In terms of the teaching and learning fundaments to complement the study of Architecture, some years ago there was a module called “Plastic”, where the students were mainly motivated to study arts and exercise 2D and 3D compositions in all sort of materials. I was in charge to structure that module, and I was absolute convinced that, despite setting the student as free as possible, the structure of the module should be guided in a certain traditional way. By “traditional” I mean basing the structure of the course with some traditions in the teaching of arts and crafts: treating visual elements as similar to words, and deploying some notions as proportions, visual tensions, configuration and visual rhythm as similar to a visual grammar. Yet in that time I was aware about the critics: a non probed fear that all students would be equal in sensing and expressing themselves. Probably, this fear came from the haters of the Beaux-arts model in Brazilians school of arts by the beginning from last century. I myself were never concerned about that, as I knew that one can never break any tradition if you do not know which tradition you are intended to surpass. I knew that the most revolutionary artists in all fields of art were firstly very well knower about their matter. I used the three years of those experiences to analyse as my dissertation to receive my Postgraduate Certificate in High Education by the School of Education of The University of Sheffield (see here), where I also did my doctoral.
When I arrived in 2008 from England I found a class where the students looked as brains empties of that motivation, and along the time I noticed that most of them were out of their soul, lost to study or pursuit their intentions on studying architecture.
In the right, a view of a traditional student: spread and memorize details.
I notice also that finally the curriculum was modified and there was not room to the “traditions” I mentioned beforehand, and mainly in the first modules were modified to a new kind of approach that, afaik, nobody in fact knows.
Perhaps, today, we can convince nowadays those who avoid and are ashamed for using books as “Art and Visual Perception : a Psychology of the Creative Eye” ( Arnheim R. (1956). London, Faber and Faber Limited.) or “Univesos da Arte” (Ostrower, F. (1993) Rio de Janeiro, Campus).
New studies, applying “eye-tracking” technology(Leicester 2008) demonstrate that the “traditional” education on art gives more accurate way to see the world(Kim 2009) to students, that means, sighting become really different and more accurate for those who have the knowledge of the “tradition”… At the same time, trainees gains a quickly view – in a glance, with admirable memory of visual elements(Vogt 2007).
I understand that the mistake of avoiding traditional strategies is disseminated in ours courses and I really feel sorry about this. With so many evasive justifications and other amount of opaque “explications”, the study of arts and its history are being abandoned, causing a dangerous blindness in our students. Will anyone suggest that talent is a gift given from birth?
Odd Nerdrum, "Self Portrait as Baby", Oil, 2000
Some references I mentioned here:
Kim, Y.-j. e. A. (2009). "Students’ Visual Perceptions of Virtual Lectures as Measured by Eye Tracking " Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends Volume 5610: 85-94.
Leicester, N. r. f. T. U. o. (2008) "Understanding the wow factor - Researchers combine social science and neuroscience to examine responses to art." NEWS - PRESS RELEASES Volume, DOI:
Vogt, S. M., S (2007). "Expertise in pictorial perception: Eye-movement patterns and visual memory in artists and laymen." Perception 36: 91-100.
No comments:
Post a Comment