Contemplating the Master and Apprentice Model
The instructional and consulting work I am doing here in Phnom Penh, more so than I originally realized, entails navigating the prominence of the Master and Apprentice model in this region, as well as the individual reactions and relationships of artist teachers and the organization, Sa Sa Art Projects, to that model. Through numerous sessions with Sa Sa, it is clear they are passionate about providing alternatives. In Co-founder Lyno Vuth’s own words, “We don’t kill any ideas. What we do is to support the students to sharpen those ideas and realize them in the most compelling ways possible. Here at Sa Sa Art Projects, we value diverse processes of art making. Some students were surprised when we told them you could do that too. We also want to break the master-student hierarchical relationship.”
Please understand, I am writing this with a respectful intention. I believe the academy and the master and apprentice model have an important place. Many artists have benefited from being a part of these systems. But I also believe, deeply, that there must be other options when we talk about arts education. That there is room, open minds allowing, for systems to merge and the hierarchical structures within the Master and Apprentice system to be challenged. As artists, let’s be honest, we built it - now do we break it? transform it? Let’s contemplate the Master and Apprentice model, because it is time to, and because when working in cultures and communities where this system still dominates educational thought and practice I believe we need to. I welcome input through my facebook page where a link to this blog will be posted. I understand that some may be looking to me for answers in these posts. I will provide possible answers when I am able, but I am much more interested in posing questions, and encouraging others to look to themselves for answers first.
I have been immersed for the past 5 years in the practice of Aesthetic Education with a focus on the teaching artist, and teaching artistry. I bring this up because in many ways I see Aesthetic Education in opposition to the idea of the Master Apprentice model, despite the fact that many teaching artists at some point learned or taught within it. Within Aesthetic Education (AE) as I understand and practice it, the student is not viewed as being beneath, or less than, or a beneficiary of. The student is a partner in learning and exploration, and the teacher is as willing to share information as they are to receive it; as willing to share what they know as they are to admit what they do not. The teacher in the master apprentice system is both revered and respected by default. The student in this model makes a choice to be in service to the teacher, to supplicate, and in many instances to literally bow to, or as we see still at the end of a western dance class, applaud the instructor. Within my understanding of AE, we ideally see the teacher in service to the student, a complete reversal, and we do not see respect toward the teacher as assumed- this is instead hard earned through differing methods and shared experience within the classroom, and it is mutual. I won’t detail all the differences in these systems here, but if we accept the hypothesis that these systems are in most ways antithetical, then where do we begin when looking to transform or merge them?
When training and consulting in the field of arts and community education we need be aware of the role the Master/Apprentice model plays in the cultures, communities, and personal experience of our participants. If the role is substantial, then this question of where to begin becomes of immediate concern, as is the case with my work here in Phnom Penh. This did not come to my attention first through a Khmer participant, but through an artist from Ghana who is participating in the trainings. Over shared dinner and discussion on the educational philosophy that he was working on as part of the training, it became clear to me there was a disconnect between us when talking about teaching. His views on lesson plans and teaching confused me, because he asked questions like, “Aren’t lesson plans supposed to be to show students how I work and create?”, or “Aren’t students part of my research?”, “Why would anyone else teach my process?”, and “Why would I teach anything but my process and my work? None of these questions where “wrong” by any means. But I struggled with what appeared to me to be his belief, affirmed over and over again, that teaching was all about him and not about the student. We were having great conversation, but this disconnect was troubling me deeply, and I finally expressed it to him respectfully and directly. “I am having trouble with what I believe to be the way you are understanding education. When I hear you speak about teaching, it seems to be all about the teacher, but for me, teaching is not just about us, it is about the student.” He paused for a moment and smiled - he appeared confused. What I was saying, from what I could tell, seemed crazy to him, because for him, teaching Is about the teacher first. This launched us into a rewarding and deep conversation where I came to understand that his training and education was entirely within the Master/Apprentice system, The art school he attended in Ghana operated entirely within this system, and the understanding was that a student was to learn through service to the master teacher. The student learned through assisting with the teacher’s work, learning the teacher’s process, and aiding in their research. The student that is immersed in this system, and knows no other, of course aspires to, or understands, teaching as the opportunity to become the master oneself, to receive your own students who are beneficiaries of your expertise, and who in turn aid you in your work and endeavors. When thinking about this student of the master/apprentice model, it should not be unreasonable or surprising to us that the notion of someone else teaching what you do would be unthinkable. Or that the concept that teaching is not about you would seem strange and nonsensical. As we talked more (for hours) the question he asked several time was “but is this wrong?” And I kept replying, “No, I am not saying it is wrong, I am merely understanding you and your ideas and thoughts better now. Now I can better share with you the ideas I am here to teach. He seemed relieved somewhat at hearing that I was not condemning this whole system of learning. We talked about the reverence in that system, the hierarchy. He had been in Thailand prior, and we talked about how in both places you see students bow to masters. He acknowledged while he did not physically bow to his teacher, this idea of bowing, while not literal, existed just the same.
Through this interaction with this participant, and the conversations following with the organization, I am understanding more the role this system plays here and adjusting my instruction in response. I am in the middle of it. I am mid- process. So where does this leave me? Here are some thoughts:
I believe respectfully working toward learning and understanding the background and experience of your students, where they come from and how they have been taught prior, is the responsibility of the teacher
I believe there is a place for the Master / Apprentice system and it is an important one. Many artists have benefitted from the transfer of knowledge and artistry that can occur in this model, and have gladly and honestly offered the respect and service that these relationships demand.
I feel I need to address that there is an inherent risk in the hierarchy of this system for abuse of power. Sadly we have seen this over and over again, in America and elsewhere, with master teachers, gurus, directors etc. In the master / apprentice model there is much room for kindness, equality, generosity and beautifully mutual student teacher relationships. While the student in this model is in service to the teacher, this does not necessarily exclude the teacher also being in service to the student. But it is completely at the discretion of the teacher, and in this lies the inherent risk. The model itself upholds a hierarchy of blind respect and supplication that make questioning or challenging a masters behaviors or actions highly unlikely, uncomfortable, and unwelcome. So I believe where we can begin in rethinking a system like this, is in challenging this power structure, and helping people understand that while students may be in service to the master, the master should be in service to the students. As I write this I do see the contradiction. I am aware of the looming question How can we introduce equality into a system that seems defined by being unequal and by placing one upon a pedestal? Still I think this is an interesting starting point, and leaves us with the question: Once this change is made, what is left? What transforms and what simply breaks?
To the “master” in the master apprentice system, how can we effectively share the importance of knowing why and how you teach?
While I have presented these systems of education as opposite; I believe the transfer of the teachers way of thinking- their practice- their world view, their artistry- does not go away regardless of educational models or pedagogy. It is present in both models whether implicit or explicit. So, what then is it that changes from a Master / Apprentice relationship, to the leveled and democratized relationship that I see and strive for within arts education and aesthetic education? Does the difference boil down to mere teacher intention? How can we show that the best in this idea of transference can remain in any system?