Teaching an undergraduate art history survey is a rather contrived process. This occurs both because at the survey level the history is a superficial overview that generally describes a linear progression of sorts, and because the formulaic process of lecturing about images or objects that are put up on a screen is more than sterile. Divorced from any context, the works float without much reference to original context or how they might be encountered beyond the walls of the classroom, there is no real sense of scale, and only a rough approximation of colour and tones. As I’ve written before, the result is that many students fail to see how (or why) the works are relevant today and reduces learning to merely the memorization and regurgitation of information.
On Thursday, I took my students to the Art Gallery of Alberta where Icons of Modernism is currently on display. This exhibition traces the influence and practices of some of the most influential movements and artists from the first half of the twentieth century. I wanted them to get a firsthand look at works similar to the ones we were studying in class, which appear quite a bit different in person than in the textbook, and to have each student present a paper on a different artist. Using the works on display, they were assigned with discussing how the the work/aritst they selected reflects the aim of a particular “ism” and to address the broader question of whether the work (or artist) merited the label of “icon” (which touches upon the problematic nature of labeling iconoclastic artists as iconic).
My primary goal was experience a space where artworks could be viewed in person. My secondary goal was to get out of the classroom as to engage them in peer-to-peer instruction and inquiry based learning.
One of their biggest challenges was getting them onboard with talking about works that tended to have little scholarly information available, as is the case for those in the exhibition. In other words, there was no relying on what someone else had written about the work. The strategic approach would be to think about other works that the artist produced around the same time and to look at the broader historical context in which the work was created, thereby formulating a visual analysis that was rooted in solid background research and then extrapolating to the specific work in question.
As expected, most of the presentations were decent, showcasing a general knowledge of their respective subject. Also as anticipated, a few were superficial and tentative. These
students are those that were either underprepared or afraid that they might be “wrong,”
despite being told that I’m less interested in a “right” versus “wrong” visual analysis and more interested in hearing how they read the work and why. I suspect this fear is the result of a school system that devalues creative thinking in favour of high academic scores.
There were a couple of exceptional presentations. What made these presentations stand out was that they were well researched and that the students took risks. First they contextualized the works within the broader history and then they used that knowledge to buttress their analysis of the work. As a result, the statements made about the works were insightful and provocative. I was truly impressed.
After the presentations were over, we discussed Duchamp’s notorious Bicycle Wheel as a class. They were pretty divided on whether they thought it was art or not, so I had both camps justify their reasoning. The ensuing discussion was interesting as they debated some of the larger issues about art that we have been examining in class. It’s a fulfilling experience to hear and see the tools I endeavour to equip my students with actually being used. Of course not every student is as engaged. I know that where I teach this art history survey merely completes a requirement, but my hope is that they will see the world around them with new eyes. Perhaps I am just an idealist (or naive).
I invited them to visit the other exhibitions at their own pace. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they enjoyed some of them so much that they would be coming back after finals to see the exhibitions again. I received kind words of thanks for the field trip which had given them the opportunity to both see work in person, and to get out of the classroom.
Mid-terms are over for another semester and I just finished a round of grading essays (something that I actually enjoy doing). As usual, they run the gamut from outstanding and humorous to the lackluster….
I teach the history of art and visual culture, which I often describe as learning about history and ideas in pictures. At the beginning of the semester, I passed out a series of 10 short questions to gauge the existing knowledge level of my students whom I knew had never taken any kind of art history before. The most important question for me was the last: ‘This class is an elective. Why did you choose it over the other options available to you?’ My primary goal in asking this was to uncover the reasoning behind their choice so that I could develop strategies for delivering the content of the course in ways that would potentially be more meaningful to this group of students.
As I suspected, many selected this class because it fit into their schedule, or they thought the content sounded somewhat interesting. However, I also received a response that made me excited – “I’m taking this class because when I go into museums or galleries I always see people spending lots of time looking at things and I always wonder what it is they’re looking at.” In essence, this student’s motivation for enrolling in the course was to increase his visual literacy by learning how to decode and read images.
The kinds of survey courses I teach have traditionally been structured upon rote memorization and the subsequent regurgitation of specific pieces of information. Yes, there are fundamental learning objectives that need to be achieved; however, I also want my students to develop their own visually critical toolboxes, which to me entails having them apply the knowledge that they’ve learned to new and unfamiliar situations (or in this particular case – works of art or visual culture). What this ability to apply knowledge demonstrates is a grasping of the broad, underlying concepts that influence or shape the way an object appears. The idea is that the skills they develop will (hopefully) transfer to real-life encounters beyond the pages of a textbook and the walls of the classroom.
As those who have taken any course of any kind can attest, one of the biggest drawbacks to a survey class is its breadth that comes at the sacrifice of depth. Most works are only covered in a superficial manner, which can make developing that critical toolbox tricky. In addition, keeping students engaged for a three hour long night class (as I have been charged with doing) is its own special kind of challenge.
Yet the in-class discussions and the compare and contrasts we’ve been doing appear to be paying off in terms of increasing visual literacy. So much so, that the “never seen before” sculpture included in the mid-term was one of the best answered questions on the exam. Just like all the other slide identifications, they had to name the work, sculptor and producing culture. The difference was that they had to provide evidence that supported their answer.
“Man Watering High Flower Pots” – Praxiteles
To me, reading their answers was exhilarating. (Yes, I realize how much that might make it sound like I need more excitement in my life – which is not true – I think it just makes me a hard-core educator at heart!) I suspect that part of the reason for the success on this question has to do with what the students had to do when presented with an unfamiliar image. They had to look. Instead of briefly glancing at the image to see what it was before turning back to the page, heads down, while trying to recall all the minutiae of whatever work was on the screen, they actually had to look at the work they were writing about and think about it in an active way. Fueled by the mini chocolate bars passed out before the exams, they had to think about what other works had they seen before which were similar or different, and how? Which aspects of the work offered clues as to which culture produced it, and why?
Across the board, their analyses of the work illustrated that they have begun internalizing the grand narratives set out in the course. As someone passionate about the ways viewers create meaning when engaging with visual culture, especially those inexperienced in the language of visual culture, this is a major coup. My next hope is that since their exams are non-cumulative, they retain at least some of the content they learned in the first half of the semester…
