That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
I remember the sun streaming through the skylight. I remember I had a really dry throat, and I was terrified my teacher would think I was nervous if I coughed – I was ridiculously nervous, of course, but I didn’t want him to know that. Most of all, I remember being paranoid about anyone else overhearing our little chat about my work.
Just to make it clear, I have never had a C. Ever. It was just not something I did at school and now, well; now we’re measured rather differently.
It was the last year of my GCSEs and my art teacher had just been replaced. Our original teacher had been an ‘artiste’ – so he’d been amazing at, how can I put this, offering examples of ‘simply amazing’ pieces of art (his own that he never ceased to remind us were selling for good prices) – but he was a pretty useless teacher. Consequently, we may have spent a year revelling in the relaxed and bohemian atmosphere of the artist’s studio, but we were no closer to succeeding in our exams. When my new teacher looked at my work so far (horrifyingly little) and declared I would, possibly, scrape a C if I were very lucky, I knew I would do anything to prove him wrong.
I had two weeks until the coursework deadline. And for two weeks I spent every possible waking hour living and breathing art. I was probably high off paint a lot of the time. I don’t even remember how I did it, but I knew, I knew I could not get a C. I don’t mean to sound like an intellectual snob, but it was a matter of principle. I think I knew that up until that point I hadn’t really been working hard at all. I’d been messing around with paints, enjoying the laid back atmosphere and the free biscuits we used to get… occasionally someone would turn up to the class drunk or high and just add to the hilarity. We were being chilled out, embracing la vie bohème, surely we would all do as “fabulously” as the old teacher had told us we would?
At the end of it all, I got an A.
I’d like to say that it meant a lot to me. But it didn’t. The whole thing had seemed a bit of a farce. If I could get an A with my two weeks of work, well, what was the point of the two-year GCSE course? We didn’t learn the finer points of life drawing or how to use colour. In fact, I don’t think I learnt anything from the actual subject apart from how soul-destroying an exam in such a subject is. It wasn’t about the art itself, because after all, how can you examine such a subjective thing? It was about hitting certain “academic objectives”. Just like English essays had to go through specific loopholes to get the marks, so “art” became simply another thing to be memorised, broken down into idiot/examiner-proof sections. By the end I couldn’t even remember why I took the bloody subject in the first place. I should have listened to my mother – she’d gone to Art College – she knew what she was on about when she told me not to do it.
Nonetheless I did learn one thing: that if I put my mind to something, I really can achieve it with enough hard work and dedication. I could be single-minded, stubborn and refuse to give up on something. Skills that I utilised a year later in my German A Level; and my subsequent B meant more to me than any A because I really knew I had tried my best. That was when I realised that the grades I got didn’t actually matter; what mattered was whether I had tried my hardest to get them.
That is why GCSE and A-level art annoys me. I watched completely untalented people get As and Bs they didn't deserve due to a complete lack of artistic ability but a fulfillment of mark scheme criteria. Basically people just made sure they did the necessary research and writing about the work and got grades whilst being crap at art. Not right!
#1 - But who says such and such is "crap" art and something else is "good"? Are you qualified to make that call? *That* is what is annoying about GCSE art - they should scrap the whole thing because it's so subjective, you can't examine it!
I don't think you should be so down on those you think "didn't deserve" their As and Bs - they clearly worked hard regardless of your opinion of their "artistic ability" - it's not their fault the system was shite but they were clever enough to know how to work it.
Personally, I'd never go near the art studio - but if a kid wants an easy GCSE and knows how to work the system to get it, why not?
Anyone who has done art at GCSE or A level will know how it can utterly consume you
Calm down #2. Some art is different from others, some styles are not to my taste and some are but what I am talking about was generally crap. I'm sure you could ask my old teachers off the record and get the same reply. Awful supposedly observational pieces? When someone is painting something to be a realistic and not stylised representation of something they see in front of them but it fails because they have no artistic ability, I think I'm allowed to call that crap.
I'm going to be down on it because art is a subject about talent not learning like in a science. You can't try hard to be talented, you are or you aren't. And art is the domain of talented people, like music and drama, so if you aren't talented but can do as well as someone else that is, it's obviously a fundamental flaw.
And if you'd never go near the art studio what experience and knowledge do you have to question my judgement anyway?
I think because art is the kind of subject it is, you need to grade it based on how hard someone works as opposed to any other criteria. Exams are supposed to be an indicator of the effort you've put in to learn certain material - granted, some people work harder than others and achieve the same grades, but then surely someone with 'natural artistic talent' as #1 said would need to work less hard than the person without it anyway?
You certainly can't take the defence of subjectivity to the level #2 is suggesting. While art is essentially subjective, it is ridiculous to say that anything can be considered good art simply because one person says it is. Artistic skill is essential to good art be it a thoughtful concept or technical ability. Some people simply don't have that ability, just as others aren't good with numbers.
I definitely found my art GSCE and A-Level teaching frustrating. There was very little teaching of techniques and far too great a reliance on jumping through hoops, but I found that of all arts and humanities subjects.
I think Art classes at school should concentrate on teaching skills such as life drawing and other technicalities - it may be difficult, but if we were forced to go through the rigorous technicalities such as drawing the human body, using perspective, mixing colours - using proper paints - I think people would find the subject a lot more rewarding. I was thoroughly annoyed with my pre-GSCE art because we just seemed to be left alone to mess around with the materials, which could be fun, but I was always sad that we were never actually *taught* anything.
It pisses me off when people say "it's so subjective - you can't examine it!" and claim it's not worth doing.
Clearly, one of Turner's landscapes is superior to a fingerpainting. Art isn't a subject where you can give a right or a wrong answer, but that doesn't mean there aren't right and wrong ways to do it. It is subjective to an extent, but that doesn't mean it's all relative and meaningless.
Well said #8
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report