GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT MULTIMEDIA IN THE ART CURRICULUM

1. 255Multimedia in the Art
Curriculum: Crossing
Boundaries
Steve Long
JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
Art educators, like those in other areas of the
curriculum, are under pressure from various direc-
tions to use digital technology in the classroom.
Whilstsomeofthispressureispoliticallymotivated
Ibelievetherearealsowhatcouldbedescribedas
more legitimate educational reasons for using
computers;whatislackingatthisstageisacoher-
ent body of knowledge amongst art educators as
to what happens when we do use them. This arti-
cle focuses on a development project which took
placelastyearinasecondaryschoolinvolvingaYear
10 class in the use of multimedia software. The
projectwascollaborativeinnatureandwascarried
out by Miles Jefcoate, an art teacher at Beacon
CommunityCollegeinEastSussex,agroupofYear
10studentsatBeaconandmyselfasamemberof
the teaching team on the Art and Design PGCE
courseattheUniversityofBrighton.Supportedby
research funding from the University, the school
wasprovidedwithmultimediasoftwarewhichwas
installedintoitscomputernetwork.Thedesignand
deliveryofthestudents’projectwasundertakenby
Miles whilst I evaluated the impact of the digital
technology on the learning taking place, with an
emphasis on how Miles and the students experi-
encedandevaluatedtheiractivities.
Abstract

2. JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
Why Multimedia?
Through discussion with Miles the decision was
takentofocusonmultimediasoftwareasaspecific
processinordertoexamineatechnologywhichis
onthecuspoffineart,designandthemassmedia.
MultimediaproductssuchasHyperstudio,Director,
Mediator etc. allow the multi-modal blending of
images(stillandmoving),soundandtextaswellas
offering the potential to make the outcomes inter-
active. As such they are being widely used for
commercial purposes such as CD-rom/web-site
productionaswellasbeingemployedbyartistsfor
web-basedworkorasanelementofperformance
and installation. Occupying such a position, our
experimental use of multimedia in a school
addressedanumberofpertinentquestionsrelating
bothtodevelopmentsinmassmediacommunica-
tion and to art practice. Whilst some of these
questions are well rehearsed, it is recent develop-
mentsindigitaltechnologywhichnecessitatethat
they be asked again in relation to the current
contentofartintheschoolcurriculum.
McLuhan,writinginthe1950s,madeastrong
claim that the dawning of the age of television
had established the broadcast image/sound
medium as a principal means of mass communi-
cationandhadirrevocablychangedthesubstance
ofthemessagestransmitted.Commentingpartic-
ularly on the way that television had affected the
management of politics, McLuhan cites John F.
Kennedy as someone who quickly realised the
poweroftheTVbroadcastandwasabletomanip-
ulate the kind of imagery necessary to get his
messageacross[1].Westernsociety,atthispoint,
had begun to move from a reliance on the
mediumofprintedtexttoanexploitationofmulti-
mediaforms.Theadventofdigitalcomputershas
added impetus to such changes in methods of
communication, having moved beyond the ‘read
only’TVscreentotheinteractive(andnowwidely
available) personal computer and its visual inter-
face. Although contemporary computers offer a
multimedia format including sound and text, it is
thevisualinterfacewhichsomefeeltobeassum-
ing dominance. I would argue, alongside others,
that imagery will be one of the principal conduits
for information in our increasingly computer
basedsociety[2].Certainlytheviewiswidelyheld
that a definition of ‘literacy’ in a contemporary
settingwouldnowbemoreaccuratelydescribed
as ‘multimedia literacy’ [3].
For art educators the direct impact of TV on
work in the classroom has not been as great as
perhaps it should have. Whereas we have been
living through the age of television for fifty years,
visualeducationwithinschoolshasneverhadthe
resources to engage practically or critically with
this form. However the personal computer and
digitaltechnologypresentsadifferentsetofchal-
lenges for anyone involved in visual education
given that it is a reception but also a production
tool within which the image might be seen as
dominant. A case could be made that part of the
purpose of a visual education now is to give chil-
drenpracticalexperienceofdigitalformssuchas
multimedia which are part of our broader visual
culture [4] and that it is only through such practi-
cal exploration that children are going to learn to
exploit the visual in a contemporary multimedia
256
Steve Long

3. JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
context. Ironically formal education may well be
laggingbehindchildren’sinformallearninginthis
respect.Thehugelypositiveresponsespecifically
from young people to computer based multime-
dia forms of communication, entertainment and
play through non-school settings suggests that
education could benefit from making links with
practices which young people already find rele-
vant and compelling [5].
Our first objective within the research project
was to examine some of these notions and find
whether the students involved were able to make
relationshipsbetweenwhattheylearntwithintheir
work in an art context and forms experienced
outside the curriculum such as music videos,
computergamesandwebsites.Forthistohappen
we felt it was important that the students’ project
allowed space for both the critical engagement
with what might be seen as popular sources and
practicalinvestigationofprocesses.Inadditionwe
wantedtofindoutif,whenusingacreativemeans
which offered a multimedia content, the visual
would indeed be adopted as a dominant element
or whether the students would use sound, for
example,asthemaincomponent.
Theexploitationofmultimediadigitaltechnol-
ogyasanareaofartpracticeprovidedthesecond
major enquiry theme for the project. Many fields
within art such as installation, performance and
videohaveembraceddigitaltechnologyandhave
developed as a result. In other areas the reaction
ofartistshasbeenlesscertainwithverydisparate
practice taking place as those using the tech-
nologycometotermswiththepossibilities.Web-
basedworkisprobablytheonlymajorformwhich
is defined and undeniably new, having only
gained recognition in the last two or three years.
The need for children to develop a critical aware-
ness of contemporary art through practical
exploration and related contextual studies has
becomeanestablishedandvaluedelementofan
arteducation[6].Howeverapproachingthedraw-
ing up of the new National Curriculum there was
considerable disquiet over the fact that such a
laudable aim was only partly being met and that
reference to the work of contemporary practi-
tionerswaslargelyabsentfromUKarteducation
[7]. Amongst a number of perceived deficiencies
within the learning taking place in classrooms
were the narrow scope of work, the predictability
of media and that students’ outcomes were
impersonalandpre-ordainedbyteacherswhodid
notfeelabletotakerisks.Atthetimetheideawas
suggested that contact with a contemporary
approach to art making through new technolo-
gies,suchasdigitalmedia,couldremedysomeof
the problems being encountered in the content
of children’s experiences [8]. Dominant themes
within digital art practice: the self, the body, iden-
tityetc.seemedtohavethepotentialtofillthevoid
within the art curriculum. Alongside such consid-
erationsthereisaperceptionthattheexploitation
of digital technologies such as multimedia can
cause a ‘dynamic fusion of forms’ [9] with many
artists now considering themselves as ‘makers’
who will use images, sound or objects as appro-
priate and will actively transgress previously
established boundaries. This is perceived to be
transformingvisualartfromaprocessofcreating
objects within one discipline to manipulating
information across several [10].
Wouldcontactwiththisareaofcreativebreak-
down between so-called fine art and the popular
arts be able to re-invigorate the curriculum? As
we approached the project it was the nature of
multimedia software and computers, traversing
contemporaryartpracticeandmassmedia,which
provided the area on which we wanted to focus.
It offered the possibility of allowing students to
engage with a process which was both contem-
porary art form and popular entertainment/
communication.
The Process
The research project took place during an eight
month period with planning for the students’
work beginning in December of 1999. Of princi-
pal concern was the selection of a suitable
multimedia software: Mediator was chosen for
itsstabilityandtherobustnessofitsperformance.
Opposite:
Figure 1
(the first of a series
which form part of
one student’s work)
257
Steve Long

4. JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
There then followed two months when Miles
developed his own knowledge of the software
and planned the students’ activities as he
explored the software himself. The project was
introducedtothestudentsinMarch2000withan
initial demonstration of Mediator’s capabilities.
Theywerealsogivenanoutline‘brief’fromwhich
the main outcome was to be the production of
individual multimedia pieces taking ‘Movement’
asatheme.Thestudentswerethengivenamore
systematic taught introduction to Mediator after
which they began to storyboard ideas as their
capabilitydeveloped.Milesaskedthestudentsto
adopt quite a structured approach which centred
on the development of a sequence of slides or
screens. This allowed the students to build their
understanding of the software’s technical possi-
bilities alongside the expressive movements
taking place. Miles wanted the students’ project
to relate to other, earlier work involving traditional
processessotheproductionofimagescombined
scanningdrawnmaterialaswellasusingadigital
camera and drawing directly into the computer
withamouse.Manipulationofimagestookplace
using Photoshop, which was a piece of software
thatmanyofthestudentshadusedattheschool.
A few of the students had already used digital
cameras within various subjects and some had
access to them at home.
The project involved critical analysis of mater-
ialdrawingontwosources:fromtheperspective
of arts practice the students were shown the
workofcontemporaryfineartistswhowereusing
digitalprocesses,especiallythoseinvolvingmulti-
mediaforms.Milesalsolookedwiththestudents
at artists like the Italian Futurists who had used
moretraditionalmediabutwhohadexploredthe
same starting point as the students, namely
‘Movement’. In addition the students were also
referred to popular forms; these included music
videos and contemporary TV or film sources.
From the outset Miles was concerned to ensure
that all the students had enough opportunity to
explore individual directions. The fact that Miles
was unsure as to how the students would react
to the work meant that it was difficult to give a
time-scale to the project. Initially a period of a
term was allowed with the option to extend this
for an extra half term if necessary.
Organisationally the project necessitated the
students working not only in the art area but also
using the ICT rooms where the software had
been installed into the networked computers.
This was identified by Miles as being far from
idealsinceitmeantthatthestudentshadtowork
in whole groups either in the computer room for
digitally related work or in the art room for other
processes, thus reducing their autonomy and
flexibility. There were also a number of logistical
problems to be solved which included the need
for the students to have increased file space on
the school computer network and that access to
thecomputerroomwouldneedtobeguaranteed
for the class. Overcoming these problems prob-
ablytypifiesthesituationformanyteachersofArt
andDesigninUKschools.Computerfacilitiesare
likely to be organised around the Business
Education/ITdepartmentsandthefilespaceallo-
cated to pupils often reflects an expectation that
outcomesfromsoftwarelikeWordorExcelareall
that will need to be stored rather than imagery of
any kind!
FromtheoutsetIwasintroducedasaresearcher
andIexplainedtheexperimentalnatureofthework
and that my primary interest during the project
was in the interpretations placed on their experi-
ences by Miles and the students. In order to gain
as much access as possible to these interpreta-
tions I conducted regular interviews and carried
out regular observations of classroom activity.
Within the lessons I acted as a classroom assis-
tant offering technical guidance; this allowed me
to remain in close proximity to the work without
too obviously monitoring events.
Evaluation
By the end of the Summer term the students had
spent fourteen school weeks on the project and
had taken the work as far as Miles felt he could
support it. They had all chosen to produce a
258
Steve Long

5. JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
sequenceofimageswithsupportingsoundwhich
either‘ranitself’asatimedpieceorwhichtheuser
had to ‘point and click’ in order to move through.
Themajorityofthestudentshadworkedextremely
hard and had appeared regularly in the art or ICT
rooms to put in extra time. Images had been
produced using a range of traditional and digital
processesbeforetheywerealldigitisedandsound
added. There were no examples of sound being
‘produced’ for the work and all the students had
optedtousepre-recordedmusicsincetheydidnot
haveformalaccesstosoundeditingfacilities.
Fromtheoutsettherewasanotabledifference
of opinion between the students and teacher as
to whether the activities undertaken should be
described as art at all. Miles had no reservations
and felt that using digital technology in this way
was a genuine and growing area within art and
design. However through talking to the students,
theirconcernsinthisrespectbecameclear.Ofthe
referencesused,theyfeltthatthosefrompopular
sources had proven to be the more persuasive
and relevant to them. As part of the project they
were also encouraged to collect their own
resources and, understandably, what they had
found was predominantly from cultural forms
easilyavailabletothemsuchasfilmandvideo:the
‘artefactsofthemassmedia’[11].Theybroughtin
Tarantino movies and Moby videos but they
specifically did not classify them as art. They did
not have a critical framework for including these
materials within their definition of what the art
curriculum should contain: “it can’t be art, it’s got
sound”saidonestudentand“it’savideo,notart!”
said another. The perceptions held by their
teacher, that these forms were as legitimate an
areaofstudyasprintedgraphicswerenotshared
by the students. It wasn’t that they didn’t want to
do the work, it was just that they didn’t classify it
as an art exercise. Similarly the students also
found difficulty relating to the examples of digital
fine art practice that they were shown. They had
tended to focus, as a result, on more ‘traditional’
media material such as photography and paint-
ing.Gainingconceptualaccesstothedigital‘fine
art’ work had proven to be quite challenging
particularly where it involved installation or an
event of some kind. Looking at pieces made
Above left:
Figure 2
Above right:
Figure 3
259
Steve Long

6. JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
specifically for the internet was more successful
but again there were technical issues such as
speed of connection via the school’s link which
hadaffectedthequalityofwhattheywereseeing.
Not surprisingly, therefore the ‘made for mass
consumption’ material had exercised a stronger
influence on practical activities.
Inwrittenformitisdifficulttodojusticetointer-
active multimedia work but the structure of what
the students began to produce owed a lot to the
developmentofasimplenarrativewithsequences
of movement being shown on a succession of
‘slides’ or pages. Most opted to add a sampled
sound track which then acted as a structural tool
forthevisualelementsofthepiece.
Ironically, in spite of the fact that the students
hadproblemssituatingtheprojectasart,theydid
feel that the contemporary elements within the
workmadeanimportantcontributiontotheirfeel-
ing of achievement. Participation was excellent
and the sudden development of a work ethic not
expected from some students was a pleasant
surprisetoMiles.Withinthisproject,theyperhaps
begantobroadentheirunderstandingofwhatart
can be and, to an extent, began to appreciate the
blurringofboundariesbetweenfineartandpopu-
larforms.Baynes’assertionthattheartcurriculum
willneedtoequipstudents‘totakepartinthevital
businessofshapingandenjoyingthebroadpopu-
lar culture of their own time’ [12] seemed entirely
possible on the basis of this kind of activity.
Some of the most interesting outcomes
concerned issues of curriculum construction.
From a student perspective not only did the
project not seem like any art activity they had
previouslyexperienced‘becausethereismusicin
it’ butitalsobegantocrossotherborders:‘it’slike
drama…we’regoingtoshowthem(themultime-
dia pieces) to people.’ Throughout the work, for
both teacher and students involved, the central
unifyingcomponentofthemultimediapieceswas
the visual element, which is not unnatural since
the basis of the project was in the visual art area.
Images provided one of the central means of
communicating the narrative and other elements
ofthemultimediaensemblewerelessdominant.
This, in some senses confirms the views of writ-
ers such as Kress who have commented on the
potential power of the visual within a multimedia
format [13]. What is of concern, however, is that
thestudentsandteacherrealisedthepotentialfor
other elements such as sound but felt that they
were unable to take these very far forward, work-
ing, as they were, in the art area. Both Miles and
thestudentsvoicedtheseviewsandIfeelstrongly
that the images remained dominant because the
students would have needed support from other
departmentsinordertomovebeyondthem.They
wouldhaveneededaccessnotonlytoequipment
fromtheMusicdepartment,forexample,butalso
to a range of conceptual approaches such as the
English or Media departments might have been
abletooffer.Unfortunatelytheywere/areworking
withinacurriculumstructurewhichrequiredMiles
to have an expertise in visual education but then
placed the other possible elements of the multi-
mediaensembleintodifferentsubjectdisciplines
where teachers were really too busy with their
own classes to get involved.
260
Steve Long

7. JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
The students developed very powerful ideas
which drew on areas of personal interest and
allowedthemtointroducemultimediacontentin
ways that had previously not been possible in
their art work.
Theyrespondedbynotsimplyillustratingtheir
hobbies and interests but, in a more sophisti-
cated way, began to explore the communicative
possibilitiesofthemulti-modalform.Forexample
the image shown above was part of a linked
sequence edited in response to the accompany-
ingsoundtrack;thispiecechangeddrasticallyas
thestudent’sunderstandinggrewofhowimage,
sound and text could work most effectively
together. The need for the students to make
these kinds of choices established for them that
there is a cross pollination between modes of
communication. Where one mode, for example
an image, is accompanied by sound or some
other sensory element there is an affective rela-
tionship with the perception of the image. The
samecanalsobesaidoftextualmessageswhere
the design or layout of the text as well as any
images associated with it can be crucial to the
way that text is understood. In this project these
students began to gain experiential understand-
ing of this balance through a medium which
encouragesmulti-sensorycommunication.They
began to look at a form which demands that
an accommodation be reached between the
acceptedviewthatthevisualartsinhabitspecific
spaces/places whilst music and other transitory
formsinhabittime.Onamorecomplexlevelthey
also experienced the idea that art and image
makingischangedasaprocesswhenitbecomes
partofatransmittableandinfinitelyrepeatableset
of information [14].
The possibilities offered by multimedia gener-
ated a real sense of excitement and the students
responded by producing individual and divergent
work as hoped for by Steers and Swift in their
Manifesto for Art in Schools [15]. Outcomes from
thestudyalsosupportedthosewhohavesaidthat
placing‘theself’atthecentreofsuchprojectshas
a motivating effect especially in a digital medium
which supported connections with forms of
communication which interest the students
[16]. Miles felt that the individuality of students’
responseswasencouragedbythedigitalnatureof
the work and was more evident than when they
were using more traditional processes. Ironically
Milesalsofeltthatalongsideasenseofindividual-
ity, peer support was a crucial element of the
project with pupils’ speaking and listening skills
increasingatanexponentialrateastheydiscussed
ideas. This was in stark contrast to the way that
these students had previously worked and was
driven by the students having to solve technical
problems or was motivated simply by an outright
interestineachother’swork.Thestudentsbelieved
there was nothing unusual in these activities in an
IT context and they had a natural expectation that
theywouldrefertoeachotherforguidancerather
thannecessarilytoateacher.
The project acted as a catalyst for a re-evalua-
tionamongstthegroupofwhowasperceivedto
be ‘good at art’. In this context it was those who
feltgenerallyconfidentwithcomputerswhoalso
approached this work in an assured manner to
Opposite:
Figure 4
Above:
Figure 5
261
Steve Long

8. JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
begin with rather than those who had previously
demonstrated an ability in art. Some students,
who did not classify themselves as strong in the
subject, found that being able to scan images and
integrate sound had allowed them to achieve
success.Thiskindofaccesstothecreativeprocess
had circumvented problems they may previously
have had with making work using more traditional
media. There were ever present dangers such as
an easy satisfaction with superficial results or the
supposed‘neatness’oftheworkorindeedtheway
that so-called ‘mistakes’ could be removed. Miles’
role in this area was crucial with a need for him to
bewellawareofthetechnicalaspectsofwhatwas
goingoninordertobeabletogaugeeachstudent’s
creativeprogress.Thereareimportantissueshere
for teachers in connection with assessing work
where the prevailing culture in art practice which
valuestheprocessofmakingandthevisibilityofthe
creative journey is challenged by digital practice
whichcanleaveno‘tracksinthesand’.
Implications
Istartedthispaperbysuggestingthatanumberof
questions had been raised by the arrival of new
digital media. In attempting to answer them I am,
inevitably, left with a new set of questions to
ponder. For visual education these are incredibly
exciting times offering new possibilities; a core
motive for art education has been the belief that a
sense of visual awareness is part of being human
and in today’s digital technology we have a
process which brings images very much to the
fore within communication. This suggests a re-
assessment by art educators of the need to apply
visualeducationmorewidelyandtosituateatleast
partofitinacontemporarydigitalworld.Thereare
questions to be asked in this respect: could
engagementwithmassmedialeadtoa‘dumbing
down’ of children’s visual education as perhaps a
smaller proportion of their time deals with tradi-
tional purposes for art? What indeed will be a
definitionofartpractice? Certainlythestudentsin
thisstudyfoundthisaprovocativearea.
It seems clear that the multi-modal work
engaged in during this project allowed access to
newformsofcreativitybutchallengedwherethat
creativitywasplacedinthecurriculum.Theproject
offered a tantalising glimpse of what could be
learnt through the integration of images with a
relatively rudimentary engagement with sound
and text; what would be possible through a more
systematic delivery? I believe the study has gone
some way to confirm that a contemporary defini-
tion of literacy must include the visual, the textual
and indeed the multi-modal; in which case using
tools like the multimedia software involved here
should be part of children’s learning. In order for
theseexperiencestomakesensetochildrenthey
need to be conducted in a coherent manner; the
variouscomponentscannotbedivorcedfromeach
other as they currently are. This lends credence to
the views of those who have called for a re-struc-
turing of the curriculum to take account of digital
technology [17] and others who felt it was time to
remove the isolation of individual subjects which
hasarisenforreasonsofhistoricalconvenience.Are
we, I wonder due for a return to Expressive Arts
departmentsinordertoofferthebestopportunities
forcreativityorwillanaccommodationbereached
betweenteachersoperatingindifferentareas?
262
Steve Long

9. JADE 20.3 ©NSEAD 2001
References
1. McLuhan, E. & Zingrone, F. [1995] The
Essential McLuhan London Routledge
2. Long, S. [2001] ‘What effect will digital tech-
nologies have on visual education in schools?’
in ICT, Pedagogy and the Curriculum: Subject of
Change London Routledge, and
Kress, G. [1998] ‘Visual and Verbal Modes of
representation in electronically mediated
communication: the potentials of new forms
of text’ in Page to Screen: taking literacy into the
electronic era, London Routledge
3. see Sefton-Green J. (1998) Digital Diversions:
Youth Culture in the Age of Multimedia,
UCL Press
4. see Baynes, K [2000] ‘Gallery of the Future:
New Directions in Art Education’ Journal of Art
and Design Education, Vol.19, No.1
5. Beavis, C. [1998] ‘Computer games, culture
and the curriculum’ in Page to Screen: taking
literacy into the electronic era, London
Routledge, and
Cotton, B. & Oliver, R. [1997] Understanding
Hypermedia: multimedia origins, internet
futures, London Phaidon
6. Thistlewood, D. (Ed.) [1989] Critical Studies in
Art and Design Education, Longman/NSEAD
7. Steers, J. & Swift, J. [1999] ‘A Manifesto for Art
in Schools’, Journal of Art and Design Education,
Vol.18, No.1, Oxford Blackwell
8. Meecham, P. [1999] ‘Of webs and nets and lily
pads’ Journal of Art and Design Education,
Vol.18, No.1, Oxford Blackwell
9. National Advisory Committee on Creative
and Cultural Education (NACCCE) [1999]
All Our Futures: creativity, culture and education,
London DfEE
10. Rush, M. [1999] New Media in Late 2Oth
Century Art, London Thames & Hudson
11. Allen, D. [1994] ‘Teaching Visual Literacy:
Some Reflections on the Term’ Journal for Art
and Design Education, Vol.13, No. 2 Oxford
Blackwell p.134
12. see Baynes, 2000, Op cit p.39
13. Kress, G. [1998] Op cit
14. Berger, J. [1972] Ways of Seeing London BBC
15. Steers, J. & Swift, J. [1999] Op cit
16. Sinker, R. [2000] ‘Making Multimedia:
evaluating young people’s creative multimedia
production’ in Evaluating Creativity: making and
learning by young people, Ed. Sefton-Green &
Sinker London Routledge
17. Heppell, S. [1999] ‘The ICT of Creation’ Times
Educational Supplement: Online, January 7th
London, Times Heppell, 1999
263
Steve Long

10. Copyright of International Journal of Art & Design Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.