The perception of subjectivity in Fine Art assessment
When discussing the relevance of Learning Outcomes with UAL colleagues from different creative disciplines at a recent PgCert workshop, I was asked whether the lack of project briefs within Fine Art rendered the marking process ‘completely subjective’. It is my experience that many people believe Fine Art assessment to be a matter of taste, and therefore something inconsistent and vulnerable to preference and prejudice. The implication is that the lack of an externally identifiable set of requirements mean that Fine Art assessment is based on tacit (rather than explicit) knowledge. Tacit knowledge is defined by O’Donovan, Price & Rust as that ‘which is learnt experientially or in terms of its incommunicability—knowledge that cannot be easily articulated and is elusive’ (2010).
In my opinion, the assessment of Fine Art is neither objective nor subjective, but relative. Success or failure is relative to the intentions established by the student, and how closely the produced outcome aligns with these intentions. Art practice develops as it progresses, however, and the artists’ intentions for a work may also evolve and change, creating a fluid set of criteria. A successful student would be able to articulate the relationship between what was intended and what was achieved, and to explain why and how the artwork communicates as it does.
Many Fine Art students are engaged in continual self-reflection and effectively embody Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick’s description of ‘self-regulated learning’ (2006), albeit without an objective notion of ‘good’ by which to compare their own progress to. In all of my taught sessions I try to encourage peer-to-peer feedback and would certainly concur that ‘it is sometimes easier for students to accept critiques of their work from peers rather than tutors’. (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) In order to dismantle the notion of objective knowledge being handed down from tutor to student, it is important that my input is balanced by different voices within the studio. However, sometimes students report feeling overwhelmed by the variety of suggestions and opinions provided to them. In Blair’s 2011 review of the art ‘crit’, she writes about the challenges of ‘receiving conflicting and sometimes, what students regard as, non-related feedback, from a variety of individuals.’
To mitigate this, it is important in my role to follow up feedback with students and to help them navigate the potential paths they could take in order to progress. Fine Art teaching is largely conversational, and advice is based on an understanding of the artists’ aspirations for the work and how it fits within a larger picture of their practice. ‘One way of increasing the effectiveness of external feedback, and the likelihood that the information provided is understood by students, is to conceptualise feedback more as dialogue rather than as information transmission’. (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2018)
While Fine Art’s relational approach can make the assessment process seem more challenging from an external perspective, I would argue this is how it engages very constructively with the notion of feedback. Art practice is usually understood to be an ongoing process that goes beyond the assessment point and is potentially lifelong. Assessments are not viewed as a conclusion of work, but a moment of reflection on practice ‘in progress’ with feedback pointing towards ongoing improvement and development.
References
Blair, B. (2011) ‘At the end of a huge crit in the summer, it was “crap” – I’d worked really hard but all she said was “fine” and I was gutted’. In Bhagat, D. and O’Neill, P. (eds) Inclusive Practices, Inclusive Pedagogies: Learning from Widening Participatoin Research in Art and Design Higher Education. Hemel Hempstead: CHEAD.
Nicol, D. J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31: 2, 199 — 218
O’donovan, Berry , Price, Margaret and Rust, Chris (2004) ‘Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria’, Teaching in Higher Education, 9: 3, 325 — 335