Paolo Freire, writer of the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” believes there is a fundamental flaw in the current education system. The flaw lying predominantly in the relationship between the student and the teacher, and how the student is conveyed the information from the teacher. Freire writes, “Education is suffering from narration sickness…” What Freire is trying to express is this idea that students are stuck listening to a “narration” by the instructor, and because of this bland re-telling of facts or ideas, the students have a complicated relationship with the idea of learning. Freire believes this is style of education is not conducive to learning, instead, all it “accomplishes” is a strained relationship between instructor and student. Because of this style of education, Freire believes that students are less inclined to learn new material, and instead, are forced to cram their memory for the upcoming test, and once the test is finished, students tend to forget most, if not all of what they had just studied. Freire writes, “education is reduced to an act of depositing, students are depositories and teachers and depositors, this is the banking model.”
“The Banking Model” according to Freire, forces students into memorizing mechanically without ever really understanding what they are learning. He also writes that the banking model takes away a student’s individuality and autonomy. Freire offers loose advice on possible solutions to fix this deeply engraved problem he sees with the education system. He believes we must transform the structure of education so that students can become, “beings for themselves.” As a student stuck in the education system, I cannot help but agree with Freire and his ideas. Throughout high school and for most of college I feel like most of the classes I have taken follow this rigid structure of forced memorization to meet a deadline and once the deadline passes I find myself forgetting most of what I had just studied. Like Freire, I believe there needs to be a fundamental change to the entire current system of education.
When viewing any piece of visual art, it is important to remember formal analysis. Formal analysis, according to Anne D’Alleva, are the “methods and questions that mostly concern the visual and physical aspects of a work of art.” This includes the line, shape, color, scale, and composition of a piece of art. Formal analysis concerns itself with how all these elements come together and work with one another for a piece of art. How did the artist make the lines, are they loose and soft, adding a blended element or are they rigid and unforgiving, making your eye separate the lines from the rest of the work? It is questions like these that help give the viewer a better understanding of what they are looking at, and it could potentially help the viewer understand why the artist made what they did.
D’Alleva suggests a three-part process when trying to understand formal analysis. Those three steps are “interpret, decipher, evaluate.” These steps will help structure a more complete analysis for the viewer, even if they are entirely unfamiliar with art. As someone who greatly appreciates art but often has difficulty understanding the entire scope of the artist’s work, formal analysis is a great tool to utilize. Sometimes when looking at a new piece of art, whether it be a painting or a sculpture, I tend to become overwhelmed with everything I am taking in, which at times, leaves me hesitant to explore the work beyond a surface layer. Formal analysis offers me a pattern and certain steps to follow so I can have a greater appreciation for a work of art, which will only come with a better understanding of the work.
