Instructions and Content:
For this week, I recommend that you first do your required Week
Two reading. Then watch the introduction and lecture videos and the Google
Hangout, exploring examples of guided discussion questions. The end of the week
Quiz will be based on the reading. In addition, you have a required forum
discussion assignment.
Bill Brandt (c1938) Billingsgate Fish Market
Big Ideas For Week Two:
Close Looking and Open-Ended Inquiry
Week Two Components:
·
READING (see below)
·
GOOGLE HANGOUT VIDEO:
Required Reading:
Required Discussion Forum
Questions:
Browse through
MoMA's online Collection and
choose an image that inspires you in some way. Research some information
about the work of art using MoMA.org and/or other online sources. Please upload
a thumbnail image of your selected artwork by using the "Attach an
Image" option. For your forum post, respond to these
questions: What drew you to this work of art? What information were
you able to find out about this work? If you were to teach with this work, what
aspects would you like to introduce to your students?
This
week things got a little bit more interesting…
Although I trained to be a secondary school teacher I
mainly taught adults in the tertiary sector before moving into University
teaching. I have always taught by discussion, engagement and activity, and have
found it interesting to see what providers in different sectors have to say
about teaching and learning now. Whilst I was perturbed at the notion of being
able to measure IBL and critical thinking (rather than challenge measurement
per se) I have been enjoying the IBL ride. But now #edcmoocers, Ary Aranguiz and Cathleen Nardi have arrived and they, with
people like Matthew Craig, *are* from the school context – and really happy to
wade in with their critiques of all this tutor-led and tutor-controlled
discussion. Here are their suggestions for alternative reading to counter this:
Postman’s ‘Teaching as a
subversive activity’
And
one really old text that I recommended in the forum was:
James
Herndon (1970/74) The way it
spozed to be: a year in a ghetto school Pitman – which inspired me when
training to be a teacher in the late seventies.
Anyway
– still did the reading – and here some reading notes (more below):
This is an interesting article with practical examples
designed to help those perhaps unsure of how to teach through discussion to know
when
to seed with critical data student discussion about a piece of art – and when
to let the students discuss for themselves. Our art is in knowing when the
information will seed further insight and engagement and when it might silence
real engagement telling the student that their point of view is at best
unnecessary and at worst unwelcome. Hubard’s
tips include be comfortable with the
discussion method. And teachers more used to telling than discussion will
find the shift to a more discursive method quite challenging.
My tip is to know how to support discussion. When I
first taught English Literature in the same way that is suggested in this piece
in re art, I used to get the students the read a poem or prose piece – then I would just throw the discussion open to the class as a whole. This often led to
painful silence – then ‘the usual suspects’ might speak … everyone would become
frustrated with the silent ones thinking that they were un- or disengaged and there for
a free ride – eventually those who did speak would fall silent, resentful at
‘doing al the work’. I realised that the silent ones were not necessarily lazy
or disengaged, but probably too frightened to make themselves vulnerable in
this critical space. I used a pyramid discussion system (sometimes known as
think, pair, share), where students would think deeply on their own, share their
thoughts in pairs, develop them in fours – then hold forth in a plenary. Once I
harnessed this, discussion did happen and my trick, as Hubard suggests, was
knowing when to pop in additional information to push the discussion further. (More
of Hubard’s tips in detail, below.)
After
the reading…
We watched two Google Hangout discussions between high
school students ( I think) about a Cindy Sherman photograph (Untitled film
still #3) and a Kipperberger piece from his ‘Dear artist paint for me' series.
In this process we could see active inquiry, open questioning and reflecting
back and clarifying in action. It was really interesting hearing the students
discuss the works, especially the Sherman
piece, which they leapt into in a really engaged and perceptive way. I did feel uncomfortable with the way the
tutor validated or invalidated the student contributions with the yes or hmmmm
– or the re-phrasing or lack of re-phrasing. Really supporting student enquiry
requires more bravery than that… But not a bad place to start for those
completely unsure of how to even start supporting discussion.
Our
task for the week: browse the MOMA collection – choose and research an artwork and
answer the following questions: What drew you
to this work of art? What information were you able to find out about this
work? If you were to teach with this work, what aspects would you like to
introduce to your students?
Image chosen:
Billingsgate Fish Market by Bill Brandt c 1938
What
drew you to this work of art?
I searched through MOMA’s entire collection and chose
pictures of images that just appealed to me. I then went to ‘my collection’ and
found that of MOMA’s 1004 images I had selected just 24 – one of a sculpture,
22 of paintings and one photograph, a B&W image by Bill Brandt. The B&W
photograph drew my eye the most – it was a stark shot of Billingsgate fish
market taken in 1938. What drew me to the picture that it was of working men
given the dignity of their work through the picture itself. I found that this
was the image that I wanted to investigate further – because it captured
working class people – and their work.
What
information were you able to find out about this work?
I searched the photographer on Wikipedia and
discovered that Bill Brandt is credited with being ‘one of the most influential
photographers of the twentieth century’ (http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/b/bill-brandt/)
– and it pleased me that someone who did photograph London and working people had achieved that
status.
Bill Brandt (British,
born Germany. 1904–1983) Billingsgate Fish Market Date: c. 1934 Medium: Gelatin
silver print Dimensions: 11 5/8 x 9 7/16" (29.6 x 23.9 cm) Credit
Line: The Family of Man Fund MoMA Number: 659.2012
Copyright: © 2013 Estate of Bill Brandt
But Wikipedia is interesting on the photographer and
his life including that he was influenced by Man Ray who was loosely affiliated
with the Dadaist and Expressionist movements. Dadaism was very anti established
art and its implicit lies. This indicates that Brandt was seeking to capture a
different sort of ‘truth’ via his photography. This is the angle that I might
like my students to investigate further.
If
you were to teach with this work, what aspects would you like to introduce to
your students?
I would ask students to look at the picture and consider
just literally what it is and what it is about. I would encourage them to
develop this by detailing what drew their eye, what attracted them to – or
repelled them in – the picture itself. Once they had thought about the picture
on their own, I would ask them to share in pairs.
I might feed in some of these sorts of questions:
Do you like the picture or not – can you say something
about that? Does this picture surprise you in anyway – can you say something
about that? How far is this a work of art – how far is it a documentary
picture? Can documentary work also be considered art? What do you think is the
role of art and/or documentary? How far does this picture achieve what you think
are the aims of art and/or documentary? Why do you think that? If you were an
artist – what subjects would you choose to paint/photograph and why? If you
were to choose to represent the lives of ordinary people – how would you set
about your project? What sort of things do you think you would document and
why?
I would ask students to share their ideas in groups of
four – and then we would have a plenary session – either capturing ideas myself
on the board in a large pattern note – or asking a student volunteer to do so.
If we were engaging in formal project work on
documentary photography or realism or art of the twentieth century… I might set
the students follow up tasks along the lines of researching this artist – and
those topics on Wikipedia – and get them to report back what they had
discovered – why it was interesting – any problems or issues they had with
terminology… I might recommend that they also look up Man Ray and Dadaism and
consider how they might embrace or refute the ideas of those schools in their
own work.
I could then get students to take forward a
documentary project of their own – and to produce their own exhibitions –
perhaps answering the questions that we had to answer in our Introduction to
Art MOOC:
- Explain your process (medium and
technique). How was it made? Which art
materials and approaches did you use and why?
- Describe the idea behind your
artwork. What story or message does it get
across? What does it mean to you?
- Why did
you create it? What are your reasons for creating that specific art
piece? What do you want your audience to feel and think while
observing it?
After
thinking about all this – I really would like to use this photograph to
initiate just such a project!!
More
on the reading:
If
you are already really comfortable with teaching by discussion – excellent – if
not you might like to read on for my summary of Hubard’s Tips on what to say –
or not say – to support IBL:
1: Be as informed as possible about the piece in
question.
2: Consider the value and relative value of your
information – and what it offers. She gives the example of Picasso’s Guernica (1937) – what is more important – that Guernica was bombed
during the Spanish civil war – or that Picasso had five wives? Not all
information is equally relevant or pertinent…
3: Link to themes: if studying via a thematic approach
– link the piece to the theme – she cites theme – identity, Rembrandt
self-portrait…
4: Be wary of autobiographical data – and the
psycho-analysis of: Pollack dripped paint because he was an enraged drunk…
5: Be mindful of gossipy information: Van Gogh’s ear,
so and so was raped… However if the information adds possible insight to the
work – do use that – she cites Kahlo’s 1940
‘Self-portrait with cropped hair’ which may benefit from knowing about
the artist’s troubled relationship with her husband. As with literature however
autobiographical details are only one window on a work.
6: Consider the relevance of information to particular
audiences – what might inform an adult audience may be completely irrelevant to
kindergarteners.
Encourage
Looking for information
1: Many critical texts will describe an artwork – but students can do that for themselves –
encourage their own descriptions.
2: Consider when to use formal descriptors or
taxonomies or classifications – and when to get students to produce their own
by looking.
3: Consider when to answer student questions – and
when to get them to arrive at answers by more observation and discussion.
Using
knowledge: the importance of timing
1: Too soon and you silence discussion – too late and
you are saying, ‘Okay – and here’s the *right* answer.’
2: Get the feel for when a moment is right. She cites
discussion of Mondrians’ (1942-43)
‘Broadway boogie woogie’ – if discussion is hinting at its similarity to an
aerial photograph – insert that Mondrian was
inspired by the energy and music of 1940’s Manhattan. Perhaps then seed with
further questions: How could the picture be said to resemble a busy street? How
is it different?
3: Allow discussion of ambiguity – and insert data. For
example, Hubard suggests that in ‘Winter Play’ (circa
1130s-60s) by So Hanch’en, students often wonder whether the characters are two
boys or a boy and a girl – when appropriate, insert that you know that they are
boy and girl – and prompt further discussion.
Facts
and interpretation
1: Distinguish between facts and pre-existing
interpretations – and acknowledge that the critical interpretation of others do
not constitute facts. Discuss how other interpretations can seed their own
discussions and understandings.
2: Discuss the artist’s own commentary as an
interpretation not a fact. Munch entitled his 1893 picture of a man and woman
embracing ‘Love and Pain’ – others see it as a vampiric woman sucking the life
out of a man… Which is true? Are they both true? Hubard cites Eco (1989) and
Gadamer (2000).
3: Titles can be descriptive or interpretative –
discuss them as such…
Cultural
meanings
1: Re ‘The death of the demoness Putana’ circa 1610 – Hubard
describes how students tend to describe the statuette as a naughty elf
misbehaving, not sharing that it is the baby Krishna killing a demoness would constitute
misinformation.
2: Different readings do not necessarily indicate
cultural insensitivity; and richer discussion can emerge when cultural
referents are shared.
3: Fresh observations upon culturally specific
artefacts are not therefore ‘wrong’ – and can yet generate fresh insights…
What
viewers bring
1: Viewers bring a wealth of information, opinions,
gossip… with them – integrate what is useful, challenge what is not so helpful
– invite discussion…
2: Help viewers assimilate information – if entering
MOMA – some may realise therefore that the art might be ‘modern’ – others will
not. Ask questions to see what people have realised – and help them to take
advantage of the information that surrounds them.
3: Do not assume knowledge – and explain terminology…
4: Be attuned to your audience, be flexible in your
approaches – suit your methods to your people.
Olga
Hubard’s final words:
Dialogue with artworks operate on many levels: between
viewer and work; between different viewers; and that which is covered in her
paper – the:
‘back-and-forth
that can exist between meanings that are individual, and meanings that are
embedded in larger socio-cultural traditions. By allowing these meanings to
inform and enrich each other, teachers can help students build deeper and more
significant relationships with art.’ (Hubard (2007; 22)
‘Productive
Information: Contextual Knowledge in Art Museum Education in Art Education, 2007, 60(4), pgs. 17-23.
Cited
references:
Eco, U.
(1989). The
open work (A. Cancogni, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gadamer,
H. G. (2000). Truth and
method. New York:
Continuum.
