|
Theory
and Practice
To my knowledge, separating theoretical from practical studies
as a separate program began at the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus introduced
new concepts in visual education with courses and teachers
representing a mixture of painting, theater, crafts, sculpture,
design and architecture. Therefore, it was necessary to devise
introductory courses that would be relevant to each and every
discipline. The Bauhaus basic design program served as the
model for foundation programs at most American schools. However,
it is doubtful whether many American teachers ever understood
the pedagogical objectives and practices of the Bauhaus. They
borrowed problems, terminology and methodology without adapting
them to educational conditions in this country. Many American
teachers learned about the Bauhaus program from books without
first-hand experience in doing the exercises, or observing
instructional practices by individuals who understood the
pedagogy.
I
think difficulties still exist because American teachers,
using art and design books, are inclined to borrow images
and terminology without understanding processes or criteria
involved with the imagery. The most detrimental aspect of
this practice is the inability to make proper critical evaluation
of student work. The teachers themselves seldom have the capability
to separate content from form or to see visual nuances. Some
teachers might have to educate themselves before they can
educate students.
The
relationship of conceptual to perceptual development in visual
education is yet another area of confusion. Recent movements
in Fine Arts favor concept over tradition. Design has always
been influenced by advertising which generally assigns greater
credence to concepts than to visual criteria. In educating
artists or designers, instruction in theoretical visual studies
should precede focus on content. In practice, there has to
be balance between conceptual and formal values, because one
without the other invariably leads to transitory or vacuous
visual statements.
In
recent years, there has been a decided shift in visual arts
entry level courses away from earlier theoretical exercises
toward professional, expressionistic, conceptual or content-related
problems. My experience has been that having students do a
theoretical application in conjunction with the theoretical
a exercise promotes better understanding of how to bridge
the gap between theory and practice.
Opening
My Eyes
I had studied art at the University of Nebraska for two and
one-half years and earned a BFA degree from the Minneapolis
School of Art before arriving at Yale University for graduate
studies. In terms of visual awareness, my eyes were as tightly
shut as those of a newborn kitten.
I
first saw a glimmer during Josef Albers' color course. Once
the process began, I could then see more in some of my other
studio courses. I believe the next revelation was in Bernard
Chaet's drawing class. For the first time, I began to see
and to understand space, form and activation in drawing as
well as in color. This was a period when I understood and
recognized visual properties but could not incorporate them
into my own work. I could, however, better appreciate art
history classes, the work of my colleagues and student projects
coming out of the undergraduate basic design classes. For
the first time, I had visual objectives in terms of my own
work; I knew what qualities should be represented. Yet, I
did not have a clue as how to reach my new objectives.
The
process of assimilating my education at Yale was difficult
and often painful as I went down numerous false roads that
became dead ends. I was working as a printmaker and teaching
printmaking classes through the school year and watercolor
and drawing during the summer months. At the time, it became
evident to me that I could teach what I understood although
I could not do it myself.
As
a teacher, I knew what objectives the students should be working
toward, but the process for directing or leading them to an
understanding of visual criteria and standards was still a
mystery. It was similar to giving directions to someone by
saying, "See that tall building over there? That is where
you want to go but I can't tell you how to get there.
It
was not until working with Inge Druckrey and Hans Allemann
at the Kansas City Art Institute that I began to grasp the
process. They were graduates from Armin Hofmann's program
at Basel. Where my experiences with Albers had been of a more
general nature, those with Inge and Hans were specific in
terms of the process being directed toward teaching Graphic
Design. Having standards and insight into the process, from
this point on, I began to learn from my own experiences.
In
hindsight, I have tried to analyze my own learning, what were
the turning points, and to identify why Albers' color class
was the beginning. Within my experiences, recognition of visual
properties preceded understanding them, and both had to occur
before being able to apply them, in my case, to teaching rather
than to personal work. I learned that there is value to recognizing
worthy objectives although they might not be fully understood.
They at least provide direction.
Albers'
color
class was one unlike any that I had experienced before. The
imagery was abstract so it was easier to stay focused on visual
criteria without distraction from representational imagery
or a final product. The problems were sequential, and whatever
was learned could be applied to the next one. Albers was always
clear about the objectives for each exercise, and they were
uncomplicated and specific. With this type of problem statement,
criteria was clear and understood.
Cut
and torn color paper was composed to meet specific objectives
with understood criteria. This resulted in students being
able to do extensive exploration and to rapidly make decisions.
Albers often explained his instructional strategy as wanting
students to learn about color in this class. They could learn
about mixing paint, the different kinds of paint and the various
tools for applying paint at a later date.
|
