(I wrote this post ahead of yesterday’s seminar. The myblog.arts.ac.uk site had been down on Sunday though, so therefore I have only been able to upload it now.)
- The Teaching Excellence Framework: Short Guide
- Monica Vilhauer 2010: Understanding Art
In preparation for the full cohort seminar tomorrow, Monday, 17th Feb, I have read the TEF short guide as well as the Vilhauer text that was provided. The TEF guide was quite straight-forward, even if not very comprehensive: I still don’t know much about the process and more detailed criteria of the award, however it was a good introduction to get an overview. I don’t see currently why these two texts were provided in contrast and fail to make a connection, so I will just separately talk about the Vilhauer text now. This text I found problematic. Yes, it outlines a coherent and cohesive theory and concept, however I do disagree with its main premise. It builds on the assumption (e.g. as outlined in page 38) that there is ONE particular truth in an artwork. I disagree with this assumption and rather think that there can be various different meanings and ‘truths’ in an artwork. I am also not comfortable to use the word ‘truth’ in this context at all. I would rather say different meanings and different levels of significance and different interpretations. Not only per spectator, but also even for each spectator these can vary over time and be dependent on what other knowledge or experiences or emotional states the spectator has. I do however agree with the text that the level of engagement of the spectator plays a role and that this is a big factor. Given that I strongly disagree with the idea of ONE truth in an artwork I also disagree with the thinking that there could be a “total mediation”. Following on from this, it also jars with me to read about the goal being for a common understanding to be reached. In my view it does not matter if various spectators as well as the artist have all different understandings of the artwork.
It continues on from here with p.42: “A picture can only reach completion in the play-process of understanding its truth.” Again: ‘its truth’ as if there was only one specific truth. And also I have a problem that the goal seems to be seen in the picture reaching some sort of completion. Again I disagree: I actually value e.g. paintings in particular that defy completion.
Overall I get the impression that the author sees art as something didactic. The author talks about the artwork elevating reality to something higher and revealing its truth. I do not like the view of art as something didactic. I would rather like to close with how Brian Eno put it in a talk recently: He made a case for art being so important precisely because it doesn’t matter. Art allows us to play with real ideas in a space of no consequence and lets us think around the edges of our reality (as quoted in Dog-Ear, issue 10).