Multimedia in the art curriculum

255Multimedia in the Art Curriculum: Crossing BoundariesSteve Long

JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001

Art educators, like those in other areas of thecurriculum, are under pressure from various direc-tions to use digital technology in the classroom.Whilst some of this pressure is politically motivatedI believe there are also what could be described asmore legitimate educational reasons for usingcomputers; what is lacking at this stage is a coher-ent body of knowledge amongst art educators asto what happens when we do use them. This arti-cle focuses on a development project which tookplace last year in a secondary school involving a Year10 class in the use of multimedia software. Theproject was collaborative in nature and was carried

out by Miles Jefcoate, an art teacher at BeaconCommunity College in East Sussex, a group of Year10 students at Beacon and myself as a member ofthe teaching team on the Art and Design PGCEcourse at the University of Brighton. Supported byresearch funding from the University, the schoolwas provided with multimedia software which wasinstalled into its computer network. The design anddelivery of the students’ project was undertaken byMiles whilst I evaluated the impact of the digitaltechnology on the learning taking place, with anemphasis on how Miles and the students experi-enced and evaluated their activities.

Abstract


Why Multimedia?Through discussion with Miles the decision wastaken to focus on multimedia software as a specificprocess in order to examine a technology which ison the cusp of fine art, design and the mass media.Multimedia products such as Hyperstudio, Director,Mediator etc. allow the multi-modal blending ofimages (still and moving), sound and text as well asoffering the potential to make the outcomes inter-active. As such they are being widely used forcommercial purposes such as CD-rom/web-siteproduction as well as being employed by artists forweb-based work or as an element of performanceand installation. Occupying such a position, ourexperimental use of multimedia in a schooladdressed a number of pertinent questions relatingboth to developments in mass media communica-tion and to art practice. Whilst some of thesequestions are well rehearsed, it is recent develop-ments in digital technology which necessitate thatthey be asked again in relation to the currentcontent of art in the school curriculum.

McLuhan, writing in the 1950s, made a strongclaim that the dawning of the age of television

had established the broadcast image/soundmedium as a principal means of mass communi-cation and had irrevocably changed the substanceof the messages transmitted. Commenting partic-ularly on the way that television had affected themanagement of politics, McLuhan cites John F.Kennedy as someone who quickly realised thepower of the TV broadcast and was able to manip-ulate the kind of imagery necessary to get hismessage across [1]. Western society, at this point,had begun to move from a reliance on themedium of printed text to an exploitation of multi-media forms. The advent of digital computers hasadded impetus to such changes in methods ofcommunication, having moved beyond the ‘readonly’ TV screen to the interactive (and now widelyavailable) personal computer and its visual inter-face. Although contemporary computers offer amultimedia format including sound and text, it isthe visual interface which some feel to be assum-ing dominance. I would argue, alongside others,that imagery will be one of the principal conduitsfor information in our increasingly computerbased society [2]. Certainly the view is widely heldthat a definition of ‘literacy’ in a contemporarysetting would now be more accurately describedas ‘multimedia literacy’ [3].

For art educators the direct impact of TV onwork in the classroom has not been as great asperhaps it should have. Whereas we have beenliving through the age of television for fifty years,visual education within schools has never had theresources to engage practically or critically withthis form. However the personal computer anddigital technology presents a different set of chal-lenges for anyone involved in visual educationgiven that it is a reception but also a productiontool within which the image might be seen asdominant. A case could be made that part of thepurpose of a visual education now is to give chil-dren practical experience of digital forms such asmultimedia which are part of our broader visualculture [4] and that it is only through such practi-cal exploration that children are going to learn toexploit the visual in a contemporary multimedia

256Steve Long


context. Ironically formal education may well belagging behind children’s informal learning in thisrespect. The hugely positive response specificallyfrom young people to computer based multime-dia forms of communication, entertainment andplay through non-school settings suggests thateducation could benefit from making links withpractices which young people already find rele-vant and compelling [5].

Our first objective within the research projectwas to examine some of these notions and findwhether the students involved were able to makerelationships between what they learnt within theirwork in an art context and forms experiencedoutside the curriculum such as music videos,computer games and websites. For this to happenwe felt it was important that the students’ projectallowed space for both the critical engagementwith what might be seen as popular sources andpractical investigation of processes. In addition wewanted to find out if, when using a creative meanswhich offered a multimedia content, the visualwould indeed be adopted as a dominant elementor whether the students would use sound, forexample, as the main component.

The exploitation of multimedia digital technol-ogy as an area of art practice provided the secondmajor enquiry theme for the project. Many fieldswithin art such as installation, performance andvideo have embraced digital technology and havedeveloped as a result. In other areas the reactionof artists has been less certain with very disparatepractice taking place as those using the tech-nology come to terms with the possibilities. Web-based work is probably the only major form whichis defined and undeniably new, having onlygained recognition in the last two or three years.The need for children to develop a critical aware-ness of contemporary art through practicalexploration and related contextual studies hasbecome an established and valued element of anart education [6]. However approaching the draw-ing up of the new National Curriculum there wasconsiderable disquiet over the fact that such alaudable aim was only partly being met and that

reference to the work of contemporary practi-tioners was largely absent from UK art education[7]. Amongst a number of perceived deficiencieswithin the learning taking place in classroomswere the narrow scope of work, the predictabilityof media and that students’ outcomes wereimpersonal and pre-ordained by teachers who didnot feel able to take risks. At the time the idea wassuggested that contact with a contemporaryapproach to art making through new technolo-gies, such as digital media, could remedy some ofthe problems being encountered in the content of children’s experiences [8]. Dominant themeswithin digital art practice: the self, the body, iden-tity etc. seemed to have the potential to fill the voidwithin the art curriculum. Alongside such consid-erations there is a perception that the exploitationof digital technologies such as multimedia cancause a ‘dynamic fusion of forms’ [9] with manyartists now considering themselves as ‘makers’who will use images, sound or objects as appro-priate and will actively transgress previouslyestablished boundaries. This is perceived to betransforming visual art from a process of creatingobjects within one discipline to manipulatinginformation across several [10].

Would contact with this area of creative break-down between so-called fine art and the populararts be able to re-invigorate the curriculum? Aswe approached the project it was the nature ofmultimedia software and computers, traversingcontemporary art practice and mass media, whichprovided the area on which we wanted to focus.It offered the possibility of allowing students toengage with a process which was both contem-porary art form and popular entertainment/communication.

The ProcessThe research project took place during an eightmonth period with planning for the students’work beginning in December of 1999. Of princi-pal concern was the selection of a suitablemultimedia software: Mediator was chosen forits stability and the robustness of its performance.

Opposite:

Figure 1(the first of a serieswhich form part ofone student’s work)

257Steve Long


There then followed two months when Milesdeveloped his own knowledge of the softwareand planned the students’ activities as heexplored the software himself. The project wasintroduced to the students in March 2000 with aninitial demonstration of Mediator’s capabilities.They were also given an outline ‘brief’ from whichthe main outcome was to be the production ofindividual multimedia pieces taking ‘Movement’as a theme. The students were then given a moresystematic taught introduction to Mediator afterwhich they began to storyboard ideas as theircapability developed. Miles asked the students toadopt quite a structured approach which centredon the development of a sequence of slides orscreens. This allowed the students to build theirunderstanding of the software’s technical possi-bilities alongside the expressive movementstaking place. Miles wanted the students’ projectto relate to other, earlier work involving traditionalprocesses so the production of images combinedscanning drawn material as well as using a digitalcamera and drawing directly into the computerwith a mouse. Manipulation of images took placeusing Photoshop, which was a piece of softwarethat many of the students had used at the school.A few of the students had already used digitalcameras within various subjects and some hadaccess to them at home.

The project involved critical analysis of mater-ial drawing on two sources: from the perspectiveof arts practice the students were shown thework of contemporary fine artists who were usingdigital processes, especially those involving multi-media forms. Miles also looked with the studentsat artists like the Italian Futurists who had usedmore traditional media but who had explored thesame starting point as the students, namely‘Movement’. In addition the students were alsoreferred to popular forms; these included musicvideos and contemporary TV or film sources.From the outset Miles was concerned to ensurethat all the students had enough opportunity toexplore individual directions. The fact that Mileswas unsure as to how the students would react

to the work meant that it was difficult to give atime-scale to the project. Initially a period of aterm was allowed with the option to extend thisfor an extra half term if necessary.

Organisationally the project necessitated thestudents working not only in the art area but alsousing the ICT rooms where the software hadbeen installed into the networked computers.This was identified by Miles as being far fromideal since it meant that the students had to workin whole groups either in the computer room fordigitally related work or in the art room for otherprocesses, thus reducing their autonomy andflexibility. There were also a number of logisticalproblems to be solved which included the needfor the students to have increased file space onthe school computer network and that access tothe computer room would need to be guaranteedfor the class. Overcoming these problems prob-ably typifies the situation for many teachers of Artand Design in UK schools. Computer facilities arelikely to be organised around the BusinessEducation/IT departments and the file space allo-cated to pupils often reflects an expectation thatoutcomes from software like Word or Excel are allthat will need to be stored rather than imagery ofany kind!

From the outset I was introduced as a researcherand I explained the experimental nature of the workand that my primary interest during the projectwas in the interpretations placed on their experi-ences by Miles and the students. In order to gainas much access as possible to these interpreta-tions I conducted regular interviews and carriedout regular observations of classroom activity.Within the lessons I acted as a classroom assis-tant offering technical guidance; this allowed meto remain in close proximity to the work withouttoo obviously monitoring events.

EvaluationBy the end of the Summer term the students hadspent fourteen school weeks on the project andhad taken the work as far as Miles felt he couldsupport it. They had all chosen to produce a

258Steve Long


sequence of images with supporting sound whicheither ‘ran itself’ as a timed piece or which the userhad to ‘point and click’ in order to move through.The majority of the students had worked extremelyhard and had appeared regularly in the art or ICTrooms to put in extra time. Images had beenproduced using a range of traditional and digitalprocesses before they were all digitised and soundadded. There were no examples of sound being‘produced’ for the work and all the students hadopted to use pre-recorded music since they did nothave formal access to sound editing facilities.

From the outset there was a notable differenceof opinion between the students and teacher asto whether the activities undertaken should bedescribed as art at all. Miles had no reservationsand felt that using digital technology in this waywas a genuine and growing area within art anddesign. However through talking to the students,their concerns in this respect became clear. Of thereferences used, they felt that those from popularsources had proven to be the more persuasiveand relevant to them. As part of the project theywere also encouraged to collect their own

resources and, understandably, what they hadfound was predominantly from cultural formseasily available to them such as film and video: the‘artefacts of the mass media’ [11]. They brought inTarantino movies and Moby videos but theyspecifically did not classify them as art. They didnot have a critical framework for including thesematerials within their definition of what the artcurriculum should contain: “it can’t be art, it’s gotsound” said one student and “it’s a video, not art!”said another. The perceptions held by theirteacher, that these forms were as legitimate anarea of study as printed graphics were not sharedby the students. It wasn’t that they didn’t want todo the work, it was just that they didn’t classify itas an art exercise. Similarly the students alsofound difficulty relating to the examples of digitalfine art practice that they were shown. They hadtended to focus, as a result, on more ‘traditional’media material such as photography and paint-ing. Gaining conceptual access to the digital ‘fineart’ work had proven to be quite challengingparticularly where it involved installation or anevent of some kind. Looking at pieces made

Above left:Figure 2

Above right:Figure 3

259Steve Long


specifically for the internet was more successfulbut again there were technical issues such asspeed of connection via the school’s link whichhad affected the quality of what they were seeing.Not surprisingly, therefore the ‘made for massconsumption’ material had exercised a strongerinfluence on practical activities.

In written form it is difficult to do justice to inter-active multimedia work but the structure of whatthe students began to produce owed a lot to thedevelopment of a simple narrative with sequencesof movement being shown on a succession of‘slides’ or pages. Most opted to add a sampledsound track which then acted as a structural toolfor the visual elements of the piece.

Ironically, in spite of the fact that the studentshad problems situating the project as art, they didfeel that the contemporary elements within thework made an important contribution to their feel-ing of achievement. Participation was excellentand the sudden development of a work ethic notexpected from some students was a pleasantsurprise to Miles. Within this project, they perhapsbegan to broaden their understanding of what artcan be and, to an extent, began to appreciate theblurring of boundaries between fine art and popu-lar forms. Baynes’ assertion that the art curriculumwill need to equip students ‘to take part in the vitalbusiness of shaping and enjoying the broad popu-lar culture of their own time’ [12] seemed entirelypossible on the basis of this kind of activity.

Some of the most interesting outcomesconcerned issues of curriculum construction.From a student perspective not only did theproject not seem like any art activity they hadpreviously experienced ‘because there is music init’ but it also began to cross other borders: ‘it’s likedrama… we’re going to show them (the multime-dia pieces) to people.’ Throughout the work, forboth teacher and students involved, the centralunifying component of the multimedia pieces wasthe visual element, which is not unnatural sincethe basis of the project was in the visual art area.Images provided one of the central means ofcommunicating the narrative and other elements

of the multimedia ensemble were less dominant.This, in some senses confirms the views of writ-ers such as Kress who have commented on thepotential power of the visual within a multimediaformat [13]. What is of concern, however, is thatthe students and teacher realised the potential forother elements such as sound but felt that theywere unable to take these very far forward, work-ing, as they were, in the art area. Both Miles andthe students voiced these views and I feel stronglythat the images remained dominant because thestudents would have needed support from otherdepartments in order to move beyond them. Theywould have needed access not only to equipmentfrom the Music department, for example, but alsoto a range of conceptual approaches such as theEnglish or Media departments might have beenable to offer. Unfortunately they were/are workingwithin a curriculum structure which required Milesto have an expertise in visual education but thenplaced the other possible elements of the multi-media ensemble into different subject disciplineswhere teachers were really too busy with theirown classes to get involved.

260Steve Long


The students developed very powerful ideaswhich drew on areas of personal interest andallowed them to introduce multimedia content inways that had previously not been possible intheir art work.

They responded by not simply illustrating theirhobbies and interests but, in a more sophisti-cated way, began to explore the communicativepossibilities of the multi-modal form. For examplethe image shown above was part of a linkedsequence edited in response to the accompany-ing sound track; this piece changed drastically asthe student’s understanding grew of how image,sound and text could work most effectivelytogether. The need for the students to makethese kinds of choices established for them thatthere is a cross pollination between modes ofcommunication. Where one mode, for examplean image, is accompanied by sound or someother sensory element there is an affective rela-tionship with the perception of the image. Thesame can also be said of textual messages wherethe design or layout of the text as well as anyimages associated with it can be crucial to the

way that text is understood. In this project thesestudents began to gain experiential understand-ing of this balance through a medium whichencourages multi-sensory communication. Theybegan to look at a form which demands that an accommodation be reached between theaccepted view that the visual arts inhabit specificspaces/places whilst music and other transitoryforms inhabit time. On a more complex level theyalso experienced the idea that art and imagemaking is changed as a process when it becomespart of a transmittable and infinitely repeatable setof information [14].

The possibilities offered by multimedia gener-ated a real sense of excitement and the studentsresponded by producing individual and divergentwork as hoped for by Steers and Swift in theirManifesto for Art in Schools [15]. Outcomes fromthe study also supported those who have said thatplacing ‘the self’ at the centre of such projects hasa motivating effect especially in a digital mediumwhich supported connections with forms ofcommunication which interest the students [16]. Miles felt that the individuality of students’responses was encouraged by the digital nature ofthe work and was more evident than when theywere using more traditional processes. IronicallyMiles also felt that alongside a sense of individual-ity, peer support was a crucial element of theproject with pupils’ speaking and listening skillsincreasing at an exponential rate as they discussedideas. This was in stark contrast to the way thatthese students had previously worked and wasdriven by the students having to solve technicalproblems or was motivated simply by an outrightinterest in each other’s work. The students believedthere was nothing unusual in these activities in anIT context and they had a natural expectation thatthey would refer to each other for guidance ratherthan necessarily to a teacher.

The project acted as a catalyst for a re-evalua-tion amongst the group of who was perceived tobe ‘good at art’. In this context it was those whofelt generally confident with computers who alsoapproached this work in an assured manner to

Opposite:Figure 4

Above:Figure 5

261Steve Long


begin with rather than those who had previouslydemonstrated an ability in art. Some students,who did not classify themselves as strong in thesubject, found that being able to scan images andintegrate sound had allowed them to achievesuccess. This kind of access to the creative processhad circumvented problems they may previouslyhave had with making work using more traditionalmedia. There were ever present dangers such asan easy satisfaction with superficial results or thesupposed ‘neatness’ of the work or indeed the waythat so-called ‘mistakes’ could be removed. Miles’role in this area was crucial with a need for him tobe well aware of the technical aspects of what wasgoing on in order to be able to gauge each student’screative progress. There are important issues herefor teachers in connection with assessing workwhere the prevailing culture in art practice whichvalues the process of making and the visibility of thecreative journey is challenged by digital practicewhich can leave no ‘tracks in the sand’.

ImplicationsI started this paper by suggesting that a number ofquestions had been raised by the arrival of newdigital media. In attempting to answer them I am,inevitably, left with a new set of questions toponder. For visual education these are incrediblyexciting times offering new possibilities; a coremotive for art education has been the belief that asense of visual awareness is part of being humanand in today’s digital technology we have aprocess which brings images very much to thefore within communication. This suggests a re-assessment by art educators of the need to applyvisual education more widely and to situate at leastpart of it in a contemporary digital world. There arequestions to be asked in this respect: couldengagement with mass media lead to a ‘dumbingdown’ of children’s visual education as perhaps asmaller proportion of their time deals with tradi-tional purposes for art? What indeed will be adefinition of art practice? Certainly the students inthis study found this a provocative area.

It seems clear that the multi-modal workengaged in during this project allowed access tonew forms of creativity but challenged where thatcreativity was placed in the curriculum. The projectoffered a tantalising glimpse of what could belearnt through the integration of images with arelatively rudimentary engagement with soundand text; what would be possible through a moresystematic delivery? I believe the study has gonesome way to confirm that a contemporary defini-tion of literacy must include the visual, the textualand indeed the multi-modal; in which case usingtools like the multimedia software involved hereshould be part of children’s learning. In order forthese experiences to make sense to children theyneed to be conducted in a coherent manner; thevarious components cannot be divorced from eachother as they currently are. This lends credence tothe views of those who have called for a re-struc-turing of the curriculum to take account of digitaltechnology [17] and others who felt it was time toremove the isolation of individual subjects whichhas arisen for reasons of historical convenience. Arewe, I wonder due for a return to Expressive Artsdepartments in order to offer the best opportunitiesfor creativity or will an accommodation be reachedbetween teachers operating in different areas?

262Steve Long


References1. McLuhan, E. & Zingrone, F. [1995] TheEssential McLuhan London Routledge

2. Long, S. [2001] ‘What effect will digital tech-nologies have on visual education in schools?’in ICT, Pedagogy and the Curriculum: Subject ofChange London Routledge, and

Kress, G. [1998] ‘Visual and Verbal Modes ofrepresentation in electronically mediatedcommunication: the potentials of new forms of text’ in Page to Screen: taking literacy into theelectronic era, London Routledge

3. see Sefton-Green J. (1998) Digital Diversions:Youth Culture in the Age of Multimedia, UCL Press

4. see Baynes, K [2000] ‘Gallery of the Future:New Directions in Art Education’ Journal of Artand Design Education, Vol.19, No.1

5. Beavis, C. [1998] ‘Computer games, cultureand the curriculum’ in Page to Screen: takingliteracy into the electronic era, LondonRoutledge, and

Cotton, B. & Oliver, R. [1997] UnderstandingHypermedia: multimedia origins, internetfutures, London Phaidon

6. Thistlewood, D. (Ed.) [1989] Critical Studies inArt and Design Education, Longman/NSEAD

7. Steers, J. & Swift, J. [1999] ‘A Manifesto for Artin Schools’, Journal of Art and Design Education,Vol.18, No.1, Oxford Blackwell

8. Meecham, P. [1999] ‘Of webs and nets and lilypads’ Journal of Art and Design Education,Vol.18, No.1, Oxford Blackwell

9. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) [1999] All Our Futures: creativity, culture and education,London DfEE

10. Rush, M. [1999] New Media in Late 2OthCentury Art, London Thames & Hudson

11. Allen, D. [1994] ‘Teaching Visual Literacy:Some Reflections on the Term’ Journal for Artand Design Education, Vol.13, No. 2 OxfordBlackwell p.134

12. see Baynes, 2000, Op cit p.39

13. Kress, G. [1998] Op cit

14. Berger, J. [1972] Ways of Seeing London BBC

15. Steers, J. & Swift, J. [1999] Op cit

16. Sinker, R. [2000] ‘Making Multimedia: evaluating young people’s creative multimediaproduction’ in Evaluating Creativity: making andlearning by young people, Ed. Sefton-Green &Sinker London Routledge

17. Heppell, S. [1999] ‘The ICT of Creation’ TimesEducational Supplement: Online, January 7thLondon, Times Heppell, 1999

263Steve Long

Copyright of International Journal of Art & Design Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Multimedia in the art curriculum

Education

Transcript of Multimedia in the art curriculum