Art Attack

IT IS possible to pass the Leaving Certificate art examination while failing all its practical art components. This is clearly absurd. Senior management in the Department of Education has allowed the universities to impose a written examination in the appreciation and history of art on this examination with an outrageous mark loading of 37.5 per cent. No provision for a qualifying mark in the practical art components exists.

Thirty-eight per cent overall is deemed a pass in this examination entitled art (including crafts). How did such a state of affairs come about?

In the late 1960s, the universities asked by the Department of Education to have art accepted for the purpose of matriculation or entry to the universities. It was "regretted" that the then art paper and syllabus lacked what they termed "intellectual content" and to satisfy that criterion of the universities it would be necessary to introduce a written paper on the history of art to make art acceptable.

All this was agreed without any consultation with the art inspectorate of its own department, which at that time consisted of Gerry Bruen and myself. We were simply presented with this fait accompli and told to get on with it. All protestations were ignored.

The universities are entitled to lay down whatever conditions they deem necessary to satisfy their own entry requirements. However, they are not entitled to dictate those requirements to all candidates who sit for the Leaving Certificate, irrespective of whether they intend to seek entry to university or not.

The history of art is as legitimate as any other history. It could complement and extend a pupil's understanding and knowledge of the practical work being undertaken. Furthermore it could act as a stimulus to new areas of study. But that is not how it is approached.

The marking position is as follows:

History and Appreciation of Art - 150 marks, 37.5 per cent

Imaginative Composition or Still Life - 100 marks, 25 per cent

Design or Craftwork - 100 marks, 25 per cent

Life Sketching - 50 marks, 12.5 per cent

Theoretically, if a candidate was awarded full marks in the history and appreciation of art, only a few marks in the practical components would be required to secure a pass. It is clear that there should have been a qualifying mark operating in the practical areas to ensure that a balance was maintained. However, none exists, none whatever!

Over 17 years ago the use and inclusion of reproductions of paintings etc, on the history and appreciation of art papers of the Leaving Certificate was introduced, but blocked at the last minute by an assistant secretary in the Department.

The implications of this are most serious. For over 17 years candidates sitting the Leaving Certificate art were deprived of the aid of reproductions and illustrations on their history and appreciation of art papers while other Leaving Certificate papers had illustrations, diagrams and maps to aid candidates.

This year for the first time reproductions were introduced for art papers.

Over 22 years ago the Department set up a five-member internal committee to formulate policy on art education. I was a member of that. committee and recommended that the only way forward was for the Department to set up a section to deal with art. It would, among other things, give locus and focus of responsibility to art education. This was a relatively modest proposal.

My recommendation was rejected out of hand and the system which had dismally failed was pursued as it is to the present day. This committee accomplished nothing.

Several years ago Colm & Briain, as director of the Arts Council, proposed that a development unit for the promotion of the arts in education be set up by the Department. He too was ignored by the Department of Education.

The real problem is that the visual arts are for the most part a closed book for the vast majority of the Irish people. Rather than implementing a programme of enlightenment, the Department compounds the issue by allowing unqualified and visually untutored personnel to make decisions concerning art education and pays scant regard to recommendations or informed opinion.

If any other subject were treated in this manner there would be an ongoing and persistent outcry. The opportunity to rectify this whole situation now rests with the Leaving Certificate art course committee of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, which is currently examining the position. Whatever proposals the committee arrives at, it would seem to be logically in the nature of a development of art, craft and design of the Junior Certificate syllabus.

I believe that two things should happen:

1. The proposals of the NCCA committee for the new Leaving Certificate course and art examination, should be made public before being ratified by the Department of Education.

2. Urgent consideration should be given to the establishment within the Department of Education of a development unit for the promotion of art education - as proposed by the former Arts Council director.