Williamson

© Beth Williamson 2008
will enable him to derive further conclusions. Artistic personality or
manipulative charm is coincidental to the result. 27
Ehrenzweig’s belief was that set exercises, when misused, stifled creativity and
led to a lifeless academicism of practice and that forced adherence to rote
design exercises tended to dull the creative sensibilities of the artist. I have
often discussed Ehrenzweig’s views on Basic Design with his student David
Barton. On one such occasion Barton suggested that, ‘for good teachers the
"Subjectivity" brought to the [basic design] exercises by pupils was the most
important ingredient - to be encouraged! But for most teachers and for
academic boards, who were simply looking for a recipe to work from - a solution
to all their problems, Basic Design was the most sterile and destructive force in
art teaching.’ 28 The dogmatism and sterility with which Basic Deign was
pursued by some educators precluded any opportunity for dynamism or
creativity, or so Ehrenzweig believed. He had nothing against Basic Design per
se. Indeed those such as Pasmore who taught using Basic Design exercises
greatly impressed him. According to Barton, however, the difficulty that
Ehrenzweig had with Basic Design was that it ‘provided ready-made exercises
which in the hands of run-of-the-mill “uneducated” teachers produced ready-
made easily assessed easily understood results…. [It was] useless for the
committed artist struggling to find a way into his or her own sense of being.’ 29
Ehrenzweig was unforgiving of this sort of approach to Basic Design when he
wrote derisively that:
re·bus Issue 2 Autumn 2008 10