The Function of Art Students’ Use of Studio Conversations in Relation to the artwork

Critical Analysis

It can be argued that apprenticeship, which is typically considered a positive and inextricable part of art and design education, is outdated as a learning approach because a teacher is largely relying on their own experiences as a previous apprentice. Their experiences have a “lack of theoretical reference frames” and educators struggle to then position their previous education into the context of teaching, rather than learning or doing. Even with a lack of pedagogical grounding, these instructors are still in a position to teach, and one of the approaches they have heavily leveraged is teaching through studio conversation. Instructors in a studio identify which students to talk to and when to talk to them, and focus on a specific goal for the conversation (such as expanding a student’s options, testing an expression, or exploring the context of art.)

Even in a somewhat democratic classroom, students are often on the receiving end of these conversations, and they engage with the conversation in different ways. Some students look for input from others as a way of escaping the “solitary studio work” that feels constraining and demoralizing. Others worry that soliciting those conversations will lead to anxiety, perhaps because they lack the ability to talk about art generally, as well as their own art in specific. Studio conversations can be a way to test how artwork is interpreted, and studio conversations provide a way to gather knowledge about those moments of activation. In these cases, students may actively pursue engagement through conversation with others.

In all cases, studio conversation is related-to but different than studio making, but Svensson and Edström argue that “artistic development… is the most relevant quality with respect to which the use of studio conversation should be considered in an education perspective.” They indicate that “one may argue that the education includes the whole environment offered to the students to benefit from,” but dismiss that and assert that “even if studio conversations are just part of the education, it is the one that is generally considered most important.”

Research Value

The value of this work in informing my own research is that it:

• Shifts focus from a Schon view of making and skill development as the goal of studio, and makes a definitive and unique claim about the most important part of studio education (conversation)
• Offers a student-centric perspective on conversation
• Expands the idea of a conversation in a studio to include things other than critique