Whilst the faculties of literacy and numeracy are rightly recognised as worthy of pedagogical nurturing, this article champions a more venerable articulacy – visualcy – crucial to a healthy culture, arguing that the one domain of human inquiry which distinguishes the visual arts from other disciplines is surely that surrounding the faculty of vision. The ascendency within the contemporary artworld of a relational aesthetics is traced through a brief history of the relationships between visual artforms and their socio-political contexts. It is suggested that the shift of emphasis away from the perceptually intriguing is in part a consequence – perhaps unintended – of the neoliberal values permeating the UK Higher Education sector in the last decade. The article ends with a proposal for a visual arts pedagogy based on five key principles of visualcy explored through the medium of drawing, illustrated with work by the author and students.
AugarP (2019) Independent panel report to the review of post-18 education and funding. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications (accessed 30 July 2019).
2.
BourriaudN (2002) Relational Aesthetics.
Paris:
Les Presses du Reel.
3.
BrownW (2003)
Neoliberalism and the end of liberal democracy. Theory and Event7: 1–29.
4.
BrowneJ (2010) Securing a sustainable future for higher education. An independent review of higher funding and student finance. Available at: www.independent.gov.uk/browne-report (accessed 23 July 2019).
5.
ChorpeningK (2014)
The problem with making in fine art: A case for the expanded teaching of drawing. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education13(1): 95–109.
6.
De DuveT (2009) An ethics: Putting aesthetic transmission in its proper place in the art world. In: MadoffSH (ed) Art School: Propositions for the 21st Century.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, pp.15–24.
7.
FavaM (2011) What is the role of observational drawing in contemporary art & design curricula? In: NormanEWLSeeryN (eds) IDATER Online Conference: Graphicacy and Modelling (2010)Loughborough:
Design Education Research Group, Loughborough Design School, pp.129–141.
8.
FavaM (2020) A decline in drawing ability? International Journal of Art & Design Education. 39(2): 319–332.
9.
FlewT (2014)
Six theories of neoliberalism. Thesis Eleven122(1): 49–71.
10.
GibsonJJ (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Boston MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
11.
HallidayMAK (1978) Language as Social Semiotic.
London:
Edward Arnold.
12.
HallidayMAK (2005) On matter and meaning: The two realms of human experience. Linguistics and the Human Sciences. Epub ahead of print February 2007. DOI: 10.1558/lhs.v1i1.59.
13.
HallidayMAK (2019) The influence of Marxism. In: WebsterJJ (ed) The Bloomsbury Companion to MAK Halliday.
London: Bloomsbury, pp.94–100.
14.
HjeldeK (2015)
Paradox and potential: Fine art employability and enterprise perspectives. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education14(2): 175–188.
15.
HoffmanDLStandishCDGarcia-DiezM, et al. (2018a) U-Th Dating of Carbonate Crusts reveals Neanderthal Origin of Iberian Cave Art. Science359(6378): 912–915.
16.
HoffmanDLStandishDLGarcia-DiezCD, et al. (2018b)
Response to comment on U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal Origins of Iberian Cave Art. Science362: 6411.
17.
JakobsonR (1958) Closing statement at the conference on style in language: Linguistics and poetics. In: SebeokTA (ed) 1960 Style in Language.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, pp.350–377.
18.
JelinekA (2013) This Is Not Art.
London:I.B.Tauris.
19.
KenningD (2019)
Art world strategies: Neoliberalism and the politics of professional practice in fine art education. Journal of Visual Art Practice18(2): 115–131.
20.
MacdonaldS (1973) Articidal tendencies. In: PiperDW (ed) Readings in Art and Design Education. Vol. 2: After Coldstream.
London:
Davis-Poynter, pp.89–99.
21.
MartinB (2016) What’s happening to our universities? Science Policy Research Papers. Working Paper Series, 2016-03. Available at: www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/research/swps (accessed 9 December 2019).
22.
MaynardP (2005) Drawing Distinctions. The Varieties of Graphic Expression.
Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
23.
McGettiganA (2015) The Treasury View of HE: Variable Human Capital Investment. Political Economy Research Centre (PERC) Paper No. 6. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.
24.
O’TooleM (2005)
Pushing out the boundaries: Designing a systemic-functional model for Non-European visual arts. Linguistics and the Human Sciences1(1): 83–97.
25.
O’TooleM (2011) The Language of Displayed Art. 2nd ed.
London:
Routledge.
26.
O’TooleM (2019) Halliday’s three functions and their interaction in the interpretation of painting and music. In: WebsterJJ (ed) The Bloomsbury Companion to M.A.K. Halliday.
London:
Bloomsbury, pp.396–385.
27.
OwenC (2020) Through a glass darkly: The teaching and assessment of drawing skills in the UK Post-16 art & design curriculum. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 39(2): 333–45.
28.
PalmerSE (2002) Vision Science.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
29.
PetherbridgeD (2010) The Primacy of Drawing. Histories and Theories of Practice.
New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
30.
PetherbridgeD (2019) The drawing experiment at the Royal College of Art 1995–2001. In: HickmanR (ed) The International Encyclopedia of Art and Design Education.
London:
John Wiley & Sons.
31.
RadiceH (2013)
How we got here: U.K. higher education under neoliberalism. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies12(3): 407–418.
32.
RanciereJ (2009) Aesthetics and Its Discontents.
Cambridge:
Polity Press.
33.
RileyH (2008) Drawing: Towards an intelligence of seeing. In: GarnerS (ed) Writing on Drawing. Essays on Drawing Practice and Research.
Bristol/Chicago:
Intellect Books, pp.153–167.
34.
RileyH (2013)
Visual art and social structure: The social semiotics of relational art. Visual Communication12(2): 207–216.
35.
RileyH (2019a) Aesthetic cognitivism: Towards a concise case for doctoral research through practices in the visual arts. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 18(4): 43-443.
36.
RileyH (2019b)
Drawing as language: The systemic-functional semiotic argument. Journal of Visual Art Practice18(2): 132–144.
37.
SaussureFD (1916) Course in General Linguistics. Revised Edition 1974. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
