Teaching painting as research: curriculum strategy post analogue

Presented at the Teaching Painting conference organised by manchester school of Art.


The teaching of painting has continued, through what could be described as complicated times. As outlined in the call for papers for this conference, many painting departments have very recently ceased to exist. This has happened relatively quickly over the last ten years. Anecdotally, many courses, including the course I was working on for three years, see painting as more of an inconvenience, than an essential mode. By that I mean that as the cost of courses within institutions becomes the focus, managers are questioning the need for so much space, staff, contact time, consumables and visiting specialist staff, etc. I am sure I am not the only painter who has been made to feel nervous by heads of technical service in institutions who ask why we couldn’t do all this on computers? Many Fine Art courses emphasis on medium specificity has also gone, replaced instead by advertisements of medium un-specificity, the diagnostic student centred approach and links to local cultural industry, to answer questions of employability.

In the spirit of a constructive critique then, this paper will explore some of the issues pertinent to the teaching of painting in the institution in the twenty first century. The discourse will be framed using the notion of painting and it’s teaching as residing in the post-analogue condition. That is, now that we are way over the horizon of the completely digital creation and consumption of art and other forms of information, we inhabit a world of ever cascading and ever changing data. The condition or mode of Post analogue painting proposed by curator Kathy Grayson is that many contemporary trends in painting could not have been manifested, or conceivable, without the proliferation of digital imaging software such as Photoshop, Illustrator or Instagram[1]. The aesthetic turn in recent painting that responds to the gathering and layering of images and their indexical data, image transparency, smooth graduation of colour, false shadow and the soft glow of the plasma screen is almost unanimous in its rejection of the analogue technologies of SLR Photography, video and to some extent drawing and painting itself.

The Post analogue art school then finds itself with all the analogue components it always had. The physical space, the easel and table, the library and the workshop are all still there but the functionality of these spaces and the students who now inhabit them have changed considerably over the last decade. We now enrol many students who only travel in to the studio for a tutorial or lecture, once every week or so. Gone are the days of the active group studio, replaced instead by solitary and remote work online or in the journal, and the lights of the studio now off more than on. Remote attendance is all well and good but as this paper progresses I will highlight some potential issues at stake for the student, the course and the subject. This paper will look back at the historic model and positioning of painting as learned subject within the institution in order to highlight the issues we as teachers face There will therefore be an examination of the pedagogy associated with the instruction of painting and some potential answers to questions raised. I will briefly outline the traditional model of the university and its partitioned regions of knowledge, highlighting what has changed with some contemporary contextualisation according to both terms of research and post-analogue, interspersed with strategies I currently use.

So as the focus in institutions has recently shifted from practice, to more quantifiable data output by its teaching staff with the introduction of the Research Excellence Framework, I will attempt to use the notion of research output as a counter to the potential condition of data loss in the post analogue condition[2].


Investigations and outputs of teaching staff are now designated as research output. Research in my case is the personal investigation into painting practice and its contemporary and historic condition, in order to articulate potential gaps and space for new directions and departures of knowledge. This paper uses the term post analogue to articulate notions of the kind of data we transmit as both teachers and painters. It is also used to draw systemic parallels to analogue forms of information transmission and it’s post to articulate particular issues arising from the discussion and instruction of our subject.

Analogue: A signal, a physical sound wave, providing information with infinite resolution, yet prone to degradation and distortion (the quantisation error). Analogue signal may be converted to digital signal, which is a smaller numerical signal, complete with any distortion. Distortion and size are correctable by rounding or compressing numerically. Digital signals suffer no direct distortion in transmission, however as we will discuss, pre-compression is a potential distortion in itself.

Is the research culture in the institution evolved to answer data loss?


The contextualising term Post-analogue comes out of very recent painting curation in a couple of galleries in New York[3]. Post-analogue painting at the Hole was a great show of new international painting. The curatorial statement by curator Kathy Grayson firmly establishes the choices being made by painters in response to proliferation of digital imaging and imaging technology. The show included work by an international roster of painters including Mark Flood, Trudy Benson, Neil Raitt and Nathan Riterpusch (pictured). The curatorial statement begins to hint at the emerging aesthetic tip of an iceberg, rather than the bigger philosophical implications this condition may have for knowledge transfer and established education models. I was initially intrigued by this metaphor and decided to articulate this paper around the analogy for several reasons.

Nathan Ritterputch Brownies with Bridget Riley's Current and Abstract Shapes

Firstly, after reading the statement for the show it took a moment to think about the notion of a digital aesthetics and if that was a good, bad or lazy idea for the production of painting. Secondly and more interesting, I instead began to calculate how I would quantify the act of painting and the knowledge that surrounds the subject as raw data in order to discuss the notion of digitisation and transmission of information on the philosophical level. Most significantly for me as both painter and educator, the term offers a fantastic opportunity to examine the traditions and modes of art education as a series of transmittable signals or bundles of information, not yet assessed post-internet, in terms of corruptibility, strength and origin or source.

So lets transfer that term into information we can use easily. Painting and education is the subject for discussion. Painting and centuries of collective knowledge is the information ready for transmission. Painting in this context is the data. Transmission normally and traditionally occurs through the exhibition format, photography, written word and instructive teaching. These modes of transmission are susceptible to their own particular forms of distortion. They are analogue. By distortion I mean omission of certain kinds of information due to the particulars of transmission. The exhibition format we could say distorts ideas and impressions of the now, when broadly titled “painting now” for example. Also, notions of the historical “then”, are distorted via selective survey shows of the past. The written word incurs distortion due to certain incompatibility, between image rhetoric, sign and signified meaning and textual descriptions. The teaching of painting incurs distortion due to particular needs of the institution; the universities market image, facilities, the background and experience of the staff etc. So what we are initially saying is that both analogue transmission and its post are susceptible to all manner of distortion and degradation.

Now, approximation and partial data discarding during teaching is of course occurring in the models just described. Discarding of artists, discarding of certain thought and discourse and discarding of technique or method. This is happening in continuous cycles. We might describe this as progress. Ideas change and move on. New theoretical positions become the trend and others do not. Well maybe, but what is certain is that consistent approximation, over-writing and data discarding almost goes without saying. As an example, consider the 100GB raw image of the painting fresh from the studio or show. It is physically too big to send via email, too big to post in facebook because of storage and transit restrictions on size. So instead we circulate the compressed 50 KB file via email, Instagram and online review sites etc. Ultimately it is the small compressed thing we discuss and appraise. We don’t even know what might be missing until an encounter with the original or analogue.

Now lets re-contextualise this hypothesis in brief for us as educators. We have witnessed changes in the production and discourse of art at breakneck speed in our short lifetimes. Most of us have lived through the Post-modern, Post-post modern, Neo Geo, Relational Aesthetics, Imminent Philosophy, and now the Anthropocene. And in a way, some of us may feel that the territory for exploration of viable uses of paint gets smaller and smaller, year on year. Smaller file size with which to engage or smaller amounts of information it is permissible to send, as metaphor for content and style. In a way this also may move in the opposite direction, as the file size gets smaller, there is of course room to store and exchange even more small bits of information. Again this is no lament for the romantic, but rather an appraisal of what we suddenly find is missing.

As a way of rethinking this as a potential problem to be solved, lets go back to the original mechanism created for the distribution of knowledge outside of art philosophical discourse, when the university as a learning institution was being formed. We can start by looking back at the medieval university and the distinctions articulated between “mental and manual practice” Bernstein (2000)[4].

The historic partitions

Traditionally Arts and Humanities and therefore painting, would be positioned within what was described as one of the “inner” quadrivium subjects of the seven liberal arts Fanghanel (2009)[5]. The seven disciplines in this ideologically differential categorisation are: the trivium or “outer” disciplines of logic, grammar and rhetoric and the quadrivium or “inner” disciplines of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.

The “spiritual” nature of the inner or inside subjects within arts and humanities represent an ontological dislocation between the rigidity of mathematics and science, partly due to arts and humanities subjects’ “inherent spirituality and ethical discourse” Fanghanel (2009). To be a little more specific, the outer subjects would be studied first as the “regulative…legitimate discourse” Bernstein (2000), followed by the inner.

New spaces

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, according to Bernstein (2000) disciplines transited through what can be described as “discourse as singulars and discourse as regions”. Today we can credibly discuss the idea that visual art is the embodiment of many singular disciplines and therefore can be articulated as regional, in terms of the territories of knowledge discourse it now encapsulates. By that I mean that we could argue the once singular inner discourses of painting, sculpture, photography, film, performance, and curation have of course coalesced into a very logical regional force, whose subject-hood now also closely borders neighbouring knowledge regions and territories of cultural and physical environment, socio capitalism, psychology, sociology, entertainment, economics, injustice and so on.

What painting as research, or the research led practice within the region now does, is to replace the old spiritual ontology of paintings of religious allegory, with quilting points from the neighbouring regional disciplines. In effect further collapsing the terrain between disciplinary and knowledge territories at large, but most importantly preventing psychosis by allowing the discourse or subject-hood to expand through ever increasing epistemological gaps.

We can also further identify and position the subject of painting in terms of structural disciplinary particulars via Biglan (1972) in that painting, within the Arts and Humanities, positions itself as both a “soft pure” and “soft applied” discipline Fanghanel (2009)[6]. The study of painting requires both technical skill in the handling of paint and knowledge of its behaviour and an understanding of how individual contemporary practice may sit theoretically alongside those of its peers or region, as well as within the historic tradition, its analogue. To contextualise the work in light of the historic trajectory of the medium is key to understanding its contemporary context and its contemporary difference and scope. More often than not discussions, debates, essays and reports are they key pedagogies adopted by teachers to frame knowledge acquisition in soft pure and soft applied disciplines.

A strategy that answers one of the immediate questions related to the psychosis of making art about art and instead becoming trans regional is the simple but extensive mind map of interest. Explained here later as a way for students to locate concern and specific personal research. This activity also probes potential data loss and promotes skill acquisition.

Ideological orientations

According to Trowler (1998) “four ideological orientations” exist in which we can position the practice or discipline of painting, highlighting the “pedagogic signatures” Fanghanel (2009), as well as the particulate epistemological concerns of inherent meaning, composition, use of colour etc[7].

Liberal or traditional

We can firstly discuss painting in the “traditional or liberal” view Fanghanel (2009) of education ideology. If we consider the study of the discipline as a means of embedding the fundamental issues at stake from a historical perspective, we can assume that knowledge of painting and its histories, modes and genres, constitute extension of a cultural tradition with specific codes, conventions and habits. This knowledge of the traditional values of the subject discipline often delivered in lectures, might initially lay dormant within the learner. Historic knowledge is not called for immediately to function as a painter, but rather becomes a cumulative repository of types of visual vocabulary that can be deployed when necessary.

In 2015 as teachers we are imparting knowledge on the histories, trajectories, concerns and basic skills of painting in compressed form. Every year that I write module content I have to make decisions about what might be included and what to leave out, or, what to leave to chance, hoping students will access the reading lists, see suggested shows etc. Now we know that we cant teach everything. Student centred learning is suggestive of individually tailored acquisition of knowledge, and I’m guessing to some degree we undertake module review to see what fed through and what did not. But there lies the first re-assessment of the historic ideology of liberal education and subsequent use of pedagogies in light of post analogue. We understand that teaching or contact time is precious and so we have to make choices about the levels of compression and omission. Under constant pressure for time we constantly filter, compress, round off and delete etc vast amounts of contemporary and historic information on our subject.


It might be relevant here to discuss the vocational context of art and painting as cultural and social capital. The sharing and trading of philosophical reflections on human endeavour coupled with training on building successful relationships with the gallery or museum. Sourcing funding for ones practice as well as gaining ability to transmit ones ideas are perhaps the key vocational acquisitions possible in the subject.

Today we face a particular set of students as customer, fuelled by government pressure to achieve and be “oven ready” Rich (2014) on graduation[8]. In discussions I have delivered on open days I mainly champion the wide and valuable range of transferable skills that the discipline offers:

  • Creative thinking and Problem solving
  • Communication skills both verbal and visual
  • Team work as well as independent drive
  • Extensive knowledge of subject both practical and theoretical
  • Knowledge and experience to deliver an exhibition and seek independent funding that also includes managing budgets and marketing

These soft skills that all fit into the seven used by the NUS and the CBI equate to a “graduateness” Rich (2014).

A post-analogue pressure on teaching often equates to a compression and dismissal of the idea of failure in the short to medium term after graduation. Permission of failure is perhaps more significant now than we realise. I am referencing the show Post-Analogue Painting that provides the context for this discussion. It is a show filled with serious painting that is aware of its cultural context. But most importantly, it is by early and mid career artists, already out of the BFA for several years. The work also represents a massive commitment of time, energy and rigorous research born from several years of investigation. I.e. not overnight.

Progressive and emancipatory

“Personal growth” Fanghanel (2009) and development are the ideologies most pertinent to the artist and the painter. Through the duration of a degree course the participants are encouraged to reflect on their development as a practitioner at length via the signature pedagogies of essay reports and seminar presentations. All the work that is produced in a fine art context is opened up for evaluation by staff and peers on the ways in which it attempts to embed itself into a progressive line of philosophical inquiry.

So a strategy I use to force research and measure reflection and growth is the tutorial report essay, one of our greatest pedagogic tools. If all the information given in a tutorial is recorded and researched, we cut out a potential data loss or leak here, as well as providing opportunity for more personal research. 30 minutes worth of input knowledge three or four times per term by staff and peers is invaluable. But quite often there is no follow up by staff to asses that the information suggested was investigated. So one purpose that the tutorial report essay serves is to hold on to and force processing of large amounts of data with suggested quilting points that are trans regional. This prompting of further investigation also allows some slack in the liberal educational model post-analogue, in that not all ideas and thoughts mused over will have immediate consequence.

Social constructionist

Students on a fine art course whatever the specialism are encouraged to trace the trajectories of art and its theoretical concerns across recent history in order to examine notions of agency. The discipline is aware that it cannot change the world per se. However there is a general notion that the level of criticality consistently embedded in the signature pedagogies enables a phronesis in the future practice. That is, participants are made aware of ways in which art, propaganda or advertising work on the mechanical level via semiotic theory and are encouraged to use those same mechanisms to generate and transmit the bigger philosophical questions of our time in their output.

Semiotic theory and the mechanics of image making are at the core of my practice and research. I feel that all students regardless of medium should be aware of the inert language of materials and things. In the digital environment, where nothing has form and physical materiality is irrelevant, this has never been a bigger issue for those concerned with object-hood. Berger’s’ Ways of Seeing is the subject of the first lecture of every first year I use to establish ways of looking at and discussing the physical and the conceptual[9].

So each of these ideologies generates the need for more analysis in context of this notion of the constant partial discarding of data. Traditionalist or liberal views may be most susceptible. In that extensive knowledge is imparted regardless of its immediate usefulness. Knowledge sits and waits for its phronesis or its use time. When recalled, it might be out of context, out of date, half seen half remembered. Again we will delve a little deeper in a moment when we discuss the notion of research.

Vocational and emancipatory ideology could well be the subject of another paper. Rigorous evaluation of the changes to module content and titles in fine art that now cover curation, the collective, self and public funding is not taking place. Ultimately for many fine art and painting graduates, failure to access the gallery or funding systems on graduation is more common than not. The percentage of this notional post degree failure is no secret and of course is cushioned via the large base of transferable skills provided on good courses. What needs to take place, I might suggest is a comprehensive review of the post degree environment for graduates that feeds back into module design and content. The direct use of knowledge and skills in specific circumstances for personal gain and growth, I might suggest are still the basis of the Arts and Humanities experience. Post analogue, within painting departments, the argument about theory over skills and practical based workshops continues to be fought. The wider discourse on art as act of labour continues and is another example of trans regional quilting and re-evaluation creating another new hi-resolution knowledge knot of research.

Finally the critical and socially constructivist ideological orientation is what might suffer most from a general loss of clarity, information and direction. As we widen the field of exploration of painting, we actually bind its ability to exercise any agency in respect of wider societal issues to the aforementioned issues of vocation and emancipation. What needs re-assessment now, in painting at large, is the social impact, if any, of new and recent painting. Isabelle Graw has recently written on this subject in Thinking Through Painting[10]. In Brief, Graws text seeks to open up the discourse on painting as the production of highly personalised signs that relay a particular auto-ethnographic response to cultural dialogues and shifting attitudes. Beyond medium specificity, but still within the semiotic territory of painting pictures of things, the notion that the artist and author remains as an irreducible ghost presence and therefore voice, still enables the medium, however broad and post its condition, to resonate. This resonant contingent according to Graw is the ‘quasi-person’ (Graw p54) and accordingly via Marx, the trace of individual human labour focused on social and cultural discourse.

So, I think the mapping of the subject discipline against the four ideologies sets out some of the particular considerations teachers of painting face when considering curriculum planning.

So, to briefly re-cap the bigger context of this discussion before we move towards the transmission of thought and experience via teaching. The condition or mode we now face is one where our own analogue experience of the world and education from our childhood has ended. By we the room I perhaps mean people over 40 who can now be described as digital immigrants, rather than natives. Information is now bite sized, often compressed and abbreviated for web consumption by web users and much of the history of our subject exists online in small image form only. An issue we face as educators is keeping up with technological advances, in terms of information transfer and development, at the same time as compressing and transferring our analogue knowledge of the subject (skills etc.) to provide an equivalent learning experience to our own. The idea of an approximate transfer from analogue to its post (or old data re-packaged) is happening all the time and we do a great job, but we need to focus on the philosophical implication of this condition, in order to push the next generation of artist educators forward, with enough general knowledge of the subject and its epistemologies to continue promoting new research.

Teaching and research

“The research-teaching nexus” Visser – Wijnveen et al (2012) has a particularly significant part to play in the delivery of any painting course[11]. There are several reports that highlight the appreciation student’s feel in receiving up to date knowledge on a particular subject Robertson and Blackler (2006)[12].

In context of the liberal educational ideology (knowledge generation and sharing) the research of staff in the department will contribute most of the theoretical and practical content of any programme. My research concerns have always been mediated into teaching material whatever the level of student, institution or circumstance. Because fine art as a parent discipline has no fixed curriculum but rather relies on “transmission of selected information via its signature pedagogies” Smeby (1998) (and why post-analogue is so very imminent), my teaching of painting is completely reliant on my own ability and experience to open up relevant discourse on the subject[13].

I might therefore suggest that my own hi-res research into figure, gesture and ground, the construction of an adequate and reflexive visual dialectic, quilted in questions of the educational agency of painting, represents the nexus of available subject and topic. The information on this subject can be drawn from both historic and contemporary perspectives. My consideration of these choices in context of painting education post analogue, allow for a particular traction between material understanding and skill, specific discourse on visual mechanics via semiotics, within a more general low-res history of painting. Of course the potential dilemmas outlined in terms of compression and therefore loss are still at play.

Smeby discusses in his 1998 report Knowledge production and knowledge transmission, that a high percentage of teachers in humanities believe their research influences their teaching at undergraduate level. I do not necessarily agree with Rowland et al (1998) that there is a dichotomy between teaching and research or that teaching comes at the expense of research[14]. I believe that the discipline is informed by the research and vice versa. This is particularly relevant to combat data loss, by outlining the process of accumulating hi-res information via personal research (the thrust of this discussion)


The teaching practice involved in the delivery of painting incorporates the following “signature pedagogies” Shulman (2005)[15].

  • The group critique
  • The Oxford tutorial
  • Peer group tutorial
  • Seminar presentation (from the lecturer and by individual students)
  • Lecture (that includes lectures on professional practice)
  • The keeping of a reflective journal or diary
  • Field trips
  • The demonstration or workshop

At present this list of signature pedagogies is used in my curriculum planning as a framework of activity in any teaching schedule. More importantly though these interventions are used alternately to both introduce new ideas and punctuate and embed prior learning as the emerging practice evolves.

In the first session of every module, students are asked to commit to a couple of hours mind mapping, normally on the studio wall. I am normally militant in my expectation of the depth and breadth of words produced and will spend time with each student forcing exploration and production. The premise quite simply: what are you interested in and excited by? The most important issue here is to help students identify and produce a list of adjectives and synonyms that begin to open up their interest in a particular issue or subject area. This activity allows a meditation on chosen subjects and their expansion via linguistic investigation, towards a conceptual understanding of the terrains of knowledge available in which to flex and develop ideas. Once there are several chains or bubbles of words a second strategy of simple visualisation is introduced. Three words are chosen at random and sketched out quickly. Each word can then inform pictorial content of potential painting as form, content or context. So what we end up with here is a sketch or proposal for example of word X as form, Word Y as content and word Z as context. Considering form as an interchangeable element, we allow painting to develop in the expanded field.

The emerging practice of course becomes and is the ongoing research. The post analogue condition in this context I suggest may indicate a speeding up of the consumption of certain kinds of partial information. Research acts as a potential answer to data loss or data displacing for the individual by slowing the process down. By partial data loss I might suggest that due to distortion or compression as discussed, either some data is missing, or misleading. The research that often is finitely focused on niche subjects offers first of all, a new articulation of the notion of the liberal ideology of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

Most importantly I think for me and perhaps for all teachers of painting is that our own hi-res research and expertise be the basis for curriculum strategy that considers the ideological brackets outlined. We teach students of painting how to generate, locate and begin their own particular knots of research on the knowledge terrain, in turn to be expanded, transmitted, degraded, distorted etc. Thus the rationale of the mind map and image generation’s emphasis on variable form, content and context. These conceptual propositions become areas for further research that deepens understanding of particular subjects and forms specific personalised knots. The next phase is to introduce via workshops the ways in which the differing visual languages of painting genre continue to destabilise concepts and prompt further research.


Thinking about starting points, it is important for us as educators to understand and identify the miss-match between A’ level art provision and expectation at higher education[16].

This is a major dilemma and in part responsible for a great deal of unhappiness, lack of motivation and drop out rates courses currently suffer. It says quite clearly in the BIS white paper (p 5.13) that the role of the school should be to become the engine of mobility and that provision for better careers advice, i.e. advice on where to go and what to do is a priority and a new duty (p 5.16)[17].

Now, reading the Pearson Edexcel specification for fine art at A’ Level you might wonder if there were any difference between it and the learning outcomes from HE degree courses[18]. To be honest there is no reason why a fine art A’ Level could not be delivered in the same way as a more traditional foundation course, but for reasons of time, staff contact etc, it is not. More importantly and the reason I bring this up, is that the current structure does not allow much if any learner independence in the setting of research subjects or contexts. Now this might be useful for courses where independent thinking and autonomy is not the issue, but when students are expected to hit the ground running on a HE course in terms of self motivation and independent thinking, this experience of art as being ‘brief driven’ causes a miss-match in terms of expectation and reality. Most importantly, for me, it would be great if all my first year students arrived after having already read about semiotics via Berger and had extensive skills in material handling and technique.

I think it is therefore extremely important the we as teachers of painting in HE visit staff in local schools and colleges to share our experience and knowledge of the subject and foster better transition between the two environments.

To conclude

Teaching painting as research post analogue presents us with some challenges that with careful consideration, make teaching painting even more exciting.

The post analogue condition equates to a general turn in the way that information is considered and transferred, not just concerning our subject of painting. There is undoubtedly a general loss of detail, clarity, structure and intention in the transfer of information as a whole, with a range of potential problems emerging. For teachers of painting and painting as research, the turn may simply equate to a spreading out of knots of high-resolution information within the bigger low-res region. This of course presents both problem and solution. With events like this conference for example, we can at least comprehend and act within the evolving situation. We can of course still accumulate and share detailed knowledge in the same room from time to time.

Issues post analogue could manifest themselves via the amount of corrective instruction and therefore more time needed, to bring new groups up-to speed on subjects already perhaps misunderstood via previous instruction etc. All that issue may need is some wider co-operation between FE and HE centres down the line. It is possible to shunt activity, reading and suggested methods into courses that currently feed HE.

The fact that painting and its quilting points of context and concern flow across all neighbouring knowledge disciplines, allows a rethinking of the boundaries of the traditional educational ideologies. We perhaps have an ethical responsibility to ensure students get jobs and are able to network, where as in the past building technical skill was more paramount. We also have a responsibility to produce excellent and exciting painters, filled with plural knowledge and expertise to use at will, whilst closely considering the global climate of political turmoil, economic chaos and environmental disaster.

With specific tailoring of the signature pedagogies used in the subject however, we can bridge some gaps in knowledge relatively quickly within new student groups and extend the capacity of third year students beyond expectations.

However, that said, our own research as painters into a myriad subjects in the region and quilted beyond, show that painting as research continues to cross borders of knowledge, creating more opportunity for the discipline. The expansion of potential content, reflexivity, form and technique have all expanded as painting continues to quilt itself outside of the notion of the singular subject and on into the border regions and knowledge disciplines. This is paintings agency, its intrinsic inquiry and connectivity in action. The wider generation and accumulation of knowledge and relevance to the culture at large is paintings current strength.

Ian Gonczarow (August 2015)

[1] Grayson, Kathy. 2015. Post Analogue Painting. http://theholenyc.com/2015/04/11/post-analog-painting/

[2] The Research Excellence Framework: http://www.ref.ac.uk/

[3] Hoptman, Laura. 2015 The Forever Now: Contemporary Painting in an Atemporal World. Moma: New York

[4] Bernstein, Basil. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. Roman and Littlefield, Boston

[5] Fanghanel, Joëlle. 2009. The Role of Ideology in Shaping Academics’ Conceptions of Their Discipline. Teaching in Higher Education vol.14, No, 5, October 2009, 565-577. Viewed 6 April 2015.

[6] Biglan, Anthony. 1972. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of applied psychology 57, No.3: 204-13

[7] Trowler, Paul. (1998) Academics Responding to Change: new higher education frameworks and academic cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.

[8] Rich, Johnny. 2014. Threading employability into the tapestry of higher education. Pearson Blue Skies: New thinking about the future of higher education. Pearsonblueskies.com/2014/employability-in-higher-ed/ accessed 01/01/15

[9] Berger, John. 1990 Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin

[10] Graw, Isabelle. Birnbaum, Daniel. 2012 Thinking Through Painting: Reflexivity and Agency Beyond the Canvas. Sternberg Press.

[11] Visser – Wijnveen, Gerda. van Driel, Jan H. et al (2012) Relating academics’ ways of integrating research and teaching to their students’ perceptions, Studies in Higher Education, 37:2, 219-234, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2010.536913. 1/04/15

[12] Robertson, John. Blackler, Geeorge. 2006. Students’ experiences of learning in a research environment. Higher Education research and Development 25, no. 3: 215-29. 1/04/15

[13] Smeby, Jens-Christian. 1998, Knowledge production and knowledge transmission. The interaction between research and..’, Teaching In Higher Education, 3, 1, p. 5, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2015.

[14] Rowland, Stephen, Byron, Catherine, et al 1998, ‘Turning academics into teachers?’, Teaching In Higher Education, 3, 2, p. 133, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2015.

[15] Shulman, Lee. S. 2005. Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus 134.3: 52-59. viewed 6 April 2015.

[16] Readers note: The discussion centers on A’ Level Art provision as the bulk of students now arriving in year 1 of HE have not completed the traditional Art Foundation Course.

[17] BIS Department for Business and Skills. 2011. Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System. P34-45. www.gov.uk. 01/04/15

[18]http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A%20Level/Art%20and%20Design/2015/specification-and-sample-assessment materials/9781446912959_GCE2015_AS_ARTDESGN_SPEC_WEB_Iss1.PDF 1/04/15