The "Problem" of Art & Design [Education]. - Contemporary Art in Context lecture 5

In reflection of the last few weeks of lecturers, we have discussed in general terms tension between art and design, particularly with regards to education.
We have discussed the way that separate learning or educational bodies have emerged away from the "traditional" concept of the University environment, such as examples of the Black Mountain College in the USA and the Bauhaus, Germany...  We've also discussed the work of John Dewey and the way that he has seen education in art and design education unfold since the 1940s, and how those new schools of thought have been taken in to mainstream education.

This lecture is about the "Problem" of the distinction between Art and Design [in education].
We start with the fact that there is a kind of cliché-ed image of a typical designer and what they might 'look like'... - This idealised image is of someone who is 'close to science' and has an understanding of both technical design and product engineering.  Conversely, the tension with artistic practice is shown through the typical stereotype of an artist, which is usually portrayed as an expressive, emotional individual.

Getting the past of those cliché-ed caricatures has been a key part of study for Christopher Frayling.  When we think of interdisciplinary and multiplicity in action, there isn't a characterisation of the stereotypical practitioner.  In reality there is still much demarcation between art and design, and this still continues to be seen as 'a problem'.

Christopher Frayling tries to bridge this gap through his landmark paper written in 1993.  He applies his own disciplines to his own research.  He discusses his own research, the principle study he reads is film.  Where, then, does his practice actually fall?...   Frayling was the Rector of the Royal College of Art at the time in 1993 when he wrote his landmark paper, which essentially was 'conjured up' (as described by some commentators), or constructed debate about 'research', in both art and design.  The categories that he came up with, in order to slice up 'the problem' into recognisable classifications, has become the structure for future debates to be based upon.

(See the paper entitled "Research in Art and Design." by Richard Frayling).

Frayling puts a new emphasis on the notion of study of both the "old" and the "new"...  He points out that Designers and Artists "re"--search.... and this use of language, with regard to the "re"-search suggests going over old territory in order to acquire academic information, and "re"-search also suggests "re"-viewing too.  However, what Frayling was actually trying to point out was that both Artists and Designers, and indeed Crafts people generally, are really concerned with creating "the new".

Describing it in another way, we try to organise our practice to look and make 'artefacts' rather than 'arty' facts.  Where traditional research has been about 'going over old territory', we should change the concept of research to 'developing the new'.

In his paper, Frayling talks about the works of Picasso, particularly the le Demoiselles D'Avignon, as a particular example of something completely new in art getting controversial exposure to the general public.  At the time there was some uproar on the exhibition of this piece, and the critics started to propagate an association with the piece, that Picasso was doing research based on African masks.  Apparently Picasso hated this assertion that had been put about.  In fact, Picasso's real intention and references were actually based on visual memories in the 'red light' district of Barcelona.  He was also influenced by the work of Paul Cezanne and the painting of Mont St. Victoire etc.
Picasso was interested in the visual intention of his painting. He created art from images of things that he had gathered around him, through his life, which was what he was interested in.  He was not interested in talking about his work, because he distrusted the inaccuracies of language (and I suspect distrusted the critics too).   Picasso created art in order to express himself and he did not consider his work as "research" in itself.

The artist has often been portrayed in a particularly cliché-ed way as a result of the films produced by Hollywood. For example, see Kirk Douglas in the film "Lust for Life".  In it he portrays the classic Hollywood cliché of an artist, that being a 'study' of the temperament of Van-Gogh, working alongside Paul Cézanne, who was played by Anthony Quinn.  Both roles are highly exaggerated for dramatic effect (and affect too).

Frayling makes the overblown fictional view of the Hollywood i.e. "The Van-Gogh" as totally expressive, but very importantly non-cognitive (in other words, non-thinking).  This is clearly in Frayling's view, just plain wrong.  The fictional image of the barmy artist is completely unfair.  However, this is the unfortunate stereotype of the artist in which Hollywood has created and been considered for most of the 20th century.

This contrasts with, whereas, the designer, for example, he has an image before the 1980s as somebody who was a "Boffin".  Typically, this was seen as a pipe smoking gentle thoughtful soul, but nevertheless a hands on and pragmatic, similar to the Barnes Wallis gentleman type style of image.  Here, the designer was both a thinker and a doer.
However, in the late 1980s, the new picture emerges.  This is because a composite character has arrived on the scene, and that is of the 'graphic designer'.  They are a new breed...  For example, Nathan Barley or Chris Morris or Charlie Brooker types.  These were often immaculately dressed very trendy and fashion conscious individuals.
(See the example of Nathan Barley and the episodes now on YouTube).
This was an image of a style obsessed "image archaeologist".  He considers image and signs etc and is perhaps a shallow or surface orientated, post modern individual.

Compare this with a Hollywood version of a Research Scientist who has an image of either being a saint, or a deranged sinner!  The fictional ones are usually based on Frankenstein or Faustus or Dr Jekyll.  Whereas the real ones are usually stereotyped as critical rationalists.  They live by logic, clarity, transparency of methods, etc.

Work by Harry Collins in sociology  (the book Changing Order;  Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice), outlines a general theory of sociology of science.  In it, he notes that there is a competitive spirit in the research of such scientists.  They have the knowledge of craftsmen, but also tacit knowledge.  It seems that scientists of this type of try to feel their way around reality. The book is a fascinating study in the sociology of science, and explores the way scientists conduct, and draw conclusions from, their experiments. The book is organized around three case studies: replication of the TEA-laser, detecting gravitational rotation, and some experiments in the paranormal.

Equally, the example portrayed by, for instance, the stories of Crick and Watson (and their discovery of the DNA helix), provides an image which stresses our human faults and foibles.  It shows examples of how in Cambridge University or Oxford University perhaps scientific students are "preoccupied with petty rivalries" and driving ambition.  It seems to capture the exciting rivalry of how they wanted to beat their competitors, both in the UK and abroad.

But another commentator, - Bruno Latour, points out that "real" scientists spend much of their time trying to effectively sell ideas in order to get research funding given to them to continue their work.  The entities in scientific discourse are often structured through a network of observations and form from their network of ideas.  These become hypotheses in order to take notions forward to become proposals for funding and thence research grants are given.  That is a much truer picture of reality.

The stereotype image of an artist suggests no real cognitive dimension.  However, if we look back in history for example at the work of Constable, and in his research of clouds for instance, then this is a virtual proof of his attempt to re-frame himself as a 'scientific' practitioner.  The same could be said for Turner and also Whistler, especially in their lecture styles too.

Christopher Frayling makes three core distinctions that condition the debate about research, for both artists and designers.

1. Research "into" art and design.  This is readily accepted as the standard for historical or the aesthetic and humanities research into the arts, - and is the traditional method.
   
2. Research "through" art and design.  This method to is an accepted procedure and is concerned about applied research into materials, or investigating and modifying existing technologies and techniques.  It is usually accompanied with a diaristic approach to documentation, similar to the blog style that has become fashionable since the advent of the Internet.
   
3. The final condition is "Research for" art and design.  This is the stormy issue.  Christopher Frayling wants to draw attention to this. -  It is where an artist has gathered his influences that he has gained through experience, but then applies them to art that conceals them from the viewer.  For example, or by using undisclosed materials and techniques often accompanied with the statement "the work speaks for itself".  This is highly contentious and possibly ambiguous in many ways and will be investigated further in the next lecture...