Dr. Olga Hubard

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.