Art as Critical Public Pedagogy

Abstract

This qualitative study explored the connection between art and adult education for critical consciousness from the perspective and work of conceptual artist, Luis Camnitzer. The theoretical framework is grounded in the critical public pedagogy literature. Data collection methods included interviews with conceptual artist Luis Camnitzer and with others familiar with his work, as well as textual analysis of his writing and visual art. The findings focus on the theme of exile in the life of the artist, his thoughts on the relation of art, politics, and education, and the role of conceptual art’s potential for creating “dialogue” in the mind of the viewer by re-presenting reality in unexpected ways. The discussion of the findings focuses on re-examining and redefining the concept of “dialogue” for art and adult education for critical consciousness in nonformal settings.

Keywords

adult education for critical consciousness art critical public pedagogy Luis Camnitzer public pedagogy

There is a growing discussion on public pedagogy in adult education (Sandlin, Wright, & Clark, 2013; Wright & Sandlin, 2009). Public pedagogy assumes that much teaching and learning, education and miseducation, happen in public venues that include media and popular culture; public arts such as murals, theater, and music; and places such as museums, and other public spaces (Burdick, Sandlin, & O’Malley, 2014; Giroux, 2004a; Sandlin, Schultz, & Burdick, 2010). Public pedagogy can reproduce the dominant culture or can openly challenge it through a critical public pedagogy—by creating media and art that is intended to turn the status quo or dominant modes of understanding on its head (Springgay & the Torontonians, 2014). This article makes a contribution to the art and critical public pedagogy literature in adult education by looking at the conceptual work and ideas explored by Uruguayan artist Luis Camnitzer.

Camnitzer’s work was chosen for this analysis because Camnitzer is an active social critic who has written extensively and critically about social issues, as well as produced works of art that challenge dominant ideologies and/or engage in consciousness raising about social issues, and invites and welcomes interactions with his words and images. Despite never using the term critical public pedagogy, his critique of hegemony through his art and writings demonstrates that he embraces the notions of critical public pedagogy. Many of his discussions and actions support his view that art can be used to communicate, educate, and challenge society and the structures in place.

“Art is a dialogical process, and the work is only fully completed as a result of that dialogue,” states conceptual artist Luis Camnitzer (1995/2009h, p. 201). Dialogue is a hallmark of much critical adult education literature, exploring how learners can critically reflect on their assumptions to alter their consciousness of power relations thus changing their world (Brookfield, 2005; Horton & Freire, 1990). The fostering of this type of dialogue is often referred to as adult education for critical consciousness (Brookfield, 2005; Kauffman, 2010; Tisdell, Hanley, & Taylor, 2000). While there is a growing discussion of adult education in public spaces such as museums and libraries (Taylor, 2010), thus far there has been little discussion on public art’s role as adult education for critical consciousness, the kind of “dialogue” art can create, or how artists might think of their art as adult education. There is also a growing body of literature on the role of the arts in adult education (Clover & Stalker, 2007; Lawrence, 2005), but most of it focuses on adult learners as creators of art in ongoing identity development or social activism (Clover, 2006; Grace & Wells, 2007; Tyler, 2015).

So far in the field, little consideration has been given to artists in the public sphere or to their role in enacting critical public pedagogy, though more recently there has been some consideration of artists’ roles in the wider public pedagogy literature (Burdick et al., 2014; Jackson, 2011; Springgay & the Torontonians, 2014). As Brookfield (2005) notes in drawing on Marcuse’s work and connecting it to adult education, art communicates even though its message may not be direct; as such, art can be a form of adult education, and, when publicly displayed, a form of public pedagogy. When it is used to raise critical consciousness about social justice issues, it can be a form of critical public pedagogy. In an extensive review of both research and conceptual literature on public pedagogy in general, Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick (2011) “find explicit explorations of the pedagogical work [italics added] of public pedagogy lacking in much of the literature” (p. 360). The same authors explored the fragility of public pedagogy, exploring “the socially reproductive and the resistant dimensions of these various pedagogical sites” beyond formal schooling (Burdick et al., 2014, p. 2). Despite a growing scholarship on public pedagogy and also one that is critical, the field needs more research specifically examining connections between art and adult education as critical public pedagogy and how the artist thinks about art or how it educates. As Jackson (2011) notes, public art can act as “the sites where aesthetic and social provocations coincide” (p. 5). This collision is the fertilizer for Camnitzer’s oeuvre. As such, the purpose of this study was to explore the connection between art and adult education for critical consciousness from the perspective and works of one artist: conceptual artist Luis Camnitzer.

Camnitzer and His Work

Luis Camnitzer is a conceptual artist born in 1937 Germany, who immigrated with his Jewish family to Uruguay in 1939 to escape the Nazi regime. Raised in Uruguay, he studied in 1960s New York, but the 1973 dictatorial coup prevented him from returning to Uruguay. While he still lives in New York, working as an artist and academic, he identifies strongly with Latin American issues, writing about art, its processes, and politics (Camnitzer, 2004/2009c, 2007). Camnitzer sees his art as a means to foster a critical perspective about unjust situations (Baker, 2002). His recurrent artistic theme is exploring society’s and memory’s “distortions” based on his life in constant exile dealing with oppressive regimes (Camnitzer, 1983/2009e, p. 29).Though he never uses the term adult education, Camnitzer connects conceptual art with educating for critical consciousness by questioning identity, political injustice, one’s understanding of reality, and the artist’s role (Princenthal, 1996). Conceptual art is a form where the idea or concept that is its focus is more important than the art’s aesthetic or its materials (Camnitzer, Farver, & Weiss, 1999).

Camnitzer attempts to create “dialogue” by creating space for critical thinking and disjuncture or “distortions” in the mind of the viewer. This process can best be understood in light of cultural theorist Stuart Hall’s (1997) theory of representation of encoding and decoding. Applying Hall’s theory to Camnitzer’s Uruguayan Torture Series (1983-1984) is an example that provides context for the theoretical framework of the study (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Image of wire-wrapped finger recalls torture. “Her fragrance lingered on” from Uruguayan Torture Series, by L. Camnitzer, 1983-1984 (http://www.universes-in-universe.de/car/documenta/11/bhf/e-camnitzer-zoom1.htm).

Hall’s (1997) theory of encoding and decoding suggests that the wire-wrapped finger is “encoded” culturally in viewers’ minds as an instrument of torture. Her fragrance lingered on captions the image. Camnitzer attempts to create disjuncture (“decoding”) in viewers’ minds, since “fragrance” is usually encoded as a positive odor. The positive saying with the negative image creates a space of potential dialogue in viewers’ minds to deal with “distortions.” Hall refers to this as decoding art’s message in challenging preconceptions.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in the critical public pedagogy literature in adult education, the body of literature relating to the role of arts in developing critical consciousness, in light of Hall’s (1997) theory of representation and the example provided above.

Critical Public Pedagogy and the Arts

As noted and cited above, there is a growing body of literature on public pedagogy in adult education. There is also an emerging body of critical and feminist literature in and beyond the field of adult education that gets at how art can be used or created to help learners as creators of art, or as viewers to engage in challenging dominant ideologies or to engage in social issues, which could broadly be conceived as critical public pedagogy (Burdick et al., 2014; Clover, 2015; Ellsworth, 2005; Giroux, 2004b; Jackson, 2011; Springgay & the Torontonians, 2014; Wildemeersch, 2012). Critical public pedagogy further draws on literature on both critical theory (Brookfield, 2005) and critical pedagogy (Freire, 1971/1989), and examines spaces of resistance and the attempt to challenge power relations in popular culture and public spaces, noting that “education” can be “capacious and yet critical enough to incorporate several sites of learning” (Mayo, 2013, p. 144). Hence critical public pedagogy specifically encourages audiences to examine how systems of oppression and privilege as portrayed in public venues affect our view of reality and its distortions (Sandlin et al., 2013). Much of the literature thus far about public pedagogy is conceptual and analytic, with a paucity of research studies that might identify “public pedagogy” as the theoretical framework. But there are studies in critical media literacy, which can be a form of critical public pedagogy in the field that examines the process of learning and unlearning about social systems from movies and television (Jarvis, 2005; Tisdell, 2008; Tisdell & Thompson, 2007; Wright, 2007). There are also research studies in the field that explore aspects of art-making as a social justice educational activity that affects the ongoing identity construction (Adams, 2002, 2005; Clover, 2006; El-Haj, 2009; Grace & Wells, 2007). While there’s much discussion of the important role of the arts in learning (Lawrence, 2005), there are no studies in adult education focused on the perspective of how artists are trying to educate the public or on what adults learn from viewing art in public settings.

Art and Critical Consciousness

Art can certainly be used as a means to help people examine the nature of power relations based on race, gender, social class, or colonialism. Brookfield (2005) suggests that questioning underlying assumptions about power relations is educating for critical consciousness. Greene (1995) suggests that art offers the opportunity to better understand a perceived reality by re-presenting it, which gives space for critique and change. Though not always counterhegemonic, art typically seeks a re-creation of a common world, which can be a form of adult learning (Butterwick & Lawrence, 2009). Public art sometimes specifically attempts to help viewers think about and challenge power relations and resist hegemonic assumptions; in these instances, art can be a form of adult education for critical consciousness as well as a form of critical public pedagogy (Brady, 2006).

Art helps create meaning about the world around us (Greene, 1995). Our world is not simply reflected back but understood through systems of representation in which we constantly engage. We enter a relationship with images that are representations generating meaning (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). Unquestioned images, symbols, and media are part of the ideology of hegemony, while learning to question what is presented is part of the development of critical consciousness; displaying alternative images can also be an attempt to educate for critical consciousness. Ellsworth (2005) might suggest that the “pedagogical hinge” (p. 37) of how it does so is related to putting what is outside as art or public space and what is inside the mind of the viewer into relation. Understanding how systems of representation (images, including language and art) work might further explicate this.

In this image- and media-bombarded society, we interpret and create meanings almost automatically. de Saussure (1974) suggests that the social context and the rules of the language partially determine meanings, though they are constantly in flux. Linking this idea to visual culture, a means of communication is the sign, which is made of two parts: the signifier (an image, a word, a sound) and the signified (the concept evoked by that signifier; Barthes, 1967). Together, the signified and the signifier from the sign exist within a sociohistorical and cultural context. As such, interpreting these signs helps us examine our assumptions and beliefs, which is part of the process of development of critical consciousness, and what some artists who are trying to educate critically draw on in order to create a space of challenge. Meaning is encoded at the artwork’s creation within a certain context and can then be decoded as the viewer consumes it (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). This makes more sense as applied to public pedagogy in light of Hall’s work.

Hall’s Theory of Representation

According to Hall (1997), communication is necessary for meaningful interactions through encoding/decoding. Representation links language and concepts referring to real or imaginary objects, people, or events. Through representation, we make meaning of our lives. Culture is a system of shared codes (or language) necessary for translations of messages. Signs (seen, heard, read) are interpreted through familiar codes, conveying ideas as individuals express ideas through systems of representation (written, spoken, visual, or nonverbal) in a conscious or unconscious internalized process. Encoding/decoding gives space for interpretation and meaning-making, dependent on relationships between concepts and people or objects.

Culture becomes a system of shared meanings as a necessary language to communicate understandings (Du Gay, Hall, Janes, Mackay, & Negus, 1997). But through the constant encoding and decoding process, culture changes. Artists know this and manipulate symbols and encode and decode them in different ways to create new meanings. As audiences interact with artwork, decoding may alter messages given the context. Interpretation requires constantly accepting or rejecting meanings and associations (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). In other words, culture changes because of our interactions with it. As a conceptual artist, Luis Camnitzer plays with coding, evidenced in his conflicting representations of written codes juxtaposed with provocative images. The photo example of the wire-wrapped finger and the words “her fragrance lingered on” serves as an example. This study, then, attempts to examine his and others’ perceptions of how he does so as a form of critical public pedagogy.

Methodology

The purpose of qualitative research is to ascertain how participants make meaning and to find out their perspectives on a phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Given that this study explores the connection between art and adult education for critical consciousness from Camnitzer’s perspective, a qualitative research study was the appropriate design for the study; furthermore, this is a case study that is informed by qualitative arts-based research. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note, arts-based research can focus either on the role of the arts in the collection and analysis of data or on artists and the creation of their art. This arts-based qualitative study focuses on the case of one artist, Luis Camnitzer, and is framed as a qualitative case study.

The primary means of data collection in qualitative case study research are typically interviews, observations, and analyses of relevant documents and artifacts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, the primary data were two in-depth interviews with Luis Camnitzer conducted by one of us (Zorrilla), a published interview/conversation with fellow conceptual artist Alejandro Cesarco (2011), and a textual analysis of documents and artifacts of Camnitzer’s artworks and writings. The interviews sought Camnitzer’s reflections on themes such as the relationship between art and social justice, the communication (accidental or intentional) of an artistic creation, the impact of art on the artist as creator and the audience as spectator, the distinction between politicized aesthetics and aestheticized politics, freedom in art and art-making, art as an active shaper of culture, the purpose of education and art’s role in it, and his personal role in education and as an artist in society. Additional sources of data were articles by and interviews with two curators from museums that showed his work, and published writings and critiques of his work by three art professionals/critics (Mosquera, 1990; Ramirez, 1990; Weiss, 2009), as well as newspaper and magazine articles about his work. The findings examined Camnitzer’s perspectives on his art’s purposes and other art critics’/professionals’ perspectives on Camnitzer’s work to show its function as critical public pedagogy, thus focusing on his work’s educative component.

Data were analyzed by both authors, first by coding the Camnitzer interviews and doing a textual analysis of his writings, and then by coding the interviews with art curators and the writings of art critics about Camnitzer’s work. The documents used where those available online, in print, or in exhibitions visited. All data (from Camnitzer’s writings, his conceptual work, his interviews, and others’ discussions of him) were categorized for their mention of education/learning, critical consciousness, communication, social activism, and biography. The data were then gathered into themes largely as a constant comparative method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After careful classification, each theme was explored in detail to find evidence in the data. The analyses of the written text and interview transcripts highlighted assumptions and beliefs. Hall’s (1997) theory of representation and decoding informed the data analysis particularly related to issues of representation in the artwork and their coding and decoding. After the documents and works were categorized with a careful attempt to stay loyal to his views, member checks were conducted with Camnitzer, who agreed with its findings.

Findings: Camnitzer as Critical Public Pedagogue

While Camnitzer does not use the term critical public pedagogy as a description of his work, he embraces its fundamental notions, which are rooted in his own history and work as a conceptual artist. In 1966-1968, Camnitzer created his first conceptual art piece: “This Is a Mirror, You Are a Written Sentence” (Figure 2), which, like the others since, was intended “to provoke thought and questions” (Cotter, 2011, p. 2), and he began working with printed language as an art medium.

Figure 2.

Camnitzer’s first conceptual piece. This Is a Mirror, You Are a Written Sentence, by L. Camnitzer 1966-1968 (http://www.studiointernational.com/index.php/luis-camnitzer). Photo by Peter Schälchli.

Camnitzer elicits creativity from viewers, hoping to make them think, rather than making overtly political works, since “the work happens in the viewer, not in the art object” (Camnitzer, 2006, para. 1). By offering new perceptions, he exemplifies art’s use as education, believing that audiences are artists’ colleagues to be involved in the thought process (as discussed in his Cesarco, 2011, interview). Camnitzer mixes images and languages in what he calls “a pedagogical expression” (1983/2009e, p. 28) (which indicates his leanings toward critical public pedagogy). According to Ramírez (1990), he promotes critical views of perceived reality by requiring “active participation in the production of the meaning of the piece” (p. 5). Though his art is not purely didactic, Camnitzer feels that he becomes “a lens that helps understand the kaleidoscope that makes the community” (Camnitzer, 2004/2009c, p. 84). As discussed in our interview, Camnitzer believes that art is “like a breezeway” through which the artist can talk to the audience, hoping for a response from the viewer.

Reflecting ideas of 18th-century educator Simón Rodríguez, Camnitzer defines artists’ roles as “provocateurs” (Camnitzer, 1996/2009f), exemplifying his view of art as a means for critical public pedagogy. Any social critic analyzes social structures and overturns them to better understand social reality, thus aspiring for greater good. As a critical public pedagogue, Camnitzer sees his activities as part of the same but expressed differently (Cesarco, 2011). In the initial interview, Camnitzer explains that he chooses the media depending on what he seeks to address, as art is a way of “empowering the viewer” and “a way of consciousness raising and also to stimulate the viewer’s power of creation.” He hopes to create space and tools for individuals to foster critical consciousness (which is why he qualifies as a critical public pedagogue of sorts). From interactions with his art, once viewers are able to look critically at society he may discontinue doing his art. “As long as society needs me (and others) as an artist, I am a failure,” Camnitzer confessed in our interview. His perspective on his social role as artist and critical public pedagogue are made more explicit in light of three primary interrelated aspects of his personal history and philosophy: his biography of exile; his belief in the connection of art, education, and politics; and the role of conceptual art in critical consciousness raising.

The Effects and Responsibilities of Being “in Exile”

The year 1973 forever changed Camnitzer’s work, since it marked the beginning of an 11-year period of brutal military dictatorship of Juan María Bordaberry in Uruguay. Camnitzer struggled during this time, being away from the daily torment of dictatorship. However, this event gave Camnitzer a new and recurrent theme to his conceptual art: exile. This idea appears throughout his career “in an ongoing rumination about identity, otherness, belonging, and resistance” (Weiss, 2009, p. xii). Exiled people like Camnitzer survive “because they inhabit their memories,” living at times “an inner rather than a geographic exile” (Camnitzer, 1996/2009f, p. 118). Even today, he admits that it is difficult to let go of Uruguay (Camnitzer, 2003/2009g). Like most expatriates, there is a longing in his heart to return home.

Though Camnitzer confesses the unforgivable lateness of dealing with the dictatorship until nearly its end in 1985, he began working in 1983 on a series of pieces addressing the torture under the dictatorship of Bordaberry (Camnitzer, 2003/2009g). He admits that part of the reason he did so was to alleviate his feelings of guilt for not being present during the dictatorship as many of his friends were. These works, titled Uruguayan Torture Series, graphically showed elements of torture with text that bumped against the visual image in a potentially disarming fashion. (The piece depicted in Figure 1 with the caption “Her fragrance lingered on” is from this series; “Luis Camnitzer: Retrospective Exhibition,” n.d.; “Walking the Line Between Metaphor and Individual Pain,” 2011.) The theme of exile remains apparent in much of his art and is a motivator for his creativity and use of art for education and politics.

The Relation of Art, Politics, and Education

In much of his writing and in his interviews both with us as researchers and with other interviewers (Cesarco, 2011), Camnitzer discusses the connections among art, politics, and education. Since everything can be viewed as art, Camnitzer proposes that art can become “a common denominator for understanding” (1969/2009d, p. 9, 2009a) and, hence, education. He sees his art as a variant of pedagogy, as he explained in our first interview that “if art is not providing an educative experience, it is bad art.” Good education and good art foster expression and communication through imagining and posturing, pushing individuals outside conventions. Art grounded in ethics can be militant by challenging the status quo. He suggests that art that encourages viewers’ passivity is not reaching its potential, for, as he says, “We want to help develop creative individuals who apply themselves for the betterment of society.”

To Camnitzer, art and education are different forms of a similar activity. He explained in our first interview that the artist’s role is educational and one of “a cultural activist.” Art is a form of learning and vice versa. He went on to say, “I once commented that today being ethical is a form of resistance. Since art is a tool for my ethical discourse, there you have the connection”; he further elaborated on this point and discussed art as his “strategy to bring ethics to the fore” and that “art is an accidental tool conditioned by my biography.” Camnitzer stated that it is important for art to be politicized; “Otherwise we are working for the disciplines and not for society.” “Art reflects culture, yet art grounded in ethics must question everything to push audience and artist into an unknown, becoming a tool to access knowledge.” Camnitzer uses his art “to create new leaves” instead of “old roots” (Mosquera, 1990, p. 3) and to make sense of his world. Camnitzer suggests that every decision is political, though he rejects overt politicality (Weiss, 2009). His art demands a continuous questioning of assumptions and definitions to address social situations.

Conceptual art, in particular, solidifies Camnitzer’s relation between art and politics by focusing on the idea or concept instead of the artwork, which frees artists and audience to respond to political and economic situations (Camnitzer et al., 1999). Camnitzer leaves in his artwork hidden narratives encouraging questioning status quo and thus invites audiences to create their own newer understanding. He explains that art is “an operation of creation and use of symbols” (Camnitzer, 1995/2009i, p. 203). By juxtaposing texts with these symbols in conceptual art to create new meaning in dialogue, Camnitzer includes audiences in communication and codification of meaning-making. In our interview, Camnitzer stated, “More interesting is when the text leads the viewer to see a particular way, like opening one particular door to enter the work of art, or when neither text nor the image make sense on their own.” His 1991 piece, El Viaje (The Voyage), serves as an example (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Blades and balls reflect European imperialism. El Viaje (The Voyage), by L. Camnitzer, 1991 (http://ifacontemporary.org/luis-camnitzer-at-el-museo-del-barrio/).

This conceptual art piece perhaps subverts the Eurocentric interests in the United States that unquestioningly praise European “civilization.” Using phallic symbols as balls and blades representing Columbus’s vessels, Camnitzer recalls Europe’s rape of the Americas and challenges European privilege. By doing so, Camnitzer purposefully engages the audience in his critique by letting them deconstruct and reconstruct understandings (Ramírez, 1990). This is but one example of how art, politics, and education merge in his critical public pedagogy.

Conceptual Art and Critical Consciousness

Through the means of conceptual art, Camnitzer presents space to grapple with things “unthinkable and inaccessible with the use of nonartistic tools” (Camnitzer & Hickey, 2003/2009, p. 81), which are a form of critical consciousness raising that is part of his critical public pedagogy. He suggests that art becomes a way to communicate and solve problems by encouraging critical thinking and to reshape culture. Camnitzer believes that art has the ability to transform thought and perception, partly because it has inherently embodied ideological resistance (Ramírez, 1990).

Using words and images, Camnitzer hopes to explore that borderland space where new understandings take place. “More than learning, art presently requires unlearning,” Camnitzer explained in our interview. As Weiss (2009) notes, this explains the “pedagogical heart” (p. xiv) evident in Camnitzer’s works. Camnitzer believes that art should be taught not as appreciation but as an investigation into what forces the making of art to be necessary. In our interview, he discussed that need as coming “from cultural gaps that are identified through critical thinking and questioning.”

Camnitzer wrestles with the politicality of living he expresses in art, which he describes in his interview as “a tool for my ethical discourse.” Art is not separate from politics and vice versa. Politics must be creative (“aesthetified politics”), and art must be socially effective (“politicized aesthetics”; Camnitzer, 1994/2009b). Camnitzer’s work assumes expectations of understanding individuals’ roles in society. Though Camnitzer acknowledges that art alone cannot transform culture, he believes that art has the power to help audiences construct society in subversive ways. This is part of critical consciousness raising. Camnitzer’s work contributes to critical adult education discourse, opening space for dialogue, interaction, and potential ideology critique, which Brookfield (2005) suggests is part of educating for critical consciousness. Camnitzer suggests that by being constructive naggers, artists must work against commonly shared assumptions to create works fostering criticality and find alternatives. Camnitzer’s role as a cultural worker is to shape social conscience “ethically, politically, and artistically” (in that order of priorities). “Politics is the strategy and art is the tool,” he explains in our interview.

Part of educating for critical consciousness is deconstructing one’s assumptions (Brookfield, 2005). Camnitzer tries to be mindful of helping viewers do that, but he also deconstructs the whole commercialization of art by turning the mirror on himself and the art world, and explained in an interview how he questions the power of popularity. While he recognizes that his museum exhibits and other public exhibitions increase his curriculum vitae and inherent authority (Camnitzer, 1995/2009h), he notes that art loses its power when it becomes a commodity to the name of the artist. To critique this, in his conceptual art piece Selbstbedienung (Self-Service, 1996/2010), Camnitzer placed an inkpad and a rubber stamp with his signature next to a stack of papers. The viewer picked up a paper, stamped the signature, and put the suggested donation (25 cents) in the money box (Temkin, 2011). As he explains in our interview, the piece served as his critique of the cult of personality that is deemed more important than the collective good. Exhibiting a form of critical public pedagogy, he invites viewers’ critical consciousness while he questions artists’ and art’s leaders and society’s attempts at commodification.

Discussion

The findings of this study present some interesting possibilities for understanding the potential role of artists as critical public pedagogues, though the findings need to be interpreted with caution. While there has been some discussion of public pedagogy in the field (Sandlin et al., 2013; Wright & Sandlin, 2009), thus far discussion of critical public pedagogy has been limited in adult education, requiring further development in theory, research, and practice (Sandlin et al., 2011). While the findings of this study are based on the art and insights of only one conceptual artist (Camnitzer) and his professional viewers and critics, they do offer both some theoretical and practical insights into the role of conceptual art and critical public pedagogy, though it is important to consider the insights offered with certain nuances in mind.

First, Camnitzer, like many artists, identifies primarily as an artist, not as an educator, though he does recognize the way in which his work also educates, and it is his intent to do so through his work. Art (at least conceptual art) and education are two sides of the same coin, he says; he specifically hopes to make viewers think more critically about justice issues and power relations in what he creates, in his use of coding and decoding: This is part of his direct intent as an artist who uses art, as he says, as “a tool for [his] ethical discourse.”

Second, it is important to bear in mind that what the study foregrounds is the perspective of the artist, and his thoughts on how his conceptual art functions as what Ellsworth (2005) refers to as the “pedagogical hinge” to potentially foster critical consciousness. For Camnitzer, the “pedagogical hinge” is the juxtaposition of image with either text or what the viewers have typically been taught; this juxtaposition is specifically intended to create disjuncture to open up “distortions” about power relations and thus qualifies as critical public pedagogy. However, it is important to note that the study was not about how viewers experience or are changed by Camnitzer’s art; rather, it was about how Camnitzer thinks of his art as critical educational work. Sandlin et al. (2011) note that more research is needed on how public viewers (besides professional art critics and curators) perceive or experience the messages of (critical) public pedagogy. While this study does not make a contribution to that end, it does offer the perspective of Camnitzer’s educational intent as a conceptual artist; artists’ intents and views on how counterhegemonic art educates are also important in understanding the potential of art as critical public pedagogy. As noted above, Camnitzer openly discussed the connection between art and ethics and that it is important for art to be politicized, so that artists are not just “working for the disciplines” but also for the betterment of society. The perspective of this conceptual artist is important to understanding how art can act as a form of critical public pedagogy. But to find out exactly how viewers perceived that they are affected by his or other conceptual art would be the subject of a different study. However, Camnitzer does believe that “art is a form of learning and should be a continual and shared activity”; as such, he is obviously interested in the perspective and the internal dialogue of the viewer or actual dialogue among viewers.

Third, the study offers an interesting twist on the notion of “dialogue” in critical public pedagogy. According to many in adult education (Brookfield, 2005; Kauffman, 2010; Mezirow, 2000), dialogue (usually thought of in the verbal sense) is considered essential for the development of critical consciousness and ideology critique. But as exemplified in Uruguayan Torture Series (1983-1984), which graphically showed torture elements with juxtaposed text that creates disjuncture, there is no evidence of verbal dialogue (“Luis Camnitzer: Retrospective Exhibition,” n.d.; “Walking the Line Between Metaphor and Individual Pain,” 2011). Rather, Camnitzer talks of opening space for individuals to interact with artworks, so codes are exchanged and new meanings are formed and evolve as work, artist, and viewer come into relation. The budding may awaken viewer and artist to a new understanding of power imbalances, hopefully challenging ideology and perhaps affecting the status quo.

The notion of verbal dialogue as essential to critical consciousness development is more related to education in formal and nonformal settings, where students are gathered for educational purposes. As Sandlin et al. (2011) emphasize, the “pedagogy” of critical public pedagogy is not the same pedagogy as schooling or the pedagogy of formal education, because in both formal and nonformal education there is a typically identified “teacher” who may foster dialogue. But in public pedagogy there is no one serving in an official teacher/facilitator capacity; hence public pedagogy begets informal learning where the educative work is the space, the artifact. We don’t know exactly what the “public” is thinking or doing when they participate in such a public space or view counterhegemonic art. It is rather more often an internal dialogue that the viewer has with herself or himself in relation to the art and the artist (by association)—what Ellsworth (2005) refers to in explaining how the pedagogical hinge puts what’s outside (the art and artist) in relation to what’s inside (the mind of the viewer). Hence, it might be that the art fosters critical consciousness via this nonverbal dialogue. This triangular communication (artist, work, audience) is where Hall (1997) explores the systems of representation and the dynamic of encoding and decoding. There may not be any verbal “dialogue” in the public space, but we cannot assume that such counterhegemonic art is not affecting the development of critical consciousness.

A fourth and related insight offered by the study is its grounding in Hall’s theory of representation and the mechanism of encoding and decoding in mediating the meanings of symbol (including art) in a cultural context. Few studies in adult education have drawn on Hall’s work to consider how it can contribute to what we know about the development of critical consciousness. Hall explored how various systems of representation, production, and consumption help shape power (Giroux, 2004a), and how the processes of encoding and decoding of symbol and context in a culture can unmask or make power visible. He applies this to addressing ideology’s impact, and how the cultural context influences meaning and identity construction (Hall, 1980, 1997, 2003; Hall, Osbourne, & Segal, 1998). Meaning-making is dependent on the relationship between concepts and people/objects since meaning is pervasive (Hall, 1997). Culture entails social practices and goods given meanings and ideologies, encompassing our whole social and cultural experience (Giroux, 2004a). Exemplifying Hall’s (1997) codification, Camnitzer plays with meanings, encouraging new interpretations of seemingly conflicting texts, which are intended to open space in the mind of the viewer. While such space opening is not so much about verbal dialogue, it perhaps substitutes for the notion of verbal dialogue that is seen as essential to critical consciousness raising in formal or nonformal settings (Brookfield, 2005). The study, itself theoretically grounded in some of Hall’s work on encoding and decoding, helps offer insights into how the potential “dialogue” in viewers’ minds in relation to artwork and artist in a public space can be theorized in public settings that beget informal learning but that are not about verbal dialogue the way more formal education spaces are. Hence, Hall’s framework helps provide an understanding of how assumptions can potentially be unpacked through nonverbal means in public spaces as sites of informal learning.

Fifth, a hallmark of the development of critical consciousness is the unpacking of hegemonic assumptions. For sure, Camnitzer’s work as critical public pedagogy specifically does intend to do that. Critical public pedagogy hinges on reality’s deconstruction/reconstruction in making power relations visible (Fine, Weis, Centrie, & Roberts, 2000; Grodach, 2011; Jaramillo, 2010). Like other critical public pedagogues, Camnitzer challenges assumptions, creatively encouraging unlearning of power notions to redefine the present. Because Camnitzer’s work explicitly attempts to challenge power relations and unpack assumptions, it is distinctly a form of critical public pedagogy involving viewers as meaning cocreators. Camnitzer’s use of space created is for “cultural contestation and renewal,” which is essential to critical public pedagogy (Borg & Mayo, 2010, p. 37). The fact that our minds produce meaning through language and symbol in a cultural context (Hall, 1997) is where Camnitzer plays. Codes assist in reinterpreting signs and conveying ideas. Camnitzer jolts communicated meanings to unravel and reinterpret them, in order to help viewers unpack assumptions.

Finally, it is important to recognize that art and social change do not exist in parallel universes but “art, politics, pedagogy and poetry overlap, integrate, and cross-pollinate into a whole” (Camnitzer, 2007, p. 21). Camnitzer challenges learned perceptions, encouraging questions beyond art to inquire about life itself. Certain threads tie his work together, like the theme of the periphery (particularly Latin America). However, themes highlighted here support the notion that art can be a tool to communicate and educate, raising critical consciousness. Summarizing his goal and the relationship between art and education, Camnitzer believes that art aims to develop creativity in individuals hoping to improve society. As such, he said in his interview, “Art is a form of education and education is a form of art.” In particular, conceptual art that attempts to make power relations visible can indeed act as a form of critical public pedagogy.

In conclusion, this study makes a contribution to the data-based research literature on critical public pedagogy and begins to fill the gap that Sandlin et al. (2011) have identified. It does make apparent the intents and purposes of how Luis Camnitzer as one conceptual artist attempts to enact a critical public pedagogy in using his art as a “tool for ethical discourse”; the study also offers some further insight through the use of Hall’s theory of representation for understanding how the pedagogy might work in its processes of encoding and decoding in a critical public pedagogy setting. While more studies do need to be done, particularly of viewers and audiences, this study in its findings and its theorizing offers some insight into the important work of critical public pedagogy. We leave it to other researchers to conduct such studies, and we look forward to participating in the ongoing dialogue.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Previous oral presentation by Ana Zorrilla at Adult Education Research Conference, June 2014, in Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Ana Zorrilla is a social studies teacher at Cedar Crest High School–Lebanon, PA.

Elizabeth J. Tisdell is professor of adult education at Penn State University–Harrisburg.

References

Adams

(2002). Art in social movements: Shantytown women’s protest in Pinochet’s Chile. Sociological Forum, 17(1), 21-56.

Adams

(2005). When art loses its sting: The evolution of protest art in authoritarian contexts. Sociological Perspectives, 48, 531-558.

Baker

(Ed.). (2002). Artist questionnaire: 21 responses. October, 100, 6-97.

Barthes

(1967). Elements of semiology. ( Lavers

Smith

, Trans.) New York, NY: Hill & Wang.

Borg

Mayo

(2010). Museums: Adult education as cultural politics. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 127, 35-44.

Brady

J. F.

(2006). Public pedagogy and educational leadership: Politically engaged scholarly communities and possibilites for critical engagement. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 3(1), 57-60.

Brookfield

S. D.

(2005). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burdick

Sandlin

O’Malley

(Eds.). (2014). Problematizing public pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Butterwick

Lawrence

R. L.

(2009). Creating alternative realities: Arts-based approaches to transformative learning. In Mezirow

Taylor

(Eds.), Transformative learning in practice (pp. 35-45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Camnitzer

. (Artist). (1966-1968). This is a mirror, you are a written sentence [Vacuum formed polystyrene mounted on synthetic board]. Retrieved from http://www.studiointernational.com/index.php/luis-camnitzer

11.

Camnitzer

(Artist). (1983-1984). Uruguayan torture series [Photoengraving]. Retrieved from http://www.universes-in-universe.de/car/documenta/11/bhf/e-camnitzer-zoom1.htm

12.

Camnitzer

. (Artist). (1991). The voyage [Engraved knives and Christmas ornaments]. Retrieved from http://ifacontemporary.org/luis-camnitzer-at-el-museo-del-barrio/

13.

Camnitzer

(2006). Uruguayan torture series: Artist statement. Retrieved from http://www.legacy-project.org/index.php?artID=950&page=art_detail

14.

Camnitzer

(2007). Conceptualism in Latin America: Didactics of liberation. Austin: University of Texas Press.

15.

Camnitzer

(2009a). Art and literacy. E-Journal, 2. Retrieved http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/42

16.

Camnitzer

(2009b). Art and politics: The aesthetics of resistance. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Ed.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 63-75). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1994)

17.

Camnitzer

(2009c). The artist’s role and image in Latin America. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 76-92). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 2004)

18.

Camnitzer

(2009d). Contemporary colonial art. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 8-21). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1969)

19.

Camnitzer

(2009e). Exile. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 22-29). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1983)

20.

Camnitzer

(2009f). The forgotten individual. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 117-119). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1996)

21.

Camnitzer

(2009g). Free-trade diaspora. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 120-123). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 2003)

22.

Camnitzer

(2009h). My museums. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America and other utopias (pp. 112-116). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work pulished 1995)

23.

Camnitzer

(2009i). The two versions of Santa Anna’s leg and the ethics of public art. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America and other utopias (pp. 199-207). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1995)

24.

Camnitzer

. (Artist). (1996/2010). Selbstbedienung [Self-service]. Retrieved from http://www.studiointernational.com/index.php/luis-camnitzer

25.

Camnitzer

Farver

Weiss

(1999). Global conceptualism: Points of origin 1950s-1980s. New York, NY: Queens Museum of Art.

26.

Camnitzer

Hickey

(Eds.). (2009). The reconstruction of salami. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. 97-103). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 2003)

27.

Cesarco

(2011). Luis Camnitzer. Bomb, 115, 4-8. Retrieved from http://bombmagazine.org/article/4913/luis-camnitzer

28.

Clover

D. E.

(2006). Culture and antiracisms in adult education: An exploration of the contributions of arts-based learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(1), 46-61.

29.

Clover

D. E.

(2015). Adult education for social and environmental change in contemporary public art gelleries and museums in Canada, Scotland and England. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(3), 300-315.

30.

Clover

D. E.

Stalker

(2007). Introduction. In Clover

D. E.

Stalker

(Eds.), The arts and social justice: Re-crafting adult education and community cultural leadership (pp. 1-17). Leicester, England: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.

31.

Cotter

(2011, February 16). A careful reading between the lines is required. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/arts/design/17camnitzer.html?emc=etal

32.

de Saussure

. (1974). Course in general linguistics ( Baskin

, Trans.). London, England: Fontana.

33.

Du Gay

Hall

Janes

Mackay

Negus

. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. London, England: Sage.

34.

El-Haj

T. R. A.

(2009). Imagining postnationalism: Arts, citizenship education, and Arab American youth. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 1-19.

35.

Ellsworth

(2005). Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.

36.

Fine

Weis

Centrie

Roberts

(2000). Educating beyond the borders of schooling. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31(2), 131-151.

37.

Freire

(1989). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1971)

38.

Giroux

H. A.

(2004a). Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of intellectuals. Comunication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1(1), 59-79.

39.

Giroux

H. A.

(2004b). Pedagogy, film, and the responsibility of intellectuals: A response. Cinema Journal, 43, 119-127.

40.

Grace

Wells

(2007). Using Freirean pedagogy of just ire to inform critical social learning in arts-informed community education for sexual minorities. Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 95-114.

41.

Greene

(1995). Art and imagination: Reclaiming the sense of possibility. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 378-382.

42.

Grodach

(2011). Art spaces in community and economic development: Connections to neighborhoods, artists and the cultural economy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(1), 74-85.

43.

Hall

(1980). Encoding/decoding. In Hall

(Ed.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-1979 (pp. 128-138). London, England: Hutchinson. (Original work published 1973)

44.

Hall

(Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Hall

(2003). Cultural identity in the diaspora. In Rutherford

(Ed.), Identity, community, culture and difference. London, England: Lawrence & Wishart.

46.

Hall

Osbourne

Segal

(1998). Interview with Stuart Hall: Culture and power. In Torres

R. D.

Miron

L. F.

Inda

J. X.

(Eds.), Race, identity and citizenship: A reader (pp. 389-411). London, England: Blackwell.

47.

Horton

Freire

(1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

48.

Jackson

(2011). Social works: Performing arts, supporting publics. New York, NY: Routledge.

49.

Jaramillo

N. E.

(2010). A pedagogy of defiance: Public pedagogy as an act of unlearning. In Sandlin

J. A.

Schultz

B. D.

Burdick

(Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling (pp. 500-510). New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

Jarvis

(2005). Real stakeholder education? Lifelong learning in the Buffyverse. Studies in the Education of Adults, 37, 31-46.

51.

Kauffman

(2010). The practice of dialogue in critical pedagogy. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(5), 456-476.

52.

Lawrence

R. L.

(2005). Knowledge construction as contested terrain: Adult learning through artistic expression. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 107, 3-11.

53.

Luis Camnitzer: Retrospective exhibition. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/gallery/luis_camnitzer/ramirez_essay.htm

54.

Mayo

(2013). Museums as sites of critical pedagogical practice. Review of Education, Pedagogy, & Cultural Studies, 35(2), 144-153.

55.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2016). Qualitative research (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 2002)

56.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformative learning theory. In Mezirow

(Ed.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

57.

Mosquera

(1990). Politics and ethnicity in the work of Luis Camnitzer. Retrieved from http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/gallery/luis_camnitzer/mosquera_essay.htm

58.

Princenthal

(1996). Luis Camnitzer at El Museo del Barrio and Carla Stellweg. Art in America, 84(2), 91.

59.

Ramírez

M. C.

(1990). Moral imperatives: Politics as art in Luis Camnitzer. Retrieved from www.lehman.cuny.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/gallery/luis_camnitzer/ramirez_essay.htm

60.

Sandlin

J. A.

O’Malley

Burdick

(2011). Mapping the complexity of public pedagogy scholarship: 1894-2010. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 338-375.

61.

Sandlin

J. A.

Schultz

B. D.

Burdick

(2010). Understanding, mapping, and exploring the terrain of public pedagogy. In Sandlin

J. A.

Schultz

B. D.

Burdick

(Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: Routledge.

62.

Sandlin

J. A.

Wright

R. R.

Clark

(2013). Reexamining theories of adult learning and adult development through the lenses of public pedagogy. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(1), 1-21.

63.

Springgay

., & the Torontonians. (2014). How to be an artist by night: Critical public pedagogy and double ontology. In Burdick

Sandlin

O’Malley

(Eds.), Problematizing public pedagogy (pp. 133-148). New York, NY: Routledge.

64.

Sturken

Cartwright

(2001). Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

65.

Taylor

(2010). Cultural institutions and adult education. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 127, 5-14.

66.

Temkin

(2011, March 10). Luis Camnitzer at El Museo del Barrio. Retrieved from http://ifacontemporary.org/author/susannatemkin/

67.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2008). Critical media literacy and transformative learning: Drawing on pop culture and entertainment media in teaching for diversity in adult higher education. Journal of Transformative Learning, 6(1), 48-67.

68.

Tisdell

E. J.

Hanley

M. S.

Taylor

E. W.

(2000). Different perspectives on teaching for critical consciousness. In Wilson

A. L.

Hayes

E. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 132-146). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

69.

Tisdell

E. J.

Thompson

(2007). “Seeing from a different angle”: The role of pop culture in teaching for diversity and critical media literacy in adult education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(6), 651-673.

70.

Tyler

(2015). From spoke to hub: Transforming organizational vision and strategy with story and art. Adult Education Quarterly, 65, 326-342.

71.

Walking the line between metaphor and individual pain. (2011). Retrieved from http://arttattler.com/archiveluiscamnitzer.html

72.

Weiss

(2009). Foreword. In Camnitzer

Weiss

(Eds.), On art, artists, Latin America, and other utopias (pp. xi-xv). Austin: University of Texas Press.

73.

Wildemeersch

(2012). Imagining pedagogy in public space: Visions of cultural policies and practices in a city in transformation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(1), 77-95.

74.

Wright

R. R.

(2007). The Avengers, public pedagogy, and the development of British women’s consciousness. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 115, 63-72.

75.

Wright

R. R.

Sandlin

J. A.

(2009). Popular culture, public pedagogy and perspective transformation: The Avengers and adult learning in living rooms. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(4), 533-551.