from Inquiry, Volume 4, Number 2, Fall 1999, 69-74
© Copyright 1999 Virginia Community College System
Abstract
Curriculum evaluation of VWCC'S two-year communication design program forced
the art curriculum committee to examine four central issues and make difficult
decisions about how best to serve its current student population.
For art majors, it seems that the big question from students are: "Can I get a job?" and from parents is "Can Johnny or Susie get a job?" They are asking, of course, whether or not students will be employable once they finish their degree whether it be a two-year degree or four-year degree. These are certainly valid concerns and questions. In a society that is driven by success, this is the reality -- the mind set -- the goal of many of the students who are in our institutions, and future employment is an issue that cannot be dismissed easily. The concern for finding employment upon completion of one’s education is, of course, not new.
As a teacher, I find the particular notion toward the pursuit of study for the sole purpose of finding employment more than a little disconcerting; however, it seems to be the truth for many, but not all of my students. At Virginia Western Community College (VWCC) most of my curricular students are pursuing an Associate in Applied Science in Communication Design; their main goal is finding immediate employment upon graduation. An evaluation team was charged with answering many questions that assessed our program in numerous areas; however, the focus of the evaluation team was to arrive at recommending a curriculum that embraces many new technologies while maintaining many of the ideologies upon which a well-rounded education is based.
The evaluation team was made up of four people – the art program head, a professor of commercial art within one semester of retiring, an adjunct instructor with extensive and recent experience in the field, and the English program head, who wrote the report and often served as the arbitrator, or more precisely the referee, to the at-times warring factions.
The most difficult questions we faced were how to incorporate new technology into the curriculum, what courses to remove in order to include more computer-based courses, and what courses to keep to assure adherence to time-honored art education principles. The central question could be phrased as: "What can we do with our curriculum to keep up with changes in technologies to better prepare our students with skills to enter the job market, and how can we simultaneously give them the background necessary in foundation courses along with the breadth of course content necessary to understand the larger significance of art in society -- not just as a means of making a living, but as a means of communicating about the human condition?"
As a starting point, we looked at the old curriculum and requested that a new adjunct who is still quite active in the field and very aware of the demands placed upon applicants entering today’s job market take a careful look at the program and make recommendations. Essentially, we asked him what would be the optimum course offerings to prepare students in two years for entering the field. He first reported back with a list of computer-based and Macintosh-specific courses to replace or change several core courses, specifically painting, figure-drawing, and an art history classes. Additionally, an information systems technology course would be supplanted with a Macintosh-based introductory graphics course in the first semester.
After much discussion and debate on philosophical and pedagogical grounds, two course tracks were drawn up and proposed to the entire art faculty. My stance as the program head at that particular juncture – though admittedly somewhat biased -- could be summarized in this statement: "Curricular evaluation – traditional core classes versus techno-track wizardry – which best serves the students in today’s climate?" Since there are a limited number of courses available in our program – 66 to 68 semester hours – we realized we must try to best prepare our students along both ideological fronts. Two art departmental meetings were held during the evaluation process. In addition to the evaluation team, these meetings included the full-time art history professor, six adjunct instructors, and the division chair, who sat in as an objective observer. You can probably imagine the range of human foibles that were exhibited in these meetings, but they included some personality conflicts and some posturing for protection of turf. Faculty demonstrated a great deal of trepidation about sweeping changes, emotional attachments to personal ideals, along with some very lucid declarations of valid pedagogical and philosophical concerns justifying many diverse, yet similar, approaches to teaching. My intent here is to extrapolate the ideas of substance from those sometimes impassioned arguments centered around our curriculum issues.
Preparing for a Job versus Providing a Solid Foundation
The main argument put forth by the adjunct graphics teacher was that we are doing a real disservice to the students if we tell them, yes, they can get a job when they leave our department if indeed they are not really prepared to get a job. Essentially, he felt the current program did not give students the skills necessary to place them in today’s job market. Of course, counter-argument to that is, are we not equally doing a disservice to students if we prepare them to get a foot in the door with a presentable portfolio without instilling in them a thorough foundation and general knowledge about art, which ecnourages them to become competent image-makers and informed citizens. What about the universal expression of the human condition that all artists, even graphic designers, aspire to or appeal to? What about instilling values such as commitment, discipline, a work ethic, and the quest for knowledge? What about the ability to think critically, and the ability to appreciate great art?
Physical Manipulation of Materials Versus Computer Generation
At one extreme, the photography instructor asserted that our main purpose really is to teach students to think for themselves -- to understand the process of making something with one’s hands, to be intimately involved in the evolution of creating the image. He argued that students need to understand the inception and the physicality about all the parts of the process. Is this not directly parallel to the "layering" functions that are employed in the PhotoShop program? The value of learning the hand and craft skills demanded by a variety of so-called "fine art" processes is invaluable toward informing students about how to manipulate images on the computer. The computer really is just another tool -- a quite remarkable tool, but the computer simply cannot do everything. There is no real intrinsic magic involved here. There must be understanding.
The computer cannot replace nor can it reproduce creativity itself. It in itself is not creative -- that must come from within the student’s knowledge and vision. It can further be argued that part of the value in the participatory experience – the actual physicality of manipulating the materials with great craft – will magnify the limitations and strengths of what a computer can do. If one of the computer’s primary goals is to emulate these other media, isn’t the knowledge and the experience gained from employing the media through a thorough and thought-out process invaluable? Isn’t it even crucial to actual computer manipulation itself? Only so much reliance can ever be placed on clip art or scanned art – those images from others. Students themselves must become image-makers. They must have the ability to create for themselves; otherwise at some point the student will face a blank page or a blank computer screen, and have nowhere to go. To develop one’s skills in the act of designing is totally demanding from inception to completion. In other words, it must be an informed student operating a computer. Experimenting with a variety of media techniques, tools, and skills is a means to an end.
Mandate to Include Basic Courses in Painting, Art History, and Figure/Foundation Drawing
Two painters among the faculty offered their rationale for keeping painting classes in the curriculum. They both firmly believe that the painting classes are one area where one simply cannot fake it. You cannot fool yourself nor can you fool anyone else. You certainly can’t believe that you have done more than you have done, because it is standing there on the easel staring you in the face. One simply has to put in the time and the effort to develop skills. These skills are also thinking, problem-solving skills, and they cannot come about in any other way. Painting is a very labor-intensive class; however, once painting is understood on a basic level, the apt student or future illustrator employing the computer can translate those ideas into accomplished images. The computer is indeed an important part of producing artwork for reproduction; however, there are skills, knowledge, and experience that predicate being able to resolve anything on the computer.
The two art historians posited the arguments that artists come from artists -- how can students become artists without understanding the artists of the past? If students are to comprehend their role as contemporary image makers, they must understand why artists have made the types of images they have in their own cultures, in their own times, across the ages. It is not just enough to focus on the history of graphic art. While it could prove quite valuable for communication design students to understand much about the history of graphic design, that is predicated upon understanding all the art that was being made simultaneously with the development of the graphic art. To understand contemporary imagery, one must have some idea of how that imagery developed; one must have some understanding of 16th and 17th century to understand 19th century art to thus understand 20th century art.
Another point of view offered by the foundation drawing and figure drawing teacher was that today there is really no difference between vocational and higher education. In today’s climate, they go hand in hand. Technology has replaced many of the traditional graphic artist’s tasks, and there is no longer a need for typesetters, paste-up artists, production artists, strippers, and stat camera operators – for many of the former jobs are no longer necessary. The current computer-based graphic designers must do all these tasks. He or she must have a broader based skill as well as the ability to clearly think about the jobs from conception. They now must have exceptional conceptual abilities. Basic design and drawing skills are really intrinsic to teaching conceptualization, and the ability to conceptualize can then be translated – transformed - by the student with his computer skills.
Development of Critical Thinking Skills
Finally, from my perspective as program head, another point of substance that came out in the faculty meetings is related to development of critical thinking skills. While critical thinking is taught to some degree in the English classes and perhaps in other humanities or social science classes, it can be emphasized in the studio classes that demand students to thoroughly analyze and interpret the artwork of others. The critical analysis skills that can be developed in appraising and deciphering paintings, or any artwork for that matter, can greatly enhance the students’ ability to critically review their own work and make informed judgments about the works of others. Furthermore, critical thinking skills can be parlayed into many life tasks and situations that students will encounter henceforth and are essential to a well-rounded, educated person launching into the real world.
Art Curriculum Revisions
After both faculty meetings, the evaluation team met again several times and eventually hashed out a compromise but workable solution for a new curriculum. This new plan embraces and incorporates a plan that satisfies many of the concerns expressed by the faculty at large, as well as providing a pathway for integrating new technological demands placed on students by current industry requirements. By exposing the students to a digital environment earlier in the track, and continuously throughout the entire program, the program is now optimized to give students a competitive edge in the marketplace. The curriculum is now much better integrated to make the course content of all classes more unified; there is more thorough integration in the syllabi of each class toward a more common goal. Exposure to technical constructs – some understanding of the hardware nuts-and-bolts as it is related to technology -- has also been added into the more advanced computer graphic class work. However, weighted consideration was given to all faculty concerns in an attempt to satisfy the many needs of the students beyond just the technical aspects of such a curriculum.
The changes proposed by the evaluation team are as follows:
The ambitious new proposal will affect all faculty members; many, if not all, must make some syllabi changes as well as attitudinal shifts; however, perhaps the most important aspect of the entire review process is that it has forced the art faculty to carefully examine themselves, to evaluate what we have been doing, what we need to do to come together more harmoniously sharing common goals in order to become a more cohesive body of teachers working together for the benefit of our students.
While we must teach skills necessary for students to find employment or to continue on to higher education, the success of our art program and the impact we can have as a faculty in shaping attitudes and in transmitting both objective and subjective ideals lies in the quality and commitment of the faculty. In essence, the faculty which sustains itself as a cohesive body of teachers, who share common aspirations toward teaching and strive toward achievement of these pedagogical goals, is the key to an outstanding art department.
David Curtis is professor of art and program head at Virginia Western Community College in Roanoke, Virginia. This paper was presented at the Southeast College Art Conference in October 1998. Curtis is also a painter who has received numerous awards for his work over the course of his career. He has participated in seventy five juried or invitational exhibits, including twelve that were national in scope. In addition, he has held eighteen solo exhibitions, including one in England and one in the Republic of Korea. Curtis has served as an exhibition judge or juror, as a college art gallery director, and as the chair of several public art committees. The recipient of a Fulbright Fellowship, he spent the 1996-97 school year as an exchange professor at Southport College, Southport, England. He has been listed in Who’s Who in American Art for the past decade. Curtis is currently preparing a new body of work based on his recent travels in Europe.