|
Discipline
An aspect of courses under Albers that impressed me was the
absolute silence when students were working. The only sound
was an occasional crumpling of paper as students made the
decision to start over. The ability to judge their own work
was the direct result of Albers providing simple, uncluttered
objectives which made criteria obvious. This can be compared
to the more prevalent practice of students not starting over
until the teacher is critical of the work. Albers taught students
how to evaluate work for themselves, and thus began the process
of students becoming less and less dependent on the teacher
with each new exercise as they progressed in the program.
In drawing class, Albers required students to keep a sketch
book which was turned in at the end of the semester. He threatened
students with hell and damnation and a low grade at the least
if they had doodles, phone numbers, cartoons, messages or
anything other than serious sketching in the book. He likewise
cautioned students about not tearing out any pages–he
wanted to see everything. I don’t know if it is true,
but students swore that Albers had counted the pages in the
sketch book that we used, and if he suspected pages had been
removed, he counted the pages. He did not like work that was
crumpled, dirty or otherwise damaged. He could be scathing
when messy work was submitted. Albers taught students to respect
their own work no matter if it was a sketch or a finished
piece.
In Basic Drawing, Albers did not permit charcoal drawing–he
referred to it as smear drawing. (That is with a German
accent that sounds more like schmeer.) He had equal
distaste for rubbed graphite or blunt pencils. Every student
was required to have a pencil sharpener and to keep a sharp
point on the pencil when drawing. Particularly so in drawing
classes, Albers constantly admonished students “You must
learn to crawl before you can walk, and until you can walk,
you cannot run.”
Once students progressed beyond the abstract exercises and
began to draw objects, Albers demanded a single line describing
form. He became agitated when students used multiple lines
to define a contour – what he called hen scratching.
He would point to one stroke and say, “Do you mean this
line, or perhaps this one, or which one do you mean?”
He justified this as saying that he could not judge what the
student had done when there were so many options. Whether
students were drawing with line or mass, he required control
and students were held accountable for every mark they put
on paper. Albers did speak a great deal about the need for
discipline and not much about skills or craft, but he constantly
demanded them from each student.
A large part of Albers’ success with teaching had to
do with his ability to verbally communicate with students
regarding visual theory and content. He most often expressed
his views through metaphors that students understood. He was
uncanny in this respect. Albers clearly stated problem objectives
which were uncomplicated and easily grasped by students. He
always provided criteria for evaluating progress and goals.
Consequently, students became increasingly self-sufficient
in working toward problem objectives. He presented exercises
in sequential and incremental steps with each new one building
on the one before,–much like the crystallization process
he described.
The
Misunderstood Albers
Albers’ pedagogy was not suited to every individual’s
concept of an art education. Because of the restrictive nature
of simple exercises with specific criteria and objectives,
some felt that he was too dogmatic, rigid and arbitrary. Albers
classes were never conducive to free spirits who wanted to
do their own thing. My observation was that students who had
another education in art before Albers did much better than
students who had only Albers. I think the reason for this
being that students with prior experience had something to
compare with what they were receiving from Albers, and immediately,
they realized the value of Albers’ approach to visual
education. Because of the positive response, they were better
motivated, more appreciative and productive.
Albers
was often misunderstood and unfairly judged by many. Because
Albers worked with color paper packs and controlled line did
not mean that he believed that these were ends – he used
them only as instructional strategies at the initial stages
of visual education. There was a distinct difference between
how Albers related to students at the beginning level and
with those in advanced classes. In basic courses, Albers dictated
objectives, format and materials. In upper level courses,
students chose content, style, format and materials and Albers
taught within parameters set by students. Never before or
since Albers have I seen so much variety of approaches to
painting in one class
Never
Question Content
Students worked with abstract expressionism, representational
art, impressionism, or color studies in paint and some even
imitated Albers’ work. He never questioned content, only
what the student was doing or trying to do visually. The same
was true with prints and drawings. Albers was open and receptive
to all kinds of expression, it was always a matter of the
student’s level of study and understanding what they
were doing.
When critiquing painting students, it was customary for Albers
to ask the student what they were trying to do. If the student
responded in terms of color, space or form, Albers engaged
in meaningful discussion with the student. If the student
responded in terms of feelings, or some esoteric rationale,
Albers would throw up his arms and in a loud voice exclaim,
“Gotten Himmel! Don’t show me your intestines.”
He would avoid that student for the next few weeks. It did
not take students long to learn how they should reply to Albers'
inquiries if they wanted his input.
Albers
was extremely rational in his approach to instruction. When
it came time to put pencil or pen to paper, brush to canvas
or chisel to wood or stone, Albers believed that artists became
intensely rational as they concentrated on how best to give
form to intent. In the classroom or studio, he had short shrift
for mood, emotion, mystique or self-expression. He rarely
relied on the past for examples. He was more likely to rely
on analogies to explain a point. He concentrated on pedagogical
principles and reacting to what the student was doing. Albers
said to me that those aspects of painting dealing with emotion,
expression or message were personal and subjective, therefore,
that as a teacher he was in no position to judge them. Albers
confined his comments to what students were attempting to
do in terms of color, line, shape, space or form. Albers clearly
made distinctions between what could and could not be taught.
He provided students with tools for expression but felt that
expression itself was a private matter.
The implications of Albers’ view are that artists work
with objectives in mind, and they do not meander aimlessly
in a purely reactive manner. Albers never made a specific
statement about subjective factors, but my impression is that
he thought them to be personal, incidental and not a goal
in themselves– they were something that occurred while
seeking other objectives.
|
