(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
-DRAFT OUTLINE-
Introduction
This research is about assessing university facilities to see how the design and layout is influenced by instructional design and curriculum. Firstly, I want to know the basis of contemporary curricula for Arts and Design higher education in America. Secondly, I want to know what characteristics, elements, and amenities are valued for the accommodating built environment.
To explore the literature on the basis for contemporary curriculum and instructional design it is important to know about the history of curriculum for arts and design in America, modern learning theory, contemporary curriculum and pedagogical practices, which the experts are in the field and present controversies about these issues. For my study on the accommodating built environment and the things valued, I look first to case studies of completed art schools and I review an existing school in pre-construction. I refer to literature to examine building reviews to discover prevailing views and controversies, and I conduct interviews, distribute surveys with key stakeholders, and examine pre-construction documents. Finally, I summarize key findings of my review.
The basis for contemporary curriculum and instructional design
Firstly, I want to know what the basis of contemporary curricula is for Arts and Design higher education in America. It is important to know how the history of art instruction influences contemporary curricula as well as current learning theory and how that relates to modern curriculum and pedagogical practice. We can then look at current controversies in contemporary art school design.
History
When we explore curriculum in an historic context, we note that certainly art schools did not always exist in the form we have now. There were workshops in ancient times (about the fifth century B.C.) and Rome and Greece both had technical instruction in painting, sculpture and music (Elkins 2001). Centers of study similar to our educational institutions today were not established until about the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. These early universities were formal and exclusive and artists were not trained within the system. Rather, they were instructed in workshops, after having come from either grammar school or uneducated from their home. For instance, Elkins (2001) states that “students spent two or three years as apprentices, often “graduating” from one master to another, and then joined the local painter’s guild and began to work for a master as a “journeyman-apprentice” (p. 7). While, there was a movement in the twelfth century to elevate their craft to a profession, that initiative suffered because most artists had no formal training in the curriculum of the higher educated: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Not until the Renaissance, were academies established to elevate the status of artists, rebel against the strict manner of the universities, and teach subjects outside of the university curriculum. These academies were informal places where students learned to “speak, write, and act in a proper and noble manner. Poems were read, plays were put on, music was performed, and what we know call “study groups” got together to discuss them” (Elkins, 2001, p. 8). The first public art academy, the Accademia del Disegno, was established by Giorgio Vasari in 1562 in Florence, Italy. Rather than existing on a centralized campus, academy activities occurred in various buildings throughout the locale. Elkins (2001) explains the learning theory of the academy in this way: “Artists, it was thought, need a good eye and a good hand, but even before they develop those, they need mental principles to guide them: so “measured judgment” and a “conceptual foundation” must come before manual dexterity” (p.10). Thus, the first subjects taught to incoming students were geometry and anatomy, which supported the pedagogical practice of studying statues. The idea that “art requires balance between theory and practice” (Elkins, 2001) is prevalent today. Conomos (2009) remarks on the changes in both society and the profession of teaching as they relate to higher education art training when he says” Evolving from the guild system and mentorship under a “master”, education has moved toward reliance on a curriculum and the exposure of students to multiple voices in their training. The cult of the artist personality, who was professional first and teacher second that prevailed in the early sixties, has evolved into the professional teacher who presents part of a curriculum determined by a university or art school program.” (p124).
Contemporary learning theories
Current thinking about teaching and learning that reflects the zeitgeist of an increasingly technological culture can be described as conflicting with traditional methods. “Tapscott shows his description of a new paradigm of learning, which could possibly be described as the tension between hierarchical vs. distributed learning” (Baker, S. 2009, p35). Knowledge that can be described as linear, sequential and serial confronts new theories of hypermediated learning.
Interdisciplinary exchange supports and enhances teaching and learning. “Contemporary art may no longer be a discipline in itself, but rather a place where disciplines intersect and interact” (Baker, S. 2009, p38).
Art Schools should be mission-driven to enrich itself and the larger community. ”Every school embodies an inheritance at least and at most is an invention rising out of its inheritance…I mean the transmission and transformation of a creed”(Madoff, 2009, p ix).
The function of an art school is to guide students to their “unique voice” for life-long growth as artist, regardless of their potential commercial success. “What constitutes success for the graduating student?...in the short term, art schools are successful if they guide young artists into the right artistic production processes for them; this match between talent (creative intelligence and skills) and old and new mediums is what gradually helps them to achieve their unique voice…In the long term I believe that artistic success should be defined as the ability to sustain art making for a lifetime, whether within the profit or non-profit sectors, remaining part of the conversation about the destiny of the country, the culture, and global citizenship” (Pujol, 2009, p.12-13).
Art schools must perpetuate art culture (the discourse, system of museums nad contemporary art center, commercial galleries, public and private collectors, reviews, catalogs, institutions of cultural exposure and mediation). “The art schools best suited to the current world – and, no doubt, the best schools—are those that deliberately underscore that they consider themselves part of the artworld establishment”(deDuve, 2009, p.17).
Students who highly regard learning “the process” had a stronger interest in learning. “Phenomenographic research into the experience of Graphic Design students by Davies (2006) described how design students’ conceptions of design varied, with some students associating it with the acquisition of skills and learning processes and others viewing it as an act of communication, or as a vehicle through which to explore personal perceptions of the world. He went on to suggest that students who used the design process as ‘a platform from which to explore their own perceptions of a complex world’ (Davies 2006: 3) adopted a deeper approach to learning. (p110 Reading, c. 2009)
Exposure to art is fundamental to art training. It is important to show students that exposure to art is relevant to their maturation as artists. “Many students lack confidence and skills in their engagement with museum collections. Helping them to identify the things that motivate them in their design work and indicating to students how the collections might be used to support these interests may improve students’ motivation to access museum collections. Similarly, making the experiences and stages within the design process visible to students and improving skills such as drawing may increase the range of ways in which students use the collections and may also help to improve confidence” (p. 110 Reading 2009).
Curriculum/Instructional Design
Prevailing theories and hypotheses
From the 14th to the mid 18th century, the academies conceived good art as not straying “too far from the middle for the sake of effect” (Elkins, 2001 p. 10); Nowadays, art instruction supports the concept of art as a provocateur.
Marketing of educational institutions has resulted in university profiling, branding and consolidation. This redefining of identity has adversely affected arts schools. “Throughout all institutions to a greater or lesser extent, modular structures, curriculum and grading and point systems are being introduced, systems which have hitherto been considered incompatible with the free, experimental execution of art” (Bogh 2009, p.64)
“The core pedagogical approach of the Bard program is conversation and critique” (Lauterbach 2009, p.92).
Training for peer review and peer critiques should be formalized in the curriculum and supported in course design. “In South America, a vital tradition continues of artists training other artists in their studios—a far more autonomous means of transmitting knowledge than the bulkiness of institutional learning” (Madoff 2009, pg x).
In order to truly understand the institutional mission of a department as demonstrated through action, one must examine three fundamental dimensions of professional work –to think, to perform, and to act with integrity. This constitutes signature pedagogy. For example, how many years are spent teaching student to think like a designer or to produce art? How many courses are devoted to professional conduct? “A signature pedagogy has three dimensions. First, it has a surface structure, which consists of concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning, of showing and demonstrating, of questioning and answering, of interacting and withholding, of approaching and withdrawing. Any signature pedagogy also has a deep structure, a set of assumptions about how best to impart a certain body of knowledge and know-how. And it has an implicit structure, a moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about professional attitudes, values, and dispositions. Finally, each signature pedagogy can also be characterized by what it is not–by the way it is shaped by what it does not impart or exemplify. A signature pedagogy invariably involves a choice, a selection among alternative approaches to training aspiring professionals. That choice necessarily highlights and supports certain outcomes while, usually unintentionally, failing to address other important characteristics of professional performance” (Shulman 2005, pp 54, 55).
The curriculum should place emphasis on teaching communication and management skills. “As a design educator I am seeking a re-vision of the role of graphic design and designers within our communities. Graphic designers should function as facilitators of communication among myriad communities of people: not only between businesses and consumers, but also between communities of citizens, governments, scientists, scholars, activists and other social groups too numerous to list. Through greater attentiveness to our own direct experience of the living world, we can guide the direct experience of others. We can aspire to be 'something more'. Graphic design need not be merely an adjunct to consumerist lifestyles, but a mediator of balanced human relationships” (Lawrie 2008, p. 206).
“We also had no curriculum. In other words, you choose from a menu and made up your own dishes” (Baldessari & Craig-Martin 2009, p.42)
Key controversies
There are fundamental questions about curriculum and the manner in which art is taught. “What besides art is necessary? What should be taught in art schools apart from visual arts? Do artist need a core curriculum of classics? Is visual art important enough and different enough to warrant four years of study?”(Elkins 2001, p.55). “Well, art is taught. But nobody seems to know how” (Birnbaum 2009, p. 232).
Traditional training must be re-visioned to reflect modern times with global and interconnected resources and it’s respective art product. “So what does this all mean for foundation curriculum development? I means that art schools stand on the threshold of multidisciplinary art research and interdisciplinary art production—not as one more theoretical seminar or “multimedia” studio among stubbornly traditional course offerings, or one more state-of-the-arts degree, but as the next wave of cultural production” (Pujol 2009, p.3)
Rather than promote interdisciplinarity, art schools should foster a transdisciplinary approach that goes beyond each distinct area of study to create something new that bridges the current subjects. (Seaman 2009)
Unlike traditional art activities, cloistered within the department or the university, the art school should be more entwined within community and instruction should foster a sense of community. “By viewing learning activities as a community of practice, where more experienced practitioner tutors enable students to participate, they are more likely to develop an identity of belonging, with an associated sense of the meaning of activities within the community of practice in education”. (Shreeve, 2007, p11)
“The problems that currently bedevil art education in the United States, as well as in many other countries, issue directly from a long-standing tendency to reassert obsolete philosophical dichotomies (mind-body/intellect-intuition/creation-interpretation/aethsteics-criticality) and impose them on institutions of differing types in order to pit those institutions against one another or against noninstitutional or quasi-institutional forms of teaching and learning” (Storr 2009 p. 63).
“Art has a socially critical role to play in the survival and evolution of the American democratic experiment” (Pujol 2009 p.8).
Conclusion
Contemporary curricula are for Arts and Design higher education in America is partially derived from the guild system of ancient times and remnants of the academy structure originating in the mid 16th century. Throughout history some themes are constant – the struggle for artist to be seen as professionals; questions about the need for supportive coursework outside of the art field; defining the relationship between the aesthetic and commercial; and the relationship of artists to the community. Some contemporary learning theories as well as controversies are borne from popular zeitgeist and post-modern conceptions of constructivist approaches to knowledge. With these issues in mind, I will review the amenities created by the built environment that support the values, curriculum and pedagogical practices at art schools.
Characteristics, elements, and amenities as supported by built environment
My review of the built environment focuses on how the physical space accommodates the instructional design and pedagogical practices and those values held by the students, faculty and administration. First, I review post-occupancy reviews of contemporary art schools. Secondly, I review literature to reveal prevailing views and controversies about the relationship of the physical space to art post-secondary education. Thirdly, I display the results of interviews and surveys with key stakeholders. Lastly, I examine pre-construction documents of an art school in design to discover valued concepts and proposals to support them through construction and furnishings.
Review of case studies
Le Fresnoy (National Studio of Contemporary Art) by architect Bernard Tschumi in Turcoing, France (See Appendix A)
This project is a 10,000 square meter international center for contemporary arts. The facility that houses a school, film studio, médiathéque, exhibition halls, two cinemas, laboratories for research and production, administrative offices, housing and a bar/restaurant. Portions of the existing structure were preserved and protected by the new overhang roof. Conceptually, the project was designed as a succession of boxes inside a box. The outer box is a large rectangular; Under cover of the large electronic roof are the boxes of the existing building. The large overhang provides areas for concerts and special events. The building was designed to encourage and increase community involvement in the art school.
Prevailing theories and hypotheses concerning the role of the built environment in arts education
When considering the main element of a “school” one cannot underestimate the importance of time in the relationship of factors. “It is necessary to dwell on this conflation of duration (time), gathering (a forum), and site (place for learning). Of these, time is the most important, because a gathering that does not endure or a place that disallows the transformative, accumulative inscription of exchange and discourse cannot by itself, or even in combination, generate a context for learning”(Raqs Media Collective 2009 p.75).
“Any specificity in a design that means to give form to a particular teaching philosophy is bound over time to fail, rendering a chokehold on change in place of being its enabler” (Moran 2009, p. 34). “The challenge of designing art school environments has less to do with any existing need for iconic structures than with instituting flexibly configured structures –or platforms—in which creative productions will take place” ( Moran 2009 p. 35).
The design of arts schools should an environment that supports excellence. “This can be done through organizing environments in which training and skill development occur, where the atmosphere is conducive to reflective practice , and where there is an expectation of high performance within peer groups and by the faculty” (Coogan, J.(2009) p.125-126). Likewise,
“It seems to me that the most important thing about an art school is that it is a creation of a sympathetic ambiance in which people feel comfortable and free to act according to their own instincts”(Baldessari & Craig-Martin 2009, p.42)
One cannot underestimate the social consequences of creating and arranging spaces. “To develop a holistic view of the individual learner (and teacher) as embodied, socially and psychologically constructed, emotional, and situated in space, is, I argue, a more challenging, but authentic way towards a student centeredness based on actual diversity. This means inviting and taking risks with emotional interactions. It means questioning ownership (and
indeed non-ownership) of creative learning spaces. It means asking whose emotional interactions are being foregrounded and whose denied by our traditional structuring of spaces. But surely risk-taking, emotional connectedness and a questioning of traditional structure are at the very heart of any creative project” (Sagan 2008, p183)
Key controversies concerning the built environment for art schools
Art schools should have adequate spaces for presentation. “the relationship between art and exhibition ,which offers the option to test situation and combinations and explore thoughts through works of art is no less needed as a focus in art education”(Bauer 2009, p. 225)
“In recent years, arts institutions have grown dependant on image-boosting architecture as a cornerstone of their fundraising programs and mission statements” (Renfro 2009, p.161). “What better way than with a spectacular new building to lure deep-pocketed trustees and star faculty members to the school?”(Renfro 2009, p.161).
“How will the school’s online presence be reflected in the built environment? (Renfro 2009, p.162).
Interviews
(Please see Appendix B for protocol) For each type of stakeholder I inquire about the basic issues: What is their learning theory/curriculum/instructional design? What characteristics, elements, and amenities are (highlighted) valued for the facility? How are they accommodating by the built environment?
Surveys
(Please see Appendix C for protocol) For each type of stakeholder I inquire about the basic issues: What is their learning theory/curriculum/instructional design? What characteristics, elements, and amenities are (highlighted) valued for the facility? How are they accommodating by the built environment?
Document review
(Please see Appendix D for a summary of document review findings)Documents-I review to find the following information: Who is the originator? Who is the recipient?) What characteristics, elements, and amenities are (highlighted) valued for the facility? How are they accommodating by the built environment? What is assessment of the existing facility?
i) archive- About 300 documents consisting of Meeting reports, existing building survey, preliminary layouts, programming surveys. Planning sheets, technology checklists, comparative space analysis and program reports.
Summation
References
Danto, A. (1964) The Artworld, Journal of Philosophy, 61, 571-184.
Madoff, S.H. (Ed.). (2009). Art school:Propositions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Pujol, E. (2009).On the ground. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.1-13). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
deDuve, T. (2009). An ethics: Putting aesthetic transmission in its proper place in the art world. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.15-24). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Moran, B. (2009). Aesthetic Platforms. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.33-37). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Baldessari, J. & Craig-Martin, M., (2009). Conversation. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.41-52). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Storr, R. (2009). Dear Colleague. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.53-67). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1984) The means of correct training. In P. Rabinow (Ed.) The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon books.
Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.). (2009). Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers
Baker, S. (2009) Art school 2.0: Art schools in the information age or reciprocal relations and the art of the possible. In Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.) Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. (pp.27-44). New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.
Bogh, M. (2009) Borderlands: The art school between the academy and higher education. In Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.) Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. (pp.64-75). New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.
Coogan, J. (2009) Evolutionary forces: Advancing art and design education. In Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.) Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. (pp.121-135). New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.
Raqs Media Collective (2009) How to be an artist at night. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.71-81). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Lauterbach, A. (2009) The thing seen: Reimagining arts education for now. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.85-97). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Seaman, B., (2009) Combinatoric micro-strategies for emergent transdisciplinary education. In Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.) Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. (pp.182-205. New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.
Esche, C., (2009) Include me out: Helping artist to undo the art world. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.101-112). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Renfro, C., (2009) Undesigning the new art school. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.159-175). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Bauer, U.M., (2009) Under Pressure. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.219-226). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Birnbaum, D., (2009). Teaching art: Adorno and the devil. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.231-246). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Madoff, S. H., (2009). States of exception. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.271-284). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Reading, C. (2009).Sources of inspiration: How design students learn from museum collections and other sources of inspiration. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,8, 2, 109-121.
Bohemia, E., Harman, K. & McDowell, L. (2009). Intersections: The utility of an ‘assessment for learning’ discourse for design educators. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,8, 2, 123-134.
de la Harpe, B. & Peterson, J. F.(2008). Through the learning and teaching looking glass: What do academics in art, design and architecture publish about most? Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,7, 3, 135-154.
Valentine, L. & Ivey, M. (2008). Sustaining Ambiguity and Fostering Openness in the (Design) Learning Environment. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,7, 3, 155-167.
Sagan, O. (2008). Playgrounds, studios and hiding places: emotional exchange in creative. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 3, 173-186.
Melles, G. (2008). Producing fact, affect and identity in architecture critiques - a discourse analysis of student and faculty discourse interaction. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 3, 159-171
Lawrie, S. (2008). Graphic design: can it be something more? Report on research in progress. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 3, 201-207.
Shreeve, A. (2007). Learning development and study support – an embedded approach through communities of practice. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 1, 11-25.
Reid, A. & Solomonides, I. (2007). Design students’ experience of engagement and creativity*. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 1, 27-39.
Radclyffe-Thomas, N. (2007). Intercultural chameleons or the Chinese way? Chinese students in Western art and design education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 1, 41-55.
Eilouti, B. (2007). A spatial development of a string processing tool for encoding architectural design processing. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 1, 57-71.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus,134, 3, 52–59.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Appendix B- Interview Protocol
Questions for Students
1. What is your major and year?
2. Why did you choose this institution and why did you stay?
3. What most describes how you feel knowledge about your profession is acquired? Is it something imparted to you for you to absorb by someone who is knowledgeable? Does it exist freely for everyone to partake and make meaning of, perhaps requiring a facilitator to assist you to make clearer understanding? Is learning really a matter of accumulating positive behaviors and rewards? Alternatively, perhaps you most describe learning as both memorization and synthesis of new concepts with your own life experiences.
4. What things do you value most about the design program here?
5. How can they be supported by the physical environment?
6. How can the built environment hinder them?
Questions for Faculty
1. What is your position here and what do you teach?
2. Why did you choose this institution and why do you stay?
3. What is special about this department? This institution?
4. What is the mission of the institution? How is that made evident through university actions?
5. What constitutes student success at this institution?
6. What most describes how you feel knowledge about your profession is acquired? Is it something imparted to you for you to absorb by someone who is knowledgeable? Does it exist freely for everyone to partake and make meaning of, perhaps requiring a facilitator to assist you to make clearer understanding? Is learning really a matter of accumulating positive behaviors and rewards? Alternatively, perhaps you most describe learning as both memorization and synthesis of new concepts with your own life experiences.
7. What types of course interactions do you have with students, for example studio, lecture, workshop? For each type, what kind of pedagogical practices do you employ?
8. How can your teaching be best supported by the physical environment (including furnishings)?
9. Does the built environment currently hinder your teaching in any way?
Questions for Administration and appropriate Staff
1. Why did you choose this institution and why do you stay?
2. What is special about this institution?
4. What is the mission of the institution? How is that made evident through university actions?
5. What educational benefits do you anticipate as an outcome of the construction/renovation project?
6. What are some non-educational reasons for embarking on the construction/renovation project?
7. What most describes how you feel knowledge about your profession is acquired? Is it something imparted to you for you to absorb by someone who is knowledgeable? Does it exist freely for everyone to partake and make meaning of, perhaps requiring a facilitator to assist you to make clearer understanding? Is learning really a matter of accumulating positive behaviors and rewards? Alternatively, perhaps you most describe learning as both memorization and synthesis of new concepts with your own life experiences.
8. What things do you value most about the institution?
9. How can they be supported by the physical environment?
10. How can the built environment hinder them?
-end
NOTE: IMAGE ABOVE IS AT THE Yoyogi Seminar Formative Arts School (or Yozemi Zokei), that exclusively teach art-school applicants, in Tokyo, Yokohama, and Osaka.
(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
