The situation of Drawing and Visual Culture

By István Bodóczky

Overview

From “drawing” to visual training

For a long period of time, visual arts education was equated with “aesthetic training”. During the 19^th century, aesthetic norms were still represented in authoritative works of art, and it was through these that people attempted to achieve standards of beauty and perfection. The goal of arts education therefore was to facilitate the reception and interpretation of such works. From the very beginning, the subject of visual arts in public education (ostensively realised in the form of drawing lessons) aimed to train artists and followed the example of professional instruction at art “academies”. In the 20^th century, however, even these “influential” institutions found themselves in a confusing situation. Previously, change in the most highly representative styles of art took place only on a gradual basis, whereas the turn of the last century brought with it a rapid succession of new artistic trends, and by the time various “-isms” were deemed “worthy of the classroom”, they had already become obsolete.

Another closely related factor that had a strong influence on the transformation of arts education was the high degree of individualism so characteristic of culture in developed industrial countries today. As old ideals were surpassed over the course of the 20^th century, rebellion was no longer regarded as heresy and indeed became a necessary part of cultural life. Originality and uniqueness came to be a fundamental feature in credible works of art, and this fact also lead to major changes in the way art was taught. Earlier, the aim of arts instruction had been to have students produce “works” that mirrored the pattern “modelled” by their master, and the quality of their achievement was measured in terms of the extent to which these works reflected a certain ideal. In contrast, the value of students’ work during the 20^th century was closely tied to their individual personalities. The more original, unique and personal a given work was, the higher the value placed on it.

The freedom of personal expression in arts education reached its height when abstract expressionism gained ground and became an “official” form of art, but this was not to be a lasting phenomenon either. Eventually, more impersonal methods that tested the limits of visual thought came to the forefront in artistic training as a reaction to extreme subjectivity. It was at this time that efforts concentrating on phenomena in connection with sight, visual expression and a “visual language” began to appear. In Hungary, the work of Imre Bak and Ferenc Lantos was especially significant in this regard. Their activities corresponded to a general need for a more practical approach to visual arts education in drawing lessons, one that came closer to the reality of everyday life. Thanks to their endeavours and the experimentation of creative drawing instructors, a transformation began to occur in Hungary in which the compulsory subject of “drawing” came to represent a wider interpretation of visual arts training that embraced the concepts of “visual language and communication” as well as “the culture of objects and the spatial environment”.

Direct precedents to the current situation

Despite new demands and gradually expanding content, drawing instruction in Hungary has not changed much in terms of its approach. In my view, the main reason for this is that our training in this area has completely lost its connection with contemporary art. From the 1960s onwards, news of innovative artistic trends no longer reached Hungarian schools. Under normal circumstances, contemporary art (focusing on the artistic challenges of the given age) is the source that keeps arts education alive. In Hungary, however, “general education” is an activity scorned among professionals involved in the field of art (artists, artistic writers, art historians), hence even those teachers who express interest in the current artistic trends receive no assistance. Consequently, visual arts training in public education is left completely isolated, and lacking a substantial connection with artistic life, our teaching practice has become far removed from the opportunities inherent in the subject. In spite of efforts to the contrary among many art instructors, visual arts education in schools is caught in a vicious circle: as the quality of teaching deteriorated, so did the prestige of the subject itself, which has further decreased the effectiveness of instructors’ work. Due to the low number of lessons, arts training has increasingly come to fulfil the purpose of selection: “interested” students who are deemed talented are quickly placed in special classes or directed to schools that offer specialised training.

Visual arts education in the National Core Curriculum

When development of the new National Core Curriculum (NAT) was launched following the political transition in Hungary, professionals who were asked to assist in the process were in a difficult situation. Having been isolated from the arts (and from each other), drawing instructors were practically unable to speak the common language necessary for professional discourse. On the other hand, it seems they were able to reach a consensus regarding the need to “expand” traditional drawing lessons to include “visual arts training” (called Visual Culture within the NAT framework). They also agreed on the following: “…the task of training in visual culture is to transfer knowledge and develop the skills and capabilities necessary for a higher level of visual communication so as to utilise and transform the visible environment; the teaching of visual culture also has a decisive influence on the quality of training and the acquisition of knowledge in other areas of study.”

Creative work in drawing lessons has a two-fold purpose: to facilitate a deeper understanding of spectacle, elements of visual information and art in addition to increasing subtlety in terms of expression, but also to develop practical skills. The NAT framework makes a clear separation between creative and receptive capabilities, seemingly in acceptance of the traditional view that “theory-oriented professionals” (be they philosophers or art historians) cannot draw, whereas those with “clever hands” are not capable of conceptual thought. Due to this sharp distinction, up-to-date knowledge has not become a part of professional artistic training, and for the most part, applicants to art colleges are only required to give proof of their professional “suitability” and prior qualifications. In secondary schools, even the title of the subject – “drawing and the analysis of artwork” – suggests the same kind of distinction.

Fortunately, theory and practice are not always strictly divided in drawing lessons. The experience of art instructors is that after a certain point, visual creation is no longer possible without knowledge of art history. For this reason, many teachers incorporate the study of art history in their drawing lessons, and apparently this has fostered a more positive view of the subject.

“Drawing and visual culture” in the Framework Curriculum

The Framework Curriculum stipulates that the concept of “visual culture” as described in the NAT system must be incorporated in a new subject under the heading Drawing and Visual Culture. The new framework has narrowed the scope of material included in the Core Curriculum, but largely retained its basic structure. Unfortunately, some important elements fell victim to this reduction of material: for example, art outside of Europe appears only on an occasional basis, photography as art has been omitted entirely, and visual references in media education are also missing. To my knowledge, current practice was the primary factor taken into consideration when reducing the amount of teaching material since instructors at present have not been adequately prepared to address these areas, which means they rarely appear in the context of drawing lessons.

Curricula and teaching programs in Hungary today present art instructors with difficult challenges. Some classes are still taught according to the old curriculum, while others have developed their own local curricula based on the NAT framework, and still others have already adapted the criteria of the Framework Curriculum. In accordance with its own stated intention, the new curriculum dictates a faster pace of learning in an attempt to correct inequities in connection with quality, but in doing so, it has also inhibited the freedom originally provided by the NAT structure.

Opportunities (and challenges)

It is no exaggeration to say that Drawing and Visual Culture can play a key role in schools of the future. On one hand, the goals specific to this area of study have become increasingly valid at the beginning of the 21^st century. The development of visual communication over the last few decades has become especially pertinent in this day and age, when both work and entertainment are concentrated around visual media. In this era of video screens, sight is more than just verification; according to N. Mirzeoff, “Sight is not merely a part of everyday life; it is everyday life itself.” Nowadays, it is not only recollection that has become far more visual – or visualised – than ever before, but also experience. Children now acquire a significant portion of their knowledge outside of school, and television plays a distinct role in this process. Therefore, it is vitally important that schools foster the ability of students to work through, analyse and appropriately select the vast amount of visual information they receive to the highest possible degree.

Also among the unique traits of arts education are sensual experience and the opportunity to rehabilitate direct contact with our environment. Thanks to technical media, the chance to acquire knowledge has grown tremendously, but it has also become more indirect. Shaping the environment through direct, complex sensual experience and visual expression – stimulating the “intelligence of the hand” – can greatly contribute to developing a harmonious relationship with our surroundings and ourselves.

The development of problem-solving skills and creativity plays a prominent role among the general goals of education today. In light of the critical situation that has arisen in the wake of globalisation, there is a strong need for creative intelligence, new answers and new solutions. The acquisition of knowledge is no longer confined to the school environment and age is not a limitation either. Entire professions disappear and workplaces shut down from one day to the next as new fields emerge, so flexibility is now a key factor in determining whether someone is able to expand their knowledge, retraining themselves in order to adapt.

Drawing lessons provide an excellent opportunity to develop creativity. This is not to say that everyone should be trained to be an artist or a researcher. Far more important is the fact that appropriate visual arts training can help students to become independent individuals capable of shaping their own lives. It is precisely for this reason that art classes should be transformed to foster the use of the knowledge and skills they provide in as many areas of life as possible.

Visualisation also has a huge effect on the development of cultural identity, something that has likewise become exceptionally important in this day and age. In addition to rediscovering the values of the past, another essential goal of visual arts education is to help discover the positive features of our life today, to familiarise students with contemporary art and to create a common experience from the vast amount of visual information young people receive so as to make this a basis for connection among younger generations.

Appropriate conditions and an adequate number of lessons are also necessary to achieve a new approach in training and improve the quality of drawing instruction. On paper, the amount of lesson time seems quite suitable, but in practice, it still proves to be inadequate since visual arts training can only be conducted via tasks that are extremely time-consuming. Comparison studies show that in many European nations, compulsory arts education falls into the category of “elective” courses after the age of fourteen. Nevertheless, in the most recent study on arts education in Europe, author Ken Robinson mentions that “A common characteristic of educational systems in all countries is the general overemphasis placed on theoretical topics. (…) Despite rhetoric to the contrary, art is usually not among the long-term development priorities of national educational systems.”¹

Visual and aesthetic training is not merely realised in an explicit fashion within the school framework. In many cases, the cultural environment (including the material objects-cultural surroundings in a given locality) and the family in general have a much stronger influence on young people than school. In spite of this, present social circumstances in Hungary dictate that for many children schools provide the only opportunity for cultural advancement. Therefore, intensive support for arts education is vital in the interest of keeping drawing and visual culture a compulsory school subject until students reach the age of sixteen.

Drawing and visual culture in connection with other subjects.

There is a hardly a subject that is not touched upon in the course of teaching visual culture, and in turn, all subjects have some features related to the area of visual arts training – even if this remains un-stated. Naturally, teachers confirm this, but they themselves are also victims of professional limitation. This means the task of visual arts education is almost completely relegated to drawing instructors, although the subject (like languages) can only be truly effective if it is dealt with in more than one lesson per week.

Either consciously or out of instinct, the majority of art instructors incorporate knowledge from other subjects into their lessons. At the same time, most instructors feel their students are able to make good use of the skills and information they acquire in art classes.

Material conditions for visual education

Within the framework of observational research conducted in 2002, data was collected on the basis of a survey that included questions concerning the subject of drawing and visual culture; 137 schools responded to the questionnaire. The most serious problem with regards to material conditions is the lack of specialised classrooms (only 37 schools out of 137 participating in the survey have art rooms!). The disadvantages are obvious: unsuitable work conditions, inadequate lighting, lack of space, no drawing desks, easels etc. As a result, rearranging classrooms to accommodate art classes, and then returning them to their original state for lessons in other subjects, takes even more time away from the already limited schedule of art lessons.

An even greater number of schools have no storage facilities (48 out of 137), although it is well known that art classes are impossible to conduct without storage space. In addition to the necessary materials, instruments, tools of demonstration and models, a great deal of room is required to store works in progress or those that have already been completed. A single cabinet is not sufficient for this purpose!

Nevertheless, teachers indicate that the lack of equipment is an even more serious issue, primarily in terms of the tools needed for practical exercises, including drawing boards, paper, paints etc. These are expensive, and only in rare cases do schools provide them. Instructors cannot obligate parents to obtain such items, and yet it is virtually impossible to teach drawing classes without them. This may also explain why teachers in only 26 out of 137 schools listed the lack of space as the biggest problem, even though more than half of the schools surveyed have no art classrooms.

Video equipment exists in 93 of the 137 schools taking part in the survey. The problem here is that suitable training films are lacking, so instructors are forced to create their own by “discovering” and recording the documentaries they use in the classroom from various television programs. In spite of this, only 26 teachers listed this as a serious issue, which leads us to believe that in the majority of schools, moving pictures do not play a role in drawing classes, either as a separate topic or as a teaching aid.

For a long time, it was not common to use textbooks in visual arts education. The need to do so arose when teaching content began to change during the last decades of the 20^th century, when the subject came to include the notion of visual communication and language, artistic analysis, and the fundamental concepts of art history etc. New textbooks for drawing instruction are not merely collections of “sample works” as they were in the 19^th century. They no longer contain drills, but the necessary background information to facilitate creative work and visual arts education. The majority of instructors who responded to the survey admit that they use textbooks in their teaching practice, although these are considered to be uninteresting and too expensive. This is surprising in light of the fact that the number of drawing textbooks currently available hardly comprises what could be called a wide selection.

Another difficult issue is that visual arts only appear to a small extent in the media, and this situation has deteriorated even further in comparison to a decade ago. On the other hand, the fact that three high-quality art periodicals (Balkon, Műértő, Új Művészet) are currently in circulation is a positive change, but once again, these are expensive and only appear in larger cities. Taking this into account, it is no wonder that not only students, but also their instructors are completely ignorant with regards to contemporary art since they do not receive even the minimum amount of information they need.

Personal conditions for visual education

An additional factor contributing to the low prestige of art as a school subject is that drawing classes in many schools are taught by instructors who have no professional qualifications in the area of “visual education”. The reason for this can be traced to the field of teacher training – along with other well-known factors that affect all educators. In many cases, training for art instructors is really art school in disguise and does not pay suitable attention to either modern teaching methods or the most advanced artistic trends. Therefore, it is not surprising that most drawing instructors are hardly familiar with up-to-date teaching methodology.

Answers to the survey indicate that the most widely used method in the classroom is a frontal approach, based on explanation by the teacher. This confirms our assumptions that art instructors can hardly make use of the potential opportunities offered in their subject. Due to the lack of classroom space and the small amount of lesson time available, drawing classes in many schools are beginning to resemble “lessons in theoretical subjects” – and unfortunately, those of a petrified variety, lacking any form of methodological innovation. Another sign of large-scale professional ignorance is that 36 out of 137 teachers gave no response at all to our question concerning the application of the project method. Presumably, they have never even heard of this approach, which is particularly depressing since lessons in drawing and visual culture could offer exceptional opportunities to use projects as a way of motivating students and to make training more lifelike. Taking the above into consideration, we may conclude that one of the main causes of problems in connection with arts education in Hungary is our teachers’ lack of knowledge.

The issue of requirements and assessment

Assessment in arts education (and also in the area of visual culture) is generally a problem everywhere. A large majority of art instructors are unaware of the role and methods of criteria-oriented diagnostic, formative, summational, qualitative and quantitative assessment, and consider grading an uncomfortable (sometimes unnecessary) obligation. A significant portion of visual arts training involves practical “studio” work, which is primarily connected to fine arts – and no objective system of assessment exists in fine arts. Consequently, the personal views, taste and knowledge of the instructor are decisive factors in qualifying the practical work of students. An entirely subjective evaluation by the teacher can have serious consequences, however, and is not only damaging from the students’ point of view, but also in terms of a loss in prestige for the subject as a whole. (A European project that aimed to research possibilities for objective assessment in the visual arts began by collecting points of evaluation acknowledged as valid in most countries with different traditions – and which can be precisely drafted and tested. These can be grouped in the following categories:

Problem-solving capability;
Communication capability;
Professional knowledge, skills and capabilities;
Creativity;
Self-awareness.)