Khaver Idrees- 21044477
First year BA Furniture and Product Design course, Chelsea College of Art.
Artefact Proposal- Object Based workshop for Unit 4 – From, Function and Ornament.
The aim of the unit is to investigate the relationship between the student’s personal identity as a design practitioner and objects. The purpose of the workshop is to provide a critical foundation to all four learning outcomes for the unit: Enquiry, Process, Communication and Realisation. At the end of the workshop the students should have a good understanding of Positionality, Intersectionality and bias/unconditional bias.
Embedding Trauma( https://traumainformedteaching.blog/2018/07/08) , Object based (Paris 2014) Multi Sensory pedagogy (Davies 2010) and Inclusive Practice into my own practice, I began by reminding the students of the workshop as a safe space. There was no compulsion to take part actively, they could observe if they wished.
In line with UAL’s mission statement “Because Art Can Change the World”, the students were asked to bring into the workshop an object of their choice based on ‘Love’. In an increasingly fragmented, polarised world suffering from trauma on many levels, ‘Love’(hooks,2020) has been employed as a force of resistance (hooks,1994). It was also hoped interaction with objects would deepen the student’s learning (Shultz 2012).
Using Communicating Vessels as a metaphor I first showed a slide of Rene Magritte’s Communicating Vessels and talked a little about the painting. I spoke a little about the wider context of colonisation through the Age of Enlightenment, the Rational/masculine/thinking and the irrational/feminine/emotional ( Lorde, 2000). The students were invited to comment/contribute.
Communicating Vessels- Magritte
The room was arranged in a circle and the students were then invited to introduce their objects, first by reading out a dictionary definition without showing the object. The student then described the object in their own terms. As well as describing the form and function they were encouraged to speak about how it made them feel. Why they loved it and what it meant to them. The other students then tried to guess the object before it was revealed whether in person or by a photograph. Students not wishing to speak could stick the definition and personal description on the wall for the others to read. Verbal or performative descriptions were encouraged.
A diverse range of objects were presented, from a poem to scarf. Some were easy to guess and others not so easy. One student presented an heirloom another a Gucci handbag. Overall, it was a very engaging workshop, a little slow to start but once the guessing started the atmosphere lightened up. The dialogue took place naturally. The two ways of defining the objects were critiqued. The importance of knowing one’s own positionality and being able to assert it was discussed and how that impacted on the presentation/representation of the object. The wider context of oppression was discussed in terms of oppressor and oppressed(Freire,2000).
The demographic of the cohort was 60% international students, which allowed for a wider range in positionality but also potential conflicts. The international students were not all comfortable with looking at their own culture for positionality, many come to the UK with notions of the superiority of the Western Cannon and prefer to learn about Western designers. One student from Lebanon, remarked she was only doing design because it had more financial currency in Lebanon that Fine Art . At least she could get a job. Many home students agreed and the discussion changed direction to social class. The group was convivial and sensitive.
During the discussion, one student pointed out that love did not always have positive connotations. She stated that ‘love’ encouraged towards the object, could be an unhealthy relationship and more often than not was an unhealthy relationship leading to obsessions and compulsive buying. I hadn’t anticipated this. This led to critiquing the industry and its responsibility to social justice. When discussing social justice, it was pointed out that even this concept was hijacked by the industry and used to manipulate the buyer and that as designers it was easy to do.
The students concluded that Love had been cheapened and was also a superficial emotion. Conversation veered into creativity and the institution.
Conclusion:
The objects served as multisensory tools stimulating the imagination helping to understand other social contexts and in doing so we gave voice to them. Allowing the students to bring their own objects and ponder over them without revealing them gave a sense of agency to the student. The students were engaged and critically evaluating and analysing the object /subject relationship. Transferable skills of listening and interpersonal communication were developed. The students also showed peer to peer engagement.
Positionality, Biases and Intersectionality were discussed in length and each student’s example served as a case study for developing an awareness of these concept. It encouraged a way of seeing, art as everyday and every day as a site of art practice. According to Paolo Freire, a critical approach is only possible if social justice pedagogy is embedded in the course structure. Social justice in tur, is only possible if each student is able to interrogate and state their own Positionality.
It was important to be inclusive of everyone’s lived experience if we want to create a place of belonging for everyone. The safe space provides a ground for the student to develop life skills. It was also important for the students to learn creativity as a process as well as life as a process of becoming. The feedback from the students was very positive, especially with autonomy in situating themselves as well as being surprised by the difference in the definitions of each object compared to the dictionary.
At the time I believed the workshop provided a good foundation for the learning outcomes.
However, according to the government website, the education reform is the great social justice of our times. They want to deliver a fairer society with more opportunities and high standards for all people regardless of background. At the same time, The Guardian questions the future of Art students as Rishi Sunak plans to limit student numbers to “low-value” degrees, inevitably affecting low-income black and Asian minority applicants.
I was left reflecting on the value of our words, the words spoken by the students in the workshop and the words spoken by those in positions of power. I wondered what I was trying to achieve and whether it was at all possible in world where words mattered but meant very little. Then I remembered the Vice Chancellor Grayson Perry’s words, UAL was “the worlds biggest factory for making trouble.”
Bibliography:
Davies.C, (2010), Creating multisensory environments, New York, Routledge, pp28
DiAngelo, R (2018) White Fragility. London: Penguin Books. pp.77
Freire. P,(2000), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, Continuum,
pp65
Hooks.B, (2020), All About Love New Visions, New York, Elefante, pp34
Hooks, B (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, pp53
Lelkes, H (2019) How inclusive is object-based learning?. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning. Journal Vol 4 / Issue 1 pp.76-82
Lorde.A, (2000), Uses of the Erotics: Erotics as Power, Kore Press,pp22
Scott.G, (2014), Paris, Perspectives on Object Centred Learning in Museums, New York, Routledge,pp30
Trauma https://traumainformedteaching.blog/2018/07/08/principles-for-trauma-informed-teaching-and-learning/