees. It would be interesting to know if similar studies have taken place on wider cohorts of teachers that might allow for more inclusivity.
It was interesting to hear that another aspect of what might be ‘good’ about the crit is it somehow felt good for the teacher as well (helps the teachers own development).
It might be interesting to compare this essay alongside other sorts of examination/evaluation of the ‘Crit’. [See the historical investivation by Elena Crippa, ‘From “Crit” to “Lecture Performance” in The London Art Schools: Reforming the Art World, 1960 to Now , edited by Nigel Llewellyn, 2015. Or also this provocation for art students and teachers from 2001, Elkins, James. 2001. Why Art Cannot Be Taught : A Handbook for Art Students. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Accessed January 2, 2025. ProQuest Ebook Central. I have wanted to read these two things for a while.
2. [Orr and Shreeve] – Signature Pedagogies
The ‘Crit’ is taken up here again, as one of several ‘signature pedagogies’ within art and design higher education.
The essay is a literature review of recent texts on art and design pedagogy, focussing on signature pedagogies as ways to ‘mediate’ the educational to the professional ‘real life’ context. The authors return to the word ‘sticky’ throughout the text, which appears to be as a way of dealing with the ambiguities involved in that process of mediation.
They show how Signature Pedagogies may resemble in some way an activity of professional life or facilitate gaining the kind of skills one might need as an artist or designer to thrive in the real world. (‘Crits’ are likened to articulating or defending your work in public, or a ‘Pitch’; a ‘Brief literally may respond to a real world industry design problem or be formulated by a tutor to resemble one. A ‘Studio’ may be useful, or developing a ‘studio mindset’ for one’s practice, where physical space is not always available – to share work in development; etc);
Different strategies and aims for employing signature pedagogies are discussed, as well as the different aspects of learning and work for them to cover.
The ‘End Goals’ of ‘Real life’ situations [art or design work] versus Pedagogy [Learning] are touched on.
The limits of instrumentalising education to professional life are also touched on, and placed in the contemporary economic and social context of increased pressure on universities for students to gain employability. (The idea of ‘education for education’s sake’ or to create well rounded human beings might, in this current context, feel rather remote…).
In class discussion we reflected on the societal reasons marginalised groups or those from socioeconomic background may not be attracted to art education if there is a lack of a job at an end of it. We also reflected on how the signature pedagogies at art school may appear very different and alienating to those not used to elements of this kind of teaching from previous education.
I would argue that some of the signature pedagogies at art school may provide the chance for students to develop transferable skills. This seems to be supported by Orr & Shreeve’s observation that some of these signature pedagogies have actually been taken up by other subject areas.
In an applied way, Students may need to be helped to recognise these transferrable skills, to equip them in writing job applications, or funding proposals.
In a more holistic, or perhaps, utopian way, art education might be equipping students to become more well rounded, sensitive, mature individuals, able to grapple with emotional complexity and to navigate ambiguity, giving them “the skills they need to flourish in a changing world”.
5. Judy Willcocks and Kieran Mahon, “The Potential of Online Object-Based Learning Activities to Support the Teaching of Intersectional Environmentalism in Art and Design Higher Education,” Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 22, no. 2 (October 1, 2023): 187–207, https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00074_1.
This felt like an an attempt to document/knowledge-share a recent pedagogical experience, which was the development of an existing “signature pedagogy” (see above), Object Based Learning, in a contemporary online context with timely socio-political preoccupations of students in the mix. As a real life example there are perhaps more variables than one might want to change to measure effectiveness each element a) online OBL versus in-person OBL b) using OBL to raising awareness of Intersectional Environmentalism. But on the other hand maybe the case study itself is a form of experiential learning for the teachers involved, focusing on the thematic analysis that emerged in order to speculate how this sort of work *might* be done in the future.
It was useful to see their methodology for thematic analysis. It was also useful to have the Gillian Rose methodology laid out, and to see the questions that prompted the student responses. One thing it made me think about was how to pitch questions for student responses, how to prevent creating ‘leading questions’ that might be used to elicit certain types of response from the students. But it was an interesting case study.
—
McDonald, J. K. and Michela, E. (2019) ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy’, Design Studies, 62, pp. 1–35. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2019.02.001.
Orr S and Shreeve A (2018) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Routledge research in higher education. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Willcocks, J. and Mahon, K. (2023) ‘The potential of online object-based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and design higher education’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 187–207. doi: 10.1386/adch_00074_1.
