"Postmodern Principles" and "Color Coding"
Olivia Gude's objections to the elements and principles of design as well as traditional methods of teaching color theory are fresh and relevant to the contemporary art classroom. It makes little sense, in a postmodern society that believes truth is based on context, individuality is central, and embraces diversity of thought, to continue to teach a set of absolute principles and elements. At one point in history, they made sense. But because they have been mistakenly applied to art forms made long before that point, and works of art made long after that point (today), they continue to subsist as universal truth.
One other reason teachers might continue to teach the elements and principles of design (and here I can include traditional approaches to learning color, as Gude dissects in "Color Coding") is because it creates an avenue of immediate accessibility--it tames the artwork into something concrete and understandable, simple, and absolute. But this is really a false accessibility, a surface level of accessibility. Studying these elements rarely gets to the heart of the artwork. Every once and a while an artist will utilize an"element" or "principle" of design, such as repetition or line, to provide a key to context, but rarely for aesthetic purposes. These elements are not included for design, but for their associations with life, society, history, and humanity. I'm afraid that if we keep teaching elements and principles of design, people will keep seeing art as purely aesthetic and further disillusion them from art being made now--art that is far from pure aesthetics.
I don't really recall learning the elements and principles of design in an art class. I learned them in interior design in high school. In that realm of aesthetics and function, they made sense. I applied them. This makes sense with regards to the origin of these principles at the Bauhaus. But, as I mentioned before, art is not always about aesthetics, and is rarely, if ever, functional, especially today. Without relating to the purpose of art as we see it today--as a means of insight, a platform for ideas, an exploration of complexity--I feel, like Gude, that the traditional elements and principles of design should be thrown out.
Students do need to come to an understanding of what is involved with creating artwork, and what art can be and mean. I think the best way to approach understanding contemporary art is first to understand conceptual ideas. Themes that repeat themselves across media and culture and artists (identity, memory, politics, complexity, systems, etc.), and the parts of an artwork (idea, studio work, finished piece, title, critique, display) should be discussed and understood, but they should be presented in a way that does not lead students to believe that there is a prescribed formula in art. That idea would lead to either frustration or boredom. In the classroom, I think that we should embrace the complexity of art, accept it as a fluctuating thing.
