Today I had the chance to attend the lecture given Dr. Olga Hubard, an assistant art education professor at Teachers College, Columbia
University. Hubard’s presentation was based on her experience in creating
dialogues about works of art, mostly in a museum setting. I found her lecture
to be very interesting along with extremely connected to our class readings on
talking about student artwork. Related to our readings, by Nancy House and
Terry Barrett, Hubard’s presentation brought up the importance of asking
questions, acting as a facilitator of conversation, and collaboratively
constructing meaning.
Hubard opened the presentation with the age old question
that educators often start with “how does this artwork make you feel?” She
followed with the idea that this question almost always is not the most
effective, often puzzling students, making them uncomfortable, and creating a
blank stare. Her emphasis on not asking this question was instead followed by
the question “what emotions does the work suggest?” This question is
open-ended, can start with description, and does not put pressure on the
viewer/student to share a personal response. Instead this question can begin a
conversation in which constructs the dialogue to create meaning before a follow
up of asking the students if they can relate to the emotions the art is
speaking to. I felt as though Hubard was touching on something important
through this. In speaking directly to teaching in a secondary classroom, it
would make sense that you develop a greater level of comfort to have a
conversation before diving into any deeply personal thoughts/feelings. Such as
the reading suggests, it may be more helpful to start with a description of the
art work. In tying emotion into this dialogue, it would be very useful to
question what feeling the work suggests before expecting a student to unveil
their sentiment right away.
Four specific points were brought up in Hubard’s
presentation about reacting to artwork and the various in ways in which people
may do this. Hubard spoke to her personal experience as a museum educator but
these ideas are all more than relevant to an art classroom conversation. The
first one was empathy. This was related directly to the questions that Hubbard
proposes as more suitable for dialogue about art work. Through the development
of the paintings emotions, and the relationship of those emotions on a personal
level, she expresses that some individuals may empathize with the work while others
may not feel that connection. Hubard then presents the point that there are
different characters of artworks. She presents a Duchamp ready-made, explaining
that there are not always obvious emotions in a piece and the conversation
needs to be developed specifically on the piece. Her third point was ideas
about elusiveness in that sometimes people have trouble explaining their
specific emotions. We should be mindful of this as educators when students are
trying to explain their reaction to work or discussing their own work. It can be complicated, people do not always
know exactly how they feel about something, and there is variation in ability
to describe exactly what one is feeling. Students may struggle to put exactly
what they are thinking into words, as educators it is important to be asking
questions in conversation to help them articulate their thoughts. Hubard’s
final point explained that sometimes there are emotions beyond what the artwork
can say. She talked about getting initial reactions to work from the viewers or
students and creating a further conversation about the work and artist from
this dialogue
It became clear through Hubard’s presentation and the
questions that preceded it that conversation about art, critiques about student
work, and all dialogue in the classroom for that matter should seek to create a
conversation that collaboratively makes meaning. There are a variety of ways
that people, this then including your future high school students, may react to
a piece of art. Some may recognize the emotions involved, some may feel them to
a degree, and some may have a direct connection with those emotions. The
facilitator of the conversation, or teacher, should ask questions that depend
on the work, the setting, and what they want the audience to be learning from the
conversation. From further thinking about this, I thought it was important that
one person, including the facilitator, not dominate the conversation. I feel as
though the goal for dialogue in the classroom, whether critique, analysis of
art work, or any discussion be a forum for making meaning. Hubard’s
presentation was an interesting engagement with these ideas and I was glad I
had the opportunity to attend.
