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].