When
we analyzed the public policies related to Arts Education in Portugal we can
identified three major modes of thought that have characterized the discourses and
practices of arts
education in schools: (a) utility spaces (the integral training of children,
artists training,
public training);
(b) sense of marginality in
relation to other forms of education (there are no policies for
arts education) and (c) too much past, translated in the
sense of marginalization and
criticism on the role of the state and
over-expressed in the future importance
of the arts in the education of
future citizens. The excesses
of the past and the future have not contributed, and
do not contribute, to the
development of new understandings in relation arts,
education, society and culture.
In
this context it’s important to look for arts education, look to school, with a
certain attitude of resistance to
the prevailing logic of
conceptualizing education and public
school promoting other frameworks
for the development of educational
and artistic work to contribute for the choice of paths, always contingent and
unpredictable, which are adapted to
different contexts, expectations and
developments of children, young
people and adults, schools and community
settings.
So, my
intervention on this conference, has as a starting point the following question:
“what kind of characteristics I identify in arts education that can contribute
not only to build a more participatory, cultured and cosmopolitan citizenship
but also, in this way, contribute to the reconfiguration and another thinking
of school?”. I will try
to answer this question
through three sets of ideas, "arts education is an ambiguous and paradoxical territory which does not form artists"; "arts education lies at the confluence and
conviviality between different worlds" and "the
centrality of arts education is based on
the creation of what is unknown,
of what does not exist, yet".
Ideas that result, on
the one hand, from the analysis of the most innovative experiences that exist in Portugal
and, secondly, the need to look in another way for
this training area in the context
of both local and global contemporary society, characterized by the existence of
multiple and contradictory worlds. These ideas are presented as poles in
finding another way at these
issues, not in defense
of the importance of the arts in education, but arguing
that the arts are forms of
knowledge and interpretation of
the real and imaginary worlds, are modalities
which, in addition to entertainment,
contribute to the challenged, to create
problems and questions that are beyond the purely rational
dimension. On other hand, these ideas are organized
around the tension between Education and Art “equating, on the one
hand, the importance of artistic expression for the development of the child
[young people and adults], and, on the other hand, while areas of knowledge and
autonomous culture, with its own specificity [...] This idea It leads us to
defend the existence of an artistic culture which treatment should be object,
in creative and dynamic ways, of study in our schools [...]. It is in this
tension between education and art that we can find the ways to walk together in
the coming years" (Nóvoa, 1987, p. 23).
Arts
education is an ambiguous and paradoxical territory which does not form artists
The first idea is that “Arts education is
an ambiguous and paradoxical territory”. Ambiguities related with the political
level and the characteristics of this type of education and training.
In the first case, political level, "in
a society that boasts the importance to the arts and culture, arts education
occupies an ambiguous position. Politicians of all
quadrants display it as flag without ever agreeing on the means necessary to its development. The education system, including it always in the compulsory program, frequently reduces it to a subordinate position" (Beaulieu, 1993a: 16).
quadrants display it as flag without ever agreeing on the means necessary to its development. The education system, including it always in the compulsory program, frequently reduces it to a subordinate position" (Beaulieu, 1993a: 16).
In the second case, characteristics of this
type of education and training, the ambiguity results from the tension between
the fields where it is located: education and the arts. This tension is one of
the factors that contribute to the existence of a number of paradoxes that
enhance these ambiguities.
The first paradox is manifested within the
school system, where "school tends to translate the artistic experience in
terms of content, knowledge and techniques geared to one purpose: the training."
However, if we can teach the techniques,
history, or the analysis of the works, artistic education, in any plan that
carries, form people do not form artists. And this, seeming a jargon, is
structuring and questioning of what is still dominant in terms of training.
The second paradox, as in education in general,
is that the "encounter with art" can not only be provided by
teachers, by the schools since this “encounter” cannot take place without the
mobilization and utilization resources outside the school, artists or cultural organizations.
The third paradox, is manifested in the
confrontation between the "academic certification" and "artistic
certification", both relevant, but not always matching with the
requirements of the "art market".
The fourth paradox is based on the
political dimension taking into account that arts education bases its legitimacy
on a democratic conviction: "art is a good of all and therefore must be
accessible to all." The State responsibilities under these policies as
they are practiced in three distinct spheres, education, arts and culture, and
they are "not based on the same modes of action or presuppose the same
challenges" (Ibid: 17).
In these complex and ambiguous
relationships between the demands "universal education” and the “unique
experiences of art”, that "resists being caged in artistic disciplines,
administrative barriers and territorial boundaries, making himself heard across
cultures and societies" (Interarts, 1999), artistic education plays a role
in what Bamford (2006) refers as "the wow factor". That is, "the
enthusiasm and the unexpected results, hardly definitive, but which have a huge
impact on teachers and even in communities where it happens (p. 18). Thus,
"to qualify the artistic experience is so powerful that it cannot always
be planned in terms of prescriptive learning outcomes, nor measured in tests,
as so often expect in more formal educational settings. That is the nature of
the creative act - the divergence, the 'inexplicable unreal" (Durrant,
2003: 82).
Arts
education is situated at the confluence and conviviality between different
worlds, real and imaginary
The second idea is that “Arts education is
situated at the confluence and conviviality between different worlds real and
imaginary”, and this confluence and conviviality between different worlds featuring
arts education emerges from three
essential aspects.
essential aspects.
The first is that this kind of education
and schools are among the art world, culture and the world of education.
The art worlds are, in the words of Howard
Becker (1984) intersections networks, dependencies and interdependencies, in
which individual and collective activities involving a wide range of subjects,
actions and meanings, expectations, needs and constraints, the views of artist,
the role of art in society, the role of art in society in education, public
consumption and the different reference contexts, both nationally and
internationally. It is this network that enables the creation, appropriation
and dissemination of the artwork.
On the other hand, within the performing
arts, for example (cf. Vessilier-Ressi, 1995), teaching and learning, only
makes sense in triangulation between training, creativity, enjoyment and
production in the context of realization and practice presentation of different
artistic achievements that have different modes of underlying communicability
and various public since these differ in terms of interest and binding to a
particular shape and artistic genre in a "eclectic mixture of aesthetic
codes"(Pais 1995: 133).
The second observation relates to the
formative work situated between artistic and educational subjectivities.
Indeed, art education, any artistic school is by its nature rich in
contradictions and paradoxical situations (Duve, 1992 Michaud, 1992 Vasconcelos,
1999). On the one hand, it is based on the principles of art and education that
are build a set of rules, rules that are in constant disequilibrium through the
use of the imagination, the emotions and feelings that artistic practices mobilize.
On the other, arts education requires from students opposite qualities.
Alongside the technical field, the use of rules, conventions and standard
procedures, the student should be able to build its difference and originality
(Menger, 1996). Should be able to integrate the society of their time, develop
certain skills, with differentiated and often contradictory features.
The third observation is related with the
fact that the training role is situated between the conventions and
individuals. In fact, the arts, as social and human construction, as culture
and form of knowledge (Martí, 2000), are shaped by different socializing
contexts. The "building artistic senses" depend on the ownership of
certain procedures, techniques and aesthetics according to the universes of reference.
Changing these sociocultural universes the meanings and artistic cultures
change too.
Indeed, the different forms of expression,
creation and artistic achievement they have underlying a set of conventions,
with multiple character, a dynamic between permanence and change, between
tradition and innovation, a dialectic between the "territory of
training" and "territory of the individual" (with their talent,
their vocation, their strategies and singularities - Duve, 1992; Menger, 1996;
Moulin, 1997). The way the bridges are established either by an uncritical
assimilation, partnership or confrontation, is another of the key aspects of
how the individual projects himself in the present and in the future.
For example, to learn to play an
instrument, composing or playing in public, beyond the purely technical aspect
and an artistic rationality, what is at stake is that the Beethoven's universe
is different from Chopin's universe, Bach's universe is different from Haendel,
the universe of Kwella culture is different from the universe of Suffi music
and so on, and that the public move, also, in different worlds. In this plurality
of differences (with their own codes and conventions) school and education play
an important role in ways that contribute to the settlement of differences and
the construction of singularities detecting and elucidating the points of
divergence and, at same time, the points of convergence (Kartomi and Blum,
1994), as demonstrating, for example, the cellist Yo-Yo Ma among the universe
of Bach's suites and the work of Piranezi from XVIII sec.
And in this "being between" the
metaphor of the border helps us to create intelligibility between the
subjectivities involved, areas of convergence and divergence, the conquest of
new boundaries. Three aspects characterize this border territory: the
inquietude and risk, tradition and originality, limits and transgressions.
Inquietude
and risk
Living in a border territory means the
necessity to reinvent almost everything. The memories and the experiential
knowledge of individuals, and/or of the collective, are modified when applied
in different contexts "(...) an availability to wait for
anyone. It means the necessity to pay attention to all who come with their
different habits and recognize the differences as opportunities for mutual
enrichment "(Santos, 2000: 324).
Living in a border territory is also living
in uncertainty and unease. The city to build (Boltansky & Thevenot, 1991)
is part of a projection of desire in relation to the future, by providing
frameworks close to the persons, close to the geographies and times, based on
"dialogue and in a culture of closeness and inclusive basis."
Tradition
and originality
The experience of living in a border
territory means to live in a suspension space "in time between times"
as stated Santos (2000). Unpredictable situations subvert the plans and
pre-existing forecasts. The memories and traditions are reconfigured by the
need to overcome the dilemmas between the known and the unknown, between playing
old models or replace them. The assumption of tradition is reconfigured in
order to find aspects of memories and traditions that are significant to the
individual, to the collective and to perform certain artistic work, according
to the communicational situations and contexts, in an interrelationship between
heritage, originality and change.
Limits
and transgressions
The border territory, while social and
cultural spaces, is based on the limits and in the transgression of these
limits. Stability-innovation-instability-stability are some of the stages that
characterize the complexity and precariousness of the "border sociability"
(Santos, 2000). As stated Becker (1984) "in general, breaking the existing
conventions and its manifestations in the social structure (...) increase the
problems to the artists and disbelieve the circulation of their work, but at
the same time, increases their freedom choice of unconventional alternatives
(...) "(p. 34).
Centrality
of arts education in the creation of what is not yet known, what does not exist,
yet
If we think education as transformation,
"this means that there is a dynamic relationship that carries a
fundamental tension situated between what is already known and the way to
something that we don’t know very well, what will be, which is not yet fully appropriate
by the individual. And if this can cause some initial discomfort, and causes,
the arts and arts education, in particular the performing arts, can be an
important tool in developing this creative tension between what is and what is
not, particularly, in the development of new individual and collective
imaginaries (Vasconcelos, 2013).
In fact, in my opinion, one of the main
functions of arts education is to activate the resources of the imaginary and
creativity and, in particular, encourage modes of resistance from the closing
and uncritical reproduction of models in terms of organizational and
educational-artistic modes, in order to develop the desire and pleasure for
challenge, for the risk of the unknown.
Antonio Pinho Vargas, 2001, portuguese
composer, refers to the act of composing as "a complex process, one being
launched in which arise things, to the forces which responds in some way. This
being-open to the becoming inherent in the creative process (...) does not
exclude the historical consciousness of so-called material (each composer will
have in a very different way). From this conception emerges keywords like: process; complexity;
be-open for the future; historical consciousness; materials; differentiation;
individuality; unpredictability; restlessness; challenge; risk; discipline;
order; disorder, that featuring the creative act.
The "creation of what is not known,
what is new," also involves emotional intelligence in each one needs to
feel the challenge, the desire to (re) reconcile the unknown with the system of
codes and existing conventions within their reference frameworks. However,
"when we speak about imagination we are in the field of contestation [...]
in the anchorages of one here and one there, an inner and an outer" in a
plural geometry and "astonishing (which amazes, that surprises)"
(Tavares , 2013: 32-33) open to the random and to the unknown through
"extended rationality" (Jiménez, 2005: 162) based on multiple
options.
Thus, art education and education for
creativity unfolds in a complex framework, goes through a comprehensive and
interdependent set of situations and "strategic encounters" that
"comprise a creative collision of individual, ideas and actions"
(Burnard, 2012a ).
This strategic and interactive encounter has
three types of implications. The first involves thinking student, child, youth
and adult, as a individual who builds his own speech and his authorial
condition facing different kinds of conflictualities enabling the development
of personal and artistic thinking in convergence and / or divergence with pre-existents
aesthetic and technical models.
The second implication, is necessary to
attempt that community art practices are plural, diversified, open fields of
possibilities in creation of bridges between different worlds, encouraging the
"trial of the ideas through improvisation, the collaborative work and
discussion" opening to the territories of "collaborative approaches
that connect people, disciplines and genres" projecting ways to enable
"new points of comparison and starting", learning environments
"that connect tradition and innovation" (Gregory, 2005: 20-21).
The third implies the necessity to
recognize the multifaceted perspective of the creative process, often with
advances and setbacks, changes of direction witch synthetically involves: (a) “promoting
the imagination", means" the
initial combustion engine of something, the moment of apparent immobility when,
inside […] ideas are formed: some fighting the others” (Tavares,
2013: 384); (b) "exploration and experimentation" in which different
ways are sought and adapting to the ideas, processes, objects, techniques are
pursued and accommodated; (c) ‘moving
from that which is imagined to making what is imagined’ creating
"new things", new ideas or reconfigured ideas in the world,
multiplying the "real possibilities of analogies, explanations,
links" (Ibid: 385); (d) ‘moving from that which is imagined to
making what is imagined’ that confronts others in a complex
relationship between different modes and conditions of perception.
Conclusions
All the considerations presented, they have underlying a
concept of artistic education and schools simultaneously existing and imagined.
Thought schools as spaces that allow the construction freedom and familiarity
not hegemonic between different worlds, skills, knowledges and practices. Freedom and familiarity not free from conflict but also
from convergences.
The references that we have today in
relation to this kind of education and teaching are historically and culturally
constructed, based on a particular representation of what is art, the artists, teaching
and learning, confronted between the romantic-classical tradition paradigms, functionalist
paradigms and pressure of globalization and cultural industries in particular related
with the standardization of taste and the media visibility of the great
achievements. Neoliberal policies and the traditional canons do not value the schools
as "symbolic and ambiguous territories", as "useless space"
as "laboratories of knowledge and culture" that enhance the
imagination and encounters with others, with knowledge in a
"dialogic" confrontation in which exist the valorization of the policy
of artistic education as "symbolic and ambiguous territories", in
"the experiencing of new journeys and itineraries, living across borders
and contact zones" (Novoa, 2002), in an interpersonal networks and collaborative
creativities mobilizing concepts of
different geographies, living together with multiple voices and senses,
reflecting the different artistic personal universes, that contribute to a new
discourse and democratic artistic and educational action, not hegemonic and
emancipatory. That contributes to a citizenship and a school more participatory
and cosmopolitan.
And in this citizenship and school more
participatory and cosmopolitan, work the imagination presents itself as one of
the relevant dimensions. As the Gonçalo Tavares, portuguese writer states, and I
will end in a provocative way, "The imagination, the ability to produce
mental images of things that are not immediately in front of the eyes, is an
unusual human capacity unfortunately, it is often undervalued, and almost
attacked in the educational process. In fact, the phrases: - pay attention!,
you have your head in the moon !, etc. are repressive expressions that show how
the school is constantly saying: do not imagine, see!. As if what
is shown is always more important and relevant than what is imagined. A
parallel school, almost utopian, too, would be one in which teachers sometimes
say, today you're not enough on the moon! Or: do not be so attentive, dressed,
what I'm showing to you! Or, to put another way, not so extreme, more
realistic: the school should give to see, get to know, only what enhances the
imagination. I'll show you something that will allow you later the possibility
to imagine many other things. Images that feed the
imagination and that don’t decrease. Replace definitions by imaginings- this could be a motto; contestable, of
course, but that could allow, perhaps, a discussion and a shift of mental
educational space" (Gonçalo M. Tavares, Público 8
de janeiro de 2016, p. 5).
[1] Working paper presented at 2016 European Teacher Educational Network Conference, Setúbal, 15 April.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário