Introduction

​

Moravian College’s Studio Art department may not seem like a quintessential place to look for data to create an ethnography. However, through my research, I found that this discourse community is full of fascinating features that make it unique.  The art world is one that can seem confusing and possibly a bit intimidating for someone who has no experience or knowledge on the subject. Moravian College’s Studio Art department is “designed to prepare students for careers in the fine arts in areas such as drawing, painting, sculpture, ceramics, photography or media arts” (“Programs of Study in Art.”). This community shares very few similarities with other common academic discourse communities, such as grading and class participation. But this could be some of the reason there are misconceptions about it and its legitimacy as a profession or major. Unlike many other academic discourse communities, this is one that has almost no written material for analyzing. According to “A Stranger in Strange Lands” by Lucille P. McCarthy, “writing, like speaking, is a social activity. Writers, like speakers, must use the communication means considered appropriate [in their discourse community]” (McCarthy 351). So how does a discourse community without writing communicate? Through my research, I hope to shed some light on the Studio Art community at Moravian and foster a better understanding of the department’s goals and sense of community.

​

I chose to observe the Studio Art department over all other academic communities for several reasons. First of all, I was previously a member of this discourse community myself and still feel connected to the community. My first year in college, I was a Graphic Design major and was required to take multiple Studio Art courses. Since then, I have become a Graphic Design minor but still enjoy art and the community behind it. Secondly, this community is wildly different from other academic community and does not have the same structure as typical departments, like Mathematics or English. And while every academic discourse community has unique aspects that set it apart from others, the Studio Art department has this otherworldly essence to it which made the research more interesting to conduct. And thirdly, there are often misconceptions about the art department that can fog an outsider’s perspective of it. It is a common occurrence for students outside the discourse community to feel like art majors do not work as hard as them and have a simple major full of “crafts” that get them “easy A’s.” People also think artists are narcissistic and because of that, it is a discipline without a sense of community (Lancelotti). It is also a common misconception that art is not important, and therefore should not be taken seriously as a viable field of study or career path. However, what I found was a community intent on emerging its students in the study and making them feel welcome. According to the Moravian College’s website, the Studio Art Department “cultivates a vibrant academic community committed to creative and critical thinking” (“Programs of Study in Art.”). This statement on the website is how I began to understand that the Studio Art discourse community is more inclusive and supportive than some may give it credit for. It crucial that we better understand the community in order to better appreciate the time, effort, and talent that goes into creating art. Through my analysis of Moravian College’s Studio Art department, I attempt to dispel some of the fallacies that surround the discipline.

​

Methods

​

In “Undertaking Ethnography,” the author states that “the stance of the researcher influences interpretation, treatment of the participants in the study, and possible outcomes” (Kinkead 210). In this reading, the author states that the researcher’s results could vary depending on whether they want to advocate, document, or criticize the community. I have decided to center my study around advocacy towards the Studio Art community and intend to highlight the positive qualities in it. For my research, I elected to study and observe two art classes that are offered at the college, Painting I and Drawing 1, both taught by Natessa Amin. Both courses are entry level art classes and are essential for the progression of any type of art major. These courses are also offered to non-art majors as an elective or fulfillment of a LinC general education requirement and we will see that some classes are even primarily composed of non-art majors. I observed Painting I three times and Drawing I twice in order to collect data. Because art classes do not have literature that is typically available to analyze, I was compelled to observe classes instead in order to compile data. I gained inspiration for my research from Sean Branick’s text, “Coaches Can Read, Too.” In this ethnography, Branick explains how he observed and recorded to coaches pre-game speeches and conducted interviews. I was inspired by this text because much like observing art classes, observing a football coach means that the researcher cannot analyze text. After reading Branick’s piece, I tailored his methodology to fit my needs. Instead of interviewing members of the discourse community individually, I gave them all a short answer survey. Fortunately, I was also given the syllabi for the classes, and noticed an emphasis on the proper use of artistic language in class which also gave me inspiration for my research.

​

After I conversed with the professor about the possibility to observe their classes, I was able to begin my observations, starting with Painting I in the morning and Drawing I in the afternoon. For my first day, I just watched each student work on their assignments or comment during critiques. But after realizing that I needed a system for writing about my subjects, since most of them did not want me to use their names, I was beginning plans to survey them to gain more information. So on my next day of observation, I administered a survey that would help me understand more about each student. Some information I was looking for was what their major is, how many art classes they’ve taken, and why they took the class. This survey, paired with my observations, provided me with information that would be crucial in my ethnographic study of their discourse community (see Appendix).

​

Results

​

As stated in the introduction, this department is unlike any others and the classes are structured differently than most. Upon arriving in Natessa’s Painting I class, I had to maneuver my way through the room, careful not to disrupt any easels or still-lifes that were displayed. After getting the written consent of the class to observe, I did simply that; I sat there for the duration of the class and watched as the class worked on their high-chroma still-lifes.

​

It was evident to me from the beginning of my observations that the Studio Art discourse community is unique and unconventional. You will not find any sort of lecture or test in either of Natessa’s classes; you will not even find a desk for that matter. Instead, they all stand for the duration of class and work on easels. Upon visiting the class, one may also notice that music plays in the background as students surround themselves around a display of objects that will be used for their still-lifes. It should come as no surprise to anyone that art classes are atypical of other classes. Instead of standing in front of the class teaching, Natessa periodically walks around the class, speaking to each student individually about the progress on their project. What I found in this discourse community is that there is a great focus on fostering a community. Whether it be the language they use or the conversations that are had in class, this community aims to immerse its members fully into the world of art.

​

After looking at the surveys that I gave Natessa’s classes, I could see her students felt the same way. Through surveys I found that her classes are a mixture of art majors and non-art majors. In fact, out of the 15 students surveyed in both classes, 40% were not art majors and their majors varied from Nursing to Political Science. I was interesting in seeing how the non-art majors felt about the classes, especially the ever-intimidating critiques that happen to be 20% of the students’ final grades. When asked if they were comfortable with speaking during class, a non-art major, in her Drawing I class, responded with “yes, I understand art terms and can pick out useful points to critique.” This response was not uncommon either; most students had similar feelings. While there were some who admitted to being nervous at the beginning of the semester, they feel more confident in their own use of artistic lexis in class. Through my observing, I credit this comfortability with the lexis to the professor who makes a clear effort to foster community and involvement in her class. In fact, one of her learning outcomes, as stated on her syllabus for Painting I, is “to develop the vocabulary and concepts necessary for informed criticism and judgment” (Amin, Painting I). Along with that, her syllabus also reads that 70% of the students’ final grades comes from their class participation, vocabulary, and group discussions or critiques. Only 30% of a student’s grade comes from the art they produce (Amin, Painting I). Upon observing critiques in both classes, I noted language used that was specific to their community. The professor encouraged more advanced responses during peer critiques; simply saying “it looks good” would not suffice. Instead, one of the most frequently used terms is “successful” which in an art class means that the piece of work conveyed the subject matter well and was composed nicely. Some other common phrases or terms were “compositionally strong,” “moments,” and “draws your eye through it.” In their critiques, students actively participated, using the aforementioned phrases to give constructive criticism to each other while simultaneously building up their own knowledge. According to the surveys, these critiques were when the students were most encouraged by Natessa to use artistic language and helped them gain confidence in the language. This reinforces the idea that Natessa wants to build a strong community in her classes. Of course, the execution and final product of the assignments is important, but it is just as important that her students truly understand the Studio Art discourse community.

​

Apart from the lexis that is heavily encouraged to fully immerse her students into the art world, she also makes conscious efforts to promote an interest in art outside of the class. While observing her Painting I class, I heard a conversation she was having with a student about a movie, “Loving Vincent.” The student mentioned that she recently saw this film about the life and work of Vincent Van Gogh. This sparked a conversation with Natessa that ended with her wishing the semester was not almost over so she could take her students to see this film. Another conversation I observed was between her and a non-art major. She recommended that this student look up the artist Sarah Stieber because the student’s work has similarities to the famous contemporary artist. She also heavily encourages her students to attend art shows that are displayed on campus. In fact, students are required to attend a minimum of three on-campus gallery openings, according to her syllabi (Amin, Painting I). And in some cases, she pushes her students to submit their own work to student-centered art shows. These are just some of the examples I noticed in class that exemplifies Natessa’s eagerness to share her love of the art discourse community with her students, whether they’re in the major or not.

​

Conclusion

 

The Studio Art department is far more of a unified community than someone on the outside may give it credit for. What I have witnessed during my observations of Painting I and Drawing I was a community supported by the professor’s efforts to get her students involved. Natessa Amin not only works tirelessly to make her students better at painting or drawing, she also inspires them to become active members of the Studio Art community. The effort she puts into making sure the students use artistic jargon when in class helps them understand the art better and builds their knowledge on the community. And her persistence in conversing with students about art outside the class helps the students feel more connected to the art community.

​

​

References

Amin, Natessa. Drawing I Syllabus. Moravian College, 2017.
Amin, Natessa. Painting I Syllabus. Moravian College, 2017.
Branick, Sean. “Coaches Can Read, Too.” Writing About Writing, Ed. Elizabeth Wardle & Doug Downs, 3rd ed., Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017. Pages 383-394.
Kinkead, Joyce. “Undertaking Ethnography.” Researching Writing, Utah State University Press,2016. Page 210.
Lancelotti, Alison. “10 Common Misconceptions About Art Majors, Debunked.” The OdysseyOnline, 28 Aug. 2017,
http://www.theodysseyonline.com/common-misconceptions-about-art-majors.
McCarthy, Lucille P. “A Stranger in Strange Lands.” Writing About Writing, Ed. Elizabeth
Wardle & Doug Downs, 3rd ed., Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017. Page 351.
“Programs of Study in Art.” Moravian College, 2017, http://www.moravian.edu/art/curriculum.a

​

Appendix

​​

1. Is this your first art class taken in college?

2. Why did you choose to take this course?

3. Did you feel comfortable speaking/participating in class? Why or why not?

4. Do you feel comfortable speaking/participating in class now? Why or why not?

5. Were you familiar with the artistic terms used in class at the beginning of the semester?

6. If not, are you familiar with the terms now? How did you get more familiar with them?

7. How did/does you professor encourage you to use artistic vocabulary in class?

8. What do you like about the critiques? What do you dislike?

For non-art majors only: Do art majors in your class help you and other non art majors in your class become more involved in the community? If so, how?

For art majors only: Do you feel you encourage non art majors to become more involved in the discourse? If so, how?