new knowledge and new technology

New Knowledge and New Technology:restructuring fine art education

Judith Mottram and George Whale

AbstractFor more than thirty years, conventional art school wisdom has dictated that ‘learningthrough practice’ is the best way of accommodating the increasingly diversepreoccupations of art students. Of all undergraduate courses, fine art courses can be seenas the least structured, concerned mainly with providing time, studio space, and acontext for self-directed development. In focusing on the individual, the issue of exactlywhat constitutes ‘subject knowledge’ in fine art is sidestepped. With important newdevelopments in disciplines that inform visual understanding, such as perceptualpsychology, imaging science, and computing, and the gradual displacement oftraditional, craft-based studio practices by digital technologies, the limitations of self-directed learning are likely to become more evident, and the issue of subject knowledgeneeds to be addressed. Through a review of existing data relating to course curricula andgraduate employment, a common core of relevant conceptual and technical knowledgewill be identified. The authors will argue that it is possible to establish a teaching contextwhich promotes the integration of thought and practice. The challenge is to devise astructure which will enable students to understand, assimilate, and contextualize newknowledge, and to acquire the transferable skills, both intellectual and technical, whichwill enable them to adapt and thrive within a rapidly changing visual culture. It will beargued that new technologies can catalyse these changes, providing visual ‘points ofentry’ into relevant fields of contemporary knowledge, and enabling meaningfulconnections to be made between the history, theory, and practice of art.

Introduction‘Knowledge’, according to Drucker, ‘is information that changes something orsomebody – either by becoming grounds for action, or by making an individual (oran institution) capable of different and more effective action.’ (Drucker 1990,p. 242)

In any domain of practice, subject knowledge, the knowledge which enablespractitioners to act within that domain, and which is characterized by their sharedconcerns and practices, combines the three categories of knowledge identified byGöranzon (1988, pp. 16-17). These are practical knowledge, arising from personalexperience of practice; knowledge of familiarity, derived from examples of the waythat other practitioners work, or have worked; and propositional knowledge, acquiredfrom the study of facts, concepts, and theories. These categories are mutuallyinterdependent, since ‘knowledge of experience bestows viability on theoreticalknowledge...[and] theoretical knowledge is essential to provide a direction forexperience’ (Göranzon & Josefson 1988, p. 4). Whereas theoretical knowledge isgenerally explicit, much experiential knowledge is implicit.

Most practitioners in higher education would concur that the primary value of

98 JVAP 1 (2) 98–110 © Intellect Ltd 2001

education is in the acquisition of appropriate knowledge. Unless we take the viewthat any kind of activity is appropriate on a fine art degree course, that intersectionsof interest are entirely accidental, then the issue of subject, or domain, knowledgemust be addressed.

An emphasis on learning outcomes, transmission of information, and skillsacquisition is not necessarily in conflict with notions of subject knowledge. Ifsubject knowledge is manifested in the identification, transmission, and eventualassimilation of relevant bodies of information, including the development of theskills with which to generate outcomes, we have a rational basis for introducingstudents to a particular domain of cultural knowledge over a three- or four-yearperiod. However, we might reasonably pose the questions: ‘What are the existingnotions of subject knowledge within this arena, and how do they reflect traditionalnotions?‘ And, ‘To what extent does contemporary fine art degree education identifynew parameters of subject knowledge and skills?’

This paper explores these issues through a review of some existing data, andproposes that the challenges presented by digital technologies can provide a usefulmeans of clarifying the relationship between academic endeavour andcontemporary relevance.

Subject knowledge in fine artIn considering the education sector, we may ask, ‘How do statements of content, orindicators of subject knowledge, come into existence?’ We will examinecontemporary expressions of subject knowledge within the domain underconsideration, through scrutiny of a selection of descriptions of programmes ofstudy and course documents. These give explicit statements of course content,which are, generally, closely related to Course Validation documentation or the SelfAssessment Documents prepared for the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)Subject Reviews. Before that, we will look at the development of the domain throughthe sector’s internal reflections on the issue of just what topics and skills should beaddressed by the fine art curriculum.

In 1970, Stuart MacDonald published The History and Philosophy of Art Education(MacDonald 1970). His account of the implementation in the UK of the firstColdstream Report in 1960 and the subsequent assessments of the SummersonReport, give some indication of the issues concerning parity with other disciplines,student choice, and the role of ‘academic’ work within BA or equivalentprogrammes, that are still under consideration. He perceived that, ‘Art educationtoday is becoming increasingly analytical, logical and thematic’, and suggested thatthis model derived from the Bauhaus intention to ‘liberate students from second-hand traditional information, and to make them learn basic principles from directanalyses and their own direct experience with materials’. MacDonald closes hisbook with reference to the many proponents of the value of a visual education, asless ‘remote from the non-specialist breadth we require’ and as providing analternative to an ‘aesthetically-biased’ art education.

Shortly after the publication of MacDonald’s book, symposia were held at theInstitute of Contemporary Arts, London (April/May 1971), addressing two distinctproblems. These were framed by the organizer as ‘the nature and content of art anddesign courses’, and ‘the number of student places there should be and how the artcolleges should relate to the rest of the education system’. Morris Kestelman, indiscussing the aim and content of art education, stated that the contribution the art

99New Knowledge and New Technology: restructuring fine art education

schools could make was, above all, to ‘encourage audacity and exuberance ofinvention – to the utmost’ (Kestelman 1973, p. 52). He believed that in the pursuit ofthis end, ‘a student would have the opportunity to define his own identity, discoversome potential of creative energy, bring order to experience. This is surelyeducation’. As a member of the Fine Art Panel for Dip. A.D. (Diploma in Art andDesign) awards from its inception, his position would have been influential both inthe validation of courses and in the conferment of awards. In ‘Articidal Tendencies’,MacDonald quoted an art lecturer as follows:

Generally speaking, however, he [the student] is left to work out his own

salvation.... There are also those tutors, particularly common in the field of

painting, who believe, as an article of faith, that students cannot and should not

be taught; instead, they should be left to feel their way and organize their own

experience.

MacDonald 1973, p. 89

MacDonald went on to explore the thoroughly contradictory views on art educationheld at the time, as expressed by many of the symposium papers, and also evidentin the 1970 Coldstream Report. At some distance from the privileging of self-determinism, ‘Between Structure and Content and Beyond’ (Gray 1973, p. 114)suggested that ‘some attempt ought to be made here by the artists to learn theconcept languages of all the disciplines which might impinge centrally upon theirown fundamental activity. It just won’t do to go on repeating this word “creativity”.’His exploration of the intentions of art education noted that culture should notmake the ‘cardinal error in assuming that the predictive symbolisations of scienceare more important simply because they produce faster or more efficient changesthan the types of symbolic language games that we call art.’ The scope of hisargument provides a reasonably coherent forerunner to the concept of ‘consilience’,which we return to later in this paper.

In the years following the above discussions, Dip. A.D. courses developed intothe CNAA (Council for National Academic Awards) BA (Hons.) programmes thatwere the forerunners of today’s degrees. The CNAA was disbanded with theincorporation of the former polytechnics into the university system. Formal, nation-wide structures for consideration of curriculum, or subject knowledge were replacedby individual university quality-control mechanisms.

This context frames the series of conferences organized by Wimbledon Schoolof Art at the Tate Gallery, London, in the 1990s. Again we see evidence ofcontradiction, with extensive debate about the supposed incommensurability of fineart practice with articulation of the priorities of the discipline. When consideringartists as teachers, the lack of address to this theme of the first conference wasexplained by Colin Painter, as ‘so obvious that it did not need to be articulated...artists know best about the skills and knowledges associated with being artists’(Painter 1994, p. 14). The second conference in the series focused upon judgementsof value in art. The acceptance of fine art as a site where ‘little could be assumed tohave the authority of certainty’ was seen to lead to a complex situation whenengaging with the individual aspirations of students. Echoing to some extentKestelman’s emphasis on audacity, Painter stated that perhaps ‘the doubt is thediscipline’.

The opportunity provided by the Benchmarking Project led by the QAA could

100 Judith Mottram and George Whale

provide a context in which the sector looks again at the issue of subject knowledge.However, the 1998 GLAD (Group for Learning in Art & Design) and NAFAE(National Association for Fine Art Education) Conference on Benchmarkingsuggested that there is still little consensus. In a workshop session looking at thecommon ground shared by all fine art degree programmes, the notion that all ourstudents were involved in making objects was not agreed. It was suggested that‘risk-taking’ was the one approach shared by all students enrolled upon suchprogrammes – not a consensus on knowledge then, but a majority agreement atthat stage of the debate upon one aspect of strategy.

Further draft benchmarking statements are now available but, by and large,academics within the sector have not yet become actively involved in thebenchmarking debate. The subject associations have been involved in nominationsfor panel members for the Benchmarking Project but, within institutions, there waslittle evidence in Autumn 2000 that the issue of subject knowledge had yet beenaddressed in relation to this project.

The ‘domain map’The published statements of course content do provide evidence of some attemptto ‘map’ the domain. The lack of agreement on what constitutes subject knowledge,or whether it can be identified, is reflected in these descriptions of course content.Presented under headings such as ‘the fundamental theoretical, historical andcreative issues’, or ‘a basic set of skills for making and understanding painting,printmaking, drawing, sculpture and art history’ (Ruskin 2000); they suggest a greatdegree of openness and flexibility. But they are the nearest we come to easilyavailable ‘domain maps’ in undergraduate fine art education.

Experience within the sector suggests that domain maps would appear to evolveby a process of continual modification. Projects which have produced successfulresults in the past are lengthened or shortened to fit a new structure, and activitiesthat ‘traditionally’ happened at a certain point during the academic timetable arepost-justified within module specifications. The remodelling of existing courses intonew organizational frameworks, such as modularization, may entail no more than arepackaging of existing material. Staff changes bring different specialisms, interestsand competencies to bear on curriculum content, and programmes develop andaccommodate new projects in response to student interest. Whilst institutionalprocedures for course review generally call for programme, departmental, andfaculty scrutiny, the extent to which the process includes reconsideration offundamental issues of subject knowledge is variable. Moreover, increasingspecialization and the emphasis on research practice leaves less opportunity forconsideration of wider pedagogic issues. Arthur Hughes characterized thesecondary art curriculum as ‘an arbitrary set of practices passed down over theyears and absorbed into the canon of the subject’ (Hughes 1998, p. 45). Whilst goodpractice is evident, it is vital that continued reflection within the sector ensures thatthe way in which the issue of subject knowledge is resolved for degree-level artcourses relies on a more reasoned approach.

The presentation and development of maps of subject knowledge occurs largelyin the first year of undergraduate study, with subsequent years devoted to thepursuit of more focused enquiry and practice, within a student-determined area ofstudy. The creative concerns of the individual artist-student are accommodated by aprimarily tutorial-led programme, with the intention of exposing the student to


pertinent knowledge to enable the development and contextualization of creativework. This model of knowledge acquisition in fine art education has been called‘learning though practice’.

The ‘fundamental theoretical, historical and creative issues’ identified in courseliterature of two first-year programmes (Appendix) do appear to establish a basis forself-determined activities, and indicate some degree of consensus on coursecontent, but it is questionable whether they clearly articulate the parameters of thedomain. However upon scrutiny of the more detailed but not widely availableinformation provided to students through course handbooks, different modelsemerge. Whilst of necessity articulating course content through relatively generalstatements, the inclusion of reference material and recommended reading givessome courses clearly articulated ‘markers’. The density of explicit information withinsuch documents tends to drop off in relation to modules at later stages of a course,with statements indicating that reference material will vary according to theparticular concerns of the individual student. At issue is the determination of themap according to the direction of the studio work of the individual.

The value of any good map is that it enables its bearer to see the relationshipsbetween places, to plan different routes between them as need arises, and to ‘roamthroughout a circumscribed region knowing that there is something there to find...’(Boden 1990, p. 47). As a student progresses through a programme, the map maywell become more ill-defined, sketchy, or outdated, with the result that importantdestinations may remain unvisited, interesting routes unexplored. Chancediscussions, tutorials with visiting lecturers, or broader technological or culturalchange, can all expose the need for revisions of the map.

It could be argued that existing domain maps within contemporary fine arteducation suffer from lack of clarity, or omission, as a result of three factors. Firstly,that novel creation ‘makes it logically impossible to ensure any set of definingproperties’ (Weitz 1970, quoted in Hughes 1998). Secondly, that reworkings ofexisting methods of curriculum structuring cannot cope with the volume ofinformation available and relevant today. Thirdly, that the privileging of student self-determination – the perception of the student as already an artist – obviates theimposition of cultural ‘strictures’. But there is a perception that many students areleft to find their own way through uncertain course terrain towards even moreuncertain careers.

Following a brief survey of what is known of the destinations of fine artgraduates, we will examine some of the most important of the uncharted regions ofa possible domain map. We will show how their inclusion in the map might lend agreater coherence to subject knowledge in fine art, ensuring that areas of newknowledge – valuable both in creative practice and prospective employment –become accessible, and remind us of the intimate interconnections betweencontemporary and historical knowledge, both scientific and artistic.

Graduate destinationsThe concentration of the HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) on studentdestinations six months after graduation does not generate useful data whenconsidering UK art and design students. The Destinations & Reflections study(Harvey & Blackwell 1999, p. 1) attempted to provide a basis for ‘exploring some ofthe prevailing myths about art and design education’. Through the involvement of


nearly 2000 graduates, the report concluded that students from this sector are wellplaced to enter the graduate employment market through their possession of a

core set of interactive skills – communication, teamwork and interpersonal

skills – alongside personal skills, attitudes and abilities including intellect,

willingness to learn, ability to find things out, flexibility and adaptability as well

as self-skills such as self-motivation, self-assurance and self-promotion.

Those within the sector may be discomfited that subject knowledge does not figureon this list, particularly as the report established that the proportion of graduateswho move away from art and design altogether is low, at twenty per cent. The reportargues that those working outside art and design are often doing so to get a foot inthe labour market and to support themselves while doing commissioned orfreelance work, developing a portfolio, or doing voluntary work designed to helpthem improve their contacts, gain experience or improve their job prospects.

While the respondents for the study were seen to demonstrate that they had theattributes sought by employers, it was noted that ‘often, students were left todevelop these for themselves with little or no help or guidance from within theirprogramme of study’. This lack of explicit address to skills development was alsonoted by the Metier Report Working Out (Collier 1999), which focused on supportmechanisms for work and freelance practice. While there is obviously a significantgap between the notion of subject knowledge and that of skill development foremployment, linking these nodes within the domain must be regarded as animportant challenge.

In terms of what fine art graduates actually do with the fruits of theirundergraduate programmes, the picture is still unclear, as the data for the tworeports mentioned address all art and design graduates. From the Destinations andReflections study, we do learn that fine art graduates are no more likely to have beenunemployed than design graduates, although they do tend to work part-time ratherthan full-time, and have the highest take-up of further study. Education, design, andpublishing are noted as the major employment sectors for all art and designgraduates, with a ‘clear migration away from non-art-and-design sectors’ asgraduates begin to establish their careers. The small respondent sample for theMetier report does not allow for, nor intend, any specific inferences to be madeabout the nature of fine art or design graduate employment.

New knowledgeColin Painter’s assertion, quoted earlier, that ‘artists know best about the skills andknowledges associated with being artists’ deserves to be challenged, on two counts.Firstly, growing usage of new and unfamiliar media – especially digital media –presents new technical and conceptual opportunities. That some art schools havehardly begun to exploit these opportunities is mainly attributable to the ‘failure ofeducators and practices in the arts and crafts...to keep up with the knowledgerevolution’ (Friedman 2000, pp. 15–16). Secondly, as we saw in the previous section,the patterns of employment of fine art graduates are reasonably diverse. Althoughfew art students become lifelong artists, many of them become involved in creativeprofessions, such as design and publishing, in which new technologies play anincreasingly important role, whether in terms of information management or imagecreation. Whilst there are positive spin-offs – in terms of self-confidence,


commitment and motivation – of specialist study in fine art (see Collier, 1999), it isopen to question whether Painter’s assertion continues to be valid. As Bob Reevenotes in his summary of the implications of the Working Out study, ‘NTOs, RDAs,TECs and UFI are acronyms still largely unfamiliar to academics within mainstreamHigher Education’ (Reeve 1999, p. 58–59).

New kinds of imagery made possible by science and technology are having aprofound impact upon our culture, changing our perception of the world and ofourselves. At one end of the scale, ‘The evolution of the solar system over billions ofyears can be reduced to a sequence of images that can be replayed in seconds’(Holtzman 1994, p. 197). At the other end, devices such as the scanning tunnellingmicroscope are being used to produce pictures of individual atoms. These andother developments have not only transformed the methods available for makingart but, inevitably, will also affect the way many artists think about the making of art.

Unfortunately, the adoption of new imaging technologies within art schoolsoften occurs at a superficial level. With little understanding of underlying principles,processes and structures, and forced to apprehend them in terms of familiarparadigms, students may struggle to contextualize them, to realize a fraction oftheir potential, or to follow implicit connections to important strands ofcontemporary knowledge. We now have a population of many thousands ofstudents in art schools who regularly use computers to make or manipulate images,but for many of whom the computer is effectively a magic ‘black box’. Yet computersdo have the potential to contribute to the knowledge content of courses, as studentsare exposed to complex ideas embedded in software, as well as to the streams ofinformation available online.

So, in considering the omissions from the maps of subject knowledge examinedearlier, it would be expedient to begin by looking at some of the areas of visualknowledge arising from computing which might further contextualize existingknowledge. (For a discussion of artistic applications of computers, see Holtzman1994 and Mitchell 1994.)

Algorithms, or stepwise procedures, are the basis of computational processingof all kinds. Applied to the making of art, they can be used not simply as generativesystems – Harold Cohen and Roman Verostko, for example, have succeeded inembedding certain of their own creative processes in computational procedures.

Fractal geometry, originated by Benoit Mandelbrot, is concerned with structurespossessing properties of self-similarity at different scales, and provides elegant andconcise representations of complex natural structures such as coastlines,mountains, and plant forms. (The study of fractal geometry only became feasiblewith the advent of computers.) An awareness of these visual representations isreferenced in the work of several ‘process’ painters attempting to reconcile the post-modern with ‘post-painterly abstraction’.

Image database technologies facilitate the organization of large collections ofvisual images, indexed by content, appearance, or associated verbal descriptors.They suggest new ways in which artists might organize, store, and access ‘visualexperience’, for example through the use of ‘semantic nets’, wherein visual conceptsmight be meaningfully interlinked in ways analogous to the associative organizationof information in human memory. There are parallels to be explored with the classesof objects within iconographic lexicons, symbolic form and modernist formalism.

Non-photorealistic rendering (NPR) comprises a range of techniques forrendering imagery in ‘artistic’ ways. The potential of NPR to enhance our


understanding of the surface characteristics of paintings, prints and drawings, ofautographic mark-making ‘vocabularies’, or systems of visual notation has, as yet,hardly been explored.

Particle systems model spatial interactions between large numbers of tinyparticles whose respective attributes, including colour and velocity, enable therendering of amorphous phenomena such as water, fire, mist, spray, and clouds.Particle systems have been extensively employed in the creation of special effects inmotion pictures, but within the context of art education could be seen to havepotential for increasing understanding of the observed and a contextualization ofthe ‘poetics of space’.

Robotic vision technology enables machines to identify spatial structures withinimages and to recognize objects in the world, including human forms and faces.Some of the computational processes employed are analogous to stages of humanvisual perception, linking this technology to contemporary research in perceptualpsychology.

Shape grammars, visual implementations of Noam Chomsky’s ‘generativegrammars’, facilitate formal description of spatial relationships. They have beenused in architectural and product design, and could become important tools for theanalysis of painting ‘styles’, the investigation of the relationships between the ‘deepstructures’ and ‘surface structures’ of images, and the creation of new ‘languages ofform’ in two and three dimensions.

Virtual reality (VR) takes the experiencing of imagery beyond passiveobservation of plane surfaces, towards interactive engagement with ‘immersive’virtual spaces. Artists are just beginning to exploit these developments, notablyChar Davies (creator of Osmose), and those working with LoughboroughUniversity’s Gallery of the Future. Nodal connections from this point, particularly inconjunction with shape grammars, could effectively be made to various aspects ofcontemporary cultural theory.

Volumetric modelling, by which three-dimensional images are reconstructedfrom PET (positron emission tomography), or CAT (computed axial tomography)scans. In its ability to depict the internal structures and processes of the living body,volumetric modelling suggests ways in which the study of anatomy, once a centralcomponent of fine art teaching, might be contemporized.

Taken individually, each of these areas is ripe for creative exploitation, but theirassociations with other fields of knowledge are of particular interest in the presentcontext, suggesting knowledge maps, or networks, in which each piece ofknowledge, or node, connects to others by a number of different kinds of link –artistic and scientific, contemporary and historical. A means by which relevant newknowledge might be integrated with old, where interconnections denote meaningfulpaths between different areas of knowledge, where the choice of starting point isless important than the routes leading from it.

Consider, for example, the topic of three-dimensional modelling and rendering,which might be represented on our map, somewhere between VR, architecturaldrawing, and painterly realism. Most renderings of ‘virtual’ scenes involve theconversion of a 3D geometric model into a 2D image by means of perspectiveprojection, and the colouration of surfaces according to the laws of physical optics.As a way of representing the physical world, the monocular perspective view can betraced back to Brunelleschi in the Renaissance, and has since been embodied in arange of optical devices, from the camera obscura, first described in the sixteenth


century, to the photographic camera, invented in the nineteenth. Rawson, amongothers, has identified a number of artists who almost certainly used ‘peephole’machines of one kind or another in their work: ‘Holbein the Younger heads a listwhich includes Canaletto, Bellotto, and even Constable’ (Rawson 1969, p. 217).

Alternative methods of projection, including orthographic, axonometric, andoblique, some of which predate classical Western perspective (but are still employedin various kinds of technical drawing) are relatively easy to implementcomputationally, as are the different ways of depicting solids – for example in termsof lines, surface facets (a method favoured by Uccello, among others), aggregationsof Platonic solids or regular volumetric elements. And the physical realization ofvirtual models is made possible by solid object manufacturing technologies (e.g.stereolithography), which means that 3D modelling is likely to become increasinglyimportant in the context of sculpture.

Even from this brief account it is clear that 3D modelling, far from being anisolated, scientific phenomenon divorced from artistic practice, is enmeshed in thehistory of ideas and technologies which have played a key role in the development ofart. As well as being a powerful creative tool in its own right, computationalmodelling facilitates comparison of the various systems of representation used bydifferent artists in different cultures. It offers a practical means whereby lighting,surface texture, shading, viewpoint, and other components of representationalimages might be isolated, analysed, and experimented with. At the same time, itlinks to contemporary knowledge in perception, visualization, and manufacturing.

Notions of the essential interconnectedness of knowledge, for which Edward O.Wilson (1998) has coined the term ‘consilience’, are in keeping with the changingstatus and multiple roles of imagery in the digital age:

It [digital imaging] electronically accelerates the mechanisms of the visual

record, enables the weaving of complex networks of interconnection between

images to establish multiple and perhaps incommensurable layers of meaning,

allows heterarchical association and access patterns to develop, and transforms

the museum without walls into the even less spatialized virtual museum.

Mitchell 1994, p. 85

Any fundamental reappraisal of what might constitute ‘core’ subject knowledge infine art can proceed from the uncontentious premise that fine art is still primarilyconcerned with the visual, and that key areas of contemporary visual knowledgeshould be located at, or near, the centre of the domain map. In positioning thesewithin a broader context of relevant contemporary and historical knowledge, andmaking the connecting pathways explicit, the map, instead of constraining students’options, facilitates development in different directions but crucially the theoreticaland practical knowledge they acquire is always contextualized.

ConclusionThe existence of a ‘traditional’ conception of subject knowledge within fine art hasbeen uncertain since the 1960s. We have seen that degree level programmes doaddress some notion of core subject knowledge, at least in the early stages of study,and it is evident that graduates are in possession of a range of transferable skillsand competencies. But the advent of new imaging technology gives us anopportunity to reassess the boundaries of subject knowledge. Csikszentmihalyi


asserts that the possession of thorough knowledge of a domain has been shown tobe a vital component of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1996, p. 90), and, if ourambition is to educate artists (‘creatives’ by default), the challenge of providing amap of the domain is ours.

That the current emphasis upon exploration within a self-determinedprogramme of study generates successful outcomes is not in dispute, but studentscould be being deprived of the opportunity to achieve a sufficiently thoroughknowledge of the boundaries of the domain, impacting ultimately on their potentialfor increased creativity. For those graduates who move into other professions, morethorough domain knowledge would also be advantageous.

The proliferation of visual and textual information available via the Internet hascontributed to the volume of information that might be accessible to students fornegotiating their own domain maps, but there is awareness of the distracting effectof irrelevant links, unstructured, ill-considered content, and the poor quality ofmuch ‘educational’ material. ‘Subject Gateways’ are not effective for this task, andthe student, unless in possession of an extremely well-developed critical facility, willbe overwhelmed with unstructured data. The academic guidance of the tutor hasbeen cited as an enabling factor for self-directed studio development. However, theincreasing focus upon the outcomes of ‘research’ activity brings us back,particularly in respect of those academics educated since the 1970s, to thepossibility of restraints on the breadth of knowledge imposed by the system underscrutiny. It could be perceived that the QAA Benchmarking Project will make a clearcontribution to the determination of subject knowledge for undergraduateeducation, but it remains to be seen whether the level of detail will provide aneffective operational tool. But there is the potential of available electronic systemsto present ‘subject knowledge’ within a full domain map via the Internet – asignificant opportunity to explore the potential for curriculum development andinnovations in teaching and learning.

The introduction of the domain map as a tool to locate ‘the fundamentaltheoretical, historical and creative issues’ during the early stages of degreeprogrammes could precede more self-determined exploration of the map asstudents develop the focus of their concerns. Any such electronic implementationof a fine art domain map would need to make explicit and meaningful connectionsbetween ‘packets’ of subject knowledge, and the material itself would have to be theproduct of close collaborations between domain experts (artists, educators, gallerycurators, researchers, historians, psychologists, technologists, scientists, etc.). Theentry points might consist of links to those areas of subject knowledge consideredcentral to the particular programme of study, with the choice of first-level linksreflecting the particular emphases of the course. And any domain map would needto establish a navigation system that ensured exposure to contextualized enquiry atappropriate levels. The extent to which experiential (or practical) knowledge istransmissible by these means is uncertain, but interactive virtual environments mayeventually make it possible for familiarity with some of the practical skills associatedwith art practice to be conveyed electronically. Issues of how much time should bespent on the development of studio practice, the learning of core material, of theintegration of electronic and conventional modes of delivery, of how, on what, orwhether, students should be formally tested and appraised, are more problematic.Also to be resolved would be the issue of collaborative working which, while nowless unusual within the studio, is a significant factor in much contemporary, web-


based art, and also the most common pattern of working in many creativeenterprises.

We have suggested how a domain map might be derived from a re-evaluation ofwhat constitutes subject knowledge in fine art, a map in which contemporaryknowledge relating to visual perception, representation, and production lies at thecentre of a spreading network of meaningful connections between the arts andsciences. Used as the basis for structuring the content of undergraduate courses,such a map might better enable students and graduates of fine art to proceed withconfidence along any one of many possible creative paths, some as yet unexplored.We anticipate that our proposal might meet with resistance on two counts: thatthere is sufficient evidence that current models are having significant success withinthe world art market, and that the authority of certainty through inclusion ismisguided and constraining.

However, it is our view that degree course structures could benefit from aknowledge model that extends into the current, ‘self-determined’ phase. By beingexplicit about the kinds of theoretical and practical knowledge a course seeks toconvey, astute in its exploitation of digital technologies, and more demanding ofstudents, there would be exposure to a broader range of visual ideas and techniquesthan might happen at present. By placing these ideas and techniques in a coherentcontext, there is the opportunity to provide a more open-ended situation thanestablished approaches to fine art education, where students are too often left to fallback on their own (undeveloped) resources, to ‘feel their own way’.

Most UK art schools are now integrated into the broader context of theuniversities, which should facilitate this more consilient approach. Given newopportunities for identifying and resolving artistic problems, using modern tools toexplore process and product, students of fine art could, we believe, become betterequipped to adapt to rapid technological change, to avail themselves of new formsof employment in the creative industries, and to attune themselves to scientificdevelopments, which increasingly shape and influence visual culture – in short, toundertake ‘different and more effective action’ in a range of creative contexts.

Appendix

Programme 1 – Topics identified in course documentation for Semester 1of a BA Fine Art Painting programme (Loughborough University, 2000)

Materials, techniques and processes • the use of perspective and proportion• pigments and the perception of colour• drawing and digital and photographic imaging• the role of source material • the intentionality of the artist

Understanding of critical perspectives• contemporary debates around the interpretation and production of meaning in

fine art• the historical development of and critical and material frameworks for

contemporary issues in fine art


Transferable skills• strategies for creativity• visual and verbal communication• critical engagement with the outcomes of practice• research skills and sources for verbal, visual and written work• organizational and presentation skills

Programme 2 – Topics identified in course information for Year 1 of a BAFine Art programme (Surrey Institute of Art & Design, 2000)

Materials, techniques and processes• technical workshops• how to use materials and processes • a range of module options in photography, film and video, animation and

journalism • electronic imaging• working with computers• drawing

Understanding of critical perspectives• the investigation and understanding of sources • visual history• how theory underpins twentieth century practice • the objective and the subjective • painting projects – Investigation, imagination and invention • printmaking projects – Exploring images through processes • sculpture projects – Deconstruction, reinvention and transformation • alternative Media – Non-Media Specific Specialism • transferable skills• learning strategies• collecting, analysing and organizing information • research methodology• languages• european language options

ReferencesBoden, M. A. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, London: Weidenfeld and

Nicholson, 1990.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and

invention, New York: Harper Collins, 1996.

Collier, T. Working Out, DfEE, 1999.

Drucker, Peter F. The new realities, London: Mandarin, 1990.

Friedman, Ken. ‘Creating design knowledge: from research into practice’. in IDATER

2000, Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University, 2000, pp. 5–32.

Göranzon, B. chapter 2: ‘The Practice of the Use of Computers. A Paradoxical

Encounter between Different Traditions of Knowledge’, in Göranzon, B. &

Josefson, I. (eds.), Knowledge, Skill and Artificial Intelligence, London: Springer-

Verlag, 1988, pp. 9–18

Göranzon, B. & Josefson, I. ‘Introduction’, in Göranzon, B. & Josefson, I. (eds.),


Knowledge, Skill and Artificial Intelligence, London: Springer-Verlag., 1988,

pp. 3–5

Gray, David W. S. ‘Between Structure and Content and Beyond’, in Piper, D.W. (ed.),

Readings in Art and Design Education: 2, London: Davies-Poynter, 1973,

pp. 100–116

Harvey, L., & Blackwell, A. Destinations & Reflections: Careers of British art, craft &

design graduates – Executive Summary. Birmingham: UCE, 1999.

Holtzman, Steven R. Digital Mantras: The Languages of Abstract and Virtual Worlds.

Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1994.

Hughes, Arthur. ‘Reconceptualising the Art Curriculum’, JADE, 17: 1, 1998,

pp. 41–49.

Kestelman, M. ‘The Aim and Content of Art Education’, in Piper, D.W. (ed.),

Readings in Art and Design Education: 1, London: Davies-Poynter, 1973, pp. 46–54

Loughborough University. ‘Programme Modules taught by School of Art & Design’,

2000. <http://coin.lboro.ac.uk:8080/owa/w1018.main?dept=SA&dept2=AC> (19

Sept 2000).

MacDonald, S. The History and Philosophy of Art Education, London: University of

London Press, 1970.

MacDonald, S. ‘Articidal Tendencies’, in Piper, D.W. (ed.), Readings in Art and

Design Education: 2. London: Davies-Poynter, 1973, pp. 89–99.

Mitchell, William J. The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the post-photographic era,

Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1994.

Painter, C. Introduction: ‘A Productive Uncertainty’, in Hetherington, Paul (ed.),

Artists in the 1990’s: Their Education and Values, London: Tate Gallery

Publications, 1994, pp. 11–18.

Rawson, Philip. Drawing: The Appreciation of the Arts. London, New York: Oxford

University Press, 1969.

Reeve, B. ‘Where Next...?’, in Collier, T. (ed.), Working Out. DfEE, 1999,pp. 58–59.

Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art, Handbook 1999–2000, 2000.

<http://www.ruskin-sch.ox.ac.uk/handbook/index.html> (19 Sept 2000).

Surrey Institute of Art & Design, ‘What the programme covers’, 2000.

<http://www.surrart.ac.uk/stopint/ug/ug03.html> (19 Sept 2000).

Weitz. Problems in Aesthetics, Ontario: MacMillan, 1970.

Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. London: Abacus, 1998.

This paper was originally presented at the 2000 Humanities Arts NetworkConference, ‘Subject Knowledges and Professional Practice’, held at the OpenUniversity, Milton Keynes, 7 October 2000. <http://iet.open.ac.uk/research/herg/han/index.htm>


Copyright of Journal of Visual Art Practice is the property of Intellect Ltd. and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.