|
|
|
The Union’s response to the Ministry of National Education |
|
|
|
06.10.07 |
The Union’s response to the Ministry of National Education and
Religious Affairs and the Pedagogical Institute regarding the book of
plastic arts for the 3rd grade of high school.
Introduction
The Art Teachers Union’s voting regarding the book of plastic arts for
the 3rd high school grade and the accompanying workbook, which was
presented to the Ministry of Education on September of 2006, was
finally answered, after a lapse of several months.
The Ministry considers the Union’s view of the book as “non-constructive”. A “constructive view”, as far as the Ministry is concerned, would be one that sought the improvement of the book and not it’s withdrawal.
Which are the issues that the Union’s voting has presented and what are the corresponding answers to the voting?
The Union’s voting focuses on two basic issues:
a) We downright reject the book’s main development theme, the thesis it supports, a thesis that will result in the loss of the creative-in the workshop and entirely individualized character of the course.
b) We reject the consequent direction that, willingly or not, it signals, meaning the nurturing of a spirit—in contrast to the values of art in general—of standardization and clichés for the students, transforming the art lesson into another gnoseological subject, just like the rest of the lesson of the curriculum, full of written exercises and “true” or “false” answers in the workbook.
These issues have a fundamental importance for us, for they deal with the actual content of art teaching.
It becomes clear, that problems like the ones caused by this new book and workbook cannot be “improved”, because they have to do with the orientation and the nature of the content of art teaching. Further on, they spoil the creative, and for that reason, the eminently pedagogical character of the course.
There are, of course, several other minor issues, that could raise serious objections. Starting from the misprint and the unacceptable quality of the pictures of the book, that ruins, in the mind of the student, the value of a work of art, and creates false impressions of the original works (It resembles teaching music to students, with broken instruments out of tune), to the confusing, in many cases, use of terms.
These issues can be improved as for they are of another level and nature. Even if these problems didn’t exist, our view of the book would remain the same.
Therefore, we will insist on the main problems, stating our view again:
Although within the Union’s voting, the main developing part deals with the danger of standardization and forming of clichés in the student’s mind, as a result of the use of the new book and workbook, the response of the Ministry of Education, that basically passes on the opinion of the Pedagogical Institute, refuses to bother with this fundamental issue the Union presents.
What conclusions can we draw from the total lack of answers from the Pedagogical Institute’s part—as the responsible organization—on this matter.
The conclusion that we draw is that this concealment verifies that the people in charge of these matters, within the Ministry an the Pedagogical Institute, instead of trying to understand the views of the plastic artists and to correspond their proposals with the basic needs of art teaching, where there is no room for recipes, on the contrary, they want to fit the whole of art teaching into a ready-made formulary of one single proposal-direction, from the countless that can and should enrich the art teaching. We are downright against such a possibility.
The book of plastic arts for the 3rd high school grade and the accompanying workbook, in the hands of the student will work as an “art manual without teacher”. That is, without doubt, altogether harmful, as it contributes to an understanding, alien to the true functions of art. Further on, our opinion doesn’t refer only to that particular book, but to any other book that would aspire to be an “art learning guide” for the student, weather “intellectual” or “common”, with past or “modern” recipes, (something like the popular TV series for art learning).
The strongest support of our view lies in the fact that not in one school of fine art, nowhere in the world, do similar books exist, for the students or the art teachers-to be. Therefore we can’t begin to understand how can something, that is considered harmful for fine art students, be regarded as beneficial, by the Pedagogical Institute, for simple high school students, without any background on the subject, therefore much more easily led to wrong conclusions and ideas incompatible to the general values of art.
The Ministry’s “response”, mainly being a forwarding paper of the responsible consultant’s proposal to the members of the Pedagogical Institute, shows total lack of understanding of the problems at hand.
The Pedagogical Institute, in its attempt to give some scientific verification to its notions, refers to some “scientific field studies” that took place in 1997 and were published in 2006, at the same time with “new” book’s distribution, in order to serve as “alibi” to the entire art teaching community’s negative opinion. Even more, it calls upon the publication of this “research” 9 years after it was carried out, in the pages of the magazine “Education in the Plastic Arts”, as a record of approval by the art teaching community.
First we inform the Pedagogical Institute that “Education in Plastic Arts” is an open forum, where any artist teacher, therefore including the responsible consultant that carried out the “research”, can express his opinion freely – just like art teaching ought to be – without this necessarily meaning the approval of that opinion by the whole of the Art Teachers Union. In the same issue there are numerous articles that present and support a different view, encouraging and enriching a fertile discussion on the course.
Given the chance, we also inform the Pedagogical Institute and the Ministry of Education that the Union’s significant activities include the publication of several quality books on great artists who taught in great schools like Itten, Severini, Signac, Matisse, and others, who in their art, followed very different formal paths. This means, for us, pluralism that activates the imagination and the ability of multiple plastic solutions, the originality of artistic expression that we so much aim for in our teaching. The annual edition of “Education in Plastic Arts”, for the past decades, includes a number of original teaching methods of training students in the use of materials and techniques, proposals that derive from the teaching experience of the artist teachers. Therefore, the proposals about materials and techniques, within the “new” books, are nothing more than a clumsy mixture of many articles from the pages of “Education in Plastic Arts”, and represent methods that already exist.
Clearly our disagreement isn’t about what technical mediums or materials will the students use in order to express themselves creatively, but about the limitation and almost abolishment of multiple and multi-formed creative expression for the student. In other words, the distortion of the creative nature of the course, the undermining and deconstruction of the basis of art teaching.
The Pedagogical Institute tries to refute the Union’s vote stating that “never did the art teachers consent to the publication of such a book for the student, for their course”, by presenting in comparison the famous “research” that “proves” that the majority of the people asked (63%), considers the existence of “books for the student” essential. But here as well, the Pedagogical Institute is mistaken.
The artists-teachers never opposed to the option of books or other subsidiary prints, alongside, of course, with the irreplaceable creative engagement of the students. What matters is what kind of books will these be, and if they will limit the imagination and the inner need for expression of every student. We, the art teachers, want books for us, as well as for the students.
We call upon the same voting, that evidently the people in charge didn’t bother to read, which points out that “boosting the students’ understanding and interest in plastic arts, is possible with books of art history, but even more probable with albums with photographic reproductions of art works, of necessarily good printing quality, accompanied with brief and informative comments”!!!
The Pedagogical Institute arbitrary interprets, and uses in a misleading manner, the opinion of the majority (63%) of the “unsuspicious” art teachers that responded to its questionnaire. Lacking basic arguments, it transforms the so-called opinion of this false majority into one, in order to question the opinion of the true overwhelming majority of art teachers, expressed in public in the Union’s seminar for teachers all over Greece, on September of 2006, as well as in the seminar in Thessaloniki, on February of 2007, that summarizes the exact voting of the Union.
On that matter, one can simply read the actual research of the Pedagogical Institute, in order to understand that this 63% is in fact the 63% of 10% of the whole of 700 teachers in the year 1997-1998, so to be precise, it corresponds to about 40 people in 700.
The Pedagogical Institute, instead of arguments, uses scholastic and “astonishing” numbers and percentages, in order to oppose the Union’s stand. Here is another example of the use of such numbers.
The Pedagogical Institute, in its response to the Union, claims that according to the research, the art teachers not only want a book “on plastic arts” for the student, but that their majority also specifies that the book should include: several techniques (65%), theory and exercises (60%), mainly pictures (30%), etc. The actual research however draws a different picture. Simply by looking at the questionnaire and the presentation of the research, one can easily make out that the “specific book” mentioned in the introduction, does not refer to a book for the student, but to the shape and content, that the people participating in the research, would wish for a book for the teacher. We believe that the Pedagogical Institute, in his response to the Union, didn’t mean for that mistake to happen and it was simply by accident, showing nevertheless how carelessly and arbitrary can such researches be used, in order to justify invalid conclusions.
The Pedagogical Institute considers the remark included in the Union’s vote, to be “imprecise”. That remark states that “It’s not accidental that such a book does not exist for decades now”. The Institute raises objections, saying that such a book already exists for the lyceum.
The Union’s remark is nothing but imprecise, on the contrary it is totally precise, as it refers specifically to high school (secondary school) and to the book for the high school student. This, of course, does not mean that the overall direction we stand for does not apply for lyceum and fine art schools as well.
Regarding the art teaching in Lyceum, we briefly mention that it consists a very important chapter in art training in general; therefore it would be unfair and inappropriate to refer to it fragmentarily. Besides, several of our memorandums to the Ministry of Education, regarding the problems of art teaching in lyceum have been ignored and remain virtually unanswered for years.
We feel sorry that the nature of the problems at hand, and the way that the Ministry of Education deals with them, force us to such long and analytical replies.
We expect that the people responsible, in the Ministry of Education will look into these issues with the seriousness and attention needed, although we are aware of the difficulties of understanding and sufficiently replying to issues of art by people outside the actual artists. We hope that they will eventually comprehend and give the desired solutions, according to the voting Union.
For the directing board of the Art Teachers Union
The president.
Z. Xatzi
The secretary
N. Paliokosta
Translated from Greek by Stathis Panou
|
|
