A-level art history should never have been given the brush-off
|
Version 0 of 1. Noah Charney reported on the vital work of art historians and conservators in protecting and elucidating the Ghent Altarpiece, one of the most glorious paintings in Europe (The miracle of Ghent, G2, 13 October). Days before, the Duchess of Cambridge was seen admiring the equally remarkable works of Vermeer. But last week the Guardian reported the disturbing news that in future young people will be denied the possibility of studying art history at A-level: AQA, the sole exam board for this subject, is to drop it – apparently the delivery and assessment of the subject is considered to be riddled with “risk” (Report, 13 October). However small the number of candidates may be, its demise is a tragedy for a noble academic discipline with a centuries-old pedigree, which feeds into so many cultural and economic endeavours, enriching and strengthening our nation. I have taught history of art in schools for three decades and have seen year after year the transforming effect that it has on the minds and – dare I say? – souls of young people. Not all interested in it may wish to pursue it at university or as a career, but there can be hardly anyone who, having studied it at age 16 to 18, does not later rejoice in the experience or find that it does not shape their perceptions and attitudes in unexpected and remarkable ways. The Duchess of Cambridge is one such person; the conservators in Ghent are others. The Department for Education needs to step in immediately and consult with teachers and the exam awarding bodies to protect and nurture this endangered and quite unique educational experience.Dr Jeremy GrayBampton, Oxfordshire • The definition of art history as a “soft subject” seriously misunderstands a subject that is enormously important to the economy, culture and wellbeing of this country. History of art is a rigorous interdisciplinary subject that gives students the critical skills to deal with a world that is increasingly saturated with images. It brings together visual analysis with history, languages, literature, chemistry, and art and design to name but a few inter-related areas of study and research. Those studying it at university level have a significant impact across the cultural sector, especially in public museums and galleries Art history as a subject needs to be much better known and not denigrated. The Courtauld Institute of Art, the oldest higher education institution in this country dedicated to its study, is deeply committed to increasing understanding and enjoyment of the study of the history of art and to working with others to ensure that it is embedded across the school curriculum and is accessible to all our school students.Professor Deborah SwallowDirector, Courtauld Institute of Art, London • The decision to abandon art history is lazy, defeatist and a tragedy for our education system. The current A-level syllabus offers teachers the option to “develop courses that reflect their own interests, strengths and available resources”, meaning they can focus on almost any artwork from the “western world” from a 2,500-year period (including sculpture and architecture); the revised A-level proposed to extend the scope even further by adopting a more global approach towards the discipline. This is simply not practicable. Imagine equipping examiners to mark an English literature A-level where schools were given free rein to select texts from any period without a single work or practitioner being identified in the syllabus. Rather than axing art history A-level altogether, a revised syllabus should be considered, focusing on a limited range of core material and identifying specific practitioners and works. This approach would give candidates a solid foundation in the discipline and enable the board to formulate clear mark schemes to guide examiners.Juliet LearmouthSlough • I wonder whether Cambridge University, which offers history of art degrees, would consider it soft? We have been offering it as an A-level at Benenden for many years, and every year a number of students go on to study it at prestigious universities including Cambridge, St Andrews and Glasgow. These students progress to esteemed careers in museums, the art world, business, marketing and advertising. The A-level itself has rigorous and complex content and allows students the chance to evaluate, analyse, synthesise and understand the changing Renaissance, Victorian and modern world through the eyes of some of the greatest cultural icons of western civilisation. We think it is very sad that the A-level has been abandoned at the 11th hour when schools will already have included it in their offering to current Year 11 students. We, like many schools, will now be looking to the [Cambridge] Pre-U as an alternative syllabus, but not all schools will have students able to commit to this as a two-year course, or run two exam systems, and again, it will probably be students in the maintained sector who will lose out. What a shame that what is regarded as an acceptable education has become so narrow and in its focus and loses both its vocational and artistic elements through an anachronistic and erroneously subjective view of what is a “soft” subject.Lesley TylerDeputy head academic, Benenden School, Cranbrook, Kent • If art history is soft so is English literature. Undermining visual analysis in a world where young people are attacked by visual propaganda every day is terribly short sighted. More of our population will spend their days dealing with visual information rather than literary. If anything, the tools of visual criticism should be offered sooner to all.Izzy RentonLondon • In my first post as a history teacher, my head of department told me that I was to include the art as well as the politics for every historical period I taught. And what a wise instruction that was. Art illuminates so much of the spirit of every age, and, properly taught, is civilising and life-enhancing. For over 60 years I have taught the subject at school and now at the University of the Third Age in London. Several of my students have written to me years after they had left school to say what a difference to their lives these classes have made, and my classes at the University of the Third Age have had attendances of up to 160 people. So I think it is a tragedy that the history of art A-level is about to disappear. It is of course disappointing that so few schools are offering it and that, as a result, only 839 students sat the exam this summer; but the emphasis should be on encouraging more schools to offer art history, not to close the subject down.Ralph BlumenauLondon • It is a strange argument that says because posh people drink wine, wine must be a posh drink. But that seems to be the basis of Jonathan Jones’s objection to A-level art history (Goodbye art history A-level, you served the elite well, 13 October). All I can say is that my memory of studying A-level art history at a local technical college, after leaving a secondary modern school in the 1980s, doesn’t tally with his characterisation of the subject.Dr Michael ParaskosLondon • The suggestion that art history graduates do not share their knowledge and expertise with the general public is frankly ridiculous. Consider the art historians who influence millions of museum visitors, and the engagement programmes those institutions patronise despite their dwindling budgets. Jones must have missed the memo that we’re not trying to tell “the story of art” any more. We prize our interdisciplinary range, diversity of research objects, and multifarious stories. These stories are what makes it possible for art history to be relevant to all, not just to those included in Gombrich’s story. Proper art historians are not elitist and not irrelevant.Nathan StazickerLondon • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |