Lesson Presentation: The Reflection

       

       My partner and I where one of the first groups to perform their lesson plans to the class. We did a lesson on getting the students to understand what exactly the abject is by concentrating on the word "gross", and creating mixed media interpretations of what we find "gross". We began with a brief overview of the presentation we did a few weeks earlier as a refresher for the class, then we introduced a new artist Paul Nudd. Once we were finished discussing Nudd's work we began concept mapping what we personally thought was "gross". This brain storming session aided in producing some ideas of what to do for their mixed media project. 

       After going through the notes and the video taken of our lesson I feel like it was a successful lesson. We wanted the students to really grasp the concept of the abject by breaking it own into a more commonly used term “gross”. I think that it really started to click for the class when we started the concept map. It relaxed not only the students but it also relaxed us as the teachers. In the beginning of the lesson our tone of voice was a little harsh, but we didn’t intend for it to be that way, once we got into the flow of the lesson we began to ease up on the tone.

            Many students did mention in their self-evaluations that they wished they had more time to finish their projects. I think the problem that caused students to not finish their work was that there were too many materials to pick from, and there was too much time taken up from the demo we did for the class. I guess we didn’t want to limit the material use because we wanted the students to have a significant material exploration that would relate well to the gross imagery they chose. I think that this lesson would probably be a two-day lesson if it were to be used in an actual classroom.

Tim Lefens Lecture

 This past Wednesday I attended a lecture given by Tim Lefens. This is the man who came up with A.R.T. ( Artistic Realization Technologies) which is a program that I first learned about in my Art for the Exceptional Child class. His program was created for students who are quadriplegic, or severely limited when it comes to mobility. They use a laser and a trained volunteer (known as trackers) as their tools to paint on a canvas this in turn gives them a sense of freedom. When I went his lecture I was expecting to see images of the students paintings that he works with, but instead he lectured about his theories about art.

 His first theory was called the Death Bed Theory, which posed the question What painting would you want to view hanging across from your death bed? I thought that this was an intriguing question, what would I want to be the last image I saw before I died? That's pretty deep! To be honest I really don't know what I would want to see, I think it is because I like too many different things.
  The second theory was the Truncated Pyramid Theory. Lefens says that over the years we have diminished the idea of what "high art" is.  High art was originally at the peak of the pyramid and over time we have cut off the top of the pyramid and the only thing left is the "joke art". When he said this my jaw literally hit the floor! I thought to myself what a bold statement because there are so many contemporary artists in the world that consider inspirational, and high art in their own right and not "joke art".
   The third theory was the Double Funnel Theory in which Lefens explains that one needs to knock themselves down to nothing so they can expand and let go larger than they ever have before. He says one needs to surprise themselves to create great art, and the only way to this is to let go completely and surrender to yourself.
   Lefens theories are very thought provoking and valid in there own way, but over all I think Lefens is a bold figure in the reformation of the arts. He definatly has a firm belief in creating art for the beauty of it. If you want to learn more about Tim Lefens you can visit his website http://www.artrealization.org/ 

Talking about Student Art

Studio critique means the common activity of artists talking about their work with other artists – Barrett

            As a college art student I have sat and participated in many a critique but when I was in middle school and high school it was not that really common of an occurrence. I have witnessed great and engaging critiques in some of my classes, and I have seen some bad almost too painful to bare critiques (and I am sure that if you are reading this, you may have had similar experiences). In Barrett’s article Studio Critiques: As They Are and As They Could Be, he analysis the good and bad aspects of student critiques. Lets start with what they should not be, for example being an opinionated and judgmental teacher does not help your students in the end. As teachers our ideals should not be pressured on to our students. Everyone sees things differently and has different opinions; a student’s artwork should never be changed to please someone else. Another point that Barrett makes is to not talk too much; the best way for students to learn about art is to engage in speaking about it not listening to their teacher lecture them for an hour. Like Barrett previously defined a studio critique is an activity involving artists talking about their work with other artists, not a teacher lecturing about an artwork to their class.

            So how do we take these examples of a bad critique and make them into a good critique? Well, like I stated before the students should articulate most of the talking, but it is more important that they state their interpretations of the work rather then evaluating it. Barrett says interpretation is "the critical activity of deciphering what a work might be about... Interpretations are a synthesis of descriptive facts and observations, and also include syntheses of how form and media affect subject matter-what some call analysis” (page 4).  This is good way to get away from students determining whether the artwork is “good” or “bad”.  Finally he says that art criticism should be worked in some how. Barrett says, "Criticism is informed discourse about art for the purpose of increasing understanding and appreciation of art (page 5)." If you keep all of these tips in mind then you may have an exceptional experience in you next classroom critique!

Presentation Summary

After looking at the video of my partner and I, I felt that we could have discussed the term “abject” further opening up the discussion to help discover what the class thought abject meant. We also could have structured our questions to help scaffold the discussion more building from interpretation to a deeper meaning and understanding of the work we were showing and the principle we were using. 

            From the feedback our peers gave, they felt that we should have paid more attention to bringing back the theme after discussing the work, and talked more about what facing the abject was. In regards to the presentation of two works on one slide the group felt a little divided. Some felt showing Kiki Smiths work next to Justin Novak’s was helpful in exploring the comparison and contrast between the two artists. However some felt that we should have first showed one sculpture and then shown the other. Only after discussing both images would it been helpful to show both side by side. In response to your question of why we showed both images side by side, we felt that it would be helpful showing them this way to discuss the theme facing the abject as a whole, and also due to the time constraint we felt showing both would expose the group to both artists pushing along our discussion. Other comments made by our peers were directed toward our presence at the front of the room. Some stated that we looked nervous or that we should have moved around more. Upon reviewing the video we agree with these comments. Another comment was that we should have discussed the theme it’s self more in order to build an understanding before we looked at the artist work, also asking what was abject in regard to the work shown and built a discussion around that a little more.

Over all our peers felt that the artists we choose suited the theme as well as each other and that the discussion was helpful in beginning to think about the theme facing the abject. 

Facing the Abject With Justin Novak

The human body has been an age-old subject in the art world for centuries, but artists such as Justin Novak have taken the human form and used it in a contemporary way to further the study of us. Novak is a ceramic artist best known for his series Disfigurines, which is a body of work he developed from 1997 to 2006. The series is made up of small-scale porcelain and raku-fired figurines that play on the traditional porcelain figures of the Rococo period, which is considered the golden age of European porcelain. 

Novak says, “the ceramic figurine has historically embodied a mainstream, bourgeois ideology, and for this reason, I have employed it in the presentation of an alternative vision, an ironic anti-figurine or disfigurine” (JustinNovak.com, pg. 1) The figurine has historically represented the ideals and norms of our dominate culture, but Novak’s savage and visceral figures are expressly for the opposite purpose. “ The graphic physical wounds of his Disfigurine series are a metaphor for the psychological damage inflicted by a dominant ideology that stifles difference” (Breaking the Mould, pg. 84)

In Terry Barrett’s article Approaches to Postmodern Artmaking he talks about the principle of Facing the Abject.  The abject refers to unsavory aspects in life; it is a concept that accounts for many “ugly” representations in art (Barrett, pg. 8). Novak’s grotesque Disfigurines fit right into this principle, his figurines are hauntingly beautiful, the starkness of them both intrigue the viewer and also makes them want to look away in distaste.

“ If beauty is truth, then it may dare to be grotesque too, for truth may be harsh or horrific. Beauty does not suggest something beautiful in the actual sense of the term, but that, which comes closer to the true expressions of the self and the vision of a generation's psyche, that is fragmented, kitsch-like, complex and beyond the metanarratives of a suffocating conformity.”(Keats, pg. 1). 

CritCards with Tom Anderson

"The purpose of student critiques, whether to focus on the technical, compositional, or conceptual, is solely to improve that work or future projects. Art criticism is the examination of the work of others to find what they can tell us about being human." (Anderson, pg. 24)

            This is a quote from the article Talking With Kids About Art by Tom Anderson, which I recently read for my Theory and Practice class. Andersons article concentrates on a way of structuring a critique in the art classroom, which is a subject that can be very hard to involve students in. Now that I think about it, I never had a class critique of each other’s work in my middle school or high school art classes. We may have discussed famous artists work but the discussion were not very engaging. The major tool in this article is the use of Crit Cards. Teachers are to use these cards to guide the discussion with their students. There are 4 critcards: Reaction, Description, Interpretation, and Evaluation.

CritCard #1 Reactions:

            With this card students are to talk about their first reactions to the artwork they are critiquing.  Students should be looking at formal principles and elements first such as color, shapes and textures. In order for students to look more deeply into the work you as the teacher should consider some guideline questions like: Do you think you know how the artist made his work? Does this piece remind you of anything else? Do you see any repeating themes or topics in the artists work?

CritCard# 2 Description:

            This card is based on the descriptive factors of the artwork. Some guiding questions to address the students with are what feeling do you get from the artwork? What mood does it portray? Has this artwork changed or influenced society somehow? Do you know who made the work? Do you know what time period it was made during?            

CritCard# 3 Interpretation:

            This card concentrates on subject matter of the work, and what the student thinks the work means. Essentially the student’s interpretations should stem from their reactions and descriptions of the artwork being critiqued.

CritCard# 4 Evaluation:

            This is the last and final card that brings all the ideas from the entire discussion together.  This is card gives the teacher the opportunity to ask the students if their views about the artist and there work had changed from when they first started the discussion. Do the students like the work better or worst since the start of the discussion?

Discussing Art With Students

    I was reading Terry Barrett's book Interpreting Art the other day, and he created a formula of topics that could ultimately add up to an art students understanding of the meaning a work or art is conveying. The formula looks something like this
                                                             
                                                                     Subject Matter
                                                                               +
                                                                         Medium
                                                                               +
                                                                           Form
                                                                               +
                                                                          Context
                                                                               =
                                                                         Meaning
   
    These specific areas are where teachers can pull some questions that can get their students thinking about different types of artwork. The subject matter encompasses the content, the narrative aspects of the piece (ex: how would one describe it?). The medium is what the work has made out of (paint, clay, found objects, ect.). The form is the listing descriptors of what the work is, how does it exist in the world? The context is talking about the work in time and space, where does it fit in historically, does it have a design purpose? All of these areas of questioning will help further explain the meaning of the artwork. This formula is very much an extension of Bloom's Taxonomy.
    Bloom's Taxonomy is a hierarchy of question stems that teachers use to guide their students through the learning process. It is broken down into six categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Each of the above mentioned areas of Barrett's formula can fall under the categories of Bloom's Taxonomy, for example subject matter, medium, and form can all fall under the category of knowledge. The further along we go the more abstract we get, for example form and context can fall under the category of analysis.
    I think that these formula's are a great way to get students thinking. I have been stuck in many a critique or discussion were no one has any thought or idea of where to start when talking about a work of art. It is a very awkward situation that nobody likes to be in, this list of question starters can help some light bulbs go off in the classroom, if you know what I mean. So the next time you are doing a discussion think of this formula, and maybe you will start a wild fire of ideas!