Saturday, 2 April 2011
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
Website Excitement
For those of you who have wondered where I'd disappeared, in online terms at least, no I haven't become a hermit! In fact I've been building a new and exciting website (hopefully soon to be updated with yet more intriguing and original work) www.designworkers.co.uk have a look do.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Saturday, 4 July 2009
The problem with theory and practice
“Connecting theory and practice” has become a popular phrase in academic, artistic and critical circles. On the one hand, it seems obvious that designers and artists would want to make work in a way that demonstrated an awareness of a wider cultural context. And in practice, I think that creative people who produce good work are inevitably engaged in thinking about contemporary culture and how this connects to peoples lives, society and history, as well as being interested in artistic forms outside their field. So in a sense, it seems bizarre that a perceived need to “connect theory and practice” exists.
Design, the applied arts and fine art in the UK are taught in current or former Art Schools, most of which have been absorbed into polytechnics and subsequently into new universities. Non studio based studies always formed a (small) part of the syllabus in these institutions and activities based around lectures, reading and writing have often been used to lend an intellectual legitimacy to art and design courses.
Design, the applied arts and fine art in the UK are taught in current or former Art Schools, most of which have been absorbed into polytechnics and subsequently into new universities. Non studio based studies always formed a (small) part of the syllabus in these institutions and activities based around lectures, reading and writing have often been used to lend an intellectual legitimacy to art and design courses.
And there, already, we encounter the problem, the perception that activities based around the written and spoken word are more intellectually demanding and valid than activities based around drawing and making. This notion is still incredibly prevalent in the art school system and it was rendered more concrete with the demise of diplomas in art and design and the rise of the degree (theoretically a more valuable qualification) which demanded for the first time that fashion, textiles, illustration and sculpture students (amongst others) produced dissertations. And while personally, I thoroughly enjoyed working on my dissertation; it formed a pleasant break from the frenzied days and nights producing my graduate collection, it is notable that history students are not required to produce a collection of eight outfits, or to mount a final exhibition.
Focusing on art schools might seem somewhat parochial, but they are indicative of a wider phenomenon in which certain sorts of philosophical and literary thinking is crudely grafted on to visual culture and the arts, at its most malign manifesting itself in wordiness and self-conscious intellectualism of unsuccessful conceptual art.
In fact, I think it is vitally important that designers and artists are equipped with the necessary analytical skills to think about their work in the context of a broader culture, society and economy and within various sorts of power structures and hierarchies. However, it seems flagrantly obvious to me, that “theory” ought to be imbedded in the studio practice in which artists and designers develop technical, formal, and aesthetic ideas.
Despite some individual charismatic and exciting lecturers, the current system for teaching art history and contextual studies is appalling. Syllabuses are generic and students are expected to sit in lecture halls passively absorbing information without understanding its relevance or how it applies to their discipline or personal practice. This is sad, because it often results in graduates who are less culturally and critically aware than they would like to be, lacking a contextual framework in which to position their practice.
Perhaps what I’m trying to express more generally, is a problem in which artists/designers and theoreticians don’t engage with each other in honest terms, and as in so many problems, I think that hierarchies have their part to play. Literacy and an ability to convey complex ideas in writing, historically, and in contemporary culture have been important as markers of social status. Within cultural and connecting social hierarchies, artists have, over the past several hundred years, transformed their status from “mere” artisans primarily through engagement with, philosophical, theological and historical ideas – to which they have often paid no more than lip-service (for example in neoclassical painting). It is this intellectual insecurity amongst people who are often primarily skilled in make, design and aesthetics, as well as pressure from without, which inhibits authentic theoretical and critical models being developed by artists themselves. Equally, so much art and design criticism is weak, because it fails to adequately engage with the physical stuff of art and design, and with the make process which is so essential to the way that artists and designers think through and express their ideas. There have been numerous examples where the nexus between theory and practice have yielded exciting results, in the socially concerned design of the Bauhaus or in the posters of the 1968 Paris uprising. But the formation of such creative nexus, are in my view reliant upon genuine engagement between practitioners and theoreticians in which the distinctions between these two activities are broken down.
Focusing on art schools might seem somewhat parochial, but they are indicative of a wider phenomenon in which certain sorts of philosophical and literary thinking is crudely grafted on to visual culture and the arts, at its most malign manifesting itself in wordiness and self-conscious intellectualism of unsuccessful conceptual art.
In fact, I think it is vitally important that designers and artists are equipped with the necessary analytical skills to think about their work in the context of a broader culture, society and economy and within various sorts of power structures and hierarchies. However, it seems flagrantly obvious to me, that “theory” ought to be imbedded in the studio practice in which artists and designers develop technical, formal, and aesthetic ideas.
Despite some individual charismatic and exciting lecturers, the current system for teaching art history and contextual studies is appalling. Syllabuses are generic and students are expected to sit in lecture halls passively absorbing information without understanding its relevance or how it applies to their discipline or personal practice. This is sad, because it often results in graduates who are less culturally and critically aware than they would like to be, lacking a contextual framework in which to position their practice.
Perhaps what I’m trying to express more generally, is a problem in which artists/designers and theoreticians don’t engage with each other in honest terms, and as in so many problems, I think that hierarchies have their part to play. Literacy and an ability to convey complex ideas in writing, historically, and in contemporary culture have been important as markers of social status. Within cultural and connecting social hierarchies, artists have, over the past several hundred years, transformed their status from “mere” artisans primarily through engagement with, philosophical, theological and historical ideas – to which they have often paid no more than lip-service (for example in neoclassical painting). It is this intellectual insecurity amongst people who are often primarily skilled in make, design and aesthetics, as well as pressure from without, which inhibits authentic theoretical and critical models being developed by artists themselves. Equally, so much art and design criticism is weak, because it fails to adequately engage with the physical stuff of art and design, and with the make process which is so essential to the way that artists and designers think through and express their ideas. There have been numerous examples where the nexus between theory and practice have yielded exciting results, in the socially concerned design of the Bauhaus or in the posters of the 1968 Paris uprising. But the formation of such creative nexus, are in my view reliant upon genuine engagement between practitioners and theoreticians in which the distinctions between these two activities are broken down.
JMB 04/07/09
Monday, 29 June 2009
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Well avid readers of this blog, I can only apologise, I have failed to keep you abreast of the latest developments in McCauley-Bowsteadian thinking; this post is long overdue.
I’ve been undertaking research on portfolios in various areas of art and design and, hopefully, formulating some conclusions on what makes a successful folio. Having the chance to look through and discuss the work of some very exciting up-and-coming practitioners has been genuinely inspiring. It is difficult to communicate the tactile, textural and dynamic qualities of cloth in photographs but you should check out the website of this fantastic textile print designer. www.craftcentral.org.uk/catherine-louise-aitken I find it interesting to see the way that she deals with the tension between the hand drawn and the geometric, as well as playing with our expectations around repeats and regularity. Her drawings are beautiful too.
Another creative I have enjoyed talking to, is Ralph Dorey www.ralphdorey.co.uk
I responded, in particular, to his interest in “Modernism and heroic endeavour”. It’s so refreshing to come across an artist willing to make bold (and optimistic) statements without feeling the need to bog the work down in layer upon layer of reference and worse irony.
Having been in contact with such a rich cross-section of creative activity I’ve felt inspired to recommence some creating of my own. A friend and I are discussing some form of collaboration so I hope to keep you posted on the progress of our project.
Having been in contact with such a rich cross-section of creative activity I’ve felt inspired to recommence some creating of my own. A friend and I are discussing some form of collaboration so I hope to keep you posted on the progress of our project.
Monday, 4 May 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
