The paradox of ‘teaching’ transformation in fine art studio practice: Assessment in the South African context

Abstract

Underpinned by an awareness that education systems inherently maintain the status quo, this article explores a paradox at the heart of fine art studio teaching, learning and assessment in the postcolonial context of South Africa. The content of most current curricula evidences a concern with power, and the politics and problematics of representation. As such, encouragement of student engagement around and negotiation of notions of transformation, critical dialogue and identity is espoused. However, in the article it is argued that current approaches to assessment often unquestioningly replicate inherited systems, and in so doing, unwittingly reproduce systems of cultural capital that may be non-transformatory and non-pluralistic. Thus, because of the way assessment is practiced, that which is taught may be radically different from that which is experienced and thereby learnt in the studio.

Uzaktan Eğitimde Sanat Atölyesi Kavramına İlişkin Sanat Eğitimcisi ve Öğrencilerin Metaforik Bakış Açıları

“…The second group of research in the literature are about art studios. The research carried out by Özpolat (2023), Kayalıoğlu (2021), Dinç (2021), Kahraman (2020), Marshall & D'Adamo (2018), Soganci (2016), Timm-Bottos & Reilly (2015, Belluigi (2013), Sjöholm (2013), Bulut (2001) and Hughes (1990) can be given as similar examples to research on art studios. In these research; Özpolat (2023) "aimed to reveal the positive or negative effects of the implementation of applied courses in fine arts education in the workshop environment with an instructor and the delivery of these courses by distance education in some necessary cases on students.…”

Influences on the struggle over content: considering two fine art studio practice curricula in developing/ed contexts

“…In a previous paper I explored the significance of this problem on transformation and assessment practices in a post-colonial context (Belluigi 2014). In this paper, I expand this discussion to consider how this problem plays out when situated within contextual demands and pressures -firstly within curriculum content, the area best conceptualised within this domain, before considering the significance for larger aspects of the curriculum, including structures and cultures of teaching, learning and assessment -a broader understanding of curriculum which in this domain comes from educational development discourses (Belluigi 2015b).…”