Results

The results are presented in the form of describing each case, also based on comparing the cases. This means that a rather extensive picture is given of each student. Nevertheless, in the description of the students we have left out some information that might possibly have contributed to the understanding of the case. We are not telling what media and techniques the students are using. Also, some other information that could serve to identify individual students is not mentioned. We do not indicate if the student is a man or woman, and the feminine is used neutrally. Some of the students were anxious not to be too easily identified, and were promised that this would not be the case. The students are named with a letter from A to I in the order they are presented in the text.

There are quite big differences between all nine students in most of the aspects covered in the interviews. To get a picture of the relation between the two focused main aspects, their use of studio conversations and their relation to their own artwork, we have grouped the students in five types of relations, with two students expressing each type, except the last type, expressed by a single student. The results are presented in the form of similarities and variation within and between types. The students are presented as expressing a certain type of relation between the two main aspects on the basis of the situation in the fourth year of study, against the background of the previous development. Students’ references to preparatory visual art practice education are also included, which increases the period covered, differently for different students. Also, during this period two of the students visited educational programs abroad for some time, and had studio conversations within those programs according to the local curriculum.

The naming of the types of relations found, presented below, focuses on the expected function of studio conversations, seen in relation to students’ development of their artwork. The subheadings summarize what is characteristic of the relation between the two aspects in the cases placed under each subheading. When there are two cases, the subheadings summarize what is common to the two cases. The subheadings are also intended to catch what is common to one type of relation compared to the other types, described under the other subheadings. The description and comparison of the cases of course are much richer than what is captured in the subheadings, which only name a general quality of the relation, a quality that stands out in the over-all comparison.

Studio conversations for restricted support of artwork. The first type of relation is characteristic of two students (A and B). Both of them have chosen to work mainly in one medium. What is common to them in their relation to their artwork is that this relation has developed over a long period, including preparatory art education and their present education, in a very continuous and non-dramatic way, in small steps and without any big changes. The student who is most restricted in the use of studio conversations is presented first.

Student A has learned to take responsibility for the work process already during the preparatory education. This student is very focused on and works exclusively in the chosen medium, using an established way of working. However, there is a development towards being somewhat freer in relation to the established way of working. Studio conversations have been sparse, due to experienced difficulties to talk about art in general, including the student’s artwork. These experienced difficulties sometimes lead to anxiety, since they clash with the ethos of the educational program. This relation to the artwork is combined with using studio conversations to get rather specific comments that might lead to small changes, if the student agrees with the comments. The restrictive attitude towards talking about the artwork includes choosing to talk to supervisors that are sympathetic to the student’s choice of media and way of working. The studio conversations preferably take place during the work, rather than after completing a piece.

Student B works in a single medium, just as student A, and with a work routine that was established already at preparatory level. This student is very focused on work, building up the work in steps. Like student A, student B experiences an increased freedom in relation to the established way of working, but this is combined with a somewhat more analytic and conceptual approach, in line with the ethos of the educational program.

The two students have in common that they have a long established relation to their artwork, and this seems to frame their relation to the use of studio conversations. What is common to them in their relation to studio conversations is that they want to narrow the viewpoints received to fit their own relation to their artwork. They differ in that student A has difficulties talking about art and is very restrictive with having studio conversations at all. Compared to student A, student B is more open to others’ views and willing to talk about her artwork.

Studio conversations for input to a very varied way of working. The second type of relation is characteristic of students C and D. They have in common that they work with a great variation of media and techniques, in long established ways. However, their way of working is open, explorative. The first student seems to be very explorative and guided by an implicit theme in an intuitive way, while the second student starts out from individual ideas, exploring them in the work process. They are both comfortable with their general way of working, which is, however, more varying, open and experimental than in the first group.

Student C works in various media. The student has an explorative approach, but at the same time the artwork is rather consistent, in an almost unconscious way, with the same themes, forming a red thread across different media. There are expressed problems with keeping up work pace, and a need of support in a controlled renewal of the work. The student needs input from others, and finds it difficult to produce if the periods of solitary studio work are too extended. Input in the form of conversations (with supervisors or others) is a greatly valued support, especially in the initial stage of the work process.

Just as student B, this student acknowledges problems with having several supervisors commenting the artwork, and feels that it is difficult to use such viewpoints if they differ a lot. As a consequence, the student has become more restrictive with studio conversations, thus avoiding too diverging influences.

Student D works in various media and with an explorative approach. The starting point may be an idea, just as well as a specific material. During preparatory art education, the student felt a pressure to focus on a particular medium and a single way of working, instead of varying and mixing. Now the student feels no such expectations, from within or from the environment, and has arrived at a point where there is no need to change the relation to the artwork or the way of working.

The student values a supervisor who works with the same medium and who listens. The studio conversations usually focus on sharing ideas in relation to the student’s ongoing work, but occasionally there has been critique on finished work. Critique is received positively and as help in the process of developing an idea, as well as expressing it. The relatively newly reached confidence in working in a very open and varied way, seems to have lead to an interest mainly in using studio conversations to get suggestions about alternative possibilities. The student values different opinions from supervisors, and seem to manage well in deciding what comments to pay attention to. The students in this second group share a concern for getting ideas that may help to direct their work. They are preoccupied with getting ideas and comments, and select the ideas and comments that stimulate and support their work. Their expectations on the function of studio conversations may be understood in relation to that they are working in a very varied although well established way. There is a difference between the students in that student C is more dependent on input from others to get started, while student D is more interested in getting ideas during work.

Studio conversations to support a new form of expression. Students E and F have in common that their work is more restricted to certain materials, compared to the preceding two students. However, they are working with a broader variation of material than the first group. They have also in common that they quite recently have found a way of expressing themselves in their artwork that they feel is very authentic. There is a difference between the two students in that the first student is more in need of and expecting to get support for developing the new expression, while the second student is more focused on testing how the expression communicates.

Student E was initially devoted to one medium, but has developed an interest in additional media over time. There is a conceptual consistency that runs through the artwork, regardless of the medium. A previous great interest for conversations seems to have been connected to an orientation towards imitation. Later in the studies, the student describes a change in the relation to her artwork, from imitating what “art should look like” towards an authentic and personal expression. As far as the work process is concerned, there are no big changes, except struggling to draw a line between work and private time. There is an expressed development from seeking an expression of one’s own, to the point of reaching a state of confidence and trust in the artwork. This student used to have many studio conversations, from the stage of idea to showing a finished piece of artwork. The need to talk to supervisors has gradually become less, and today there is no need to have that many conversations anymore. Like several others, this student greatly values a supervisor who works in a similar way.

Student F works in a number of media, with a well functioning working routine that was established during preparatory art studies. There has been a recent development towards experienced authenticity of the artistic expression. The student describes this development in relation to the preparatory art school education as well as in relation to the MFA program. The student expresses the experience of the development of authenticity strongly, and almost poetically.

There seem to be a relation between the new, more intimate and authentic relation to the artwork, and the explicitness in what the student expects from a studio conversation. This student focuses on expressing something coming from within, and wants the studio conversations to be about how successful the expressing is. Studio conversations preferably concern a finished artwork and the student wants critique concerning how the chosen way of expressing communicates and if the intention is coming through. These two students are similar in their expectation on studio conversation to focus on artistic expressions. This may be understood as depending on that they have quite recently developed an artistic expression which they experience as much more authentic than what they had done previously. They seem to be anxious to elaborate on this expression. There is a difference in that the first student is more into establishing the expression and the second is more concerned with testing the expression.

Studio conversations to hear others’ interpretations of the artwork. The two students grouped together under this labeling (G and H) both express that they have established their relation to their artwork, their ways of working, and their expression, so this is not so much in focus any more. However, their confidence in their artwork has been achieved quite recently. They are the ones most concerned with how their artwork is interpreted and understood by others, and they want to use studio conversations to find out about others’ interpretations. They are very different in their interest in the interpretations of others. While the first student is mainly concerned that the intention of the artwork is being understood, the second appears to be essentially interested in the variation in others’ interpretations.

Student G is working with one medium in a very personal way. There has been a change from another medium to the present one during the first year in the program. The student has experienced a change in the relation to her artwork, expressed as a developed closeness to her work, a feeling of coming home. The work process has become stable, empty periods do not come so often. The student has regular studio conversations with one teacher and one main supervisor, who is doing quite different things, compared with the student’s artwork, but is good in relating to the student’s work. The student’s focus is now on confirming that the intended message is understood by the viewer/interpreter.

Student G is more comfortable with talking about her artwork now than before, and more explicit in what the conversations should focus upon, which includes restricting what pieces of artwork are shown to others. The student has personal interpretations of her artwork, but finds it interesting to hear others’ interpretations, and can manage to disagree with critique from the supervisors. A supervisor with a lot of experience is appreciated, since he or she is more likely to give a new angle to the artwork. At the same time the student wants to be confirmed and the artwork to be understood by people who can take the perspective of the student. The student works in a very intuitive way, the artwork reveals very much of the student’s inner life, and therefore there is a preference towards having studio conversations with people, who know the student well enough to understand why something is done in a certain way. Consequently, the student is sensitive to showing work where the intentions of the artwork risks not to be understood, or to be misunderstood.

Student H is working in quite a broad way with different materials, and has now found a functioning way of working. The student worked a lot in the same techniques before, and has now picked them up again, having developed a feeling of confidence concerning her own ability and the intentions of the artwork, along with having become less dependent on authorities. The artwork gets its meaning through its social function outside the studio and the school, as a participation in societal life. There is a strong orientation towards exhibitions and towards doing new things. The student likes to invite people to discuss her artwork and enjoys listening to others’ interpretations. The most interesting setup is to have a small group of people and hear their interpretations and follow the discussion. Student H has a very different relation to showing her artwork compared to student G, being very positive to showing her artwork to many people in different ways, getting deep-reaching critique from some, and more general reactions from others. Critique is considered important. As far as studio conversations are concerned, the student prefers to talk to someone who is similar in a personal way, and to take advantage of a supervisor who can question the work. This student is very open to and interested in what others can communicate about the artwork.

Although these two students are very different, they both focus on interpretations of their artwork in their communication with others and in their view of the function of studio conversations. This seems to be dependent on a similar relation to their artwork, in that they have already established expressions and ways of working, and are not primarily preoccupied with performance aspects of their artwork. They have shifted their focus to the interpretation of the work, although they focus on interpretations in very different ways. The difference can also be understood as dependent on their relation to their artwork. Student G works very intuitively, strives to do so, and finds her artwork very revealing in an intimate way that is not obvious to the student until afterwards. There is sensitiveness to this revealing character of her artwork, and the student is most concerned with being understood. To student H, what makes her artwork meaningful is its function in a broader social context. The student trusts her own capability and is focused on others’ reception of the artwork. This is the context for this student’s focus on getting others’ interpretations as the function of studio conversations.

Studio conversations for a critical discussion of the artwork. In this category, there is only one student. Student I works in various media, similar to students E and F, starting out from a concept rather than a medium. There is a clear conceptual consistency, regardless of media used. The student has a long established relation to her artwork, along with a well functioning way of working, although the student thinks that minor aspects of the work process may still be improved. The establishment of this relation to the artwork and the way of working goes back to preparatory art studies. There is an intentional development from a rather “narrow” towards a more “consumer-friendly” form of artwork.

The student’s expectations on the content of the studio conversations are explicit. The artwork is clearly concept-based, and that is the aspect that the student wants the conversations to focus upon. The studio conversations are used to show finished work, rather than as a support in the process of making it.

This student focuses on having a critical discussion of the artwork, rather than mainly getting others’ interpretations, which is considered the main character of the previous category (students G and H). This may well be due to the strong conceptual emphasis, in combination with the long established relationship to her artwork of student I, as opposed to the more explorative approach and relatively recently achieved confidence in relation to their own artwork of students G and H.

Discussion. The students participating in this investigation apparently are very different, both in their artwork and their use of studio conversations. The aim and content of the studies and the education concern artistic development. Artistic development therefore is the most relevant quality with respect to which the use of studio conversations should be considered in an educational perspective. Both artistic development and use of studio conversations are very complex phenomena, and in this investigation the connection between these two aspects of the studies have been focused. What has been focused is the students’ subjective experience of how their relation to their artwork has developed, what they are most aware of and find relevant and important to tell the interviewer about this development. The same can be said about the focus on studio conversations.

Edström (2008) reported that uncertainty and becoming assured was the most striking aspect of the students’ experiences of the development of their relations to own artwork. She also described that uncertainty and ‘to rest assured’ had some different meanings. Our present results are in line with this development described by Edström, and show that the use of studio conversations is dependent on the more specific character of the artwork and the student’s relation to his/her own artwork. The results are also in line with the previously by Edström (2008) reported general descriptions of different uses of studio conversations. The main result concerns the very varied and specific ways in which the function of art students’ use of studio conversations is closely related to their own artwork.

Artistic development and studio conversations. As we can see, the approaches to their artwork, to the use of studio conversations, and the relation between these two aspects of the art studies are very different in the nine cases described. They all have different relations and have experienced different trajectories in the development of their relationship to their artwork according to what they say. For instance, some students mention that they have experienced a dramatic change, while others say that there has only been very little change.

The students who have the most stable relation to their artwork during the period covered are A, B and I. In our analysis, A and B are grouped together, on the basis of a similarity in their view of the function of studio conversations. They both have a strong wish to narrow down the studio conversations to what has already been their focus in their artwork for a long time.

They seem to have their basis in a specific material, and this also forms the main basis for the function they want studio conversations to have. Student A has difficulties in talking about art, including the own artwork, and of course this is very relevant in relation to having studio conversations. The student specifically finds it difficult to defend her artwork, which results in a reluctance towards having studio conversations. Additionally, Student A is deeply involved in developing her artwork and does not want to be disturbed by having studio conversations. Student B is also involved in developing the artwork within the frames of a given medium and approach without being interrupted. This takes the form of working with a piece of art as a project, and not discussing it until it is finished.

Student I is similar to students A and B in having a very stable and long established relation to her artwork. However, student I has a quite different relation to artwork through the clearly conceptual approach, and by working in several different media. The conceptual approach forms the basis for the view that the function of studio conversations is to be a more general critical discussion of art. As in the case of students A and B, there is no expectation of much direct influence on her artwork. The established conceptual approach forms the basis for an interest in discussing art as a conceptual matter. The comparison of these three students shows how the approach to the use of studio conversations is very closely related to their relationship to their own artwork in each individual case, in a way that is not entirely captured in the general type of relations summarized in the subheadings under which they are grouped. This is also true for the rest of the cases studied.

Students C and D are very explorative in their artwork, using a great variation of materials. They have both become more assured to let ideas come after a while, and to change during the work. Also, they have become more stable in their general way of working, and search for stimulation and support in developing ideas within their established yet very varying way of working. Student C has problems with getting started and keeping up pace in the work. She has a need of getting ideas to deal with these problems, and expects to get ideas through studio conversations. Student D, although working in a very explorative and varied manner, has no corresponding problems with getting started and keeping up pace. This student is more concerned with getting help in exploring alternative possibilities of how to carry out the artwork.

Students E and F are mainly concerned with their artistic expressions and their use of studio conversations are linked to this concern. They both work with a restricted set of material and have recently found a new and authentic form of expression that they want to establish. Student E was previously very interested in having frequent studio conversations, but does not feel the same need any longer. Student F seems to have reached a new, but comparatively somewhat more established, authentic expression. There has been a clear shift in the relationship to her artwork, from the experience of doing others’ art to the experience of doing own art. This student is very preoccupied with succeeding in expressing and communicating what “comes from within”, and the student wants to test this in studio conversations.

Students G and H are similar in having an established way of working with their art that they feel satisfied with. Both students have reached a quite relaxed relation to the uncertainty of making artwork, and they feel assured about their ability to develop useful ideas. These two students are both more concerned with others’ interpretation of their art than the other students. However, they differ considerably from each other in the type of concern for others’ interpretation, a difference also connected to their relation to their artwork. Student G is quite anchored in her own interpretation of the artwork and is preoccupied with making the intentions in the artwork come through. The student uses the studio conversations to confirm that this is the case. This is related to that the student’s artwork is very much a matter of expressing inner life. Student H is very different. This student is the one whose relation to her artwork has the most of a social dimension. Interaction with others is a clear source of inspiration. Also, the artwork gets its relevance and meaning through the interpretations of others. Thus studio conversations, as well as other conversations, are used to find out about as many different interpretations as possible.

From the results presented above, it is clear that there is a specific relation between the two aspects a) relation to own artwork and b) use of studio conversations in each case. Thus we find a rather close relation between these two aspects of the students’ art studies. The precise nature of this relation varies from case to case. This relation is a very central one within the education and with respect to its aims. Of course one may argue that the education includes the whole environment offered to the students to benefit from. Nevertheless, even if studio conversations are just one part of the education, it is the one that is generally considered most important, even if not by all students, and also the one that illustrates the character of the practice-based visual art education studied here. The very individually varying character of the main relation that emerges in the analysis, between the students’ relationship to their artwork and their attitude to studio conversations, surely has a profound importance for theorizing about and forming curricula of visual art practice education.

Approaches in learning and the visual arts curriculum. There are two very striking interrelated characteristics of the results that appear particularly important in a general educational perspective. The first is the strong experience of a developmental nature of the studies. The other is the experience of the very free character of the studies. The developmental character is revealed, not least through the importance of the preparatory studies for the continuing studies in the higher education program (Edström, 2008). In some cases, it is emphasized that it is a matter of taking further steps, building closely on what has already been achieved. In other cases, there are dramatic changes. This relation to preparatory studies concerns both the relationship to the students’ artwork and to the use of studio conversations, as well as the relation between these two aspects. This very close connection to previous studies is characteristic of artistic education, due to the focus on and character of artistic development.

Relating to previous personal development is relevant in most fields of learning. However, the relation to what has already been achieved is usually not so much in focus as in artistic education. What are more frequently in focus in other types of education are learning outcomes that are expected to be achieved. This is related to the fact that there are mostly learning goals predefined in some way, and specified in syllabi and curricula. It is especially apparent in the fields of learning languages, mathematics and science, where there are often rather specific goals. Also, there is greater expectance of similarity in learning between students, also concerning aim and content of the studies, and more of a shared curriculum. Although there is often some emphasis on the need for individualizing instruction, there is a great difference between individualized instruction towards a predefined and common goal, compared to an individualization of the goals. This difference is also important with respect to the meaning of autonomy and self-direction within the very free character of the visual art education.

In higher education in visual art practice, goals and content are left very open, and are assumed to emerge through the work of the student. The student is expected to develop his/her own artistic expression in a way that is convincing to the world of art and society, but which cannot be decided beforehand by anyone else or even by the student.

At the same time, the artwork will be examined and has to meet certain criteria, which are however very varying and not very explicit. This emerging character of the aim, content and outcome gives quite special conditions for the education, forming the background for the importance of ‘resting assured in the uncertain’ (Edström, 2008). This free character also makes great demand on the students to develop their approach to their artwork and their studies.

Approaches in learning have in previous research been described in terms of deep versus surface, and holistic versus atomistic approaches (Svensson, 1977). Those differences in approach have been described in relation to students’ understanding of messages and problems presented to them in a given form, and where their understanding may be compared with an understanding established within a subject matter field. In the case of visual art practice, there is no established whole of a message, no problem or solution to a problem, to identify or compare with.

In other fields, what is wanted is usually a deep holistic approach and outcome. Corresponding deep and holistic qualities might also be searched for in visual art practice. To identify those qualities would take an analysis of the students’ artwork, which has not been the aim of the present investigation. What is clear from the results however, is, that the students’ specific approach to their artwork is embedded in the broader situation of studying art and becoming an artist. This general approach is very individual and varying, and has developed over a long period of time. How this overall approach is related to individual students’ approach in their specific artwork remains to investigate further.

The very varying character of the students’ approaches to learning reflects the curriculum of the MFA program, at the same time as it represents an important condition for the curriculum. Nevertheless there are commonalities between this characteristic of visual art education and a general development within other fields of higher education, with traditionally much more predefined goals.

A curriculum based on the aim of knowledge capability, Bowden argues, would be more in harmony with the changes of today’s working life, than the traditional focus on accumulation of knowledge. We also find most of these qualities as parts of artistic development. The qualities very much involve being able to approach new situations in a successful way, finding out their possibilities and, based on previous experience and knowledge, finding a way to act that will lead to the desired outcomes. The approaches in handling new and open situations have to be more innovative, compared to approaches in educational situations with a given subject matter and expected outcome. In the case of visual art practice there is a demand for innovative approaches, also including the choice of situations and contents or “subject matter” addressed.

Another example is Barnett and Coate (2005), who have addressed the problem with the lack of curriculum thinking generally in higher education, arguing for a conceptualizing of curriculum as engagement in terms of knowing, acting and being. They describe how the focus in higher education has traditionally been on knowing, but has changed towards more emphasis on acting, especially “skills that are intended to be transferable and employmentrelated capabilities” (p. 105). However, Barnett and Coate go one step further by their use of the concept of being. They envisage that in the context of the increasing integration of higher education with the wider world, the forms of being that will be encouraged will much more be those of being-in-the-world, rather than being-in-knowledge (p. 119). Therefore, the conceptualization of curriculum must be widened to “embrace a sense of the student’s self and self-understanding; of the student as a person of being and becoming” (p. 7). Against this backdrop, Barnett and Coate argue for an engaging curriculum, i.e. a view of curriculum as an ongoing process which actively engages both students and academics. They add that the curriculum should be explicitly dealt with through the development of a ‘scholarship of curriculum’, including meta-reflection over the curriculum process and seeing curriculum issues in a larger perspective.

The result of the present investigation points to the importance of knowledge about the function of the content and the form of teaching seen in relation to students’ development of their artistic work, and Barnett and Coate’s discussion and suggestions are very relevant here. Higher education in visual art practice comes close to the focus on acting and being suggested by Barnett and Coate (2005), as opposed to higher education in general and its traditional focus on knowing. Clearly, higher education in general has much to learn from visual art practice when it comes to development of acting and being. At the same time, being “an untheorized teaching tradition that is largely mimetic from expert teacher to student novice” (Harwood, 2007, p. 315), higher education in visual art practice will surely benefit from a pedagogical reference frame that will aid in finding words to describe, and developing research to underpin, the unique characteristics and conditions of this field of knowledge and teaching.

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.013 сек.