What we found was that members of the team see learning was as a holistic process of change or transformation. One person, for example described it ‘as movement from one point to another, on any of a number of levels – social, emotional, intellectual, physical, spiritual’. Generally the team saw learning is dynamic and developmental and to do with more than the intellectual. All of which suggests that the outcomes of the process go beyond acquiring knowledge. Learning is not just about knowing more stuff; instead, they thought that learning in the gallery brings about change within an individual as well as the formation of new/expanded connections with artworks.
Also important was that, within this broad framing of learning as a process of change, team members voiced a specific understanding of learning as a moment of rupture that comes about through instances of disruption. This seemed both unexpected to me (as I was more familiar with constructivist learning models, with their emphasis on a continuous, uninterrupted process of building new knowledge) and yet also made complete sense. In particular it seemed to provide an explanation for why learning so often does not happen in the gallery
This idea resonated for me with the concept of the ‘learning event’ as articulated by Dennis Atkinson, who draws on the ideas of the French philosopher Alain Badiou. In Atkinson’s model learning is conceptualised as a shift from a familiar state to a new, previously unknown one. This shift is prompted by the learner experiencing a momentary state of uncertainty that comes about through the realisation of something unexpected. In the gallery, this ‘event’ can happen through the encounter with art and with ideas, both of which can act as an interruption.
These disruptive moments, or ‘events’, ‘interrupt the normal flow of experience’ and introduce temporary spaces that challenge the existing limits of the learner’s comprehension. According to Atkinson in this moment the learner becomes aware of what they do not know or of the unfamiliar nature of something they have encountered. Someone might see a piece of minimal abstract sculpture for example when they are used to encountering representational forms. For those who lack the confidence or support to accept this disruption, this space of unfamiliarity can induce anxiety and a retreat into the familiar – I don’t understand this, it says nothing to me, it’s not art, it’s ridiculous, I will walk quickly away and pretend that didn’t happen!
However, for others who can engage with this unpredictable event and allow themselves to go with the new perspectives brought about through this encounter, new knowledge is generated and, in this way, learning happens.
Someone sees a video work when they are used to seeing landscape paintings and they too feel disrupted and unsure of what to make of it, but they are intrigued; for some reason they feel able to go with it; I don’t understand this, I’m not even sure it’s art, but I wonder what it’s about and I want to find out more.
So what makes the difference? How can the unexpected disruption become a prompt for learning? What I’d like to do now is take these ideas and look back at the example of the community group how do they play out – to consider what needs to happen to allow visitors to move beyond a moment of uncertainty to a space of new understandings?
Safe spaces for Learning
In the interviews with Learning staff at Tate, we asked them the same question. And interviewees responded with a number of conditions that they felt were crucial to support this process. I cannot cover all of these here but I’ve identified some that seemed particularly relevant. In the first instance team members described putting in place physical, intellectual and emotional contexts which allow visitors to engage with art – what they called a ‘safe’ space where learners can take risks and have time to experiment.
Within this safe space there are structures to take them to the work, but these structures are framed within an open, non-judgmental environment. Taking risks and experimentation are vital for learning, this is what constitutes the step into the unknown, but they can be challenging. No one enjoys voicing a tentative idea only to be made to feel that they are wrong and/or stupid. Equally experimentation happens best when certain parameters are clear, particularly to the learner. Taking risks does not mean that the learning environment is a free-for-all.
Dialogue
A vital element within that ‘safe’ space is room for dialogue. Learning in the gallery takes place through a process of exchange; in particular through questioning and conversation – between the participant and an artwork, between participants and the artist leading the session and among participants themselves. Hence dialogue is so important since it is dynamic and generative. It promotes critical investigation, reflection, analysis and the re-organisation of knowledge. Dialogue also allows for risk taking and the sharing and questioning of ideas.
Scaffolding
Facilitating this dialogue is an aspect of the scaffolding of participants’ learning. A definition of scaffolding that made sense to me was of as a process which ‘enables a child or a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts’. Scaffolding made sense to me in relation to the earlier idea of supporting learners to feel comfortable with the unfamiliar. It is this support, this intellectual hand-holding, which helps the learner go with it, in a sense and it can be as simple as asking the initial question ‘is this what you expected to see in the gallery?’
It also made sense to me in that scaffolding relies on the recognition that learners have existing knowledge and expertise that can be built on. Hence the educator – in this instance the artist – needs to recognize this and work with it.
Working with artists
The last point I want to address in my quest to understand how learning happens in the gallery concerns the use of artists as educators. Tate interviewees were united in seeing artists as playing a vital role in supporting learning – in part because they saw parallels between art making and learning itself. One went so far as to say that ‘the qualities and the characteristics of the processes in art practice are those of a learning process…. artists’ practice brings diversity. . . strategies for creativity. . .’
What I think this means is that artists are central to the learning process as they are deeply familiar with and model a creative learning process. There are specific elements within art making which correspond with other aspects of learning, namely diverse thinking, a familiarity with risk taking, a level of comfort with ‘not knowing’ and a focus on a creative process of enquiry which an artist brings to the pedagogic scenario.
This article is an edited extract of a paper entitled Speak to Me! Dialogues with art in the Gallery context presented at the National Visual Arts Education Conference in Canberra.
