As a Middle Eastern man from a working-class background, and the first in my immediate family to study the arts I have become aware through my education and my subsequent teaching at university that the representation of minority groups, whether BAME (Black Asian Minority Ethnic), LGBTQ+ or disabled are lacking not only in the cohort, but also within the faculty and curriculum. “76% white, 2% Black British Caribbean, 2% Black British African, 2% Asian British Indian, and 1% Asian British Pakistani” (Finnigan and Richards, 4).
I believe that as someone who is a Lecturer of year 1 students of MA Graphic Communication Design (MAGCD), at Central Saint Martins, I have a say in the curriculum of the course and the content in the briefs we assign students. I want to use this opportunity to reflect on a brief that I feel had the opportunity of exploring issues of diversity, but which wasn’t fully developed to the extent that I would have hoped, namely Methods of Contextualising (fig. 1). Through this analysis I like to develop a new version of this brief that we give to students in the Spring term.
Given that the briefs we provide on the course are a representation of what we stand for, I think that it is crucial that they demonstrate an awareness and challenge current issues in relation to race, gender and disability and encourage students to have discussions about such topics. “Inclusive education reflects values and principles and is concerned with challenging the ways in which educational systems reproduce and perpetuate social inequalities with regard to marginalised and excluded groups of students across a range of abilities, characteristics, developmental trajectories, and socioeconomic circumstances” (Liasidou, 168).
Methods of Contextualising Brief
The briefs on MAGCD for year 1 are designed in such a way that they help students explore different ways of making through an iterative and process-led approach. These methods include things such as investigating, cataloguing and translating, and by the time they get to Methods of Contextualising they would have a good grasp of these ways of working.
The Methods of Contextualising brief is significant in that it offers the opportunity for students to use these methods through a myriad of lenses including those that are social, political or environmental in nature. However, I do not believe that the way the brief is designed now that these topics as well as those related to race, gender and identity are shown as valid avenues of exploration.
The brief asks students to react to the Rapid Response collection at the V&A, a continually evolving exhibition which is changing based on current events, making it even more important that we ask students to explore issues in relation to injustices that are happening globally.
Within this section, I will be going through the brief and highlighting elements I think could be changed to encourage students to look at issues around diversity more directly.
Rapid Response Collecting was introduced in 2014 as a new type of collecting activity at the V&A. Contemporary objects are acquired in response to major moments in recent history that touch the world of design and manufacturing. Many of the objects have been newsworthy either because they advance what design can do, or because they reveal truths about how we live.
(Pg. 1 of Fig. 1).
When exploring these objects, we ask students to look at them through the lens of the following questions:
- Would you have expected to encounter this object in a museum setting?
- How do you approach or understand it differently in this context?
- How have the V&A curators specifically contextualized it (through its mode of display, through accompanying texts, or through other gestures)?
- Why was this object included in the collection?
- What is the story of its acquisition?
- What are its formal and material qualities, and how do these reflect its contexts (cultural, political, industrial, economic, etc.)?
(Pg. 1 of Fig. 1).
I think that the above questions are a good starting point to get students to explore the objects in the collection, specifically, they help students observe the context of these objects as well their formal qualities. However, I think questions in relation to issues of race, gender, identity and disability could be more explicitly presented. For example, one of the questions could be:
Does this object speak about issues of race, gender, identity or disability? If so, what does this say about this and how does it relate to the wider social context?
One of the things that this brief starts to do well is that it offers students the opportunity to reflect on these objects from the perspective of their background. Given that some of the objects in the collection have political, social and cultural implications I think that it’s important to offer students the opportunity to express their views based on their personal understanding of this object:
Discuss how each group member understands this object based on their individual positions (refer again to the definition to the right). How do your positions differ from each others’? From the curators’? From the maker’s? What questions about this object and its contexts could you explore further as a group?
(Pg. 1 of Fig. 1).
These questions are a good starting point; however, they could be more geared towards the student’s background and experience. For example, the first question could be changed to:
Discuss how each group member understands this object based on their own heritage and background.
A question such as this is important as it lets students explore and reflect on the various objects in a manner that is relevant to them personally. This is very much in line with what Paulo Freire discusses in Pedagogy of the Oppressed: “Authentic education is not carried on by “A” for “B” or by “A” about “B,” but rather by “A” with “B,” mediated by the world—a world which impresses and challenges both parties, giving rise to views or opinions about it” (Freire, 93).
The last part of the making portion of the brief involves translating this research into visual work:
Then select one of these objects to critically interrogate as a group using the studio-based methods you’ve developed in previous briefs: investigating, cataloguing, translating, and iterating. Together you will develop a body of work that explores, deepens, or extends your position(s) in relation to this object.
(Pg. 1 of Fig. 1).
Here, we are encouraging students to explore the ideas that came up in their conversations and explore them through the methods they developed in the first term. If students feel that there is room to explore ideas of diversity based on what they have been looking at as a group I think that it is feasible.
However, where I think there is room for improvement is in the last part of the brief which is the written component:
- An annotated bibliography consisting of 6 references that each acts as a lens through which to view your selected object from the V&A Rapid Response collection: 2 texts from the reading list 2 texts that you find outside the reading list 2 design practices/projects
(Pg. 2 of Fig. 1).
I think that within the annotated bibliography, there would be opportunity to explore ideas in relation to race, gender, identity and disability if within the above question it was more explicitly mentioned and encouraged. For example:
2 texts from the reading list 2 texts that you find outside the reading list 2 design practices/projects. These references could be related to technology, the environment, race, gender, identity etc.
I think by highlighting race, gender and identity as a possibility of something to explore students would be comfortable at discussing such topics.
Lastly, I am going to be talking about the references that we explored as part of this brief (pg. 3 of fig. 1). The references are meant to be convey how various practices have successfully explored political and social issues as part of their work. I believe that there are some good examples of practices that are looking at issues of race here, such as Nontsikelelo Mutiti who explores ideas in relation to race and identity from a historical perspective. However, I think that this is when Shades of Noir becomes a useful resource to help find practices that are looking at issues of race, gender and identity. Looking through the website I came across the work of Nikhita Andi who is inspired by her Indian heritage in the creation of her textiles. Similarly, my time in the Inclusive Practices unit has exposed me to practitioners from minority groups such as Christine Sun Kim and how she uses her hearing disability to explore her art practice.
Overall, I have appreciated this opportunity to critically reflect on a brief we give to students on MAGCD and explore how it can be altered to encourage conversations in relation to diversity. Given that the cohort is diverse, this reflection is even more crucial in helping students to develop critical design practices. The next step for me is to take these ideas and share them with the course leader to start a conversation about how this brief could be altered to reflect inclusive practices for the upcoming academic year.
Bibliography
Finnigan, T. and Richards, A. (2016). Retention and attainment in the disciplines: Art and Design. Higher Education Academy.
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum
Liasidou, A. (2014). ‘Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the intersections of disability, race, gender and class’, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies
Volume 10, Number 1.
Rapid Response Collecting (No date). Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/rapid-response-collecting
Wan, J. (2021). In Conversation with Abstract Artist And Educator Furrah Syed. Available at: https://shadesofnoir.org.uk/in-conversation-with-abstract-artist-and-educator-furrah-syed/
Wan, J. (2021). In Conversation with Textile Designer Nikhita Andi. Available at: https://shadesofnoir.org.uk/in-conversation-with-textile-designer-nikhita-andi/
Appendices