Friday 28 December 2012

Through the brightness





This image was developed from a simple photograph of an area of the pavement:




I felt that the composition of the initial image clearly suggested a simple landscape. Here are some images of the development of the piece:
















I liked the hazy feel of gazing into the bright sunlight that was created but I wanted to add a focal point. Thus I merged the image with another to create the final piece:




Dove





This image started out life as a photograph of a painting of folds in a silk dress. Although not a 'landscape' photo as most of my previous work, Iliked the smoothness of the tonal gradations and the way in which the fabric seemed to flow and wanted to develop it further:




As I worked on the photo, the dove began to appear very clearly and suddenly as I cropped and rotated the image. I let this idea of the dove lead what I was doing:






















Saturday 15 December 2012

Flower





I created this flower painting from this simple photograph:




I liked the contrast between the man-made, regular shapes of the fence and the organic shapes of the leaves and I wanted to reflect this in the finished piece. I explored and developed the piece as follows:


























I then used a range of digital painting tools to blend and smudge the image in order to create a sense of contrast similar to that of the original image:




Saturday 8 December 2012

Sunset





I really liked the composition of this photograph taken outside of my house. I also liked the strong contrast between the smooth, man made grey of the pipe with the curving, organic, reds of the creeping plant:



I focused on the area of the pipe and leaves as ii thought this contrast was the most striking part of the image. Iexplored and developed it in a number of ways until it developed into a sunset image:

























Tuesday 4 December 2012

Barcelona Seminars: Task 4


QUESTION: Given the huge pressure schools are under to produce ‘exam results’ how can schools at the same time encourage and develop a culture of creativity and risk taking?

To a large extent the constraints of producing exam results in secondary school does stunt the growth of true creativity in the secondary classroom. However, in the current economic climate of the western world, it is vital that this changes and that creativity does become more prominent as Hulme et al, 2011, explain: “Interest in creativity in education has been renewed through the association of creative capacity with economic growth. Creativity is re-conceptualised as an ‘employability’ attribute” (p. 439).

Although the development of CfE is serving to move creativity “from the periphery to occupy a more central position within policies informing public education” (Hulme et al, 2011, p. 445) there are still many barriers. If a genuine culture of creativity and risk taking is to be fostered, changes will need to take place at both an individual and governmental level: “Changes in practice will be dependent on (1) the capacity and will of the profession to ‘unlearn’ established practices and habitual responses and (2) the capacity of the system to adopt a stronger learner orientation over a performance orientation” (Hulme et al, 2011, p. 445).

At a grassroots level teachers can encourage creativity and risk taking through a change in their everyday methodologies and attitudes. For example, in terms of assessment, a greater focus on formative assessment with “the belief that dispositions to learning are not fixed but can be altered with appropriate feedback from skilled teachers” (Hulme et al, 2011, p. 443) can be very significant in the development of all aspects of learning, including creativity. Using a constant process formative review and evaluation of work as a guide for it’s direction rather than a pre-set end product allows the work to be open ended and thus more creative. It is a process of “continual correction, in response to an ongoing perceptual monitoring of the unfolding task” (Ingold, 2011, p. 217).

A shift in many teacher’s attitudes would also help to foster creativity and risk taking. On a larger scale, teachers must take courage and embrace the flexibility and lack of prescription offered by CfE rather than demand increased levels of exemplification: “The pressure from sections of the profession for centrally provided exemplification may yet produce the re-establishment of new targets for authorised versions of creativity” (Hulme et al, 2011 p. 445). 

On a more individual level, within each classroom, the teacher must move away from a didactic, authoritarian view of themselves and adopt much more of an equal stance as co-learners with pupils. Friere, 2006, summarises this shift: ‘Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with student-teachers. The teacher is no longer merely the one who teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn teach while also being taught. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (p. 80). Thus creativity is fostered as ”the students - no longer docile listeners - are now critical co-investigators with the teacher” (Friere, 2006, p. 81). 

Within an arts context, a simple example of this would be to have both teacher and pupils producing their own artwork concurrently in the classroom / studio setting. This is very much part of the underpinning principles of Room 13 (Gibb, 2012) and KOS (Artwork Scotland, 2012) and it’s benefits are summed up as follows: “Each Room 13 studio facilitates the work of young artists alongside a professional adult artist in residence, providing an exchange of ideas, skills and experience across the ages. The result is an ongoing collaboration between adults and young people and a thriving culture of philosophical enquiry driven by a motivation to think and to learn” (Gibb, 2012, p. 237).

References
Artwork Scotland, 2012. Tim Rollins and KOS http://artworksscotland.wordpress.com/media-films-and-interviews/
Friere, P., 2006. Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary edition). New York: Continuum.
Gibb, C., 2012. Room 13: The Movement and International Network. In IJADE 31.3
Hulme, M., Menter. I. and Conroy, J., 2011. Creativity in Scottish School Curriculum and Pedagogy. In Sefton-Green, J. et al (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Creative Creativity Learning. London: Routledge. Ch 44.
Ingold, T., 2011. The Textuality of Making. In: T. Ingold Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge. Ch 17.

Tree

This painting was created from a photo that was taken looking up to a blue sky through tree branches. It is called 'The Eye of the Storm' due to the suggestion of a bird perched in tree branches in the centre of the circular shape:




This was the original photo:




Here are some images of the development stages of the work:
















I became 'stuck' with the work after this image. I was unsure of the direction to take. I left it for a few days and suddenly had an idea that was sparked by another project I was working on. I immediately applied the technique and the work took off in an entirely different direction as shown in the images below:













This process of image creation is the way in which I am most comfortable working. I feel that it is very much in keeping with Ingold's idea of wayfaring - I set out with no end result in mind, rather I let the image lead and develop in an ongoing journey during which a new image begins to emerge. Rather than what Ingold (2008) describes as the joining up of previously decided techniques and ideas which results in there being "nowhere further for the line to go" (p. 74), working in this way leaves a very open ended result which can always be developed and taken further. This 'possibility' is one of the things I find most exciting about creating artwork for the MEd course.


Ingold, T., 2008. Up, Across and Along. In: Lines, A Brief History, London: Routledge. Ch 3.

Monday 3 December 2012

Room 13 and KOS


Both Room 13 and Tim Rollins & KOS are ‘out of school’ projects; are we therefore to assume that it is virtually impossible to embed these kinds of art practices within the ‘normal’ school curriculum? What would need to change in order to ‘permit’ such practices in our schools and how might we bring about this change? If you do not currently have a professional context upon which to draw on , please then draw on the ‘personal’.

In answer to what would need to be changed in order to ‘permit’ practices like Room 13 and KOS in our schools today, it is first necessary to establish and outline the fundamental principles that embody the philosophies behind these projects.

A key principle of both Room 13 and KOS is that they operate on a studio basis. Users “arrive because they choose, to work in the ways they choose, on their own projects, by themselves or with friends, at their own pace […] Instead of external pressure, the mobilisation of intrinsic desire” (Yarker, 2008, p. 368). The immediate result of this is an increased sense of ownership of work. It allows “the provision of freedom [and results in] the tenacity that freedom invites. (Yarker, 2008, p. 368). Room 13 and KOS offer creative spaces for the asking and answering of questions (Gibb, 2012, p. 243) and the exploration of possibilities: “Come into the workshop with the view that the plan and programme is subject to change […] You don't know what's going to happen next. That what keeps you going” (Artwork Scotland, 2012).

Participants in both projects are viewed as artists and co-creators in their own right who work with the adults in the studio setting. Knowledge is built up through a learning journey rather than ‘transmitted’ to pupils through adults acting as the gatekeepers of knowledge. The projects “testify, against the general stance of the mainstream, that the process of learning is not teacher-dependent, nor understood adequately when likened to meeting a quota or climbing a ladder. Less predictable in its course and motion, learning is a continuous innate power quickened by the felt and anticipated needs of the individual, by interest, opportunity, surroundings” (Yarker, 2008, p. 371).

The themes of work undertaken in the projects are pupil led and generative rather than imposed by an outside curriculum or agenda. The artwork “encapsulates an expression of [an individual’s] own experiences, curiosities and worldview” (Gibb, 2012, p. 240) and thus is immediately individual and personal, engendering a strong sense of ownership. Kinchloe (2008) explains the generative theme as one which is “taken from students’ knowledge of their own lived experiences that is compelling and controversial enough to elicit their excitement and commitment [and that arises] at the point where the personal lives of students intersect with the larger society and the globalised world” (p42). The neccessity of generative subjects is further emphasised by Rollins where he states that “You have to start where people are at.  - graffiti, sad, abject subjects, etc. [but] the work is always evolving, continuous. Always changing. It's an evolution house” (Artwork Scotland, 2012). 

A further underlying principle of these projects is the reality of the context and audience base for the work produced: “In Room 13, a work of art is made with the real possibility of it being exhibited” (Gibb, 2012, p. 240). This is also highlighted as a major factor in the KOS project through the creation of the Group Material Gallery and through the current worldwide gallery exhibitions that were documented in the interview video.

Thus, on reflection of the underpinning principles outlined above, there are a number of aspects of current school-based education practice that would need to change in order to ‘permit’ practices like Room 13 and KOS in our schools today.
Firstly there would need to be more flexibility in terms of space and time to enable learning to be more continuous rather than broken up into specified subject blocks of time and knowledge. However, this is very difficult to put into practice in large, busy secondary schools due to tight timetabling constraints and pressure on resources. Yarker, 2008, concludes that “as well as space Room 13 also offers time, and in a manner almost impossible to replicate now in the mainstream” (p. 369). There would need to be an increase in resources and a fundamental shift in the purposes of school education to enable this.
A further change would be in the role of the teacher. Rather than being seen as the authoritative adult who is transmitting knowledge to pupils, staff would have to develop the confidence and security to enter into a much more equal status as co-learners with pupils, where learning is much less prescriptive: “‘What have I got to make it out of?’ he inquires. That he won’t be told, that he must decide for himself, is the first and fundamental lesson Room 13 teaches.”  (Yarker, 2008, p. 372). This will require time and a significant shift  in the mindset of many teachers. We are aiming for “uncertainty then, but not the uncertainty that saps resolve or petrifies intent.” (Yarker, 2008, p. 374).
Finally, there must come a change in the methods of evaluation and assessment that reward pupil learning in order to not only ‘permit’ but also validate practices like those embodied in Room 13 and KOS. Currently, although CfE is advocating and requiring a more pupil-led, exploratory, cross-curricular approach, the assessment methods still in place do not support this. This results in teachers being caught between between “the double edged sword of innovation and evaluation” (Hulme et al, 2011, pp. 444 - 445) where “accountability practices hinder innovation” (Priestly and Minty, 2012, p. 9). Although the introduction of CfE in Scottish Education is beginning to change this in principle, current policy still “loses sight of the pupil as ready and willing to learn, well-practised already in self-directed learning, and replaces faith in the pupil with faith in the application of approved pedagogical routines” (Yarker, 2008, p. 369). There needs to be a further shift in the practicalities of assessment before approaches like those of Room 13 and KOS can be established. 

References

Artwork Scotland (2012) Tim Rollins and KOS http://artworksscotland.wordpress.com/media-films-and-interviews/

Gibb, C. (2012) Room 13: The Movement and International Network. In IJADE 31.3

Hulme, M., Menter. I. and Conroy, J (2011) Creativity in Scottish School Curriculum and Pedagogy. In Sefton-Green, J. et al (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Creative Creativity Learning. London: Routledge. Ch 44.

Kincheloe, J. 2008. Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. New York: Springer Science and Business media B.V. 

Priestley, M and Minty, S (2012) Developing Curriculum for Excellence. Summary of findings from research undertaken in a Scottish local authority. Sterling: University Of Sterling.

Yarker, P., 2008. Lifting the Lid and Mucking about with Minds: the example and challenge of Room 13. Forum, 50 (3), [online] Available at: < http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=forum&vol=50&issue=3&year=2008&article=15_Yarker_FORUM_50_3_web > [Accessed 25th March 2012].

Sunday 2 December 2012

Barcelona Seminars - Task 2 (in relation to my own VAP)


How might the ideas explored in this seminar [please draw on your reading of Tim Ingold] be useful to you in your own professional teaching and learning environment?

In relation to my own artistic practice I aim to let artwork become an exploration that evolves without knowing the end result, generating new materials in “an endless process of transformation” (Ingold, 2011, p. 213). Ingold (2011) further describes this process as “not so much imposing form on matter as bringing together diverse materials and combining or redirecting their flow in the anticipation of what might emerge” (p. 213). In the creation of my own artwork the ‘matter’ is of a digital nature, the ‘diverse materials’ are the digital tools I have access to and the ‘flow’ is the way in which I use these tools to manipulate and develop the image. 

I begin with a simple stimulus image and then begin to explore it using a wide range of digital tools. I have no particular agenda when doing this except to explore and see what emerges from the image. Usually the image begins to transform and suggests something new to me. I then take this idea and begin to actively develop the image in this way. I stop when I feel happy with the end result but that is not to say that I will not return to the image to develop it further at a later point. 

This methodology is quite different to that which I had practised before, where I usually had a clear end result in mind, and I have found it a very liberating experience. It has engaged me at a new level in that the process “calls for continual correction, in response to an ongoing perceptual monitoring of the unfolding task” (Ingold, 2011, p. 217) and I feel much more actively involved in the creative process.


References
  1. Ingold, T., 2011. The Textuality of Making. In: T. Ingold Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge. Ch 17.


Bibliography
  1. Ingold, T. (2008) Up, Across and Along. In: Lines, A Brief History, London: Routledge. Ch 3.
  2. Ingold, T., 2011. Drawing Together: Doing, Observing, Describing. In: T. Ingold Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge. Ch 18.

Barcelona Seminars - Task 2


How might the ideas explored in this seminar [please draw on your reading of Tim Ingold] be useful to you in your own professional teaching and learning environment? 

The contrast between what Ingold describes as a “wayfaring” modality of travel, that of a line that goes along or out for a walk, and a “transport” modality of travel, that of a line that goes across or connects up a series of separate points (Ingold, 2008, p. 75), has a number of points of relevance for my own professional practice as a teacher and an artist.

The ‘drift’ as explored in the seminar can be defined as a wayfaring research methodology. When this approach is applied to teaching the result is an open, exploratory learning experience where “the value of not always knowing ‘the outcome’ has found favour” (McAuliffe, 2013, p.5) and is highly regarded. This is very different to much of the ingrained educational practice today which is based on a transport methodology that results in the removal of individual agency. This is largely due to external assessment and evaluative constraints that have caused a tendency to “read creativity ‘backwards’, starting from an outcome in the form of a novel object and tracing it, through a sequence of antecedent conditions, to an unprecedented idea in the mind of an agent. (Ingold, 2011, p. 215). This can be very detrimental to the learning process as “to determine the final outcome is often to cut short an individual’s learning journey” (McAuliffe, 2013, p. 5). This type of practice results in a finite, complete construction from which “there is nowhere further for the line to go” (Ingold, 2008, p. 74) rather than a practice that is improvisory and open to possibilities, that results in “an endless process of transformation” (Ingold, 2011, p. 213)

This value of the latter type of teaching practice is emphasised by Greene’s ideas of transformation and incompleteness where she states that “The thing that keeps you going is incompleteness even though you yearn for the absolute answer. To think in terms of incompleteness and include this in our pedagogy is to open the door to possibility.” (Teacher College, Columbia University, 2008).

This type of wayfaring practice is what I aim to foster in the individual pupils that I work with. I have found that this is much more possible with pupils in the early years of secondary and, where embraced, is motivating, engaging and energising, giving pupils a deep sense of ownership of their work. However, in the senior years, there are many difficulties with developing a wayfaring approach. This is specifically due to the conflict of interests there appears to be between what Hulme et al (2011) describe as “the double edged sword of innovation and evaluation” (pp. 444 - 445) where “accountability practices hinder innovation” (Priestly and Minty, 2012, p. 9). Although the advent of CfE is beginning to change this in principle, there needs to be a further shift in the practicalities of accountability before a wayfaring approach can be established.


References

Hulme, M., Menter. I. and Conroy, J (2011) Creativity in Scottish School Curriculum and Pedagogy. In Sefton-Green, J. et al (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Creative Creativity Learning. London: Routledge. Ch 44.

Ingold, T. (2008) Up, Across and Along. In: Lines, A Brief History, London: Routledge. Ch 3.

Ingold, T., 2011. The Textuality of Making. In: T. Ingold Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge. Ch 17.

McAuliffe, D. (2013) Mapping and Forecasting the Change Agenda in Scottish Art and Design Education. In Bryce, T. et al [Editors] Scottish Education [Fourth Edition], Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Priestley, M and Minty, S (2012) Developing Curriculum for Excellence. Summary of findings from research undertaken in a Scottish local authority. Sterling: University Of Sterling.

Teacher College, Columbia University, 2008. Maxine Greene: Towards Pedagogy of Thought & Imagination [educational lecture] 3rd November 2008. Available at: <http:// blackboard.uws.ac.uk> [Accessed 26th March 2011].

Bibliography

Ingold, T., 2011. Drawing Together: Doing, Observing, Describing. In: T. Ingold Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge. Ch 18.

Saturday 1 December 2012

The Scottish Context


Reflecting critically on the prior reading for this seminar and drawing, if you wish, on other readings too, how does the Scottish situation outlined in both papers relate to your own experiences of ‘schooling’. These experiences should be as recent as possible and draw on professional reflection. If you do not currently have a professional context, please then draw on the ‘personal’. 

As a secondary teacher in a Scottish school, the current situation in Scottish Education outlined in the readings is very relevant to my own current practice as well as to the school in which I work as a whole.

Priestly and Minty (2012) reported that “implementation was more developed in primary schools, where it is easier to meet with colleagues and work collaboratively than in secondary schools” (p. 2). However, I am fortunate to be placed in a straight through, P1 - S6 establishment with only 120 pupils. There are both pros and cons to this situation such as the flexibility and autonomy of a single person department weighed against the isolation and lack of colleagues within your own subject area. In terms of CfE the huge advantage of this has been that we, as a staff, have been able to do what Priestly and Minty (2012) describe above. There have been many opportunities to meet and discuss, and these discussions have often resulted in collaborative, interactive projects across the stages, subjects and departments. These projects have been very successful in “giving pupils greater levels of autonomy in their learning [and] in engaging them and providing relevance to their learning” (Priestly and Minty 2012, p. 2). Also, in terms of staff development, there was a great deal of knowledge and skills shared between colleagues as well as, for individual staff,  “pleasure gained from being able to teach outside of their subject” (Priestly and Minty 2012, p. 3).

However, in the senior years we have found it increasingly difficult to implement the true philosophy of CfE due to the conflict of interests there appears to be between what Hulme et al (2011) describe as “the double edged sword of innovation and evaluation” (pp. 444 - 445) where “accountability practices hinder innovation” (Priestly and Minty, 2012, p. 9).

In line with the values underpinning CfE, McAufliffe, 2013, states that “no longer can school art be just about the privileging of observational drawing over free expressive modes - a practice that served well in the training of engineers and craftsmen for Scotland’s flourishing industries of the past. An art education today needs to equip young people to meet the challenges of the 21st century education and be inquiry-led” (p. 4). Through CfE reforms there are signs that “the value of not always knowing ‘the outcome’ has found favour” (McAufliffe, 2013, p. 5) and that creativity has been “re-conceptualised as an ‘employability’ attribute” (Hulme et al, 2011, p. 439). However what I in art, and my teaching colleagues in their subjects, have found in attempting to put these reforms into practice in the teaching of qualification level courses has been that though “we are empowered and we are able to develop new things and we are professional enough to do that” somebody else with a “slightly different agenda” has come along and assessed and evaluated us on an entirely different set of values (Hulme et al, 2011, p. 440). In recent visits from HMIe staff to the school we found that their focus was on testing, summative attainment levels, paperwork, written plans and policies rather than innovation, creativity and individualised, pupil led approaches to teaching and learning.

In conclusion, I feel that in my own situation as an individual teacher and a member of a forward thinking, innovative school staff, that we have the capacity and will to “‘unlearn’ established practices and habitual responses” but are hindered by the system’s lack of capacity “to adopt a stronger learner orientation over a performance orientation” (Hulme et al, 2011, p. 445).


References

  1. Hulme, M., Menter. I. and Conroy, J (2011) Creativity in Scottish School Curriculum and Pedagogy. In Sefton-Green, J. et al (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Creative Creativity Learning. London: Routledge. Ch 44.

  1. McAuliffe, D. (2013) Mapping and Forecasting the Change Agenda in Scottish Art and Design Education. In Bryce, T. et al [Editors] Scottish Education [Fourth Edition], Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

  1. Priestley, M and Minty, S (2012) Developing Curriculum for Excellence. Summary of findings from research undertaken in a Scottish local authority. Sterling: University Of Sterling.

Pavement crack





This image I have titled 'Flight' as to me it suggests a large flock of birds just taking off on mass and flying off as the dawn breaks over a remote shoreline.

The artwork was created from an original photo of a crack in the pavement that I took while out for a 'drift'. I was originally struck with the contrast in shape and colour between the leaf and the pavement as well as the contrast between the natural and the man made:




However, it was the pavement crack that I actually focussed on and transformed into something new. Here are some of the developmental and explorative work I undertook to get to the final piece: