The reading for this week was a chapter on ‘Understanding Art: The Play of Work and Spectator’ by Monica Vilhauer in Gadamer’s Ethics of Play: Hermeneutics and the Other (2010).
In Truth and Method, Gadamer introduces the concept of “play” in his description of the “event” of understanding that occurs in the experience of a work of art. […]
Gadamer aims to show us how the spectator plays a crucial interpretive role in what the meaning of the artwork is. He aims to show us how it is only in the back and forth play of communicating meaning between presenter and spectator that interpretive understanding occurs and the artwork achieves its completion. […]
Gadamer teaches us to recognize how understanding itself only takes place in a dynamic, interactive, interpretive process of working through meaning with others. A shared understanding is in this way an interpretive event that takes place in a play of presenting and recognizing meaning.
Vilhauer, 2010 p.31
This suggests that the spectator’s interpretive framework of an artwork could be influenced by their knowledge base, lived experience, cultural capital, etc. The interpretation of the artwork is very subjective and objective, but the argument is that the artwork is complete when the collaborative meaning-making is conducted. Within a teaching context, I think this could be seen within group tutorials, when the ‘feed-forward’ aspect of feedback is taking place. I quite like the thought that teaching cannot take place without a cyclical approach of student and teacher exchange – an exchange of knowledge, if you like.
An interesting question was posed to the group, asking us whether we notice anything different about the way you contribute as a student in sessions in an online environment. Personally, I feel more comfortable contributing as I am not limited to verbal contributions, and I find myself able to construct my thought and sentence when typing it out. I think I find it hard to muster the words coherently when put on the spotlight. On the flip-side, I find it difficult to keep up with the chat if it’s popping alongside the spoken aspect of the session – multitasking is difficult, and I keep getting the fear that I’ll miss something important. Additionally, adding something in the chat makes it feel like there’s a sense of permanence to my thoughts… but then again, in a blackboard collaborate recording, the chat isn’t recorded but the audio (so spoken contributions) is, so there’s a different sense of permanence.
Here’s what my group ended up adding to the whiteboard, I wrote, “it depends on the situation.” Once I get to know the group I am in, I find myself feeling more comfortable sharing my thoughts (and being challenged), whereas if it’s in a big group I feel more shy about contributing or being seen as wrong or, to put bluntly, stupid. Looking through what was written, I see that I’m not alone in feeling this way – there’s some comfort in that somewhere.
It is evident though that the opportunity to speak within a big group feels more daunting than in a smaller group. Breakout sessions/rooms tend to lubricate the classroom discussion, after which you can feel more confident to contribute when you return to the bigger group. There is a duty of care to enable students to have the time and space, to sit in silence for a minute, to consider their thoughts and contributions. Sometimes calling students out by their names to encourage them to contribute can be worthwhile, but it can also put those who are shy or nervous on edge about being called out and they may disengage more. It’s hard creating a happy-medium.
It was quite nice to see how passionately Lindsay spoke about Gadamer, and she very helpfully summarised his philosophy on ‘horizons’. Below is a paraphrase of what she said.
The metaphor of a fusion of horizons is stemmed from the idea of horizons encompassing your world view. Depending on your historical context, your horizon will look different. For example, when you move somewhere, your horizon will change (depending on the day, time, etc). When we try to understand each other, you are trying to understand someone else’s world perspective or world view. Through the fusion of horizons, you are being empathetic rather than erasing the difference. Prejudice is necessary for an understanding, and you must consider your positionality.
I quite like the metaphor of a horizon being relative to your world view. Depending on which way you look, the horizon can adapt and change.
Finally, we looked at the ways in which universities are measured for the Teaching Excellence Framework. I really dislike the way in which it’s rated, and how it’s used as an excuse to hike up tuition fees. I think it’s important to gather student feedback and to publicise things, but the government model of NSS (and I guess TEF) is done in such a manner that they presume one size fits all. Comparing an arts university alongside a Russel group or non-arts related university is counter intuitive. Particularly with DLHE as statistically creative graduates take longer to settle into their creative careers than those who go into graduate jobs which are related to their degree. The precarious working conditions and the emphasis on freelance work as a creative graduate is not taken into consideration for the government-led stats data, so how can one truly measure and compare an arts university amongst others? Surely measuring success, or what is deemed successful (by whom? who holds the power to decide what is successful?) is only really there to cater for the neoliberal view of individualism, feeding into capitalism. But when there has been a proliferation of universities and varying degrees offered (e.g. how many graphic design or fine art courses do UAL offer?), how do you decide which to apply for? Perhaps measurement is a side effect rather than the root of the problem.
References
Vilhauer, M. (2010) ‘Chapter 3 Understanding Art: The Play of Work and Spectator’ in Gadamer’s Ethics of Play: Hermeneutics and the Other. Lanham, Md, Lexington Books. pp.31-48