Dizaina Studija. Telpa Forma Laiks

There is a good tradition – to meet after Midsummer’s eve at the end of the school year, after graduation works have been defended, and discuss everything that is on your mind.  Those who meet are the members of the Latvian art and design school qualification examinations committee, reviewers, directors and teachers 1.  It is a professional meeting, in which decisions are made about graduation works, studies, about what is good and what is bad.  These types of meetings are necessary, otherwise we don’t even see that which happens at other schools.  At a high school level the main aim is not to train a designer, but to educate the student about processes generally:  about that how things are made, to create understanding about working in a team, the designer’s role in manufacturing, about materials, style, about that which is or isn’t judged as professional.   In September a new teaching year begins, and we have every intention of doing everything as well as we can, to grow and improve, therefore it is important to continue this conversation right now. 

Same diploma. Same level. For everyone?
The time when there were six art and design high schools of a similar professional level (Riga School of Design and Art, Jānis Rozentāls Art High school, Liepāja Secondary Art School, Rēzekne Art and Design Secondary School, Daugavpils Secondary School of Art, “Saules skola” and Valmiera Art School) has passed: today also trade schools and private schools offer design programmes. It is now possible to obtain third level education with a specialization in design (high school + specialization in advertising/industrial/interior design) from 14 educational institutions throughout Latvia. Amongst these are schools, which are rich in tradition, and also new schools. Some schools have the appropriate technical equipment, others do not, and some have professional teachers, others – not so. Therefore it is not possible to speak of a unified level of design education in Latvia’s high schools because the “annual reports” in the form of graduation pieces are too diverse – both in terms of ideas, quality and volume. As Jānis Borgs has commented – inequality exists at the very inception. The unequal levels of technical equipment in schools, qualifications of teachers and their quality of teaching are the reasons why there is such a dramatic difference in the abilities of students, but eventually all students receive the same thing – a third level diploma in design education. This year the problem has become even more pronounced, because the order issued about the centralized national examinations in design (15.03.2010) , alongside the requirement of a theoretical component and a graduation work, does not mention the development of a model into an actual material project as an obligatory component. This is in complete contradiction to the principles of design education, and as a result of discussion the Educational Centre for Culture and Creative Industries of the Ministry of Culture has undertaken to correct the error as soon as the 2010/2011 school year. However, the consequences can already be felt. For example, Riga Design School, which is a private educational institution, did not require a work project as a part of the examination. This means that there can be no discussion about a remotely similar level of educational quality! I hope that this instance will train the attention of professionals and responsible institutions not only on the awarding of qualifications to specific school-leavers, but also in the licensing of programmes and the accreditation of schools as a whole. To my mind correctly filled out forms can never be more important than the real end product – the quality of education.

I can do it!
For quite some time there have been two directions in the production of graduation pieces: either students create the pieces themselves in school workshops, or the students find other technical solutions and the work is entrusted to professionals. Both directions are to be supported. Schools tend to have weak links with businesses. It is important to establish collaboration with a manufacturer, even if it is only during the creation of graduation pieces, because it is the first serious experience in working with a contractor and develops the students’ skills of finding compromise. However, ordering a ready-made design object from manufacturers or craftsmen also has its challenges. In their graduation work s the students must try to demonstrate the very best that they are capable of, they have to be ready to collaborate and if necessary, to correct the contractor, rather than the opposite situation, whereby the manufacturer begins to dictate the conditions and, as a result, sinks the work. Another quote from Jānis Borgs: “to not allow quality to lord it over taste, because this leads to kitsch”. And furthermore – the young person is to a large degree dependent on their parents’ financial position, because with the current level of financing, schools cannot cover the costs of producing the graduation works. Barbara Ābele’s idea about the need for commercialization of graduation pieces is worth serious consideration, as is the suggestion that schools should have an employee whose job description would be to have the best ideas implemented by a business or by a particular contractor.
Making graduation pieces in house undoubtedly has its own merits. It is an opportunity to freely create one’s own design from initial sketches to the finished product. This teaches the student to be responsible for the result and it improves the professional working knowledge of the student. However, it is not always possible to make these works by using the equipment belonging to the school, although the teacher is always on hand to help solve problems.

Excuse me, sir!
Teachers have undoubtedly done a big job. As Jānis Bankovičs says, neither the school nor teacher can give a student talent, but they can provide the motivation to learn and develop. The role of the teacher in the process of making the graduation piece is still debatable (this also refers to the whole period of study). In what way can the student gain more while attaining their educational qualification? Is it by using creative methods: the teacher encourages students to study, think for themselves and draw conclusions, or is it better to purposefully guide the students and thus guarantee a quality result? Are these differing methods mutually exclusive? What is more important for the student – the finished product or the learning process? Can a teacher really discourage a student from experimenting and making mistakes? Or is it the opposite – by pointing out errors, help to create alternative solutions to the result that had been hoped for? Here one cannot divide off two sides of the issue, because the aim is the same – to give and receive good education. One thing is clear – at school the direct influence of teachers on 15-20 year olds is much greater than at tertiary institutions, where the lecturer has completely different tasks to fulfil. A high school student must be given a very clear task, and the programme must be set up to suit the appropriate field of design, applied art or craft – even more so because in Latvia these spheres  historically have been closely related. According to Ilze Martinsone , the more specific the guidelines for the graduation piece, the more positive are the results. There are schools which outline the leitmotif for graduation pieces. Does this help, or does it stifle creativity? I agree with the idea of each school defining a leitmotif. This is one of the ways in which the education process can be progressed to a “real life scenario”, because designers have to learn to take into account the limitations: technical and financial opportunities, time limits and others. The designer is always subjected to a string of limitations.

Time for change
With every coming year a larger proportion of the general evaluation is assigned to the theoretical part of the work, wherein the student provides a justification for the chosen theme, their research and conclusions about that which has been achieved. In order to achieve good results in this part of the graduation work, it is necessary to have had previous training. To create a good graduation piece, students have trained in the trade for over several years. This training is also necessary in the preparation of the theoretical part, already beginning in the younger grades, when students undertake research and analysis in the various tasks of composition. Research and analysis are the most significant components of theoretical work, which allows the teachers to judge the students’ understanding of the theme of the graduation piece. The results differ greatly – excellent, weak and mediocre. The most significant shortcomings include carelessness and mistakes in the content, the under utilization of professional literature, errors in Latvian language style and grammar – although the general level is higher than the previous year. Barbara Ābele and Jānis Bankovičs have given very valuable suggestions in relation to the analysis of graduation pieces – to use these materials as a platform for a discussion between teachers and next year’s graduates – students in their third year, whose presence during the defence of graduation pieces is unfortunately only by chance, rather than a rule.

Regarding the practical side. There has always been a high quality of graduation pieces in schools: this is not a new phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is good to see that with the increased opportunities to use new materials and technologies, these novelties are being used by students. Traditional values are maintained –pure form and style, an understanding of the materials and skills in a trade – although in most cases they are embodied in contemporary design objects, interiors or graphics. The question is about the size of the graduation piece. In approximately five months (from early January to early June) which are allocated to this work, classes are also held in a number of professional subjects, plus students sit centralized exams, work on a design, write their theoretical essays and manufacture the work as a finished product. Taking into account this short and intense time for development, perhaps it is possible to reduce the size of the work? I don’t think that the student would demonstrate their skills less effectively if they made four rings instead of six, created three or four, not five or six outfits. A well-considered and precise model of study areas with the requisite technical documentation could be more valuable than a renovated classroom, where the majority of the time has been spent in puttying and levelling walls, rather than making an idea real. The careful design of one space, rather than designing a whole house. The emphasis must be placed on quality.
One more criticism from the judging committee is about the shortcomings of the examination process. For years the scoring system for the works has been totally incomprehensible – using points and grades. When the exam period is over, the points awarded lie in files on the shelves of a civil servant and are almost never referred to again, while the grading system is used when awarding marks in the academic record and all official documents. This begs the question: why does each (!) candidate for a diploma have to be awarded ten marks in the points system (also different for each section of the work: 1-100, 1-20, 1-30), if, as a result, the graduate only receives one grade (usually 5-10)?! Why is there such a detailed division? It only complicates the marking, and leads directly to the levelling of grades, and as a result does not provide an objective evaluation. This system does not work, and it must be changed. However, the Cabinet of Ministers resolution exists, which outlines evaluation in professional high schools. Perhaps the time has come to change this directive to reflect the real situation?