Learning Spaces

Visual The Custard Factory, Birmingham, May 2007 Edited by David Clews Published by the Art Design Media Subject Centre The Higher Education Academy Report on the 2nd Art Design Media Subject Centre Annual Forum “The process of drawing is, above all else the process of putting the visual intelligence into action, the very mechanics of taking visual thought. Unlike painting and sculpture it is the process by which the artist makes clear to himself, and not to the spectator, what he is doing. Drawing makes more precise and delicate demands on the intellect than does the physically more generous act of painting” Jane Stevenson, Edward Burra, 20th Century Eye, London. “The artificial construction of an image, which is what we do when we look through a camera lens, is a metaphor for what we do when we look through our own lives. We understand the artificial nature of looking through a camera but we don’t understand the unnatural activity of looking when we are just looking, how, when we look, it is not simply a matter of the world coming to us, but it us, constructing the natural world as we understand it.” William Kentridge, Artist, 2007. Visual Report on the 2nd Art Design Media Subject Centre Annual Forum Edited by David Clews Contents Introduction 4 Visual Overview David Clews 6 Lines of Inquiry Carolyn Bew 20 Session Reports: David Crow 24 Trevor Hearing 28 Alistair McNaught 31 Dr. Simon Ofield 37 John Piper 41 Anita Taylor 45 With thanks 48 Introduction // The idea of a single day symposium focusing on visual analysis, communication, literacy and research arose out of a series of conversations that took place during the preceding 2 years. In 2005 the ADM-HEA Subject Centre’s Reference Groups1 were asked to advise us on what projects should be commissioned for research and development over the subsequent twelve months or so. Among the proposals were suggestions for projects based on visual research. At this stage it was clear that this was a big subject and it was difficult to focus in on a single issue that everyone could agree should be the focus of research work. It became increasingly clear that across the art, design and media disciplines there was a huge range of visual practices and purposes for visual materials. For simplicity I will refer to this range of ideas, debates and practices as ‘visual research’ however much this term merely problematises the debate. Sometime later the Subject Centre published a call for proposals to undertake projects on visual research. The call was deliberately open-ended and invited “teams and individuals delivering any art, design and/or media subjects (including cultural and communications studies and art, design history) to submit proposals for projects, funded to a maximum of £15,000, related to visual research in the areas of learning and teaching. These were to include such areas as non-text-based assessment, technical skills, visual research, and the use of new technologies such as virtual reality2 .” Perhaps unsurprisingly there was a wide range in the responses and after these were reviewed four projects were approved3. The nature of these projects underpins the breadth of issues around the uses and production of visual materials in our subjects. All of our subject practitioners, whether they are focusing on production or analysis, identify visual materials as fundamental to practice, communication, analysis and learning. 1. ADM-HEA Subject Centre has two Reference Groups. The Art and Design Reference Group and the Media Communications Reference Group. These are made up of teaching colleagues from HEIs across the UK and of representatives of the ADM sector Subject Associations. One of the roles of the Reference Groups is to advise the Subject Centre on its future direction especially on the themes of future research and development projects. 2 http://www.adm.heacademy.ac.uk/projects/adm- 3. A Reflexive Archive: Contexts of Practice in Art and hea-projects/visualresearch-projects Design led by Prof. Terry Shave, Head of Visual Arts at Nottingham Trent University. Sketchbook - an online visual research resource led by Dr. Julia Gaimster, Academic Development Manager at University of the Arts London. Visual Assessment Practices led by Pauline Ridley, Learning Area Coordinator: Visual Practices, Learnhigher CETL, at University of Brighton. While this did little to provide us with a way of focusing in on a single debate on visual research it did strengthen our view that few, if any, of the disciplines and subjects falling within the art, design and media footprint had no position on visual research and that it was a highly topical issue. Around the time the research project funding was awarded we were also looking for a theme for the 2007 Annual Forum and given the level of interest in all things visual we decided to make this the focus for the event. However, there was an important difference between this and many of our other events where we meet to discuss topical issues or new initiatives and seek to reach some sort of consensus that could direct our future actions. In VISUAL we wanted to take a more divergent approach and provide participants with opportunities to explore the range and discover some of the potential intersections between different visual practices. This led us away from the more common format of presentations by experts towards discussions in the round. Inevitably there was a balance required between a completely non-directed, agenda-less meeting and providing structure without limiting the opportunity for different ideas to be explored. It is our own network that provided us with the solution. Many of our colleagues have published work that closely related to the discussions we envisaged might be the most stimulating. David Crow’s book Left to Right4 recently published and reviewed by the Subject Centre discusses how pictures, rather than words, have become the dominant form of communication. Trevor Hearing worked for many years as a TV cameraman and is interested in how documentary video will be used as a “creative academic research tool”. The TechDis project offers resources to assist disabled students, many of which are focused on how visual media can assist learning. Alistair McNaught, Senior Advisor for Further Education, has been discussing how these materials might be of particular use to art, design and media students. Simon Ofield is a contributor to the journal: Visual Culture in Britain5 and is particularly interested in connections between spatial and visual cultures. The massive potential of mobile technologies to form social networks and digital photography has driven an exponential rise in the number of images we are attempting to manage and is part of John Piper’s work at Kodak’s European Research Labs. Finally, Anita Taylor is a teacher and painter with a particular interest in drawing as a means of creative development, not only for artists, but for all of us living and working in the knowledge economy. These six agreed to chair discussions on themes they had identified themselves but the programme explicitly asked them not to give presentations, and particularly not academic papers. Our aim was to focus the day on debate and participation rather than thinking of delegates as an audience. Visual Research Methodologies: supporting scholarly research in MA courses, led by Hilaire Graham, Director of Teaching and Learning at University College for the Creative Arts, Farnham. 4. Left to Right is reviewed by the ADM-HEA Subject Centre. The review is available on the ADM-HEA web site at: http://www.adm.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/ resource-reviews/resource-reviews-in-alpha-order. 5. http://journals.mup.man.ac.uk/cgi-bin/MUP?COMval=j ournal&key=VCB We aimed to enable participants in VISUAL to explore their ideas and be in position to act on the views and ideas of others and to leave with an enthusiasm for action in their own situation. However, we also wanted to enable those not able to attend on the day to benefit from process. So, how should we capture ideas, discussions and advice generated on the day? The Subject Centre had recently committed itself to forging closer links with our students. We had already initiated a programme supporting students’ attendance at conferences or other events in return for a report, from their own perspective, as students. We had for several years supported the Media Communications and Cultural Studies Subject Association (MeCCSA) Post-Graduate Network and more recently the Higher Education Academy Subject Network Student Essay Competition. The latter, despite reservations about its focus on writing, had elicited a good response and we decided to invite six students to act as reporters, one for each of the discussion groups. Students and facilitators were asked to report and reflect on what was discussed and to provide us with short written reports, although Sarah Fotheringham (reporting on Anita Taylor’s discussion) also provided a drawing of the event which appears on the cover. To supplement these reports each discussion had a facilitator nominated from the group who had also provided us with a summary of the key points discussed by each group. Over 100 people participated on the day and it was never our intention to publish a full and in depth report on VISUAL, simply because of the scale of the event. However, we have drawn together the various reports and commentaries and hope that these give at least a flavour of the breadth of discussion. In addition we have added two papers, one by myself based on work done over the last few years but reconsidered in the light of the debates at VISUAL and a second by my colleague Carolyn Bew based on work she is doing looking at drawing as a way of thinking. Although it was a little frustrating that I could not sit in on all the discussions, the plenary sessions and the obvious enthusiasm from all who participated give me confidence that the discussions I did not hear were as stimulating as the ones that I did. I hope that this report goes some way to communicating this. • David Clews, ADM-HEA Subject Centre Manager Overview David Clews // This paper is based on the debates that took place at VISUAL, the Art, Design, Media Subject Centre Annual Forum 2007. It is also shaped by a series of papers relating to visual research I presented between 2002 and 2004 and my colleague Carolyn Bew’s recent paper Lines of Enquiry. The first of these was based on the Imaging in Education research project1. This project funded by the Eastman Kodak Company and carried out between 2001 and 2002 explored how digital images made by students, as part of project-based learning, could enhance their practice as designers. The second paper was produced for the Centre For Education in the Built Environment as Part of the ‘Building the LINK Conference’ in 2003. This conference explored the Research-Teaching nexus2 and my paper: Visual research for learning in design technologies3 discussed how visual research can be used by students to conceptualise technological aspects of practice often presented as simple problem-solving issues. Finally, Scholarship, Creativity and the Studio4 discussed general aspects of visual research in art, design and media education. This paper was presented at the 2nd Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design (CLTAD) Conference in Barcelona in 2004. These three papers, Carolyn’s paper and the debates at VISUAL are brought together here as a reflection on the Annual Forum. that “creativity is a process requiring knowledge, networks and technologies that interconnects novel ideas and contexts.” In parallel, Judith Mottram in Marks in Space says explanations for vision, for creativity, and probably for other human functions, are starting to reflect behaviours that were once commonly known and understood as central to training artisans. She observes that “Cognitive science now sees deliberate practice as one of the conditions for creative activity”, but also claims that “task repetition” as a way of acquiring facility in technique (in this case drawing) has declined in art schools7. Anita Taylor also advocates for drawing as an essential component of creativity for artists and non-artists and David Crow claims that technological advancement, far from being reductive, actually enhances visual communication. In a more practical sense Alistair McNaught of TechDis demonstrates precisely how enhanced visual communication assists learners. Although much of the work of TechDis8 is aimed at disabled learners and the focus on ‘visual aids’ intended to benefit dyslexic and visually impaired users, it has become clear that all students whose practice engages with the visual can be inspired by these tools. Finally, Simon Ofield addresses, not so much the acts of making visual materials or the materials themselves, but rather his interest in the >> 1. Clews, D. (2003), Imaging in Education: imaging in preliminary-level studio design technology projects, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education Because of its breadth and structure VISUAL generated an incredible range of debates. Our reporters reveal a hugely problematised discussion but also startling intersections across different issues. There is consensus that visual media is growing in importance in education but also in the world generally, some believe visual media may, in many areas, be superseding text as a primary means of communication. On the one hand David Crow and Trevor Hearing point to the way in which the image in graphics, in print, on screen and in the moving image are shaping perceptions of the world. Hearing shows how the massive rise in TV programming and viewing has given programme makers and broadcasters an unprecedented breadth of communication. As TV programmes are now presented to global audiences, cultural and language barriers are if not transcended, are at least translated. He also asks whether the moving image can be in itself a research tool and whether it needs to be ‘anchored’ to the written word. John Piper claims that for Kodak the problem is straightforward although hugely difficult to resolve. The growth in mobile communications has been massive and so has the number of images ‘owned’, accessed and exchanged by individuals. For a company which has, perhaps more than any other, shaped our relationship with images we make ourselves the future will be dependent on our ability to manage and make meaning of more and more images. Their products will be based in our increased ability to share images, which means much better ways of storing and retrieving images than we currently have. Journal, 21. 2. The Higher Education Academy has resources on the Research-Teaching Nexus, see: http://www. heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/teaching. Exchange 3. Autumn 2001 focused on ‘linking research and teaching’. Exchange is the magazine of the higher Education Academy. The ADM-HEA Subject Centre is jointly undertaking research work on how research teaching linkages effect graduate attributes for the Scottish Quality Assurance Agency, see: http://www.enhancementthemes. ac.uk/themes/ResearchTeaching 3. Clews, D. (2003), Visual research for learning in design technologies. Paper delivered at Building the Link, International Conference in Education, Oxford, If new production and communication technologies are at one end of a scale, the craft of producing and analysing visual materials seems to be at the other. It is not uncommon to hear teachers and practitioners exclaim that drawing is still at the heart of art and design practice and those wholly abandoning manual drawing in favour of digital production are compromising their ability to think and be creative. It is difficult to locate any real evidence for the primacy of manual drawing as a catalyst to creativity or professional skills. Equally, it is unclear why, apart from the tensions created within a crowded curriculum, one form of production, say manual, is placed in opposition to another, say digital. It may be that the former is more haptic, closer to gesturing in space but even that might turn out to be nostalgia. No one could really claim that it requires measurably and demonstrably less skill to produce artefacts that require high levels of technological intervention than those requiring less. Does it really require less creativity to produce a well-made and meaningful photograph than a charcoal drawing? In any case the debate becomes rapidly and confusingly problematic given that, for example, pencils and the computer both require technologically adept societies to produce them. However, it is clear that deliberate practice is a necessary component of creativity. Earlier models of creativity centered on “unconscious strategies, exploiting and guided by specific conceptual matrices such as backward reasoning and the generation of analogues”5 have given way to a growing awareness that creativity is neither unconscious nor context free. Jeffcutt and Pratt6 argue that creative practice is more directed and that the application of disciplinary and occupational skills is a key component of the creative condition supported by specific contexts and organisations that allow creativity to flourish and 8-10 September 2003. http://www.brookes.ac.uk/ schools/planning/LTRC/conference2003papers/ clews-paper.doc 4. Clews, D. (2005), Scholarship, Creativity and the Studio. Enhancing the Curricula: Towards the Scholarship of Teaching in Art, Design and Communication, 2nd CLTAD International Conference, Barcelona, 15-16 April 2004. 5. Boddington, A and Clews D. Eds, (2007), Learning, Teaching, Research, Creativity: Teachers Academy Papers. European League if the Institutes of the Arts, Teachers’ Academy 6. Jeffcutt, P. and Pratt, A. C. (2002), Managing Creativity in the Cultural Industries, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 114. Conference Proceedings, University of Brighton, Brighton. Page 60-61 Figure 1. Gillian Rose’s Sites, modalities and methods for interpreting visual materials. Reproduced by permission of the publishers. 7. Mottram, J (2007), Marks in Space, in Frascari, M., Hale, J. and Starkey, B (ed), From Models to Drawings: on representations in architecture London. 8. TechDis Home page: http://www.techdis.ac.uk/ Visual 08/09 learning spaces and how these might be organised to support types of visual learning and ‘visual pursuit’. Much of this discussion orbits around three quite separate but intersecting functions or potentials for the visual. The first is the function of visual materials as evidence in an analytical process. Visual media are commonly used as the research data from anthropological analysis to art criticism. Gillian Rose’s excellent book Visual Methodologies9 identifies a whole range of ways in which visual materials are used as either the basis or the starting point of analysis. She provides the reader with a typology, brief history and explanation of various visual research methodologies and their applications. For example, she explains clearly the difference between compositional analysis, why it is applicable to art criticism and content analysis and why it is used in social and cultural anthropology. Interestingly, these relationships between forms of visual research are summarised in visual form (see fig1, prevoius page). The important point here is that in these forms of visual research, the visual material has an a priori role. It is not the creation of the image itself but the consequence of image creation that forms the basis of the research. The second intersecting functionality is practical. This might be further divided into: instrumental, as is in Alistair McNaught’s demonstrations and discussion of how visual materials assist users in better understanding learning material, and: ‘performative’, as in the ways Kodak will create new products that will result from independence and facility to work with visual materials. Lastly, there is instructive, the production of manuals and other ‘how-to’ publications. These have a respectable place in visual practices and in art, design and media education. The earliest of these manuals appeared in the 15th century10. Today, there are literally hundreds of them. Many are aimed at the ‘amateur’ market and are best sellers in book clubs and stores. Others are practical, technical manuals aimed at professional practitioners, among the most common are manuals and guides to industry standard visualisation and presentation applications. Still others like David 9. Rose, G. (2001), Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, Hockney’s Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters11 combine descriptions of techniques and their applications with historical analysis (fig 2). Sage Publications, London. 10. Leon Batista Alberti’s de Pictura was published in 1437 and is credited as the first coherent articulation of geometric perspective and instrumental in disseminating this technique and other studio methods across Europe. The final functionality, visual research is the most elusive and difficult to define. As a process it is sited in the space between techniques for production (the ‘practical’) and techniques for analysis (the ‘analytical’). It is more readily illustrated by a question: If art, design and media practitioners are the producers of visual materials, what visual research methodologies are applied to production? And, are these methodologies different to those applied to analysis? Put more succinctly, how do we know what to produce? It is perhaps a little unfair as the evidence for visual methodologies in terms of analytical and practical processes are the books, guides and actions of researchers rather than the visual media themselves. The question may be analogous to asking “how can I be creative through working with visual media” and expecting to find the answer by picking up the book: ‘How to be creative with visual media’. Its very existence may guarantee that creativity is replaced by technical competancies. In this context it might be that there is less of a need to write the book than there is to articulate methodologies for visual research. In considering these complex and relational aspects, it was useful for me to reflect on Carolyn Bew’s paper Lines of Inquiry, in particular her argument for the power and utility for the visual as a way of thinking because production and meaning in visual media is specifically non-Cartesian. Visual learning in design technologies arose out of considering the intersections between production and analysis of visual materials as part of a cycle that was visual research for producers. This work began with a hypothesis that there were a range of ways that students tended to work with visual materials from the evidentiary, where students collect and ‘display’ images as evidence of ideas and research, to processes where images are used as ways of interrogating or testing ideas. The former is descriptive and the second reflective but students might quite appropriately work at various points along a continuum with these at the terminal positions. The process of working with two-dimensional visual materials is not only one of communicating ideas but, in the right circumstances, becomes a method for researching and reflecting on the design process and the designed artefact. I would argue that visual research is the synthesis of descriptive and reflective approaches to using visual media. I would argue further that using the term visual research is unhelpful when applied to, for example, the simple collection and collation of visual materials, the making of images or developing expertise in a particular technique. Whilst these might remain essential components facilitating visual research, without the analytical and reflective components, in effect without a proposal, there is no research. This is a highly complex issue and the research aspect is a special and specific condition of the more general activities that comprise working with visual materials. However, when considered in this light visual research shows parallels with ideas about approaches to learning. It may be that only when ‘proper’ visual research takes place, reflection-in-action and a ‘deep’ approach to learning ensues. If the student remains in the realm of perfecting technique and offering evidence of having completed assignments, learning in the project context is only marginally extended and approaches remain at a ‘surface’ level. • Figure 2. Intersecting functions or potentials for the visual. Even more striking was that critical processes or reflection applied to visual media was evidenced by creative-action on the part of the learner. 11. Hockney, D. (2001), Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters, Thames and Hudson, London. Visual 10/11 Visual research and approaches to learning The terms ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ relate to qualitative differences in approaches to learning identified by Marton and Saljo12 . Essentially, surface learning focuses on completion of the task in hand, memorising information and learning technique. A surface approach to learning is characterised by a lack of integration of different aspects of learning into a strategy. A deep approach to learning focuses on understanding rather than memorising and draws on relationships between ideas and knowledge. Deep approaches encourage reflection on the relationships between content and concept. In the studio project or project-based learning it is likely that surface approaches are characterised as an intention to fulfil the brief and to describe the project outcome, whereas students engaged in deep approaches extend the brief and the process of creation becomes a part of the concept for the emerging artefact (in this context I use the term artefact to mean designed object, painting, film, photo, etc.). 12. Marton and Saljo’s approaches to learning are published in: Marton, F and Saljo, R. (1976), On qualitative differences in learning – Outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology; and, Marton, F and Saljo, R. (1984), Approaches to learning. In F.Marton, D Hounsell and N. Entwistle (eds) The Experience of Learning, Scottish Academy Press. A useful general discussion on approaches to learning can be found in Biggs, J.B. (1999), Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham, Open University Press (ages 12-18). A There has been much written on approaches to learning or learning styles, including Kolb’s often quoted work on experiential learning and learning styles13. With the exception of Drew, Bailey and Shreeve’s paper Fashion variations: student approaches to learning in fashion design14 , there is little published research relating to how an understanding of learning approaches might facilitate better teaching in the context of project-based learning. The Imaging in Education project set out to examine how level 1 students in architecture and interior design used visual media in their learning. It showed that students working only with ‘techniques’ of visual representation tend towards a surface learning approach whilst students undertaking visual ‘research’, the reflection upon meaning and concepts embodied within a particular body of visual materials tend towards a deep learning approach. Interestingly, those students most adept in visual research made choices about when collection, evidentiary or descriptive uses of visual materials was appropriate and when reflection needed to be applied to their visual materials using a range of visual research methodologies. Even more striking was that critical processes or reflection applied to visual media was evidenced by creative-action on the part of the learner. That is, new images and visual materials were normally created as part of the reflective process, the processes of visual research combine looking and making. discussion on approaches to learning in art, design and communication can be found in Davies, A (ed), (2002) Enhancing the design curriculum through pedagogic research Enhancing Curricula: Exploring Effective Curricular Practices in Art, Design and Communication, CLTAD Conference Proceedings, Royal Institute of British Architects, London. CLTAD. 13. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc. 14. Drew, L., Bailey, S. and Shreeve, A. (2002) Fashion Variations: student approaches to learning in fashion design. In Davies, A. (Ed.) Enhancing Curricula: Exploring effective curriculum practices in art, design The processes operating in the project and students’ learning were mapped over Kolb’s model for learning styles and the later models for learning approaches proposed by Drew, Bailey and Shreeve. It was possible to corroborate the latter’s observations that: • Approaches to learning are applicable to project based learning • Approaches to learning are not (in themselves) specific to students. • Students may use different approaches at different stages of the project. The students’ use of visual media and visual research ‘mapped’ over the learning approaches model, demonstrating that the ability to work with visual research processes engenders deep approaches to learning (fig 3). Where students remain focused on the acquisition of technical skills they tends towards a surface approach to learning. • and communication in Higher Education, 179-198 Figure 3. The mapping of approaches to learning in relation to outcomes in terms of visual research, within the Imaging in Education research project. Visual 12/13 Later in the same section: Visual Research: Modules and Benchmarks In parallel with observations of students working processes and the outcomes of their projects, I also looked at the modules being taken by these students and by level one students on other undergraduate art, design and media degrees. This revealed an uneven pattern of teaching and learning strategies that involve visual learning. The most explicit references to using visual research were in the courses relating to fine arts and media practice courses. For example, in Graphic Design a reference appeared in the content for the ‘Working processes and ways of thinking’ module which introduced a “working method by the development of visual awareness through research”. In the same unit there were the following learning outcomes:- 15. The Quality Assurance Benchmarks reviewed in 2004 were: QAA (2002), Subject Area Benchmark: Art and Design, and QAA (2000), Subject Area Benchmark: Architecture, Architectural Technology and Landscape Architecture. At that time the review focused on comparing art-based with design based programmes and a review of the QAA Subject Benchmark Statement: Communications, Film, media • The ability to develop a more inquisitive and analytical mind. and Cultural studies included in this paper was not • A recognition of the need for research and how the process helps to provide and enrich visual solutions. undertaken. As the focus of this discussion is on • The ability to select, analyse and categorise, by the collation of visual material. art and history of design modules and benchmarks In modules for Illustration: “observation and analysis of visual information; identification of the basic visual elements of what one sees and how these contribute to the meanings within images; generation and development of ideas through observation; broader approaches to research; investigation of new approaches to visual problem solving”. In Painting: “ Visual research: exploring source material; developing pictorial language”. Similar references appear in units of study in Editorial Photography, Printmaking, Sculpture and Critical Fine Arts Practice. In design-based courses, references to visual research or similar terms within the modules were noticeably less explicit. 3D Design and Crafts made several references to visual research but did not expand on what this might mean beyond the collecting of visual materials as references for ideas about making or for communicating designs. Interior Design modules also made some reference to visual research activities but again, did not expand on the meaning of the term or suggest that the ‘research’ entailed any methodology or underpinning theory, for example: the practice-based subjects a review of history of statement was not undertaken now or in 2004. Benchmark Statements can be downloaded from: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/ benchmark “In the education of artists and designers, the constituent disciplines traditionally emphasised the development of visual literacy”. In the section, “Subject-specific knowledge and understanding, attributes and skills” the document asserts that graduates will be able to employ both: “Convergent and divergent thinking in the processes of observation, investigation, speculative enquiry, visualisation and/or making.” (QAA, Art and Design, p. 5). The Benchmark Statements for Architecture make no reference to visual research, nor does it contain any statements to the effect that visual media have any special role beyond that of communicating designs. The document does make some precise statements relating to visual media as a communication tool, for example (a student will have): • “An ability to understand the conventions of architectural representation • An ability to use a range of visual, written and verbal techniques in order to communicate architectural designs and ideas • An ability to select and use various media in order to communicate to the intended interest group” (QAA, Architecture, p. 4) The Benchmark Statement avoids any prescription of content and means of delivery for design activity, however in the section on teaching and learning, specifically: “4.2 The design project” there is the following statement: >> “Imaging. This exercise develops… spatial explorations that extend the skill base for spatial representation, skills in abstract thinking and ideas about spaces inherent in the student. The relationship between spatial ideas and how they might be inhabited will also be explored in this exercise.” Finally, the modules for Architecture are silent on the matter of visual research in any context. There is a danger in using only the modules to gauge what is actually happening in the teaching environment. It is acknowledged that there may be substantial discussion of meaning in visual material in the context of project-based learning in all these disciplines. Furthermore, this review of modules was undertaken some time ago and modules and teaching and learning will have continued to develop through the normal processes of monitoring and enhancement. A review of the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) Subject Benchmark Statements15 references to visual research was also undertaken in 2004 and again in 2008. The Benchmark Statements for Architecture, Art and Design and Communications, Film, Media and Cultural Studies make no explicit reference to visual research. The Benchmark Statements for Art and Design refers to students developing and graduates possessing skills in visual literacy. For example, under the subheading of the “Nature and extent of subject” the following statement is found: “The processes from conception to dissemination employ a range of predominantly visual languages to articulate concepts and ideas in two and three dimensions” (QAA: Art and Design, p. 3). Figure 4. In addition to communicating the outcomes of the design process, visual media can be used for visual research to explore, direct, anticipate and predict the outcome of the design process. Visual 14/15 “But there are characteristics common to all [design] processes in schools of Architecture. Firstly, the relationship between the desire and intention to form an outcome, and its full or partial realisation, is exploratory and developmental. Secondly, students work predominantly with means which are abstracted from the intended final outcome.” (QAA, Architecture, p.6). In Architecture, perhaps more than most design subjects, the opportunity for a student to make or otherwise prototype the artefact being designed is limited. This means that there will be other materials that mediate the design process and the experience of that artefact, hence the term ‘abstracted’ in the Benchmark Statement. The QAA Benchmark Statements for Communication, Film, Media and Cultural Studies are not explicit regarding visual research. The term is not used in the benchmarks although references are made to ‘visual’ as a form of communication (page 2 under Defining principles), and as a “convention.. that makes meaning” (page 5 under Forms and conventions). Independently of the term ‘visual’ the Benchmark Statements make reference to “Creative, innovative and imaginative skills” and it appears the authors have taken some care to avoid locating these as either academic or professional skills, rather suggesting that these skills are applicable in both contexts and are underpinned by technical and cognitive aptitudes. (QAA: CFMC page 9 and 11). Finally, the Benchmark Statements make explicit reference to research skills, firstly under “the Nature and Scope of the Subject” (QAA: CFMC p. 3) where wide-ranging practices and interests are discussed and then again under “Subject Skills” (QAA: CFMC p. 6) where the following statement is made: “carry out various forms of research for essays, projects, creative productions or dissertations involving sustained independent enquiry”. Despite being unable to draw firm conclusions relating to actual teaching and learning strategies and approaches from these documents, it is possible to infer a number of key points: • • There is no agreed understanding of what visual research is. For some it may indeed be a research methodology using visual materials to explore personal directions and ideas, while for others it may be simply any work involving visual media. In the latter, three-dimensional and other constructed artefacts may be encompassed within the field of visual research. The term ‘visual research’ or development of a ‘visual language’ is most clearly articulated in subjects closer to the ‘arts’ end of the art, design and media spectrum. • Architecture and Interior Design have the least developed strategy for visual research as a learning approach. • The Communications, Film, Media and Cultural Studies benchmarks make explicit reference to ‘visual’ as a form of communication and links research methods to learning and practice. • Almost all subject areas conflate the learning of technical skills with the undertaking of visual research. • Imaging in Education Research Seminars Students participating in the Imaging in Education project were part of level 1 Architecture and Interior Architecture programmes. These subjects perhaps more than any other Art, Design and Media subjects rely on representations to explore and demonstrate proposals. Students rarely get to create real constructions or fabrications and where they do these are in the form of models or highly simplified fabricated abstractions of real buildings. Arguably, they more than any other learners and practitioners in Art, Design and Media practice subjects, rely on visual media whether in the design or procurement processes. The Imaging in Education project deliberately shifted the use of photography from evidence to the proposition, assisting students to develop deeper learning approaches to how designers work from the practical considerations of fabrication (of buildings) to spatial outcomes and vice versa. Using visual media to both interrogate and propose ideas becomes a form of research practice. The research seminars invited students to reflect and speculate on their experience. In respect of working with visual media two aspects were identified: • Students consistently felt that they were poorly equipped to make the kinds of representations that enabled them to examine and communicate their designs. • Teachers had “a hidden agenda” that privileged sophisticated graphics over “good design”. It is the second point that most exercised students. The majority believed that their teachers simply expected them to be good at drawing (and other techniques) and did not provide enough instructive teaching in techniques for them to meet either their own expectations or the assessment targets. Some suggested that ‘good design’ should be made and communicated by ‘proper drawing’ by which they meant conventional orthography that resembled drawings generated in a professional practice situation. In other words there was a conventional and neutral set of representations that were believed to embody an unmediated experience of the design. These were not only assumed to be neutral but acted as a synonym for the designed artefact. When invited to expand on their experience and make specific suggestions about what they thought they needed to learn, students identified two issues: • They need to learn practical, technical skills, and; • They need knowledge of the theories and ideas that underpin the intelligent use of visual media Students readily recognised the difference between learning technique: “my piano teacher showed me the exercise and I practised it over and over again until I could do it well”; and, “If you can learn to play the piano like this you can learn to play any instrument… in fact this is the same as learning to draw on the computer… the computer is just another instrument”, and the first student again: “but so is a pencil, or paints or a camera.” However students also recognised that the context of visual materials is as important as technique: “But all our drawings and photos and other things must mean something, they are about ideas… they must say things to me and to other people”. In terms of the contextual aspects working with visual media needs a theory. The theory that students supposed they needed was composed of two types: • A (proper) theory (of stable knowledge): this was suggested to be, for example: a history of representation or how and why designers draw the way they do, and reading meaning into representation. • Personal intentions for visual media. This was expressed in several ways. One student contributor referred to it as “my idea-drawings” and another as “images that think for me” and yet another as simply “spatial drawing”. However expressed, an ability to conceptualise was seen as important. >> Arguably, they more than any other learners and practitioners in Art, Design and Media practice subjects, rely on visual media whether in the design or procurement processes. Visual 16/17 Discussions around these issues with students and colleagues identified some interesting parallels between the teaching of drawing, conceptualisation using visual media or visual research and the teaching and learning of broader aspects of practice. Both require the acquisition of technical skills and knowledge, declarative (or explicit) knowledge is essential to realising designs that may be informed by situated (or tacit) knowledge. A good example might be that achieving a space that embodies emotional responses informed by the space’s ‘brickness’ requires a corollary knowledge of how brick constructions are made. Similarly, to make a drawing of a space that can be communicated to an audience requires some facility in a chosen drawing method and media. In this context ‘drawing’ can be taken to mean any media and technique including photography, painting, digital media etc. But to use this visual material to propose, evaluate or understand what is being designed, needs both an understanding of meanings and cultural values and also a personal positioning or reflection on the meaning of each visual work. It is the latter that I would characterise as visual research. The activity of design is centred not only on the production of representations of the designed artefact but also on visual research that is embodied in the design process (fig 4). The term ‘research’ is used quite properly here. It engages the student in a reflective activity that is underpinned by a body of knowledge. This activity engages the student in proto-research that requires them to ask a research question (what does it mean?), reflect and examine evidence (the visual media and reference material) and propose a research outcome (this is what it means). It matters little at this level that these outcomes may not add to the body of knowledge within the field, what is more important is that the student has not only learned something about their own practice through reflection-in-action, but they have also evolved a research method. This research method can be reapplied to different visual media in a new context or, put more simply, by one of the student participants: “You can do this again and again with new work and in new projects and still discover something new” This also addresses three of the issues in strengthening the research-teaching nexus . Firstly, students have been and can continue to be contributors to pedagogic research that allow academics to understand and enhance their own practice and generate new knowledge within their discipline. Secondly, students, from the outset, are encouraged to use research methods in the context of their own practice, in this case learning to be designers. Finally, as the visual media is used to facilitate discussions as part of group learning the material is subject to peer review and assessment. • 16. The Higher Education Academy has resources on the Research-Teaching Nexus, see: http://www. heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/teaching. Exchange 3 Autumn 2001 focused on ‘linking research and teaching’. Exchange is the magazine of the Higher Education Academy. The Subject Centre is jointly undertaking research work on how research teaching linkages affect graduate attributes for the Scottish Quality Assurance Agency, see: http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/themes/ ResearchTeaching. What is visual research? Visual research is not a term that is new or unique. Here visual research is understood to be a practice employing visual media to research aspects of the design problem. In this context the design problem is not the brief or programme set by the teachers but that which is created by the student, or in the case of the Imaging in Education, projects by the student design teams. In the Imaging in Education project, photography and drawing were used as vehicles for reflecting on the outcomes of a cycle of design. It was the visual media that ‘held’ the reflective aspects of the design process. This is not to say that modelling and other making work cannot be reflective but that the visual media will, when used as the basis for visual research, offer a critical interpretation of 3D work. It is possible to identify some key characteristics of the image making process: • Technical competence is important. Poorly made images are inherently weak in the reflective process. What is interesting here is not that students needed to develop technical skill (in fact acquiring technical skill is relatively easy with this equipment) but that the process of reflection begins not with the image but with the capturing of the image. • The ability to discuss the image critically and formally is central to the process of reflection. The image is used to demonstrate that something has been achieved, for example: that predictions about light in an interior can be substantiated or more complex issues about spatial performance are explored. • The image is used to speculate on qualitative aspects of the design. Several images might be offered as a comparative study of different aspects of construction or materiality. 16 Although the Imaging in Education project used digital photographic media as the primary visual media, there is no reason to suppose that these points would not apply to the use of any visual medium. Importantly visual research suggests a parallel between the students’ design activities and research activities that are undertaken by academics. These parallels exist in at least two fundamental characteristics: • Visual research has a methodology. The process of making the image is construed as a part of the research process and the outcomes of this process are not known until the materials are reviewed. An important part of this is that teleological practices tended to be undermined by the review process. • The discursive component of the project mirrors the processes of peer review. Images of work in progress formed the basis of discussion in small teams. In the first instance these comprised the students in their project teams and in the second, the team would use the images as the basis for discussion with their teacher. • Visual 18/19 How does visual research support project-based learning? 17. “In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground overlooking a swamp. It was clear from the Imaging in Education project that the outcome of a particular student project and the depth of learning approach were determined by: On the high ground, manageable problems lend • Developing technical skills for working with visual media. swampy lowland, messy confusing problems defy • An ability to reflect on these media as part of conceptualising the design process. that the problems of the high ground tend to be themselves to solution through the application of research-based theory and technique. In the technical solution. The irony of this situation is The reflective process is dependant on making representational materials and whilst acquiring technical skills in say, photography, drawing, model-making etc., it was essential for a student to be able to participate in the reflective process. The technical skills alone did not guarantee that the reflection happened (fig. 5). relatively unimportant to individuals or society at The problem of representation is a mirror to that of technology. Both demand that students acquire technical knowledge and skills and both are part of the conceptualising processes inherent to reflection-in-action and design project work. Shall he remain on the high ground where he can Development of technical skills in drawing are common to courses in the creative disciplines. Reflective practice is usually implicit but rarely explicit. This is often bound by convention: there remain conventions of drawing (even with computers) and that is not to say that there is a problem with this. Practitioners have to communicate designs to be built, for consultation with other professionals and to a wider lay audience of clients and building users. The acquisition of professional competencies alone does not guarantee good design, however, the uses of visual research as a way of stabilising design practice in the studio is important. Visual research can be a practice central to the ‘practicum’ and to developing the artistry necessary to work in the ‘swampy ground’17 of indeterminacy. If technology is one of the many indeterminate inputs to the design process, visual research can be used to explore these inputs and their spatial implications. large, however great their technical interest may be, while in the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern. The practitioner must choose. solve relatively unimportant problems according to the prevailing standards of rigour, or shall he descend into the swamp of important problems and non-rigorous inquiry.” Schön, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Jossey-Bass Inc. San Francisco, California. Page 3. It is clear that in the course of a project, a single student might use several approaches to learning depending on their situation within the project. It is equally clear that the students best equipped to navigate the intricacies of the unstable project were also those able to use visual media to reflect on their own work and processes. Not only were these students able to create a more productive process but were also able to use visual research to achieve an outcome that was satisfactory both in their terms and in respect of the assessment criteria of a project. • Conculsion Although much of this discussion is based on research done in relation to Architecture and Interior Design students and has no doubt been superseded by more recent research, the debates at VISUAL make it clear that the discussion remains relevant to aspects of learning and particularly project-based learning for art, design and media students. It is also clear that aspects of visual research are important, not only in the world of learning but also in the world of practice. All our discussion chairs are practitioners and work closely with visual media and what I would call ‘visual research’. John Piper and Kodak are immersed in user-centered research to deliver new ways for us to make use of the growing number of images we will all ‘own’. Alistair McNaught and the TechDis team are exploring how visual media can assist learners with disabilities and also how all learners can use visual tools to better understand their subjects. Carolyn Bew, David Crow, Trevor Hearing, Simon Ofield and Anita Taylor each use visual media as tools for reflection on their own practices of teaching and graphic design, typography, film-making and drawing. Visual research can assist in the learning process in art, design and media subjects. In project-based learning it can dissolve the distinction between production and reflection. In the common model of the iterative project, visual research appears to reinforce and embed skills and knowledge working rather like the behaviourist model of learning. However, properly managed project-based learning allows the student to see how they are learning. This is what Schön calls “reflection-in-action”18 and the student learns processes that are transferable. The iterative process inherent to project-based learning is central to visual research. Using visual research reinforces and embeds technical skills but the methodology is equally important. The methodology is transferable across situations and across media. Visual research is not inherent or restricted to digital photography. There is no reason to suppose that the methodologies cannot be used with drawing, painting or mixed media techniques. It may also be transferable across the manual/digital boundary. Visual research offers a way for students to see and understand the relationships between technological decisions in the design process. Of course, visual research will not address all aspects of learning about technologies. It is likely that the empirical aspects of technology are not those best suited to learning through the project, as they are components of the more stable body of knowledge best acquired through declarative learning. Visual research provides an opportunity to develop the research nexus. We have learned from what the students do, how they do it and what they learn from doing it. Our learning is feeding back into teaching practice in a very direct way. The research has also revealed that there are distinct benefits to students undertaking proto-research. Visual research offers a model for this proto-research that is directly related to students’ practice in a similar way to pedagogic research directly relating to teaching practice. Feedback from students and the debates at VISUAL suggest that the theory or the intellectual underpinning of visual research needs to be made explicit. Most students (in the Imaging in Education project discussion groups) and the participants across the VISUAL discussion groups recognised that teachers often discussed why one might make particular visual materials or how drawings communicate ideas beyond their representation. However, students admitted that they saw that learning to make images ‘like these’ was their primary objective, requiring them to have technical skills rather than abilities to conceptualise. Students experienced this as a particularly intractable technical problem in that their perception was that their teachers are unwilling to show them how to solve it. • Figure 5. Students acquisition of technical skills to develop visual research. Students may move through the map at different paces and their trajectories are not always fixed to one approach. 18. Schön, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Jossey-Bass Inc. San Francisco, California. Lines of Inquiry Carolyn Bew Greenfield argues that this association is not accidental, and that evolution means that we are predisposed to generate rules that treat nouns as if they were stones, and verbs as if they were levers or pulleys. Back to our early ancestors then! Development of language takes place alongside gains in specific motor skills, actions and sound. The change in mobility and motility expands the child’s territory, and its interactions with the world via touch, smell, sight, hearing, movement and use of words. All of this has to happen within a specific timescale. // The theory of multiple intelligences, developed by Dr Howard Gardner at Harvard University in the 1980s1, has had a profound effect on educational ideas. It suggests that each individual has a combination of eight intelligences in different proportions, and that our schools and culture focus mainly on the linguistic and logical-mathematical types and neglect other aspects such as spatial and bodilykinaesthetic intelligences that could contribute to overall learning. This is contrary to the dominant thought that language is built from imitation, with auditory-vocal imitation of animal calls erupting into language because of our great brains. The hand is involved from the beginning in the construction of language. The interrelation of motor skills and language can be seen most clearly in the field of gesture used in communication, most obviously when we are talking (not hand movements such as smoothing your hair or pushing glasses up on your nose, nor emblematic gesture such as the ‘thumbs up/ down’ etc). David McNeill has shown in his studies Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought4 that the hand movements we produce as we talk are tightly intertwined with talk in timing, meaning and function and significantly individuals who are blind from birth, gesture as they talk. To ignore gesture is to ignore part of conversation. In fact, gestures are constructed at the moment of speaking; they are not part of a codified system unlike speech, and reveal meanings that speech cannot provide. However, this theory still rests on a meritocracy, a ranking of human potential using a combination of different measurements rather than a single IQ rating to indicate the overall ‘intelligence’ of an individual. This in turn has led to reductive suggestions that a desk-bound worker with a high bodily-kinaesthetic score should consider retraining as a forest ranger. Instead, we need to pay more attention to how these multiple aspects of intelligence actually develop, and to the cultural forces that affect the child before we have any opportunity to determine who and what they are. In particular, visual literacy should not be considered as a useful addition or in service to verbal literacy in learning environments, but as part of the process of cognitive development that each child undergoes as it grows. As Frank R. Wilson puts it in his book The Hand2: “There is not, and cannot be, anything called perception – including any kind of visual or visuomotor perception – just as there is not and cannot be anything called intelligence independent of the behaviour of the entire organism or of its entire and exclusive personal history of interactions with the world.” 1. Gardner, H (1983), Frames of Mind, Basic Books, New York. 2. 3. Wilson, F. R. (1998), The Hand, Pantheon, New York. Greenfield, P. (1991), Language Tools and the Brain: The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Hierarchically Organized Sequential Behaviour, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 14: 531-595. Yale. For Wilson, a neurosurgeon, the development of the hand/brain system is one of the defining themes of evolution, and of developmental and cognitive psychology. This contrasts markedly with the binary view that gesture, drawing and the kinaesthetic and haptic world we inhabit belong to lower rungs of an evolutionary ladder, and should be discarded as we move to the higher rungs of language and logic. This is true of art and drawing in particular. Apart from the ‘talented’ and ‘gifted’ few, educated in specialised institutions, drawing, at best becomes associated with infancy, childhood and Sunday painters; at worst it is associated with therapy, the physically or mentally challenged, or with the old and the locked away. Recent evolutionary and psychological studies back up the contention that visual-motor skills and language evolved together in history, and still develop together in each individual human. We are yet to catch up in our educational system. Wilson suggests that it was the development of the hand, changes in visual-motor and tactile-motor neurological connections and increasing the complexity of the brain’s representation of the arm and hand in space, that moved our early ancestors from tool use through language and reason to self-conscious homo sapiens: us. Language involves the use of codes and symbols developed out of the narrative structure, of cohesive purpose underlying tool manufacturing and usage. In other words ‘culture’. Recent studies by Patricia Greenfield at UCLA – Language tools and brain: The ontogeny and phylogeny of hierarchically organized sequential behaviour3 suggests that the developmental chronology associated with a child’s mastery of skills, both with language and in manipulating objects, proceeds in a parallel fashion using the same anatomic structures of the brain as it does so. “Evidence points to the linked ontogeny of object combination and sound combination programs in early development… After about two years of age… language and object combination begin to develop more autonomously, each ultimately generating its own special forms of structural complexity” For the most part, gesture conveys information through imagery, and one feature of visual imagery is that it can present simultaneously information that must be presented sequentially in speech. It is here that parallels with drawing are most easily understood. Speech has the effect of segmenting and linearising meaning, and this segmentation to form a hierarchy is an essential characteristic of all linguistic systems, including sign languages. On the other hand, both gesture and drawing are expressions of visual meaning, conveyed within the dimensions of space, time and form. Children and adults on the brink of understanding concepts will be expansive in gesture relating both directly and indirectly to the speech. Revealing information in gesture that they may not know they have is a step on the path to understanding, and not only reflects learning but also contributes to it. This is true of drawing; the doodle marks the point at which an idea is conceived, as the mathematician is driven to scratch a series of concentric circles as she worries at a problem, the landscape designer roughs out a garden plan and so on. In early school, children are encouraged to draw, and in fact to educationalists like Lev Vygotsky drawing is seen as part of early development but this is where it ends. At secondary school drawing plays little or no part in most subjects. Since Saussure in the early 20th century, writing has been elevated in status and associated with intellectual potency. ‘Bookishness’ is still seen as synonymous with cleverness, and the ability to decipher texts has downgraded sensory awareness to superficiality and false perception. Most damagingly, it has divided the mind and the body. The educational system has marginalised the study of images, or reduced it to a subordinate position where it is used for illustrative purposes ancillary to text, most often in humanities, geography and physical sciences. Interestingly however, drawing still has a significant role in the further reaches of physics and cosmology, areas which are often seen as opposed to art by definition. Stephen Hawking approached his theories of black holes through geometry and imagery, and only later formalised the approach through the mathematical work of Roger Penrose. And Penrose himself disdains computers for theoretical work, preferring the physical act of drawing; his lectures are illustrated with transparencies of intricate hand-drawn images, with one often overlaid on another to indicate a process. As Peter Galison5 puts it, when talking about the use of images in science: “Images get at the peculiar – the unique – features of nature in a way that a calculation or verbal description can never do”. In fact, the early learner first works out ideas through drawing, and over time may come to express that information through words as well as in drawing. This is particularly true of the way we learn in domains that are spatial and visual. The ability to express an idea in drawing does not mean that that same idea can be verbalised; a picture may paint a thousand words, but it cannot be determined in advance what >> 4. McNeill, D. (1992), Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 5. Galison, P. (2002), Images Scatter into Data, Data Gather into Images, in Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Visual 22/23 those thousand words will be for each observer. Another example would be the construction and reading of maps, and an interesting deconstruction of this idea can be found in Mappings by Dennis Cosgrove6 . As Ezra Pound put it in 1935, an image is “that which presents an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time”. On the other hand, to have the ability to verbalise an idea does mean that it can be expressed in drawing. Oliver Sacks in Seeing Voices suggests that users of sign language may develop visual-cognitive enhancements in the brain that leads them to “linguisticise” space or to spatialise language. This suggests that, signer or not, if you devote attention to a specific cognitive skill you will develop amplification, that any advanced skill will have its own ‘intelligence’, and like language gain richness and complexity over time and, like language, contribute to the sense of meaning making. 7 6. Cosgrove, D. (1999), Mappings, Reaktion Books, London. 7. Sacks, O. (1989), Seeing Voices, University of California Press, Los Angeles. 8. Dewey, J. (1934), Art and Experience, Minton Balch & Company, New York. 9. Emmison, M. and Smith, P. (2000), Researching the Visual, Sage Publications, London. 10. Gibson, J. J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to In Art and Experience8 , John Dewey describes a similar process in the way an artist views a scene. An artist may be emotionally affected by a scene, but the response is directed along “channels prepared in advance” and not diffused at random throughout the body. “The motor co-ordinations that are ready because of prior experience at once render his perception of the situation more acute and intense and incorporate into it meanings that give it depth, while they also cause what is seen to fall into fitting rhythms.” In other words, Dewey has picked up on the importance of embodying repetition and the physical expression of perception and response. Against this background, the act of drawing can be seen as a specialised form of visual-motor skill, like gesture, that can develop into its own language and make its own contribution to learning. It should not be seen as some inborn talent that an individual either has or has not; the idea that inborn talent is an instinctive predisposition becomes untenable when you consider artistic experience at large. It is far too broadly based in experience and across disciplines to be solely attributed to a predisposition any more specific that that which controls language. The requirement for drawing is the ability to perceive, interpret, generate and regenerate ideas and information; in fact, the very aptitude that underlies spoken and sign language. The problematic nature of how we interpret images in the construction of meaning, either knowingly or unknowingly, is an issue of ongoing debate. Michael Emmison and Philip Smith in Researching the Visual9 argue that the visual is a much more complex social construct, which includes visual images, objects, events and visual traces that carry meaning, and that social and cultural processes convey meaning not just visually but in a way that is also grounded physically, or embodied. Drawing is often seen as an agency of human knowing that is drafted into service according to knowledge already in place – the arrangement of applied procedures rather than a coherent unified whole. But as James J Gibson in The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception10 suggests that: “in the child both drawing and writing develop from what I call the fundamental graphic act, the making of traces on a surface that constitutes a progressive record of movement”. In fact, drawing is a conceptual problem-solving strategy and can be used to analyse and synthesise things in order to explain them. There are aspects of human understanding where insight is not the result of predictive means, but is grounded in reflexive thought, gesture, and the action of drawing. In the years of the 18th century Enlightenment, when reason became the new basis for all knowledge, drawing was a form of knowing that uncovered theory and practice in most disciplines. It was part of empirical inquiry, both thinking and doing. As the role of education became more established, the role of art became less clear. However, we are still hung up on the idea that the artist just is, and, cannot be made; this has been fundamentally detrimental to the embedding of drawing in learning as a whole. Making meaning is a dynamic interpretive interactive process. It is not one that assumes meaning is inherent to a text or artefact and is revealed if the viewer has the requisite knowledge. Meaning is in the work itself, inherent in form and structure, and meanings are as multiple as our intelligences. So when we look at a drawing we bring not only our cultural orientation, but also particular sets of values – a conceptualisation of things such as time, space and subjectivity, as well as different and competing theories of knowledge, forms of language, and power positions. Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. As neuroscience advances, we see a blurring of boundaries, and a clearer understanding of the origins of these conceptualising values in our common evolution and in our personal cognitive development. Science has opened up new forms of engagement that explore the human condition and question the very design and function of body and mind. This immense complexity of human nature and development contrasts with order and regularity, rationalisation and accountability across the field of education.• “I wasn’t so much advised not to take the (Art) ‘O’ level as not allowed to do it. I couldn’t draw, paint or sculpt.” Jeremy Deller, Turner Prize winner 2004. Session Reports David Crow There was a need to recognise the emotional aspect of the visual and the facility to blend entertainment and education in its consumption. The group noted the rise of the importance of the ‘curator’ in this context. 2. Feinstein, H., & Hagerty, R. (1994). Visual literacy in general education at the University of Cincinnati. In Visual literacy in the digital age: Selected readings The group looked at a number of definitions of literacy: from the [25th] annual conference of the International Visual Literacy Association. (Rochester, NY, October “The ability to read, write, and speak at a level necessary to function at work and in society in general.” The Basic Skills Agency // Professor David Crow studied Communication Design at Manchester Polytechnic. He worked as a Graphic Designer in London at the design group Assorted Images and as an Art Director at Island Records before running his own freelance consultancy. As a freelance designer he worked for a range of clients in the cultural sector including Rolling Stones Records, Sony, Virgin Records, Phonogram and the Royal Shakespeare Company. He then moved to an academic career and taught Graphic Design at Salford University, Liverpool John Moores and is currently Head of the School of Design at Manchester Metropolitan University. Many interpreted visual literacy as ‘learning to look’. Everyone recognised the idea that it empowers us to read and understand the visual environment so that we can make our own decisions, rather than be manipulated by it. This is one of the reasons given by Feinstein and Hagerty for the importance of the visual2 . They consider visual literacy training to be the fourth component of general education in the modern world, of equal importance with reading, writing, and arithmetic. Although there was no agreed definition of ‘visual literacy’ amongst the group, a new term and a revised definition was proposed: Introduction Emerging from the discussion The session began with a brief presentation from the David Crow, which outlined the case for a cultural shift toward visual and pictorial communication. This is a shift away from the cultural dominance of the written word. The commonly held belief that the advance of technologies has a reductive effect on language was challenged and an alternative proposed that, it is in fact, the advances in technology that generate new language and move language forward. Much of the discussion centred on what we mean by literacy in a visual age where language is driven by new technologies. Many found the term ‘literacy’ problematic as it is so obviously grounded in linguistics and tends to suggest an activity that is linear as opposed to holistic; abstract and not socially grounded; methodical and failing to account for the sensation of the visual. There was a discussion about context and literacy and the notion that literacy is context dependant. There was a danger in trying to understand the term from our own ‘reading’ culture. We do this as Western Europeans and as academics. How can we be sure about our judgements regarding the inventive use of visual language if we unable to view visual materials in a variety of contexts? No. ED 370 602, PP. 205-212). Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) System. “Literacy can be defined on a number of levels. It is obviously concerned with the ability to read and write but a fuller definition might be the capacity to recognise, reproduce and manipulate the conventions of text shared by a given community.” John Hertrich in the HMI Secondary Literacy Survey He has exhibited in the USA, Korea and Israel, as well as Europe, and has published two books on Visual Culture. His first book, Visible Signs, published in 2003 by AVA, is an introduction to semiotics aimed primarily at students and his latest book, Left to Right1 is an overview of the cultural shift from Words to Images. David’s work is also featured in the recent publications The Typographic Experiment by Teal Triggs and No More Rules – Graphic Design and Postmodernism by Rick Poynor. The session began with a brief introduction to the idea that we are witnessing a cultural shift towards the image from the written word, a shift that is enabled by the rapid change in the technologies associated with communication. Alongside this cultural shift we have also witnessed a period of intense self-examination in communication design. The arrival of new digital tools forced a re-evaluation of communication design which appeared to place less emphasis on craft and more emphasis on underpinning ideas and theories. In the absence of a discourse of its own, design education drew on the study of language and reinterpreted existing theory for design students. Having borrowed from the study of language, it is commonplace to find references in educational documents to the need for visual literacy. The starting point for the session was to interrogate what we mean by ‘literacy’ in an age where our means of cultural expression is moving increasingly from words to pictures. 13-17, 1993; ERIC Document Reproduction Service 1. Crow, D. (2006), Left to Right, Mantex, UK Visual articulacy: to describe a process with clarity and precision. It was proposed that, as academics and teachers it is our role to help our students find the best language for doing this. Ambiguity and aptness: discussing ‘visual literacy’. Torunn Kjolberg ADM-HEA Annual Forum 2007 was intended as an arena for debate on themes related to visual communication, analysis and research, with six art design and media practitioners hosting concurrent sessions. With a particular research interest in the area, I took part in David Crow’s discussions on what we mean by ‘visual literacy’ in an increasingly image-based society. The following report is based on the debates that emerged throughout the day. Context In his introductory talk David Crow contextualised the discussion in the perceived cultural shift from a text-based to an imagery-based society. Crow underpinned his argument with a selection of advertising spreads from 1914 to the 1980s, demonstrating a simultaneously decreasing word-count with an increased sophistication in use of images. The first half of the century saw a steady proliferation of images, but the ‘image-revolution’ was set in motion by the propagation of television as a mainstream medium from the 1950s onwards. Up until then, according to Crow, the written word retained credibility, but as television superseded radio as the dominant popular medium, the authority of the written word was in decline. The debates that emerged at the time echo contemporary qualms about the negative impacts of television; that this passive form of entertainment ‘poisons’ the impressionable and young, seducing those without the intellectual training to critically appraise. It is this critical appraisal that visual literacy is intended to elicit. The premise for this proposition, is that in an ‘image-based society’, visual analytical skills are as important as the ability to critically analyse text. Herein sat the agenda for the day’s discussions. >> Visual 26/27 Text, image and ambiguity The diminishing status of the written word and the (re)emergence of an image-based society, inspired Crow’s talk, but that this development is ambiguous was confirmed by the debate that emerged throughout the day. During the morning session the aptness of linguistics to interpret images was questioned. Members of the audience expressed a distrust concerning the viability of written text, perceived to be linear and representing ‘absolute knowledge’, to describe what is non-linear and intrinsically personal. This argument was refuted by the observation that there is nothing absolute about the meaning of words and that text can also be non-linear. (Though a valid debate, this was perhaps not constructive to the discussion and typified a tendency amongst participants, with disparate agendas, to allow the discussion to digress). If a consensus was reached, it concluded that although words and images are essentially different, we are not at a stage where we can dislodge the two. Crow demonstrated examples where the two overlap - fonts that are simultaneously verbal and visual. I suspect that such a dislodging will be perceived as counterintuitive to most art and design students. Throughout the debate I perceived a peculiar emphasis on how or whether we can teach students how to read and interpret images. This question seems to run contrary to an earlier assertion that images are intrinsically personal and non-linear, representing the opposite of ‘absolute knowledge’. Though the notion that visual literacy may be ‘unteachable’ was voiced, the question of whether or not visual literacy is ‘unlearnable’ was missed. In other words, the debate displayed a tendency to focus on teaching about visual literacy rather than on the learning of visual literacy. Terminological problems The discussion soon established that several people in the group had a problem with the term visual literacy – more specifically with the term literacy, and that the definitions of literacy in current discourse are inadequate in explaining the types of skills we are trying to describe. We agreed that these skills are contextdependent where there is ‘no right answer’. It was also concluded that literacy is not a useful term to discuss visual practices and interpretation, for that the term is too bound up in notions of reading and writing text. Though highly valid as a philosophical discussion, the debate with regards to: ‘what is literacy?’ extended into the question of what is knowledge and absolute knowledge, became arguably wedged in epistemological discussions with centuries-long trajectories. We were hardly going to resolve these issues in an hour-long discussion. The notion that the alphabet and visual imagery are irreconcilable was put forward, arguing that the alphabet is a system and though whether or not it represents ‘absolute knowledge’ may be contested, it at least seeks precision. Structuralist theory attempted to impose a linguistic system on objects and images, but could not pin down meaning in any definite way. The visual remained culture-specific, interpretative and personal. Visual imagery has no set ‘system’, no anchors and hooks in place of an alphabet, but instead aims to reconfigure existing knowledge. Hence ambiguity and multiplicity is intrinsic to visual learning. Still, as was argued, there is nothing unambiguous about text. Consequently a goal in education is to encourage critical analysis of texts. Similarly it was identified that the purpose behind teaching visual literacy is to give people the analytical tools to understand when they are being manipulated by visual information. Reading imagery is always personal, but so is reading a text. We contextualise new information as we are subjected to it, reinterpreting it in the context of prior knowledge and experience. A generation gap? Crow commented on how we, most of whom are a generation older than our students, were brought up in a ‘reading culture’. He then went on to ask if maybe visuals have greater effect on our generation, not being inured to images in the way younger generations are. In a world saturated with visual imagery, they make less of a sensation, so omnipresent that they are no longer seen. the audience expressed a distrust concerning the viability of written text, perceived to be linear and representing ‘absolute knowledge’, to describe what is non-linear and intrinsically personal. Crow, towards the end of the morning session, raised another interesting question; asking whether we, the educators, actually understand the visual language of those we are teaching? Is there a cross-generational communication problem? And, “are we, as educators, stuck in a previous conception of visual literacy?” Pedagogical strategies Opening the debate in the afternoon session, David Crow invited the audience to describe how visual literacy is taught at our respective institutions. Two approaches were volunteered, the first, by a lecturer in photography at national diploma level, described an exercise intended make students “rethink, imagine and turn things upside-down”. The exercise involves the student sitting in a dark room with an object (the example was used of a lime). The student is asked to describe the lime, then to imagine slicing it –how does the lime react? And what is his, or her-own sensuous reaction to it? Smell. Touch. Is she or he salivating? The student is asked to describe how he or she would light it, and finally to use the lime in a photographic project. The second method volunteered was one in which students are asked to interpret an image without any external information. The student is then told to go out and research the image. These two sets of information, external and internal, are then compared and contrasted. The intended result is an informed opinion, a synthesis of personal experience and academic research. From these examples rooted in practical experience, the debate soon reverted to the debate of the visual/ written as antithetical languages, without debating these pedagogical strategies in more detail. It was concluded that a high degree of visual literacy in students does not imply a high degree of verbal literacy. Many confirmed when Crow asked the audience how many have experienced highly visually literate students who cannot explain what they do. Conclusion The end of the final session epitomised the tendency of the discussion to slightly miss the mark – and the opportunity. Several cited employers’ complaints of the poor level of literacy amongst graduates, that they are unable to express themselves to a desired standard neither verbally nor in writing. Hence the question was posed: if we are failing to teach students to express themselves through words, how are we expecting them to be visually literate? Though a valid debate, it is arguably a different debate. So, two possible conclusions transpired throughout the day: Firstly, that visual literacy is an inadequate term and secondly that visual literacy is a very different concept to (verbal) literacy. The term ‘articulacy’ was introduced as a possible replacement for literacy and that what we are trying to define has something to do with ‘intelligence, depth, rigour and precision” in the reading and shaping of visual imagery. The paradox, which I felt underpinned the debate, was the disparity of basic assumptions as to whether students are essentially visually illiterate or highly sophisticated visual communicators. Some statements reflected the view that students are ignorant and gullible, uncritical and blind in their reading of visual imagery. It is our job as lecturers to teach them to be critical, methodical in understanding and reshaping images. On the other hand, doubt was voiced as to whether we understand their language. Thus confusion arises as to whether it is the teacher or the student who is visually ‘illiterate’. If we are not visually literate, or we do not understand their visual language, how can we propose to teach it? Learning to read visual imagery is a part of our socialisation. We all need an understanding of visual imagery to function in society. But the group we are talking about – future artists and designers require far more sophisticated visual communication skills. They need not only to understand, but to critique and reinvent. What learning institutions can provide is not visual literacy or articulacy in itself, but sets of tools for the students to develop visual intelligence; an ability to not only read imagery, but for critical awareness and reinvention. • Visual 28/29 Trevor Hearing // Trevor Hearing worked in television for 20 years as a television cameraman, researcher, film researcher, producer, director, writer and executive producer, making programmes for ITV, BBC and Channel Four. He made programmes across a wide range of genres from Harry Secombe’s Highway to ITV’s true-crime drama series Crimestory. For the past 6 years he has developed his career as a lecturer in higher education as Head of Television, Video and New Media Production at the University of Sunderland and more recently at Bournemouth University Media School where he is developing a new masters course in producing film and television. Emerging from the discussion The session focused on the use and implications of using moving image products as legitimate academic research tools. The session was structured around excerpts from two of Trevor Hearings productions with additional voice over to explain their use in an academic context as research information, evidence and a vehicle for discourse. These productions form part of Hearing’s PhD research. A number of key issues arose from the discussions particularly relating to language, audience and validation of the academic investigations. The dominance of the literary form in academic research has clearly built on wellestablished academic traditions and is considered to provide a recognised and understandable structure for investigation, review and criticism. Validation of research through peer review and evaluation requires peers to understand the language and in this case, visual literacy employed. Language, audience and validation His research interests focus on the use of the documentary form as a means of academic research and dissemination. He is currently making an investigative documentary, about the early history of the nuclear bomb, as a model of academic reflective practice to explore the concept of a creative academic research tool. Introduction Developing documentary film practice as an academic methodology In this film I explore ways in which I can use documentary video as a ‘creative academic research tool’. What might this academic tool look like, what new methodologies of investigation and reflection might be developed using video, and how might it differ from the industrial conventions of broadcast documentary video? Might the changing context of documentary production and exhibition and the advent of new media platforms offer new opportunities for the academic use of documentary video as a method of research and as the means of expression of the knowledge gained? In examining these questions I focus on the idea of ‘witness’ as a conceptual tool in ‘documentary’. In the video I take a documentary project which began life as a development for Channel 4’s Secret History series and consider how the transformation of this project, from an aborted broadcast project to an academic historical investigation into the early history of nuclear warfare, also reflects my own evolution from television producer to academic film-maker. I consider how my professional career, and more recent reflective activity in a university context, has led me to question how can I develop a more complex ‘writing’ with video to articulate a more complex understanding of the world, by redefining my practice as a form of academic research. My journey, from the broadcast industry imperative of making simple, to comprehending the value the academy places on complexity and contradiction, is illustrated by this project, as I leave the certainties of resolution behind and learn to live with the doubt engendered by critical practice. I question what is hindering the development of visual literacy as an accepted form of engagement in the academic environment. Is it that we need to learn new forms of articulation? Do we need new models of practice? Do we need to acquire new skills? Is it the taint of popular culture in the visual arena that is holding us back? Or is it the conservatism of an academy that does not have the confidence to move beyond words in delivering ‘papers’? Participants agreed that the use of practice-based production as academic research was, or will be, an appropriate approach to academic research at PhD, MA and possibly even BA levels. Difficulties arise from the peer review and validation of investigations where, in addition to subject knowledge, a high degree of understanding and experience of the sophistication and multi textural nature of a media production is required by the reader/reviewer. This may limit or influence the academic audience for this form of enhanced research and academic investigation. In the examples, presented voice-over was used to provide additional information and academic contextualisation of the visual content. The voice-overs provide the opportunity to explain links to earlier research, recognised theories and background information to direct the reading of the visual content and as evidence of the academic’s knowledge and research process. Would the product (in this case a film documentary) be as valid an example of academic research if a professional production crew working to a production script or concept produced it? In collaborative work, many elements influence our interpretation of the content and message. The Director would probably take overall responsibility, but camera, lighting, sound, graphics and especially editing, will influence the production qualities, information, our appreciation of the artefact and the depth and breadth of research employed. With Hearing’s work, though originally developed for a prospective Channel 4 professional production all aspects from concept through to final production, including camera and editing decisions, were considered and determined by an academic auteur and the intent is clear. It is important to note that though the films presented form part of Hearing’s PhD research, he still has to produce a 40,000 word dissertation as the main element evidencing of scholarly activity, demonstrating that considerable progress is required before the moving image/media product replaces the literary form completely in this context. Developing Film Practice as an Academic Methodology. Niki Strange, University of Sussex As one of six discussion strands at the ADM: HEA VISUAL Annual Forum, academic and documentary filmmaker Trevor Hearing presented aspects of his exploration of the use of documentary video as a “creative academic research tool” (CART). Interested in experimenting with, and critically reflecting upon, the interface between industrial practice and scholarship, Hearing’s presentation formed part of a broader research project to explore what new methodologies of investigation might be developed using video, raising questions around the nature of scholarly research, of documentary in a changing media landscape and of how the two may interrelate. >> The dominance of the literary form in academic research has clearly built on well-established academic traditions and is considered to provide a recognised and understandable structure for investigation, review and criticism. Visual 30/31 The first of two screened extracts, or visual sketchbooks, centered on two works by Anthony Gormley, The Angel of the North and Another Place, and the second around an investigation into the early history of nuclear warfare. Both featured footage shot originally for broadcast contexts and Hearing was interested in the transformative effects of changing such contextual framing from broadcast to scholarly exegesis upon his own manner of production. Also how, in the ‘re-purposing’ of such visual material, a range of discursive formations could be constructed and indeed, de-constructed. Through the use of a meta-diegetic commentary describing his own purposes, practice and methodological aims, Hearing made manifest his exploration of how film may exist as data in its own right but may also serve as an embodiment of its own criticism. Prompted by the screenings, the discussions coalesced around a number of themes. Among the most notable were, firstly, the relationship between form and content: for example, could the creative academic research tool (CART) work as well for more controversial subjects such as child pornography? How successfully can the CART contain – or perhaps, more productively, engage with – the layering of authorship, such as in the case where content features authored work such as Gormley’s? Secondly, does the visual within the context of academia need anchoring with the written or spoken word, as with Hearing’s self-reflexive and critical commentary? Finally, in this way, does the CART methodology counter the reductive polarity of artistic creativity and criticism by acknowledging, at the least, a dialectical relationship between the two aspects or even offering up new ways beyond the dialectical to critically create or to creatively critique within a single work? Allowing for the significant steps that research by practice has made to legitimacy in the academy, does there still remain a paucity of means to assess methodological and/or performative approaches outside the normative written text? How does one, for example, imagine a literature review being formulated within a purely visual thesis? How does one express intentionality or indeed must the academy evolve new ways to ‘read’ research intentionality in the visual within the context of understanding its contribution to the field? Where is the research question articulated or placed in order for it to be read, traced, reflected upon, assessed or, indeed, later reviewed (thinking of the longevity of its academic contribution)? Perhaps here, one could bring into play the part of new digital interactive technologies and of models such as the DVD, which would provide a menu of extra-diegetic ‘extras’. Whilst Hearing’s presentation consciously engaged with the impact of such technologies, foregrounding, for example, how the increasing accessibility to kit, desk-top editing software and distribution offered new, or more easily available, tools to the academic researcher, his own project centered on the exploration of how to integrate the CART approach within the linear as opposed to the interactive space. Staying with the impact of digital technologies and, in particular, the broader dissemination of material afforded by the internet – and indeed, more generally, through the digitalisation of material – questions are raised around ownership of such work. Would one of the strengths of such a methodology be that it lends itself to be re-purposed for communities of interest beyond the academy? Bringing us back from considerations of audience to the researcher/author/artist: we are prompted to ask whether the intimacy of the reflection, as ‘diary’, may complicate this? I found the discussions of the methodology, and indeed Hearing’s methodology itself, inspiring within the context of my own DPhil research into the recent emergence of multi-platform interactive ‘projects’ resulting from television’s increasing convergence with digital media – at conceptual and production levels as much as in technological terms. I am interested in methodologies such as those proposed by Caldwell3 that elucidate, through the notion of ‘Critical Industrial Practice’, how producers or practitioners may be actively critical in their production practice. Also how cultural forms, such as the multi-platform project, may be seen as explicit ‘performances of context’. In doing so, Caldwell seeks to address a tendency he perceives, within the academy, to segregate the textual from the contextual underpinned by a ‘gnostic’ inclination within critical theory to disembody and de-industrialise meanings, ideology, power and identity in theory. Through his reflections on whether one can use a visual medium largely co-opted by broadcasting within the context of critical and academic pursuits Hearing provides a useful contribution to this debate and to my own thinking around how industrial and scholarly practices may collide. I am grateful to the ADM-HEA for the opportunity to attend and participate in such a lively and interesting event. • 3. Caldwell, J. T. (2003) Second-Shift Media Aesthetics: Programming, Interactivity and User Flows. In EVERETT, A. & CALDWELL, J. T. (Eds.) New Media: Alistair McNaught Theories and Practices of Digitextuality. New York and London, Routledge. 127-144 Caldwell, J. T. (2006) ‘Critical Industrial Practice: Branding, Repurposing, and the Migratory Patterns of Industrial Texts’. Television & New Media, 7, 99-134. // Alistair has over 20 years teaching experience and has been involved in using e-learning in mainstream teaching (and supporting staff in doing the same) since the mid 1990s. He worked as Information Learning Technologies co-ordinator at Peter Symonds’ College, contributing to a wide range of subject-based projects including a major external project with the National Museum of Science and Industry. He worked for many years as a freelance author both in his subject area (earth sciences) and e-learning. His main interests lie in (i) the use of e-learning to accommodate a range of learning needs (ii) providing teachers with the tools, techniques and confidence to provide flexible, adaptable learning experiences for their students (iii) helping develop pragmatic pedagogically sound approaches to the use of e-learning in supporting all learners, particularly disabled learners. A keen amateur photographer and poet, he maintains an ‘arty blog’ at wordcurious.blogspot.com Introduction ‘Visual’ – solution, problem or catalyst? Learning from the learner’s experience. The art, design and media world is familiar with paradigm shifts where a new way of looking at things suddenly nurtures creative possibilities that had not been seen before. As technologies for teaching and learning evolve, the possibilities of more inclusive approaches to content delivery, skills development and assessment begin to multiply. This session considered how technologies can support learners with primarily visual learning preferences. From highly portable hardware such as Mimio boards to freely downloadable software such as CamStudio and WINK*, learning resources can be transformed, bringing particular benefits to dyslexic learners. But are the arts automatically visual? How do we knock down barriers without erecting new ones in their place? This session used a mix of online presentation, sample resources, technology tools and lively debate to explore new opportunities for inclusive practice that might just inspire some new experimentation… Emerging from the discussion Alistair McNaught provided an introduction to TechDis4 , an educational advisory service aiming to enhance the provision for disabled students and staff through the use of technology. While TechDis are charged with supporting disabled students, their focus is on making mainstream teaching as accessible to as many learners as possible. According to McNaught this shift in emphasis is important because often teachers think that they don’t have any disabled students. McNaught posed an important question about whether a focus on ‘visual’ equals a solution, problem or catalyst for the development of inclusive learning and teaching. Participants concurred that dyslexia represents the most widespread disability issue in art, design and media education and ‘making visual’ represents a means of supporting these learners. McNaught demonstrated some ‘subversions’ of, for example, Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat; ways that the use of readily available software (that we think we know how to use) can be adapted to accommodate the needs of the broadest range of learners. He also demonstrated more specialist software, such as Inspiration, showing how these tools assist, particularly, dyslexic learners. >> 4. Editor’s note: TechDis is a facility supported by JISC (the Joint Information Systems Committee). It is one of many initiatives supported by JISC that aims to enhance students’ learning experiences and offers advice to teachers and signposts to other services. TechDis Home page: http://www.techdis.ac.uk/ Alistair McNaught’s page: http://www.techdis.ac.uk/ index.php?p=1_1_3 * see page 34 Visual 32/33 McNaught also demonstrated ways that screen capture software can enhance learning from the visual through accompanying pointers, text and sound. He used Cam Studio5 to demonstrate how, in just a few minutes, a still image could be subtitled, accompanied by an audio commentary and sent to a PDA. While obviously beneficial for visually impaired learners, wider applications were also discussed; participants recognised the potential for art, design and media. The value of this tool to art history students, for example, as a means of practicing (and sharing) analytical methods. Resulting ‘presentations’ might also be used as part of alternative assessment methods. Participants raised several issues that were perceived to prohibit the development of inclusive practice in the development of learning resources: • Cost of software (although it was acknowledged that freeware is often available) • Steep learning curve for staff. It was suggested that developers needed to acknowledge this difficulty rather than emphasise the ‘easiness’ of adopting new technologies. The ‘easiness’ was seen to further intimidate and alienate staff Participants concurred that dyslexia represents the most widespread disability issue in art, design and media education and ‘making visual’ represents a means of supporting these learners. 5. CamStudio is free software; it provides 30 seconds’ recorded files. For voice recording to comment on still images you need a recording mike attached to the • Learning new software is extra work although there may be a future payoff. There is a real need to emphasis the benefits to the teacher computer. The application records voice at the same • Sustainability of visually oriented software. A sense developed that software such as Inspiration6 would need to be embedded into the whole process of teaching learning and assessment. in size. The application can be used for a mini-lecture Some discussion took place about the possibility of technology solving accessibility in some respects, but raising barriers in others. Could the cost of personal technology (e.g.: PCs, PDAs) exclude learners? Alistair cited research, which has shown that technology ownership is not necessarily related to economic status. time as showing the position of mouse pointer on screen and is saved as a AVI file, typically about 5mb to upload on a Virtual Learning Environment. http:// camstudio.org/ 6. Today, Inspiration cost about £18 (sterling) per licence (this software can output as PowerPoint slides, to the Web and to MS Word). Solution, problem or catalyst. Further observations by Dr. David Brancaleone Alastair McNaught discussed how to broaden access to learning and the ways to achieve that by creating learning resources and applying them. McNaught’s background is not in the arts, design or media. However, the principles and processes in art and design and other areas of study are in common. He proceeded from practice to theory, through presenting various tools and techniques in the context of several scenarios. separate them aids understanding. The size of the text on a screen (regardless of whether it it’s a computer screen the student is looking at or a PowerPoint presentation in a lecture theatre) really helps, in particular, it benefits visual and hearing-impaired learners and dyslexic learners. My own reflection on this was that, if students are expected to read course handbooks so as to understand assessment requirements and other rules, these documents too need to be legible and accessible to the student with learning difficulties. McNaught directed us to a link on the Higher Education Authority website to a web document prepared by him: ‘Accessibility Essentials’7. McNaught also asks how many of us use PDF files. It emerged that only 3 or 4 people (out of about 20) in the room use them. His point was that even PDFs can be designed to make the text more legible. Headings can be put in bold type, using MS Word. There is no learning curve involved in producing a more legible document. He added that it also helps to use visual tools to improve analysis of concepts. He mentioned MindManager and other ‘mind-mapping’ applications. His interactive demonstration involved constructing a ‘mind-map’ using this software and showing us how easy it is to use it. One potential application for mind-mapping is to help students to plan their dissertations. One participant said that he had used it, and that while students enjoyed the experience, there was no evidence that they used it in planning their dissertations. The group and McNaught thought that if mind-maps were used as the first slide in (PowerPoint) lectures, for example, students would see that it was being incorporated in methods of teaching and would be more inclined to use it themselves. McNaught’s presentation concentrated on using mind-mapping for lectures, by beginning each one by example, demonstrating the mind-map approach to the lecture. That was when people said that the way forward is for it to be implemented in a macro way; in other words, integrated as part of a whole package. Another participant pointed out that while E-portfolios might be a compulsory part of some courses, students had reported that it was very useful even where it was not required as part of assessment. And, I pointed out that aligning assessment with learning tasks would encourage students to learn using this approach. One of the discussion participants said he was dyslexic and that he takes notes that he then copies into Inspiration (a mind-mapping software package). He then makes a mind-map which forms the basis of his report. There was some discussion of free versus commercially available applications. McNaught noted that, yes, some mind-mapping software is free. It does not, however, carry out the extra tasks of commercial software. McNaught explained how you can import a Word document with headings into a mind mapping software and then translate it into a mind-map. This is a way of reducing pages and pages of continuous text into a much simpler visual, a diagram. Such a graphic will be easier for a dyslexic learner to understand. “Only prisons have more dyslexics than design institutions” Lesley Jackson, ICON magazine. Microsoft Word and Accessibility According to McNaught, the learner’s lifecycle can be described as a journey: • Learner’s lifecycle. The learner’s journey • Acquisition of (information) • Assimilation (reflecting) • Assessment (much of it is practical assessment, not so problematic. Dissertation writing is problematic though. • Practice Acquisition Lectures, reading lists, theory, background. How to deal with these tasks? McNaught suggests maximising the visual, and, by doing so, minimising the burden on students to use text-based materials. His first piece of advice was on presentation (in fact, all the session looked at more effective presentation). Why might a student not succeed when using in text-based material? Having simple solutions such as larger text and layout may make a difference. (font-size, layout, paragraph spacing, etc.). Also, using colour to distinguish areas of information and What about colour blind or visually impaired students? How can you teach them about Impressionism with images they can’t decipher? One of the participants suggested switching to greyscale. However, McNaught’s point was that MS Word is often not used to its full capacity. It can be made to work for students with learning difficulties. For example, in PowerPoint and Word, introduce labels to help students analyse images. McNaught gave a demonstration on the use of labels taking us through the procedural steps. • First inserting a dummy hyperlink using ‘Screen tips’ facility in MS Word. • Then in the tool bar in Word make a box or circle selecting the appropriate tool. • Then go to ‘Insert hyperlink’. • Go to ‘Place document’. • Finally, go to ‘Screen tips’ on right hand side of the dialog box. • In ‘preferences’ in the desk-top menu system, font sizes for labels can be changed. >> 7. TechDis ‘Accessibility Essentials’: http://www.techdis. ac.uk/index.php?p=3_20 Visual 34/35 Using labels on images to convey information Apart from the practical procedure, what was significant was his application of labels to images. His teaching point was to give the teacher a new way of working with images. In this way, the student (for example, a dyslexic student) can write less. Images with labels that pop up when you move the cursor on different areas, breaks the continuity of a narrative essay, the kind of writing students are used to, but can find very difficult. Instead, if they are given activities using comments in labels on images, when they use the labels, they break down their observations into a number of observations in the boxes. In their e-portfolios, students can use this method of breaking up information to explain their own portfolio of images. The demo McNaught’s purpose was, he said, to show us ‘the art of the possible.’ Other useful resources • Move the cursor over the image for further information. It is about iconography [highlighted word]. DSPEECH software converts a word document into • You can also use screen tips to create a definition and have it interacting on the difficult words (for definitions). Office-tools/Other-Office-Tools/DSpeech.shtml • A participant asked if it is possible to print out pop-up notes as footnotes. The answer was that if you want pop-ups that print out, you must use the ‘Insert comments’ command in MS Word. www.inspiration.com/ McNaught’s purpose was, he said, to show us ‘the art of the possible.’ One participant remarked that his demonstrations a fundamental cultural shift on the part of instructors. In his department, he said, people only want to use paper-based assessment. Another added that it all seems so easy (the new technology). But it isn’t! The dilemma or challenge as she saw it was the learning curve in applying the technology to teaching and learning. Her point was that if it were of use to the teacher or student then he/she would be willing to overcome the difficulties in learning. Accessible PowerPoint, before and after McNaught gave another brief demo. This one was entitled: ‘Accessible PowerPoint before and after’. He showed a ‘bad’ PowerPoint lecture presentation of slides on ‘The Ideal Body’ (in art and design). It showed images with no captions. His first point was that headings on slides help students but speaker’s notes are also valuable aids to understanding the lecture. If you right click on the screen, then the lecturer’s Speaker notes appear in a box. His point here was that showing notes helps visually impaired learners. To upload the lecture notes without infringing copyright law, you export the text from PowerPoint, but without the images. You can go to File > Send to > MS Word. Then you save the file as RTF to avoid having the images appearing in the Lecture Notes. McNaught showed how, using only MS Word a common document can be made far more accessible. He took a typical Student’s Course Document and changed all the formatting of all the headings, then created a navigable screen document view. All this was done in standard MS Word. The secret was to style headings using Heading 1, 2, 3 etc. Students can then view the electronic version showing the headings on the left-hand side of the screen, next to the page. a mp3 (voice) file. http://www.softpedia.com/get/ Inspiration visual thinking and learning tools: http:// MindManager: http://www.mindjet.com/uk/?google_ uk=mindmanager WINK runs from a memory stick. It takes longer to learn than CamStudio, but it allows you to take your own screen shots. It is useful for high file resources, rather than a ‘quick and dirty’ output. Typically files are around 1mb. http://www.debugmode.com/wink/ TechDis: Visual Learning and Learning Needs. Dann Casswell, Bath Spa University Education often takes the form of students assimilating written information through reading and displaying their acquired knowledge through writing. Partially sighted, dyslexic and hearing impaired are just some of the students who are better able to acquire and display their knowledge in other ways. By using visual and creative learning techniques these pupils are able to get as much out of the class as other students and therefore require less specialist teaching. On the other side of the visual-learning divide there is also a pay off; if visually-inclined student’s needs are integrated properly into the teaching style, those students who were perfectly comfortable to begin with will also be advantaged. Making text easier to read for example, benefits everyone in the lecture and exploring concepts in a variety of media can only increase understanding. If the conference as a whole was about visual literacy, Alistair McNaught’s TechDis workshop was about practical advice on how technology can be used to augment traditional literacy by teaching and assessing in more visual and creative ways. Problems with getting the department on board Cost. The main issue that arose in the session was one of how to use the information provided within it to maximum effect. The question “how does one excited academic make a change within an apathetic institution?” was raised in both sessions. The main stumbling block was the idea that integrating technology into the teaching and assessment processes would be prohibitively expensive for both the students and the university. To combat this problem McNaught demonstrated innovative ways of using several free-todownload programs or programs that are already widely used within universities. His argument being, when it is not costing the university additional money, the institution can afford to experiment. The added bonus of going below the surface of what we thought of as familiar programmes is that he was able to outline a way of maximising student accessibility that did not seem inaccessible to the attending lecturers, some of whom had only basic computer literacy skills themselves. Luddites. Another stumbling block was that of excluding those who are not computer literate. It would be a horrible irony if in trying to expand the accessibility of knowledge we made it impossible for those of us that are not computer literate to access it. Alistair suggested that existing induction process for students, which often include training on the institution’s Virtual Learning Environment or Electronic Library System, could be expanded to include some instruction in how to make programs like Microsoft Word more accessible and where to find other helpful programs like those listed on his website. For some key students this could transform their productivity and reading-confidence in moments. Paper Culture. The third major issue was that of ‘paper culture.’ Many people do not like to read from screens, and many lecturers feel unable to mark work that has not come to them in an essay format. “How does someone mark a ‘mind-map’, a piece of video, or a website?” These were important questions that are impossible to answer in the space of a single demonstration but some suggested strategies were proposed. Lecturers were encouraged not to expect transformations in university culture overnight but to concentrate on using the technology to improve specific tasks and in so doing allow people to realise the potential for themselves. Show and tell others about the benefits without demanding that they follow your lead. Wait until a problem is presented and be ready with the solution to that problem. The end of the traditional lecture? McNaught is not suggesting that traditional learning methods be totally abandoned in favour of more creative or high-tech ones. He simply believes that the option should be available to the students to whom it best suits. Total dependency on technological teaching leads to obsolete lecturers clicking mice rather than responding to students. It also leaves a lecturer at the mercy of a power cut or computer virus, in teaching there should always be room for the personal touch. Visual and creative technological teaching aids are part of the solution but are not a solution in themselves. >> Visual 36/37 Personal Thoughts. As a dyslexic student, I found many of the techniques that I learned in McNaught’s seminar useful. I was already using mind-maps as a revision tool and as a way to structure my own work, but I was unaware for example, of the ‘web layout’ function in the ‘view’ menu of MS Word. (This allows me to view my text in a much larger size and still have the lines formatted to fit the screen.) I also learned how to embed hyperlinks into key words and symbols and thus avoid littering my text with untidy URLs and website addresses which make it difficult to read. I have also been using CamStudio to create video poetry. I think that one fear that lecturers have with technology is that every course will end up wasting teaching time on computer skills rather than the subject, the fact that I was able to learn three things that have been useful to me, in one short lecture, shows that this is not the case. I also feel that in the same way that essay writing sharpens paper literacy skills in general, it makes sense that universities should also encourage a higher level of computer literacy at the same time as students study other work. Computers are not a fad, they are now an essential part of life-skills, they may have good and bad points but if only to offset the bad side, we should learn to use them to our maximum advantage. • Simon Ofield // Simon Ofield was appointed Dean of Kingston University’s Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture in August 2006; prior to this he was Academic Group Chair for Art, Philosophy and Visual Culture at Middlesex University.  Simon is currently completing a series of articles on the connections between visual / spatial culture, and male social / sexual practices and pleasures in and around London after the Second World War, focusing on the work of Francis Bacon, Cecil Beaton, Keith Vaughan and David Hockney. The most recent in the series is ‘Cecil Beaton: Designs on Francis Bacon’, Visual Culture in Britain, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2006. He has an ongoing research interest in interdisciplinary studio practice and its relationships with historical and theoretical inquiry, and he was a member of the Globalising Art, Architecture and Design History (GLAADH) Steering Group8 . Introduction Kingston University is just about to commit to a major investment in the built environment occupied by its Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture. So, like many others we are currently pre-occupied by this opportunity and what it might mean for the delivery and development of current and future courses.  At the moment our physical and academic structures pretty much match one another, pretty discrete studiobased subjects, situated in disciplinary schools and located in designated studios, with different spaces for history of art and design / visual culture, and a range of shared faculty workshops and a university Learning Resource Centre. The arrangement of what is mostly designated space makes both casual inter-disciplinary encounters unlikely and more formal inter-disciplinary learning a challenge to orchestrate.  Further, the physical environment seems to make it clear that different forms of learning – and different forms of visual pursuit – are more suitable in some places than others.  Alongside this physical environment, we have a number of projects that are establishing digital locations for our students and staff, some which replicate and others question our physical organisation. Much of this arrangement of physical and digital space seems to be based on a commitment to retain, or sustain in new circumstances, a ‘studio-based culture’. Within this environment we also have some ambitions - a greater integration of different activities within a course, a commitment to interdisciplinary forms of curriculum delivery and development, and an expansion of practice-based research – but what forms of space are needed to serve these ambitions?  This session focused on exploring the relationship between changing academic priorities and ambitions, and the ‘opportunity’ to re-organise physical, digital and academic environments. Emerging from the discussions, Julia Lockheart Simon Ofield talked about his interest in space through his past knowledge of the Middlesex campus. This had a spatialised philosophy of what he called ‘unmapability’. This meant that the very nature of the building encouraged surprises, chance encounters to happen. He talked of odd dark corridors and spatial anomalies that left occasional and regular visitor lost and confused. Ofield advocated this ‘use’ of space and had been asked to work on a new design for the Kingston campus. This debate seemed timely as many in the group had either just moved into a new buildings, been asked to move in the near future, or were in the process of moving. One remarked that it was interesting that even with a new build, a department never had more space after a move. >> 8. Globalising Art, Architecture and Design History: http://www.glaadh.ac.uk/ Visual 38/39 Debate was also raised around space being a curriculum issue rather than a management matter. However, this should result in more effective space management across the institution. 9. InQbate is the Centre of excellence in Teaching and Learning in Creativity based at the University of Sussex and the University of Brighton: http://www. Time was an issue, as many students need to work cuts into their timetabled studio time. This provoked discussion about physical and digital spaces in practice-based learning. The tutors’ own use of space while they were students was paralleled with current students requirements. As a result ‘flexible space’ was a key focus, with defined ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ space. An initiative called InQbate 9, was discussed. InQbate is a Centre of Excellence for Teaching and Learning looking at how learning spaces can foster greater creativity in engineering students. Participants also believed that is was important that a focus on ‘flexibility’ also delivered ‘stability’ and ‘ownership’ at the same time. In the second session the discussion centred around virtual space and allowing students to define their own space. It was felt that not enough research had been carried out into students’ actual spatial needs for practicebased learning especially in contexts where much has changed but much has remained the same. The term ‘studio space’ conjures up a physical space but was this actually required and how and when was it being used? The importance of community was raised with the notion that the less the students see their tutors, the less they feel the need to be physically present within the institution. Thus part-time tutors and cuts in teaching budgets have direct impact on the students’ use of space. Is electronic access to a tutor taking the place of the one to one tutorial or student discussion-based crit? Seminar space was pivotal for the expectation of belonging to a developing community. However, as a counter to this, the Swedish ‘virtual institution’, Hyperisland10 with its BA course for designers with no physical building. Although no firm conclusions were reached the discussion was lively and the scenarios and informal case studies of the institutions currently discussing these issues was illuminating. However it was generally believed that research into space use would encourage new and evolving pedagogies. Rebecca Wright, London College of Communication A central theme of Simon’s introduction was that the physical teaching environment is linked to educational philosophy and that space is an important curriculum issue. How can space be designed to enable practice rather than dictate it? Ofield proposed the notion of a “total art and design and research environment” prompting discussions about what this might include. He spoke of the relationship between visual and spatial literacy and the educational possibilities this presents. The idea of “high-tech sheds” that were fully flexible, equipped with up to date technical facilities, with good light, ventilation and acoustics was popular but so was architecture which could allow for and encourage surprise encounters in incidental spaces (the back stairwells, for example) and interdisciplinary interaction. In particular he asks: is the notion of studio culture still relevant? Ownership of space was a recurring theme in the discussion. There was recognition of the need for tutors and students to feel they had a base but also that they were able to make this space theirs. With different student groups requiring different things it was agreed that the challenge was to provide a resource which could match the needs of this ‘mixed economy’. There was recognition of the need to balance philosophical imperatives with a pragmatic approach. Space seems to be frequently discussed by managers in terms of efficiency (many colleges have space monitors with clipboards) and there was nostalgia for the art school ethos where the activities and students shaped the space in relation and response to their activities and personalities. We discussed how this could still occur through ‘guerrilla’ tactics – students and tutors claiming and subverting incidental space – and the management issues this would raise. In this morning session we only touched upon the need to harness technology as part of a creative solution to the spatial debate. It was acknowledged that virtual space is most effective when fully integrated into the curriculum and that it should be used in tandem with physical space and not in place of it. Positive examples of this came from colleagues who had found that when students created on-line communities these were more effective when they formed part of the course structure. inqbate.co.uk/ In summary, the discussion had a recurring theme; the desire and need for tutors and students to take a more active control of space and the belief that a contemporary educational rationale should be driving estates strategy and not the other way around. Learning Spaces: Salvatore Scifo, London Metropolitan University The 2007 ADM HEA Annual Forum brought together academics from art, design and media practice subjects, as well as media and communications and history of art and design, to discuss some of the current issues in the area of visual analysis, communication literacy and research. Among a very interesting range of workshops, I was attracted by the seminar lead by Simon Ofield, Dean of Kingston’s University Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, focusing on the relationship between changing academic priorities and the opportunities given by re-organising physical and digital academic environments. During my Masters degree in Communication Science, back in Siena (Italy), I attended a course that has been very helpful in my everyday life, as well as when I am working on websites and their content management. Its name was ‘Human-Machine Interaction’ and included concepts like user-centred design and usability design. I still wonder why so many objects, buildings and procedures that we use in everyday life are often built-up in a way that makes them uselessly difficult to use. Similarly, some University buildings, especially areas that should make learning and teaching processes easier both for students and staff, seem to be suggesting everything but interaction or helping people to be more creative and inspired. Simon Ofield started the workshop by telling his own experiences at his current institution, Kingston University, where the main campus features three interconnected buildings being built in different decades (50s, 60s and 70s) and the University has planned to spend approx. £20m to re-develop it. His aim is to create a ‘total’ environment where the disciplines ‘see’ each other and proposes that the development of space shouldn’t be left only to management but should become a curriculum matter as “space is NOT the consequence of what we do”. I totally agree with the idea that rearranging the environment is part of the possibilities of improving teaching and learning practices and in art, design and media that the relationship between physical and digital spaces should be given more emphasis. I believe that the assumption that just management at the higher levels, and estates and facilities have the only right to be involved in the planning or the re-planning of teaching and learning spaces should be seriously questioned. The planning process should feature much more of its users at its heart, possibly putting in place collaborative forms of interaction with each other, especially now that web-based tools could facilitate this kind of process. The workshop seemed to be very well planned and, despite a very good attendance, it gave everyone the possibility to share his/her experience first in pairs, the in fours and, finally, with the whole group. It seemed that people appreciated this and everyone was actively discussing their issues, taking notes and sharing knowledge and experiences, including examples outside their institution for example the University of Sussex ‘incubator’: InQbate. After the first round each participant introduced themselves and explained their own interest in attending this session, providing a short background on their issues proved a very good way to share knowledge. Most of the participants based in design departments or schools and operating in a managing capacity, shared concern that management and estates departments very rarely consider the space issue as connected with teaching and curriculum development. >> His aim is to create a ‘total’ environment where the disciplines ‘see’ each other and proposes that the development of space shouldn’t be left only to management but should become a curriculum matter Visual 40/41 This is especially problematic in a place as big as London where students and staff live often all across the city and have usually few spaces to share by themselves. It’s something quite weird to be part (formally) of a ‘community of interest’ - the University or the specific course - without sharing a physical place, and therefore the creation of user-friendly spaces could surely improve the creation and the usefulness of a ‘community of space’ as part of learning practices10. 10. Ref 17 however, these problems are not likely to be limited to London-based institutions. All metropolitan HEIs will share these problem and there are likely to be similar spatial and community building challenges for institutions located in smaller towns and cities, rural and coastal situations where students and Iguess that then the question is: do staff want students to stay more inside university spaces and if so, how is this to be achieved? Perhaps by being given more of a sense of ‘owning’ space, in either a studio or in a university cafeteria? At this point, it seemed to be that something was missing… the students themselves. For an issue that matters so much to them it would have been great to have more students (apart from me) attending this workshop, even though the passion with which some members of staff discussed this topic makes me hopeful that they have (or will discuss) these issues with their colleagues and managers back at the university. Towards the end of the session, Ofield invited us to discuss opportunities and possibilities and asked “What is the ideal space for you?” Practice-based educators proposed a wider use of more flexible rooms, including dividers, adjustable roofs and sinks, the use of natural light, where possible. Spaces that are specifically planned to encourage group work and the possibility that students should be more involved by giving them spaces that are managed directly by themselves. It was suggested that there was little research on how students can use learning spaces effectively. Ofield advocated for the use of open, social spaces adjacent to staff offices at Kingston University, where the location of activities had resulted in the delivery of increased number of workshops and a higher rate of attendance by students. Finally, the Hyperisland in Sweden11 was cited as an example of open-ended solution: one participant claimed “it is a very basic without infrastructures and, judging from its achievements it works very well.” What started with the discussion of negative examples and a list of concerns and problems ended with examples of positive solutions and best practices, and all the participants, including myself left the workshop with some sort of commitment to make their own workplace better and with a range of ideas and contacts that could surely help this process. • John Piper faculty may travel long distances and often in regions poorly served by public transport- Ed. 11. For more information on Hyperisland go to http:// www.hyperisland.se/ // John Piper originally trained as a designer. After following a career in film and TV he joined Kodak European Research in 1995 as a creative amongst the technologists. His Kodak career has ranged from ‘blue sky’ concept development for advanced digital systems, to colour trend forecasting for consumer products. Today, his main work at the new European Research Labs in Cambridge centres on user behaviour and experience. This work informs the direction of technologies within the area of digital photographic systems. Introduction Relationships of mobile technology and social networking. The recent explosion of social networking, blogging and video-sharing websites are reporting phenomenal amount and increase of user traffic, with the YouTube video sharing site having more than 25m visitors each month and rising. YouTube was launched in Feb 05 and acquired by Google in Oct 05 for a $1.65billion stock deal. O2 the European mobile phone network provider recently reported that web blogs had increased from zero in 2003 to 34.5million blogs every six months in 2006 and that content within these blogs are increasing particularly video and still images generated on mobile phones. They also report 68 million mobile phones in the UK are in use, 2 billion people will have a GSM phone by the end of 2006 and all phones will have Internet access by 2010. Mobile phone and Social networks Mobile phone uptake amongst teenagers has also seen a massive rise. Profits at mobile phone maker Sony Ericsson more than doubled in the last quarter of 2006, rising to €502 million from €206 million in the same period in 2005. The Swedish-Japanese company sold 26 million mobile phones during the period, compared with 16.1 million the previous year. Sales rose from €2.31 billion to €3.782 billion. Growth was strong in Europe and Latin America. Mobile phone uptake amongst teenage groups is so great that ASH (Action on smoking and health) believe that a rise in teenage uptake of mobile phones in the UK may have provoked a decline in teenage smoking. Mobile phones will play an increasingly important role in this phenomenon of social networking. Chris DeWolfe the founder of MySpace recently claimed a huge growth in the use of mobile phones for social networking and mobile phones and the new breed of multi-media devices are playing an ever increasing role in the creation of ‘content’ for this type of activity amongst teen groups. Although the predominant groups for the uptake and use of these new communications technologies are the teenage and young adult sectors, the use of these technologies are still banned in most schools and museums. >> Visual 42/43 Discussion Would the integration of the ‘mobile phone’ (personal portable multi-media device) into educational practice enhance learning? Can the phenomenon of social networking, blogging and personal movie creation advantage teaching practice? Emerging from the discussion John Piper opened the discussion by describing how, when George Eastman, the founder of Kodak, created the first easy-to-use camera, photography was transformed from an expensive gentlemens’ hobby into a high growth consumer product. Gradually, over the next one hundred years, owning simple, relatively cheap and easy to use cameras became widespread in the developed world. By the end of the second world-war most people had at least a few albums and several boxes of photographs recording their lives and the lives of friends and family. With the introduction of cheap digital cameras, mobile phones with cameras and communications technologies the number of images ‘owned’ by individuals rocketed from a few hundred to several thousand. In addition to these we have access to thousands, perhaps millions more shared images. The volume of images alone suggests that the visual has, and will continue to increase in significance in all our lives. Technologists tend to search for applications for technological ideas, processes and products; design approaches identify problems worth solving and seek solutions to these problems. These solutions may be technological. Piper also said he has been disappointed in industry/commercial attitudes to design. He has said that in his experience industry tends to bring designers into the process to package products and concepts already decided by engineers and marketeers. Piper advocated the employment of “user-centred research” used by his design teams to discover ways in which people think about the images they collect. User-centred research aims to translate ideas into “useful products and experiences”. He asks: “how can this approach change pedagogy for arts and design practices”. The debate raised issues around “deliberate practice”12 . This is the utilisation of occupational and technical skills of the discipline or practice to find problems that are worth solving and improve our capacity to solve those problems. Research shows that deliberate practice in context is a requirement for creative practice13. When individuals and teams are in control or ‘own’ the creative process, they have the means to deliver meaningful and innovative solutions. Technologists tend to search for applications for technological ideas, processes and products; design approaches identify problems worth solving and seek solutions to these problems. In a more specific discussion around the use of images Piper identified the problems of the ‘shoebox’ or filing cabinet model for managing images. Until fairly recently images were hard copy, photographic prints and most domestic users of cameras owned a manageable number of photos created in their lifetime. However, the number of images ‘owned’ by individuals is set to rise exponentially. New and disruptive technologies means the communication, sharing and the use personal images will multiply. The old linear, typological models are becoming useless and new relational models for understanding images in context, and acceptance of their contingency will become increasingly important. The discussion raised the issue of ‘natives and immigrants’. Much is made of a generation’s facility with new communications technologies and how teachers often feel their students are leading them. However, pursuing the analogy of natives and immigrants it was noted that immigrants often see things in ways natives do not in much the same way as travellers see new things. The important thing is to not be a tourist. Orthodoxies for practice need to be challenged. Recent research by ADM-HEA14 has shown that students with less robust and conventional models for commercial practice are less constrained in their views about how their practice will be sustained post-graduation. Piper observed that he has often found that graduates from arts subjects more inventive thinkers. He believes this is because designers are often constrained by authoritative and orthodox models for their practice. 12. See work by Ericsson http://www.psy.fsu.edu// faculty/ericsson.dp.html 13. Drew, L. ed, (2008), The Student Experience in Art and Design Higher Education: Drivers for Change, Jill Rogers Associates Limited, Cambridge. See especially Barfield, N. et al. The research:creativity nexus, pages 99-124. Although it is accepted that technical competencies in the discipline are important. The importance is not most immanent in relation to professional activity but in facilitating greater creativity. This point is repeated from the morning session. The Relationships of mobile technology and social networking Alex Bec, University of Brighton The 2007 ADM-HEA annual forum, VISUAL, held at the Custard Factory in Birmingham covered a wide array of topics exploring visual research and education. I was lucky enough to attend two sessions with Mr. John Piper, European Research Co-ordinator with Kodak, to participate in a discussion on how mobile technology is advancing, and the effects that it is, could and should be having on our education system. To guide the discussion Piper raised many eye-opening facts in his presentation highlighting the recent “explosion of social networking”. For instance there are sixty-eight million mobile phones in use in the UK, along with a rapidly increasing forty million blogs appearing online since 2003. User-centred research, if applied to curriculum development may deliver ‘real student-centeredness’. However it is important to understand that in this process the student is not the customer or consumer (In the Kodak studies the aim is to deliver new products and services to Kodak customers or the consumers of Kodak products). The student is a participant and actor in the research that delivers new learning experiences, new knowledge and new learning outcomes. Kodak is undoubtedly a technology-driven company whose future success depends on how they connect with their users. Their main priority is making sure that photography embraces advancing technology as it is opening doors for those willing to learn and research. Piper’s initial thoughts served as a perfect cue to draw parallels between the way in which Kodak and visual education both need to embrace evolving technology as a necessity rather than a modern luxury. In this context participants (in the discussion) raised three important issues: The first topic raised was whether or not using this technology would enhance or hinder the way we teach. Have we already generated an effective way of teaching that would only lose out if it were to be tampered with? Current online arena were criticised by the tutors present for their lack of success. Important information is more often than not readily available for students to access on sites such as Blackboard (virtual learning environment) but these never seems to be as effective as promised. This seemed to bewilder the tutors a little but the problems are disturbingly obvious for a student listening in to this discussion. In essence, institution-run websites are structured and marketed without the student being taken into consideration. • User-centred LEARNING need to be coupled with user-centered ASSESSMENT where not all learning outcomes will be defined in advance of the learning. That is not all valuable and authentic learning outcomes can be anticipated, but all of them can be identified through the process and in the process. • Associated with this we need to be clearer about portfolio-based assessment. • Quality assurance processes, whilst admirable in their aim to deliver transparency have become cumbersome and generate opaque languages lacking in relevance for most audiences. Surely as is true for all successful design, the problem must be approached with the user in mind from the outset. Not only does the navigation of such sites need to be much easier, the design also has to appeal to those viewing it rather than be cobbled together without adequate reason or concept. When the students understand the benefits online communities could have on their studies, rather than simply be used just as >> 14. ADM-HEA, (2006), Creating Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurship Education for the Creative Industries, University of Brighton. Visual 44/45 ‘repositories’ for old briefs and notices both students and tutors will reap the rewards. As Dave Hotchkiss from Plymouth College of Art & Design put so simply, “we must speak in a language they understand”. Following on from this it also became clear that the principles of teaching practice should not be altered just because of technological advances. Although abstract rather than tangible, online domains can create suitable teaching environments. We can bring people together online for discussion and debate but in my opinion we must be incredibly wary of this method. For example, one tutor was excited about their institute’s degree show being entirely online, with no physical show of any kind. In my eyes this is where technology has the capability to hinder visual education rather than liberate it. There is much to be said for the accessibility of an entirely online degree show but as a recently graduated student the notion is an incredibly depressing one. If we start solely displaying our work online we lose the exceptionally important acts of feeling, touching and experiencing work first hand. Computer screens add a gloss to work that taints and dilutes, never really letting us experience it as it was intended (the exception is of course web/screen based work). Being able to document and catalogue a degree show online is undoubtedly incredibly useful – but only if it runs alongside a real degree show in a real space. In my opinion this example highlights perfectly how technology can work both as a benefit and handicap if not used in the correct way. We should be embracing these advancements to aid our current way of teaching visual education, by collecting groups of students together in an environment that will spark meaningful debate and critique. A final point that was raised, mainly by Rebecca Wright from The London College of Communication, was that it is essential that tutors appreciate that they are the ‘immigrants’ and the students the ‘natives’ when it comes to technology. The students are, ironically, the most capable of teaching the tutors how to use the new methods in teaching effectively. The tutors need to listen to and act upon suggestions for pupils, echoing the sentiments of John Piper as he called for a user-centred way of researching at the very beginning of the session. From listening to the panel discuss the topic and in turn forming opinions and ideas of my own I can form a very clear conclusion. The bottom-line is that visual education is most successful when the student is engaged in conversation and debate about their work and influences. This needs to take place in an arena where creativity can thrive and strikes an effective balance between critique and productivity. This arena can be hugely helped if facilitated by the benefits of a rapidly expanding technological age but it is vitally important that technology is not relied on. Online forums, mobile technology and web based information should be utilised as computer software is to a designer or illustrator – as a tool, but not as a mask for elements that are lacking elsewhere in the system. There is no doubt that there could be benefits if used correctly, but the reality is that this ‘could’ must be turned into a ‘should’. Relevant systems need to be researched with the students in mind now or visual education will most definitely be left behind. • Anita Taylor // Anita Taylor is Professor of Fine Art and currently acting Head of Wimbledon College of Art. Anita studied Painting at the RCA; was Artist-in-Residence at Durham Cathedral 1987-88, Cheltenham Fellow in Painting 1988-89 and Artist-in-Residence in Drawing at the National Art School Sydney in 2004. She has taught, examined and exhibited extensively in the UK and internationally; awards include the Malvern Award for Drawing, Drawing Award, Hunting Art Prizes for Drawing, the Hunting Art Prize 2000. She is a member of the AHRC Peer-Review College and sub-panel 63 for Art and Design in the RAE2008. She makes large-scale drawings, which explore the relationships of the female subject as artist, model and portrait and is currently making paintings derived through transcription from medieval tapestries, which explore the reading of iconography and pictorial language. Introduction: re:positioning drawing As Director of the Jerwood Drawing Prize and the Centre for Drawing at the University of the Arts London15, the role of drawing in contemporary art practice and in education (teaching, learning and research) is of key interest to Anita Taylor. Drawing is seen as a fundamental discipline for creative development; a means by which to encounter and examine the world, and a departure point to explore our relationship to the world. The language of drawing and the function and purpose of drawing are of essential interest, as the embodiment of visual thinking. The annual Jerwood Drawing Prize exhibition project, originated in 1994, was established to promote the discipline of drawing, provide a forum for the exhibition of current drawing practice; to situate this discourse within the educational context of an art school (provide work experience for students); and to gain knowledge and understanding about drawing through this ‘survey’ of artists working in the discipline. VISUAL – The Role of Drawing This all-day session began with a comprehensive presentation from Professor Anita Taylor of Wimbledon College of Art, in which she gave an overview of the diverse shifts and aspirations in drawing today, followed by a group discussion that ranged from monochrome drawing in its own right to drawing as vapour trails in the sky. And while it was generally agreed that drawing was still integral to the art school experience, it was also agreed there was little room for it because of the lack of studio space and time in the curriculum. The discussion of drawing as visual communication drew out the overlap with literacy, in that writing can be seen as a specialist form of drawing that uses a language of marks to convey a broad spectrum of messages, and established that there are common factors or categories for drawing as there are categories of verbal or written expression. However, any comparison with linguistics was seen as complicated, as drawing had more in common with body language than spoken language, and that we respond or comprehend a drawing arise on many nonverbal levels using a symbolism of visual forms analogous to a visual ‘alphabet’. This is distinct from the direct imitation of representational art, and creates its own kind of reality in which students can become more and more visually ‘literate’. >> 15. Find information on the Jerwood Drawing Prize at www.jerwoodvisualarts.org/drawing and on the Drawing Research Network at www.drawing.org.uk Visual 46/47 Lovers, in the King’s chamber. Drawing by Anita Taylor It was also felt that the advance of technology could be seen to have had a reductive effect, producing dimensional uniformity rather than reflecting the variety of scales on which drawings have traditionally worked and marginalising drawing - at least to some extent - in the culture as a whole. Definitions of drawing are fluid in the culture, with blurred boundaries in a vast array of different methods and styles from the ‘time-wasting’ doodle to the engineering blueprint. It is increasingly understood as a democratic and context-dependent activity rooted in psychological needs, carrying form and meaning beyond the undifferentiated marks of lines on a piece of paper and defined by the activity itself rather than the materials or media used. In trying to define drawing, we inevitably reduce its possibilities. But it was agreed that there are good habits to get into when evaluating any drawing. The cultural context surrounding the production of a drawing, the problems of making aesthetic judgements from a particular standpoint, the implied meanings conveyed by visual conventions and codes, and the creative role of the observer should always be considered. The implications for art colleges of this approach were of particular concern. It was seen that there was a danger in trying to define the role of drawing in the curriculum, and that, despite the recent resurgence in figurative work, using nude model drawings as the basis of an art education was clearly redundant from the lecturers’ point of view. While there was no agreed definition of the role of drawing in today’s curriculum, it was agreed that the role of drawing as an experimental medium on both psychological and conceptual levels was of undiminished importance, and that future research developments should focus on the way that drawing, functioning on a number of levels across all disciplines, can support learning and teaching on a variety of levels. Sarah Fotheringham, University of Brighton Anita Taylor, acting head of Wimbledon College of Art and Director of the Jerwood Drawing prize led the discussion ‘re:positioning drawing’ which sought to examine the current role of drawing in contemporary practice and education, and what could be done to elevate its status and the resources to support it. Anita began the discussion by talking about several initiatives that she has been involved in to advance the profile of drawing such as the Drawing Research Network and the Jerwood Drawing prize, and by raising a number of questions surrounding the topic. Two main themes emerged. Firstly, the nature of drawing, its purpose and function, and secondly, drawing in relation to education, how drawing is tackled at school, and then higher education, and whether there are subject specific or interdisciplinary needs, and if so, how they should be approached. In terms of the nature of drawing, we tried to define what exactly is drawing (an impossibly broad task), and the possible functions of drawing. People draw in order to communicate. People draw as a method of tracing and tracking thoughts, to organise an argument, and to evoke emotion. Drawing has been around forever. It predates text, yet language and text are always prioritised. This was a main point for discussion throughout the day. How can drawing be as widely accepted as a means of communication as text? One of the main problems is that drawing has no common syntax. There is a commonality to language. Compared to drawing, we can all understand it, it is more easily accepted. Whilst text can indeed mislead and have multiple meanings, more often than not drawing tends to mean different things to different people and open itself up to interpretation. This is one of the lovely things about drawing. However, could drawing ever have a common syntax? People were generally agreed that no, it could not, and possibly this is no bad thing. Drawing is very different from text as it can communicate many things simultaneously. Text is linear. We read it from left to right, from top to bottom. However, with drawing a huge amount of information can be communicated at the same time, and that is another of the reasons why it is so hard to discuss. This difficulty was possibly one of the most crucial points raised in the day. It stems from the fact that there are no adequate words to describe drawing. When we talk about drawing words are borrowed from other disciplines. We talk about expression, about composition, about texture. It was hypothesised that we may need to come up with a new language or set of terms in order to be able to properly discuss drawing. I feel that if it could be agreed as to where to begin this process, it would be a great help to the practice, and would possibly make a difference in bringing drawing to the forefront of artistic discussion. In terms of drawing in relation to education, it emerged that main obstacle hindering development is confidence. When young, children instinctively draw, they draw what is important to them from experience and they do not worry about what it looks like. However at school age (particularly at secondary school) something changes, and our imaginations are limited as we are taught rules and develop a narrow minded view to drawing, often losing confidence in our own expression. Consequently, coming into foundation courses there is the job of ‘unpicking’ what has been learnt from drawing before and starting afresh. Students often lack the confidence to draw, partly because there are so many ideas as to what drawing should be. There is a vulnerability to drawing as a thinking process, and it is often seen as an ‘outsider’ activity, something to hide and not to share. However sharing is what needs to happen. One of the core points made was that the drawing is often taught by showing examples of ‘great’ drawing, yet students are not shown the methods of how to get there, causing them to be put off by it even more. An excellent suggestion for tackling this problem was to create a network of examples of drawing practice for everyone to use as a resource. This could take the form of a portal (on-line resource) for student drawing, with examples of drawing across all disciplines, from fashion illustration to architecture to fine art as different subject areas have different and overlapping needs. There is no doubt that this would be a positive step in advancing the practice of drawing in education, increasing the confidence of students so that they do not worry about how they work, and opening up students and tutors alike to new ideas and methods of drawing. Additionally, it was agreed that existing resources such as books are often hidden or difficult to access within libraries, and a greater effort needs to go in to making these available for everyone. The key phrase of the day was that we must ‘demystify drawing’, open up a dialogue so that we can better understand and appreciate it. Perhaps more students need to be involved in a similar process to students at Wimbledon College of Art who every year help with the Jerwood Drawing prize selection process. They are exposed to thousands of drawings and encouraged to talk and identify why they are attracted to particular images, thus learning what may be valuable qualities in drawings. Another important observation made on the state of drawing within higher education was that increasingly, students write before they draw. They think through writing rather than through drawing, leading back to the point that text is often prioritised and drawing is not seen as a valid academic medium. It is vital to stress that drawing is integral to practice, and to encourage the process of thinking through drawing as an equally important part of learning to the finished piece. This could extend to the promotion of visual dissertations, so that across all areas of teaching, drawing is seen to be equal to language. To conclude there were several central outcomes of the day. Primarily, in order for the practice of drawing to advance, we need to develop a language for talking about it. Secondly, we need to enforce the idea of drawing as an essential part of practice, and thirdly, we need to build a resource to hold different types of student and contemporary drawing practice. I found the discussion interesting and useful, although just like a drawing there was no beginning, and no real end. This is the kind of discussion that could go on for hours, and I hope that some of the conclusions of the day are followed through so that drawing can reclaim its’ pride. • There is a vulnerability to drawing as a thinking process, and it is often seen as an ‘outsider’ activity, something to hide and not to share. With thanks To make the Annual Forum a success requires a huge amount of work by the ADM-HEA Subject Centre team in the weeks leading up to and on the day of the event and I would like to formally record our thanks to those who worked behind the scenes to make everything run smoothly. They are Carolyn Bew, Alison Crowe, Jenny Embleton, Debbie Flint and Mark Hanlon. 1. Thanks also go to our student reporters who have provided the reports appearing in this publication, they are: 2. Alex Bec completed his BA (Hons) in Graphic Design at the University of Brighton in 2007. He is now working as a freelance designer at the Peepshow Illustration Collective. Alex has contributed to the Subject Centre’s Networks magazine and received an ADM-HEA bursary to attend the ‘Competitiveness Summit’ in 20061 . Alex Bec attended the Competitiveness Summit 06 Conference. His report can be found at http://www. adm.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/student-voice/ conference-reports Artswork is the Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning for the Creative Industries based at Bath Spa University, http://artswork.bathspa.ac.uk 3. The Centre of Excellence for Teaching and Learning through Design (CETLD) is based within the Faculty of Arts and Architecture at the University of Brighton. Dann Casswell is studying for a MA in Creative Writing at Bath Spa University. He describes himself as a performance poet and video artist. He has contributed to discussions on the subject of artists with dyslexia and has published video, film and written work including a short story broadcast on BBC Radio. Dann is one of Artswork’s2 Student Fellows and his work is published on Broadcast Lab. Sarah Fotheringham completed her BA (Hons) in Illustration at the University of Brighton in 2007. She is currently on a creative placement in the London office of an international advertising agency working on branding and campaigns for commercial and social enterprise. Torunn Kjolberg recently completed a BA (Hons) degree in Fashion at the University of Brighton and was awarded a studentship from the Subject Centre and the Centre of Excellence for Teaching and Learning through Design3. Her doctorate is based on how fashion and textile students use visual research as part of their learning. Salvatore Scifo was awarded an MA in Communication Sciences from the University of Siena in 2003. He is currently lecturing in Community Media in the Department of Applied Social Sciences at London Metropolitan University and also studying for a PhD at the Communication and Media Research Institute at the University of Westminster. Niki Strange studied at the University of Northumbria where she was awarded a first class honours degree in Modern Art, Design and Film in 1993. In 1995 she gained her MA in Film and Television studies at the University of Warwick. She is currently studying for a DPhil in Media Studies at the University of Sussex. She also works as a Media and Communication Manager for an award-winning digital design and production agency. We would also like to thank all those who facilitated and provided reports on the discussions. They are Carolyn Bew (ADM-HEA), Dr. David Brancaleone (Limerick School of Art and Design), David Crow (who provided a report on his own session), Julia Lockheart (Goldsmiths College), Debbie Flint (ADM-HEA) and Rebecca Wright (London College of Communication). Finally, Thanks to all those who attended and participated in the discussions, you know who you are. • http://cetld.brighton.ac.uk. Contributors Alex Bec Carolyn Bew Dr. David Brancaleone Dann Casswell David Clews David Crow Sarah Fotheringham Trevor Hearing Torunn Kjolbeg Alistair MacNaught Dr. Simon Ofield John Piper Salvatore Scifo Niki Strange Prof. Anita Taylor Rebecca Wright Edited by David Clews Production by Alison Crowe Original design by Blast www.blast.co.uk Layout design by compoundEye www.compoundeyedesign.com Printed by Team Impression www.team-impression.com This magazine has been printed using soya based inks on paper that is certified in accordance with PEFC. It meets the standards of the environmental management system ISO 14001 and is manufactured using pulp that comes from sustainable, certified forestry. Copyright © ADM-HEA ISBN: 978-0-9558978-0-1