Drawing is the center, no, the pillar of my practice and I was very excited to see this exhibit at the AGO.  Drawing is rarely seen as an end in itself but more a means to an end.  That was how i was trained and i remember years ago my cousin showing me a drawing of his and i told him he had to move beyond “just drawing”  -  luckily he ignored me.  Now, years later, i champion drawing for what it is.  This AGO exhibit shows the diversity of drawing - from drawing as the end product, drawings as process and even drawings that some may not even consider drawings. 

The previous post talked about my frustration with this pervasive feeling that the viewer needs to be educated in art.  Drawing is very approachable.  Even people who are not artists have drawn something - it is the most universal of all the mediums and it transcend all art practices and historical periods.  Every visual image begins with a mark.  It is personal, and thereby knowable - approachable.  The first didactic panel in the exhibit is a quote from Degas, “Drawing is the artist’s most direct and spontaneous expression, a species of writing.  It reveals better than does painting the artists true personality”.  Because it gets equated with process - we are all more forgiving of drawings - and there is an expectation of experiment, unresolved ideas - i think of drawing as closely related to poetry - rules don’t need to be followed and it will be judged less harshly. The engagement that I spoke of in the previous post can more fluidly be played out.  Betty Goodwin’s work which was heavily based in drawing and of which there are 4 on display in this exhibit stated in one of her note books dated 1981, “Drawing is the most unalienated medium.  Private, it practically doesn’t have an audience in mind, just the artist’s expression.”  

The center room (136) is devoted to life drawing and they have provided an area with three drawing horses set up with boards and paper to sketch either a seated person or a self portrait (mirror is provided).  I am not sure how many participate - life drawing particularly can be anxiety provoking and is perhaps the least inviting especially without a facilitator - however it does sets a stage, a narrative that the viewer can at the very least imagine what it is like even if they choose not to participate.

So does the AGO’s exhibit on their drawings succeed?  i think yes.  The three small rooms (Galleries 135, 136 & 137), the drawings selected and the lighting used give the feeling of intimacy - like you have walked into a sketch book or a personal journal. The diversity of artists, time periods and didactic panels that express the curators feelings about the drawings are appropriate to the tone they have created - that of an intimate experience - one on one with a drawing.  The final gallery  (135) has a more dynamic range of what can be considered drawing bringing in sculpture, colour and even painted sketches.  Letting the viewer out with a bit of excitement.

The AGO is also running life drawing classes and they are taking place in these galleries.  i think that is a wonderful use of the space!     http://artmatters.ca/wp/2016/02/life-drawing/

Part of the internship with the AGO has involved a series of workshops where we are oriented to the AGOs organisational structure, its mandate/mission, issues regarding similar institutions and their programs.  My internship in particular, will be dealing with their formal educational program which includes guided visits for school groups, studio classes and an early years family drop-in space.  

i have been most surprised that education is such a focus of the AGO’s mandate  beyond school children.  i had really never connected “education” to the AGO.  i viewed it more as a cultural institution and therefore a destination and as such never equated a visit to the AGO as an education - i would have characterized it as a “cultural experience” - like the ballet, a play or reading a classic novel (or current novel for that matter).  Their mandate however places a heavy emphasis on “informal education” which extends to adult visitors.  i guess because i am an artist and make work - the end result being an art object or experience - my intention in its production is not “to educate”.  i produce these objects to be interacted with, to explore formal elements, spur on  a discussion or share my view of the world - but not to educate.

So the AGO using education as one of its central reasons for being, grates a little.  It saddens me that understanding the “art world” requires education.  Is it so inaccessible that we need to educate people in order to “get” art?  In one of our workshops we were discussing some of the goals the AGO is hoping to achieve when the school groups come through.  One of them was to get the kids to feel engaged with the experience.  i think that is the better word. There seems to be a lack of engagement generally in a lot of areas of life now.  Art is just another way to engage in the world - artist with viewer, curator with artist, viewer with art, curator with viewer.  Each has other points of engagement political, social and cultural that then feeds the dialogue.  It just seem much more dynamic and interesting than education - be it formal or informal.

This blog entry uses the article “Tell Us About It”: Diverse Student Voices in Creative Practice by Terry Finnigan as a jumping off point.  The article looked at a project aimed at the inclusion of student voices in the post-secondary learning environment - particularly those students who are more marginalized within the system - international students and first generation students.

What stood out in this article the most for me was this statement: assumptions about what is defined as rational neutral knowledge within the academy, needs to be problematized.  This is so interesting - assumptions of neutral knowledge.  Much of what i am trying to bring into my practice is an examination of language and text. There is no neutrality in language and meaning easily shifts - bearing in mind the social and cultural constructs around language means it is perpetually problematic.  Once the text is out there meaning begins to shift, degrade and can even suffer a loss of authorship.  With language, what does not get said is as important as what is said. 

It is obvious that this would extend to knowledge transfer in our learning systems - knowledge is often viewed as neutral - especially when we get to the higher learning environment like the post-secondary level.  So what are the implications of this?  We need to be open to differences and be flexible in allowing room for the students to insert their knowledge and be open to contradictions that may arise from doing this.  Making a habit of examining what is not being said in the class room - what insights can we glean from the gaps.  i can’t articulate how this may manifest in the class but will try to be aware of it while i am working with the AGO.  i think especially with younger children this may be easier to see - they may be less self-conscious with sharing their knowledge and less worried about conforming to the rational constructs of neutral knowledge or maybe just not aware that they should yet.