Forming art ; making and responding

Journal of Visual Arts Practice Volume 7 Number 1 © 2008 Intellect Ltd

Article. English Language. doi: 10.1386/jvap.7.1.75/1

Forming art: making and respondingHarry Jamieson Retired member of staff, University of Liverpool

AbstractThe aim of this article is to present ways of thinking about the visual arts from awide perspective. It is a theoretical paper with important implications for thoseinterested in understanding the deeper processes at work in art creation and artappreciation. It deals with issues such as complexity and information and goes onto show how they can be circumscribed under the general concept of relationships.It is maintained that ‘making’ and ‘reading’ art is essentially a search for relation-ships, which may be found in the form of the image, or the symbolism for which itacts as a ‘stand-in’. In dealing with the concept of form, special reference to twomodes of form: the material form of the image, and the mental form of mind thatthe image instigates in the viewer. It goes on to show the interrelationship betweensensitivity and skill, and the part they play in art creation and art appreciation. Itends by pointing out that as an activity given to seeking and resolving relation-ships, art can therefore be classified as a manifestation of intelligence.

Setting the sceneVisual art as practice and as a discipline within the educational curriculumhas less distinct or less prescribed requirements than other verbal/numericalbased disciplines. Nevertheless, as a ‘form-conceiving’ and ‘form-making’process it shares common ground with them on the basis that they are alsoengaged in the construction of form; for example, in the formation ofsentences, or in the formation of mathematical equations.

The main distinction is that, in the case of the visual, perception plays asignificant role, whereas the demands on perception in the case of the verbal/numerical are, in most instances, minimal. Having said that, we need to bereminded that in the formulation of plans and designs, and in the formula-tion of ideas in the process of execution, visual art as practice is engaged inconceptualization, thus it can be seen to have a foot in both camps: theperceptual and conceptual.

The sensory nature of visual art, and the lack of a precise language toconvey the nuances that accompany its making, introduces a specific teachingand learning problem. But this very problem can be seen as advantageous,freeing the artist/apprentice/student from the constraints of formalized rules.This is not to gainsay the fact that art as practice is not without proceduresand tacit knowledge, which are imbibed during the learning process andfurther employed in practice. It is here that the role of the teacher/lectureris significant. He, or she, is invested with the responsibility for passing onboth formal and informal tacit knowledge, and thus establishing continuityin the transmission of core or key processes in art education.

75JVAP 7 (1) pp. 75–84 © Intellect Ltd 2008

Keywordsform and formingcomplexityrelationshipsskillsensitivityperception

JVAP_7.1_07_art_Jamieson 6/26/08 8:19 PM Page 75

This then leads to the question of what constitutes core or key elements inthe visual arts. And here we leave aside such questions as creativity andaesthetics, which fall more in the province of value judgements. It takescareful appraisal and research to uncover the many fundamental cues that lieat the base of different art practices. When they are subjected to analyticalscrutiny, when questions are asked about the cognitive and ‘decision-making’aspect of the task in hand, a new and more informed picture emerges of thesensory/perceptual cues and cognitive demands of the learning process. Firstof all, we must recognize that perception itself, the sensory aspect of knowingand being aware, involves more than mere seeing. It involves judgements andrecognition of differences and similarities of which the learner may not beinitially or consciously aware. Moreover, although perception is alwaysengaged with presence, with things actually observed by the eye, it drawsupon past experiential knowledge, accessed through memory, when makingcurrent appraisals. It is always a twofold affair, a conjoining of past andpresent experience. Thus we can appreciate that, given the same event orobject to perceive, two people can educe different interpretations. Further-more, decisions of a more openly cognitive kind have to be taken regardingthe appropriateness of the tools and materials that are specific to a particulartask in art production. It is this ‘thinking’ or intellectual aspect of art practicethat is rarely touched upon in any significant way in the debate about the roleof art in the curriculum, or of the artist’s place in society.

Having stressed the cognitive component in relation to the practice ofart-making, we are led to consider other issues, such as complexity andinformation. It should be pointed out that throughout this article the term‘information’ is defined in the sense that it is employed in information andcommunication theory, and in contemporary research in neuro-psychology,where the term is used to refer to two aspects of mental processing, i.e.,conscious and unconscious.

Form and relationshipWhat also needs to be brought to the fore and considered in depth is theconnection between the terms form and relationship. All designs are theproduct of ‘form-making’, i.e., making specific combinations within a uni-tary whole. This is so whether the task is the creation of a painting or illus-trations for print. But of even deeper significance for our interest in thecognitive aspect of ‘form-making’ is to view the process essentially as a‘relationship seeking’ and ‘relationship creating’ activity, the practical out-come being the finished ‘form’. In taking this path, we focus more clearlyupon the active process of ‘art-making’, the arranging or creation of parts infurtherance of a total form, the finished artwork.

Form as construction is none other than a series of relationships, theinterplay of parts. Seen in this light, we can portray art-making, of whateverkind, as a forging of relationships. The artist or learner/apprentice isengaged in juxtaposing parts and thereby establishing relationshipsbetween them. This, we might say, is the active aspect of art creation, whichhas cognitive dimensions besides the manipulation of tools and materials,the physicality of ‘form-making’. Here we refer to the processes of themind, where plans are formulated and reformulated according to the exi-gencies of the task or work in hand.

76 Harry Jamieson


What has been said about ‘form’ in terms of the artist as ‘form-maker’,and in particular the stress placed on the inner mental contribution toform-making, can also be seen to have a counterpart in the demands madeupon the viewers of artwork. Although their role appears to be passive, incontrast to the artist’s which is active, it does, in fact, call for participation.The participation we have in mind here is the active perceptual involvementof searching or scanning which the observer engages in when faced with avisual presentation. The work, metaphorically speaking, offers itself, but theviewer is called upon to participate by carrying out the mental task of join-ing the parts that make up the whole; it is a task of unification. Seen in thislight, viewing or appreciating artwork is a constructive process, on the sur-face it appears to be passive, but below, as a process of mind, it is active. Inthose instances where the viewer as observer fails to make the connections/associations created by the artist, this can lead to what we might term astate of incomprehension. To comprehend always means to see or intuit aconnection with something, be it a word, an idea or a thing. In the case ofthe visual arts, this can be extended to include connections between, forexample, colours, shapes or lines, and indeed any symbolic images or rep-resentations that require decoding or call for exterior reference.

Always it is a personal matter. The form that the mind of the viewertakes in observing the work will depend not only upon the form offered bythe artist but, additionally, the influence exerted by forms already laid downin memory as a result of previous learning and experience. Here all kinds ofissues unfold; for example, the motivation to search for connections/relationships, the availability in memory of the significance of any symbolswhich may form part of the visual presentation, and familiarity with thestyle/form when the work on view is part of a greater oeuvre. A mind alreadyprepared, ‘in-formed’ in our terms, to see the significance of the relation-ships will naturally be ‘more in tune’ with the artist’s intention.

From an aesthetic standpoint, the relationship may, for example, be thatof colour, tone, line or shape, or alternatively of similarity or contrast. Thedesign, the artwork itself, only offers proximal spatial relationships. Thefusion of the parts takes place in the mind; it is here, metaphorically speak-ing, that ‘gaps are jumped’, that the mind itself imposes a higher orderthan the one given to the visual sense. A good example is that of opticalcolour blending. The artist, by putting things (colours, tones, lines or sym-bols) in juxtaposition, offers opportunity for viewers to respond in a varietyof ways; but he or she can never complete the task of making the mentalclosures that seal the unity of the work. The final act takes place in the mindof the viewer.

The place of skillIt could be argued that art as practice is, at its core, enveloped in the issueof relationships. They can both be perceived, given to the senses, i.e., byobservation, or conceived, in which case it is a purely mental event. Andhere we can introduce the notion of skill, of perceptual skill in particular, thesensing and awareness of relationships. Such skill relates to the ability todetect and to be aware of unfolding relationships, which might be by designor purely coincidental, a matter of serendipity. Here we need to interpret theterm skill not in the pejorative way that art purists often use the term, but in

77Forming art: making and responding


the way that it is used by theorists concerned with skills of a perceptualnature. For those concerned with visual arts where time and movementare integral parts of the process (e.g. video art and film), perceptual skilltheory is of particular significance. Here concepts such as seriality, cuesand anticipation can be seen to offer very useful ideas for those engaged inwork involving moving images.

Theorists in perceptual skills use the term to refer to competence indealing with sensory information. For our concern with the visual, this cen-tres upon the perception of, amongst other things, colour, tone and line,and their contribution to the unitary whole, the form. The perception ofform in its own right, without reference or concern for meaning, producesan aesthetic response. On the other hand, a work of art may include signsand/or symbols, which not only have to be perceived, but also decoded. Itis interesting to note that the aesthetic is only ever concerned with pres-ence, with the properties of the image there before the eye. Whereas, whensymbols are incorporated into the work, there is a requirement for attentionto shift away from the image’s material presence towards somethingabsent, towards the idea for which it is merely a ‘stand-in’. In such a casethere is presence of a kind, an unobservable presence, but one that can beraised to consciousness.

The point is that in either case, the perceptual or the conceptual, thereexists a need to search for relationships, which, in the case of aesthetics, iscentred upon the material form, while in the case of the symbolic, theviewer is called upon to search for relationships which are contained onlyin memory. The process of the search could be characterized in two ways:(a) ‘reading for form’ (aesthetic), and (b) ‘reading for significance’ (meaning).From the foregoing, we are now in a position to consider the informationalinput to the mind from a particular work of art as having its source in eitherits form, or its symbolic imagery, or as is often the case, in both.

The skill here lies in the artist’s ability to construct form, and to create orappropriate symbols which resonate with prospective viewers. Secondly, theviewer displays skill in his or her ability to be aware of the nuances of form,and also in the ability to decode the cues or clues provided by symbols.

Additionally, art, as practice, invariably calls upon competence in han-dling tools and materials, in this we include the whole range of supportivematerial and aids that are commonly found in art establishments andstudios. This leads to a consideration of the notion of mastership, a termwith a good pedigree when applied to classical artists, and one that, initself, implies competence or skill acquired through practice. Thus we maysay that art as practice, as a learned phenomenon, displays mastershipwhen its skill base is founded upon a high degree of competence. Whatthat competence is in any particular instance can only be fully determinedby careful appraisal of all the factors which lie at the core of a particular artproduction or procedure. And here we run into the problem of determiningthe quality, and indeed quantity, of the sensory inputs which contributemost to the unfolding of skill, to mastership of a task that may resistverbalization. In art circles, as previously mentioned, the term skill oftencarries negative connotations, and yet, when a careful analysis is made ofits place in artistic creation, it can be shown to be an integral part of thewhole process.

78 Harry Jamieson


Sense and sensitivity Another poorly understood concept in art education and practice is that ofsensitivity. It is invariably expressed as a personality factor, as, for example,when it is used as a term to describe persons as being ‘sensitive’, of beingdisposed to ‘feelings’, to the emotive side of human personality. But whenseen from the perspective of perceptual skill theory, that is, when it is seenas a means of gathering information, of sensing events in ongoing situa-tions, it takes on the more robust role of being an essential part of thewhole process. Seen in this light, it relates to a heightening of awareness,which is a product of experience or learning through practical involvement,the outcome of which leads to a gain in knowledge or awareness of the sig-nificant cues surrounding a particular skill. Art as practice by its very naturedemands a keen awareness of visual cues, of being sensitive to certain fea-tures that are essential to the task at hand. Thus when we, as educators orinstructors, shift our attention from the general to the specific, we arecalled upon to define, in detail, the nature and kind of cues and proceduresthat are essential to the learning of a particular practice task. To make man-ifest these issues it is important, and necessary, to make a careful analysisof the critical elements that combine in a particular practical situation. Thismay call upon a research commitment to uncover that which may not havebeen consciously appreciated beforehand. A particular problem in art edu-cation and instruction is that of verbalization, the inability to tell what onehas learnt and knows only tacitly. However, as all those involved in art edu-cation as practice are fully aware, demonstrations and practical engage-ment often provide an answer to this kind of problem.

To return to the sensitivity issue, and taking further the issue of skillwhich we can now appreciate is sustained by an awareness, conscious orsubconscious, of sensed events, it is apparent that the notion of sensitivityas a personality trait is too simplistic; as a vital element in the execution ofa perceptual skill, in which we include its role in art production, it can be ofspecial significance.

Referring back to the discussion on relationships, we can speak aboutbeing sensitized to relationships between, for example, colour and tone.Furthermore, the ability to discriminate in the visual arts, particularly at theaesthetic level, invariably requires a person to be sensitive, and here theword is used in an active way, that of sensing differences, contrasts, simi-larities, and repetition. In a more general sense it would appear to be moreprofitable to think about sensitivity as a heightening of awareness. Thiswould free the term from its emotive baggage and show it for what it is, i.e.an indispensable part of learning in the visual arts.

Beyond perceptionIn the foregoing description of the place of skill and sensitivity in art practice,the emphasis has been placed on perceptual involvement, and here we notethat tacit learning and consequent understanding plays a significant role.At this point, we shift attention to a consideration of intellectual issues of amore formal kind, namely to those of information, complexity and entropy.

Art as design, as the formulation of ideas and the presentation of themin some significant form, is a central issue in art practice and in art education.And while the issue of what is significant or insignificant is open to conjecture



and cultural interpretation, what is not at issue is that the design aspect ofart and the ‘reading’ of art can be complex. In dealing with the interactionscreated or observed between, for example, lines, colours, tones (aestheticfunction) and/or between objects, people or settings (representative func-tion), the artist or student artist is dealing with complexity. For the viewer,the task becomes one of perceiving order in complexity.

In an article in the art journal Leonardo, the authors Michael Mendes-France and Alain Henaut (1994) made some interesting observations aboutcomplexity in relation to, in their own words, artistic creation and percep-tion. They went on to propose that complexity could be bracketed with‘information’ and ‘entropy’, and that, essentially, they are three facets of thesame reality. In their concluding comments they went on to stress thenecessity of sensitivity and skill in the understanding of art, thus echoingsome of the central tenets in this article.

Here we enlarge upon the complexity, information and entropy factorsthat the aforementioned authors raised. They are factors rarely touchedupon in art theorizing and yet, as will be shown, they are quite fundamentalto a fuller understanding of art-making and art appreciation. Firstly we willfocus upon the concept of ‘information’, then go on to that of ‘complexity’,and then, to complete the trilogy, turn our attention to ‘entropy’. As a term,entropy will be familiar to those with a knowledge of physics, but less so tothose from other disciplines. However, to lighten the load, it will be explainedmore fully a little later.

About informationInformation, as the word proclaims, has its roots in ‘form’, as can be seenwhen it is taken apart to reveal ‘in-form’, or better still when it is shown inits active role as ‘in-forming’. We may well view art practice as a mode of‘in-forming’, of putting something into a form, the ultimate form being thefinished work itself. But what is of special significance is the shift from con-sidering information as a commodity (for example, letters, notes, etc.), itsquality as noun, to its quality as verb (informing) (Jamieson 2007). Thisshift of emphasis is of special importance to an understanding of the vital-ity of information, enabling us to view it as a process, not simply as a thing.In doing so, we can speak of the artist as ‘in-forming’ his, or her, workthrough the form-ation of ideas and the practical in-forming of materials.On the other hand, the viewer, as recipient, is called upon to ‘in-form’ his,or her, mind in a particular way on observing an art production. In bothinstances there is work to be done; the artist has the practical task of in-forming his or her work, and the viewer has the mental task of in-forminghis, or her, mind, which may be done consciously or subconsciously.

From the foregoing it becomes apparent that the usual interpretation of theterm ‘information’ as being a commodity, e.g. a word or letter, fails to takeaccount of its role as action, although it could be argued that it can be aprompt for action, i.e. set in motion a particular thought, a patterning of mind.

What has not been mentioned, and is of special significance to an arti-cle on the visual arts, is that information, whether it is discussed in termsof its normal usage as a commodity, or, as it has been portrayed here asverb, as action, has to have a source. The primary source of information inart is that given to the visual sense, which may be perceived directly without

80 Harry Jamieson


any form of mediation, for example, drawing from nature, or indirectlythrough mediated forms of communication, for example the whole range ofprinted and pictorial forms.

Here we shift to a discussion of some theoretical ideas relevant toour interest in information, in particular to the notion of ‘informationgain’. It is a term familiar to information and communication theorists(see the work of Cherry 1961 for a fuller description of information as atheoretical construct). Our interests centre upon the growth of informa-tion through selection and discrimination, particularly as it relates tovision. But we can go a step further and raise an even more fundamentalissue, that of difference. Selection and discrimination both involve anawareness of difference.

Without the awareness of difference, without the ability to distinguishone thing from another (in art terms this could be, for example, colour, toneor proportion), there is little information to be found, and thus little toengage or hold the attention of the beholder. Difference is not located intime or space (Geoffrey Bateson 1980), it has to be thought, difference is arelationship not a thing. However, through learning and experience an indi-vidual becomes aware of difference(s) not previously noted, and thereby, touse a colloquial phrase, ‘sees more in it’.

The idea of difference as an informational source places added empha-sis on the active role of the artist as creator of information, of a person whofirst of all perceives and/or creates designs from which difference can beextracted from the interplay of the parts that make up the whole. By placingthings in juxtaposition within a design we can say that the artist offerspotentials for the observance of difference, but the viewer has the task ofwhat we might call ‘closing the gaps’. The way that the gaps are closed willalways be an affair of the individual, thus producing the individualism thatart always allows.

While Geoffrey Bateson’s theorizing on difference as an informationalsource is significant to our understanding of the fundamentals of humancommunication, from an art perspective we could propose a refinement byincluding the concept of similarity. This could be placed at the lower end ofa difference continuum but, like difference in general, it is not given, it isintuited. The important point is that whether we speak about difference orsimilarity, they both require the existence of at least two entities. As states,constructed in mind, they do not inhere in that which is observed, they aremental constructs.

By juxtaposing elements within a design in certain relationships, theartist presents opportunities for the observer to intuit differences or simi-larities of a particular kind. The work itself, we might say, acts as a catalystfor organizing/in-forming the mind of the observer, but the amount ofinformation extracted by the recipient is singular to that person. What canbe said is that when neither difference nor similarity is perceived or intu-ited, there is, in information theory terms, no gain in information. And herewe might observe a connection with the oft used cliché, ‘It is all in the eyeof the beholder’. Here we have given it some deeper significance.

The comments above focus upon perception, the perception of differ-ence and/or similarity arising from an awareness of impressions given tovision, and their place as sources of information. But we cannot afford to



neglect the contribution that symbolism plays as a source of information inart. Here we shift our attention from dealing with the acquisition of infor-mation derived from direct perceptual observation to that of conception, anon-observable faculty. A particularly good example is the use of imagery inart, which, as icon, is intended to raise in the viewer a particular idea, e.g.religious imagery. In effect it stands as metaphor, and, as with all metaphors,the condition requires the existence of two things: the image/icon therebefore the eye, and the idea for which it is only a ‘stand-in’. But as with per-ception there is a gap to be filled, in this case it is between the materialimage/icon and the repository of ideas stored in memory. A relationshiphas to be established in the mind of the observer, and when no relationshipis found, or none that satisfies the intention behind the icon, its purpose asmetaphor becomes clouded or non-existent.

Thus again we come back to noticing the primacy of the concept of rela-tionships in our enquiry into information. In the case of perception thefocus is upon observed relationships, which are heightened by the develop-ment of visual acuity. In the case of conception, the relationships are unob-servable, being in the mind; the focus here is upon what we might termconceptual referability. In either case, perceptual and conceptual, relation-ships have to be found or established.

ComplexityComplexity is related to information, in fact as a statement it conjures upthe idea of something bearing a multiplicity of relationships that are noteasy to resolve. But this begs the question of individual differences: com-plexity to one person may be simplicity to another. Then again, from an artperspective, a person viewing a work of art may say, ‘I can see nothing in it’,implying that there is, to that person, no complexity to resolve in the firstplace. The resolution of complexity can be a source of satisfaction, similarin a way to the satisfaction that one experiences on having successfullynegotiated a route across unknown territory.

Art itself, as a productive activity, opens endless possibilities for thecreation of complexity and its resolution. The artist can create a formwith infinite relationships, which require the viewer to search carefullyfor the variety of interconnections that the work offers. But as stated ear-lier with reference to the concept of difference, there is always a demandon the observer to ‘close the gaps’, to make the connections that unifythe parts. This involves searching and noting (mentally). In classical artthe work of Hieronymus Bosch provides a good example of complexity,but it should be understood that non-figurative work can carry complex-ity of a different order.

Order/disorder/entropyThe concept of entropy, as Colin Cherry (1961) wrote, ‘… is one of consid-erable difficulty, and of deceptively apparent simplicity’. It has clearly laiddown rules for physicists. That being so, we shall aim to carry its messageand show its relevance to art in terms of everyday language.

In a descriptive sense, entropy is often referred to as a ‘measure of dis-order’, and it is in this sense that we shall employ the term here. It has beenintroduced because, as with information and complexity, it is concerned

82 Harry Jamieson

JVAP_7.1_07_art_Jamieson 6/26/08 8:19 PM 2

with relationships, but in a negative way, with disorder. Trends in modernart often seem to exemplify entropy, a lack of established order, but oninspection, order of a different kind may be found. It is this that we need toemphasize, and we need to be aware of the fact that artwork is initially cre-ated on the basis of at least some disorder, that, as a task, it calls uponthings to be ordered, i.e. to in-form (put into form) the un-formed. In dis-cussing entropy (disorder) in relation to artwork, the notion of chaos (definedin the OUP dictionary as ‘formless void’) springs to mind, suggesting dis-order, and yet, on inspection, it becomes evident that at least partial disor-der is a necessary foundation for all artwork.

This reasoning is based on the fact that such work proceeds on thebasis of having something, an idea or medium, to be put into some form ororder. The finished work is the end of an ordering/forming process. Theprocess can be described as a search for, or the creation of, relationships, inwhich order arises from disorder. The resulting order is given in space, usu-ally within a frame. It becomes a presentation with a particular order, whichthe viewer is called upon to comprehend, or in aesthetic terms, to find sat-isfaction in its form ‘in its own right’.

The corollary to this is that when the viewer is unable to observe order,when he or she fails to make the necessary connections that give unity tothe whole, there is an increase in entropy. The amount of entropy/disorderis determined, not by the work, but by the viewer’s ability to perceive order,although it must be understood that at any time the viewer can create his orher own kind of order from the viewing experience, and thereby reduce thenegative effects of entropy.

In drawing attention to information, complexity and entropy as conceptswhich have a bearing upon art, its processes and understanding, and return-ing to the assertion by Mendes-France and Henaut that ‘they are the samefacets of the same reality’, we are now in a position to answer the questionof what is the basis of this reality. From the foregoing descriptions of thethree factors, information, complexity and entropy, it becomes clear thatwhat is common to them is their fundamental base in the idea of relation-ships. Information, as a term concerned with form, is constructed on thebasis of relationships. Complexity is also concerned with form, and it isbound up with multiplicity of relationships. Entropy, as a concept concernedwith disorder, is centred upon relationships, although in a negative way.

In art practice these relationships may be compact, invoking multipleconnections that call for subtle or careful discrimination of, for example,colour, tone or shape. The artwork may be created to be knowingly dense,or complex, in which case the viewer as observer is called upon to searchfor connections/relationships in many directions. The more connections orrelationships that are found, the greater will be the information to that per-son. Throughout, information has been emphasized not as a commoditybut as a product of mind that involves a search for relationships, but it is inthe awareness of difference that information has its ultimate source.Relationships themselves always involve the idea of difference, a kind ofbetween ‘this and that’, the unity that we perceive is a result of the mental‘gap jumping’ that we spoke about earlier. In aesthetics the awareness ofdifference at subtle levels can be a source of satisfaction and indeed plea-sure, which we might call an enlightenment provided by the senses.



ConclusionWhat stands out clearly from the various strands that we have dealt with inpursuing the fundamentals of art practice and art appreciation is the pri-macy of relationships. Apart from the implications it holds for art theory,this could be seen to be of special interest to those in the field of education.In writing about intelligence, Rex Knight (1956) gave perhaps the most suc-cinct definition of intelligence, which he described as ‘the eduction of cor-relates’, which in plain English means none other than seeing or adducingrelationships. As the central finding of this article points to the primacy ofthe perception and conception of relationships in art, we may conclude thatat its core the practice of art is a manifestation of intelligence.

ReferencesBateson, G. (1980), Mind and Nature, London: Fontana.

Cherry, C. (1961), On Human Communication, New York: Wiley.

Jamieson, H. (2007), Visual Communication: More Than Meets the Eye, Bristol:Intellect Books.

Knight, R. (1956), Intelligence and Intelligence Testing, London: Methuen.

Mendes-France, M. and Henaut, A. (1994), ‘Art, Therefore Entropy’, Leonardo, 9:3,pp. 219–221.

Suggested citationJamieson, H. (2008), ‘Forming art: making and responding’, Journal of Visual Arts

Practice 7: 1, pp. 75–84, doi: 10.1386/jvap.7.1.75/1.

Contributor detailsThe author has been engaged in aspects of the visual throughout his professionalcareer. After a period in art education, teaching and carrying out research into per-ceptual aspects of learning, he moved to a full-time research post in the universitysector. He was a co-founder of the Department of Communication Studies at theUniversity of Liverpool, where he focused upon matters visual.

Contact: 45 Green Lane, Wallasey, Wirral, CH45 8JG.E-mail: [email protected]

84 Harry Jamieson


Forming art ; making and responding

Education

Transcript of Forming art ; making and responding