A reflection on the GI Festival of Visual Arts Room 13 presentation

I was not present at this seminar and have accessed it online. 

I found it a fascinating exposition of the working practices of Room 13 and also of the actual thinking that went into the creative process and the individual artworks. Room 13 practices clearly fit into the pedagogies of the ‘imagination’ or of the ‘possible’ that Greene (2008) and McLaren (2003, p92 -93) describe. Many of the traditional constraints are removed and control of the learning is given over to the pupils. For example, pupils immediately had ownership of the project when, after the initial focused discussion around the art works and their themes, the young artists decided how to progress with the art making aspect of the project - in a 3 day intensive studio project during the holidays. Yarker (2008) describes this as one of the key characteristics of the Room 13 approach: “Users of Room 13 arrive when they choose and because they choose, to work in the ways they choose, on their own projects, by themselves or with friends, at their own pace” (p. 368) “that he won’t be told, that he must decide for himself, is the first and fundamental lesson Room 13 teaches.” (p. 372)

There were lots of different interpretations of artworks, particularly as young artists could only see them represented in a 2D photograph rather than actually interact with them in their 3D forms. Young artists used this as an opportunity to explore symbolism and metaphor, making linking narratives and generating stories around the different aspects of the works. In particular the size, scale and multi-sensory aspects of some of the works was particularly inspiring in terms of drawing out individual interpretations. This is very much in line with McLaren’s (2003) description of an effective critically pedagogical approach where he states that “teaching and learning should be a process of inquiry, of critique; it should also be a process of constructing” (pp. 92 - 93).

I have found this to be the case in my own explorations of contemporary art with pupils - they are very imaginative and quickly generate entire story lines of meaning behind each artwork. They are also very ready to discuss these (especially as you practice this process) and will readily incorporate others views and interpretations into their own or indeed take on another’s view and further develop it to make it their own. This immediately brings a sense of involvement, personal engagement and ownership to the work as meaning is directly tied up with their own experiences. Thus, work is undertaken out of personal motivation: “Instead of external pressure, the mobilisation of intrinsic desire” (Yarker, 2008, p. 368).  

I thought there were some fascinating examples of how the meaning of an artwork can vary dramatically depending on the context of experience through which it is viewed. For example, Claire Gibb spoke of how Ruth Ewan’s work “Nae Sums” was related to and understood within the context of Harry Potter by the young artists but was more likely to be referenced to a dunces hat by adults. Similarly, in relation to Ewan’s “Socialist Sunday School Song Book” piece, the young artists had no concept of songs belonging to the people - rather songs were the property of celebrities. However for older people, and in my own personal experience, community singing in different guises would have been a much more common occurrence. I found the way in which life experience influenced interpretation very interesting. It caused me to think whether any art work is complete in itself? Does an artwork find completion and meaning only as it’s individual meaning is interpreted by each viewer? Or perhaps there is too much retrospective validation of artworks and too much meaning being read into them? 

Additionally, the contrast of the interpretations made of the Room 13 artworks by the Artist Teacher participants and the actual meanings as expressed by the young artists during the process was very interesting. Claire Gibb spoke of how the artworks would often emerge from a very playful, experimental process rather than the preconceived aim of communicating a specific ‘meaning’ (although this took place also). She described art works as often being a response to the process. 

Another key characteristic of a critically pedagogical approach that is manifest in the Room 13 model and which came out during the question and answer time at the end was the equality of adults and pupils as valued artists. Claire Gibb explained that pupils were not directed in their work but rather that both young and old artists took an equal role in discussing and critiquing the work. She stated that “the lines of who is teaching and who is learning are constantly blurred”. The importance of this is also highlighted by Duncum (2009) who explains that “what makes a difference is providing students with a recognition that they, not their teachers alone, possess the power to think, feel, and act according to their own volition” (p. 241).

REFERENCES:

1. Duncum, P., 2009. Towards a Playful Pedagogy: Popular Culture and the Pleasures of Transgression. National Art Education Association Studies in Art Education, A Journal of Issues and Research, 50(3), pp.232-244

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

1. McLaren, P., 2003. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts. In: Darder, A., Baltodano, M., Torres, R. D., eds., 2003. The Critical Pedagogy Reader. London: RoutledgeFalmer, pp. 69-96 
2. 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].
3. University of the West of Scotland and the GI Festival of Visual Arts, 2012. Claire Gibb: Reflections on Room 13 responses to GI artworks. [Educational seminar] 28th April 2012. Available at : <http://vimeo.com/41771282> [Accessed 12th May 2012].
4. 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].