PERSONAL COLUMN
oung at art
FRANK WHITFORD t the last count there were more than sop art students following full-time urses in England and Wales. It's strange at Britain, with an age-old reputation for isual philistinism, should appear to see so tieh point in so much art education, pecially as we also seem to believe either at budding writers, composers, actors and in-makers need no special training, or that e odd academy in London is enough to tisfy that need.
But all is not sweetness and light in this ea of further education and the amount and passion of recent discussion about the art schools suggests that there is much that needs to be put right. In recent weeks the atest report of the Coldstream Committee on art education was published,* and an alarmingly titled book by Sjoerd Hannema,t himself an art school teacher, appeared. The book speaks of crisis and suggests that art education has lost its way. Are things really as bad as all that?
If there is a crisis in the art schools, then it has, as Mr Hannema suggests, a great deal to do with the crisis in art generally. Ever since we were told that the lesson taught by the art of the last hundred years is that great art makes nonsense of the existing standards, we have believed, somewhat naively, that every work of art worth the name must attack conventions and establish new values. But how can you teach an attitude of mind and instruct originality? The effect of this belief has been twofold. Either the teacher abdicates his responsibility and refuses to advocate standards in anything for fear of curbing any originality his students might possess, or else he insists on the hard and fast standards of the past, hoping that real talent will out, and that the student with any- thing important to say will react against a strict training and emerge the stronger for it. The trouble with both methods is that they only take the brilliant or very talented stu- dent into account. There are very few of these at any one time, and these would prci- bably do full justice to their gifts without any training at all. Art schools must deal mainly with the less talented majority and it is, alas, a fact that most art schools persist in pretending either that such students do not exist, or that some of the high-powered stuff of which true art is made, will rub off, even on those of but limited potential. It is also a fact that in such schools there is a large number of bewildered, frustrated and unhappy students who are not receiving the sort of attention they need. They are encouraged ,from the start to think of themselves as working creative artists with something worthwhile to say. Yet few of their teachers believe that any of them will ever be able to support themselves by painting and sculpting, and few of their teachers have much idea of what they will be able to do with themselves when they leave their care. The prospects created by the galleries who sell and exhibit work are so dun that it is better not to think of them.
The Structure and Design of Art Education (timso 7s) !Fads, Fakes and Fantasies: The Crisis in the 411 Schools, and the Crisis in Art Sjoerd liannema (Macdonald S°s)
The answer to this is that no one in their right mind believes the main purpose of an art education to be the development of a creative elite which will provide the art for the next generation. If pressed, most art school teachers would say that it is their job to broaden the horizons of their pupils by helping to sharpen their visual sense and to refine their critical faculties.
But the present structure of art education suggests that no more than lip-service is paid to this, the major purpose of education in general, and students continue to be edu- cated to become artists and not primarily as human beings. The committee which was set up about ten years ago to reform and re- structure art education in this country was aware of the problem. It designed a new diploma which required students to take a course in 'complementary studies', defined as 'any non-studio subjects, in addition to the history of art, which may strengthen or give breadth to the students' training'. These com- plementary studies would take up at least 15 per cent of the students' time.
So far so good, but the language of the committee's first report was singularly vague and opaque, and the way in which these complementary studies courses are now con- ducted in most schools leaves much to be desired. The trouble is that few people have any idea of what exactly such courses should contain, how they should be taught, or indeed even what function they perform. There is, moreover, still an acute shortage of teachers properly qualified in the one sub- ject which the report specifically named: the history of art. In far too many schools the result of all this has been art history pre- sented in a half-hearted way calculated to ruin an appreciation of art and meaningless meanderings around areas hopefully de- scribed as 'the history of ideas'.
Even in those schools where interesting and purposeful complementary studies courses had been devised teachers too often found that they were meeting resistance from both students and other staff. The students naturally disliked anything that was compul- sory and not of immediate relevance to what they were doing in the studio, and the other staff because they felt their position was being usurped by soulless pedants who were attempting to fill the heads of their students with dangerous ideas.
Another difficulty emerged from the fact that too many of these complementary studies courses were based on an imperfect idea of how such a subject might be taught at universities. They overestimated the know- ledge and curiosity of the students and often went far above their heads. I said earlier that one of the strengths of art education is that it offers a kind of higher education to those not conventionally qualified academi- cally, and so it is. But there is no point in pruending at the same time that' most art students already have a good basic education on which to build, and even less point in try- ing to teach someone to recognise the finer points of Romantic poetic imagery if he still has difficulty writing home to his mum and dad.
In cases like these the art school has woefully failed to meet its responsibility. for the quality of an art education as a liberalising influence has everything to do with the teaching of theoretical subjects, and with the student's ability to express himself in words. to deal with ideas, and meaning- fully to order information, whether visual or not. It seems clear that much more thought should be given to this side of a training in art, and equally doubtful whether 15 per cent of a student's time is nearly enough to devote to this crucial area. The only part of the latest report from the Coldstream Committee that is at all con- vincing in this respect is the note of dissent to the paragraphs on complementary studies. This was written by Sir Nikolaus Pevsner and puts the case for properly conducted complementary studies so clearly that it is worth quoting at length. 'There is a general tendency in education at present to make tasks easy or to make them appear easy', Sir Nikolaus wrote, 'But education is not easy and cannot be. Education in any area, primary school, secondary school, univer- sity and art college is both a matter of human development and of the acquisition of skills. In the case of the art college the one aspect is the fostering of creativity, the other is a matter of learning . . . But . . . it is clarity of thought and expression, it is unbiased recognition of problems, it is the capacity for discussion and it is ultimately under- standing they must achieve. But to under- stand one must know the facts, and to choose relevant facts one must command a surplus of facts. That is the unpalatable truth.'
Anyone who has had the depressing task of marking A-level scripts on the history of art written by art students will know how miserably many schools fail to teach even the rudiments of English. let alone the rudiments of a subject which ought to be of enormous relevance to those acquiring art's practical skills. I am far from suggesting here that art schools should model themselves on univer- sities or even sixth forms, or that they should drastically reduce studio time to make room for theoretical subjects, but it is a fact that too many art schools at present believe that it is enough to educate the eye and the hand without bothering about the mind in bet- ween. And it is only because of the enor- mous amount art schools have already done to improve the quality of life in general in this country, and the considerable impact they have already had on society that I am so disturbed by their failure to acknowledge that their strength, and indeed their future, lies in a recognition of the role art can play as the basis for a general and liberal educa- tion.
Previous page
