OBL as an academic discipline in art and design is an area that I am interested in to synthesise creative practice and pedagogy. Judy Willcocks and her colleagues presented information in a cross programme event on UAL’s archive that sparked this interest.
Key words: language, experiential learning, haptic knowledge, unconscious bias, empathy.
Two frameworks for research prompted me to consider approaches to synchronous , asynchronous, live and digital teaching and learning, and how I might integrate or use different frameworks that align with constructive alignment.
Framework 1: ‘expert’ in the room places teacher/facilitator in a position of power; is subject specific; uses visual analysis. Framework 2: employs material and cultural analysis; emotional positionality; visual analysis; meaning making with material culture.
From the exercise I was asked to participate in I found that I was most able to form a connection with the object in my hand (Fanta bottle; I was slightly less able to connect with an object from UAL archive that allowed me to view it from various angles; I felt more limited in my respond to objects that were presented as still images despite the written information attached. I considered how my prior knowledge, experiences, heritage and identity informed my responses. How does unconscious bias inform others’ responses to objects I present and make?
Considering Gillian Rose’s four ‘sites of seeing’ encouraged me to broaden my understanding of how I and my students might see and experience objects.
Key questions:
How does sense of self, the positionality of the maker and viewer inform our responses?
What are the implications of ‘interlectual property’ and how does this inform responses to the images and objects we see and make.
How do digitial platforms shape/influence that way we make and see?
How do we use mobile technology in the making process and audience engagement?
We hold a greater degree of autonomy as artists in the 21st Century due to digital platforms that allow direct access to global audiences. These ideas link to research by Michelle Salamon who devised ‘Drawing Laboratory’, a series of workshops to exploring associations between the physical act of drawing, and the encoding and retrieval processes of human memory. It seems to me that memory is another form of seeing relating to Rose’s ‘site of audiencing’. The research was interesting because participants were asked not to use their mobile phones during the activities.
References: Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies – An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. Sage
Salamon, M (2015) ‘Drawing Laboratory’, Spark Journal, 2018, Volume 3, Issue 2
Further Reading:
Kador and Chatterjee (Eds). (2020) Object-Based Learning and Well Being. London: Routledge
Willcocks and Green, ‘Exploring the archive: Live projects in a post graduate learning setting. Spark Journal, 2019, Volume 4, Issue 1. Available at https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/114/217