Professor Tom Davies is a painter and an academic. Raised in Liverpool, moved to Manchester in 1969 and studied at Manchester School of Art (1969–72. BA), Goldsmith’s College, London (1972–73. Post. Grad), London Institute (1989–90. MA. 1990-92. MPhil) and Liverpool University (1998-2002. PhD registration). Tom's paintings combine figurative elements with abstract surface qualities.
Reference for the work is frequently memories of places and events informed by photography and related narrative. Using a broad range of subjects, the connecting themes are notions of place and time. The surfaces of his paintings, especially those in more recent years, generally feature the expressive transformation of ‘form’ and ‘appearance’. Mounts and frames, when used, are seen as integral components and provide a structural boundary to the more fluid and spontaneous use of pigments (dyes, acrylic, varnish, wax and oil).
‘Toned down’ (1994) shows a typically fragmented record of environmental contours/mountain views, hinting at the significance of the constituent parts. The influence of the past is evident with an indirect acknowledgement of the work of the German expressionists such as Kathe Kollwitz (1867-1945), Ernst Kirchner (1880-1938). More evident is a particular interest in the later work of David Bomberg (1890-1957), whose surfaces have both the suggestion of immediacy and a thoughtful refinement. Tom’s, often, moody colour combinations and a loose technique suggest comparisons with 20c preoccupations but this is tempered by contemporary concerns with representation and the portrayal of the physical and imaginary world. His use and exploration of abstract themes can be seen in the paintings ‘Layered Glass’ and ‘Brushed with Bronze’ (both 1997–8) and an interest in pareidolia informs his research. Other works ‘Justice’, ‘Truth’, Fairness and Freedom (2011: Amnesty International) relate to social issues and these have mirrored some of the concerns in recent times. Samples here include ‘Muted Protest’ (2010: a small triptych expressing the frustration of alternative opinion), ‘Seeing Me Too’ (2012: a panel painting depicting the gaze of individuals sometimes seen as members of menacing or malevolent groups), and ‘The Burma Boys’ (2013: a large canvas reflecting glimpses of hopes and dreams and the fragility of both). The range of work is sampled on websites and archived in his studio in the Vendee sud, France.
Reference for the work is frequently memories of places and events informed by photography and related narrative. Using a broad range of subjects, the connecting themes are notions of place and time. The surfaces of his paintings, especially those in more recent years, generally feature the expressive transformation of ‘form’ and ‘appearance’. Mounts and frames, when used, are seen as integral components and provide a structural boundary to the more fluid and spontaneous use of pigments (dyes, acrylic, varnish, wax and oil).
‘Toned down’ (1994) shows a typically fragmented record of environmental contours/mountain views, hinting at the significance of the constituent parts. The influence of the past is evident with an indirect acknowledgement of the work of the German expressionists such as Kathe Kollwitz (1867-1945), Ernst Kirchner (1880-1938). More evident is a particular interest in the later work of David Bomberg (1890-1957), whose surfaces have both the suggestion of immediacy and a thoughtful refinement. Tom’s, often, moody colour combinations and a loose technique suggest comparisons with 20c preoccupations but this is tempered by contemporary concerns with representation and the portrayal of the physical and imaginary world. His use and exploration of abstract themes can be seen in the paintings ‘Layered Glass’ and ‘Brushed with Bronze’ (both 1997–8) and an interest in pareidolia informs his research. Other works ‘Justice’, ‘Truth’, Fairness and Freedom (2011: Amnesty International) relate to social issues and these have mirrored some of the concerns in recent times. Samples here include ‘Muted Protest’ (2010: a small triptych expressing the frustration of alternative opinion), ‘Seeing Me Too’ (2012: a panel painting depicting the gaze of individuals sometimes seen as members of menacing or malevolent groups), and ‘The Burma Boys’ (2013: a large canvas reflecting glimpses of hopes and dreams and the fragility of both). The range of work is sampled on websites and archived in his studio in the Vendee sud, France.
Alumni:
‘Goldsmith’s College was a progressive catalyst…’
Having taught the ‘subject’, ‘discipline’ or ‘area of experience’ for over 40 years, I have seen the benefits of a progressive, liberal and liberating attitude towards the contribution that the arts can make to pupils’ learning. Pitted against this there has been a significant growth in the perceived need for utilitarian accountability based on economic factures. Both have always been a dimension of educational policy and each has its own rationale backed by theoretical reasoning.
As a secondary school teacher and teacher trainer I know the demands of the job as ‘practice’ and that the comparative luxury of reflecting on the various theoretical perspectives is easy to resist. Indeed many teachers and trainee teachers, after qualifying, do not consider theory as an essential aspect of their role. Researchers, in contrast, frequently have little experience of ‘practice’ and tend to regard it as non-essential in reflecting on teaching and learning. With a foot in both camps, my career history has traversed the conflicts and compromises of specialist art and design education with fond memories of what appears to be the halcyon days of low levels of prescription, the elevated status of personalised learning and teaching as an extension of the creative arts process (individual/collaborative learning, individual choice, and experimental delivery).
I trained as a teacher on the postgraduate ‘Art Teachers Diploma’ (a forerunner of the Postgraduate Certificate in Education: PGCE) at Goldsmith’s College, London in 1972-73 after completing my degree at Manchester School of Art and Design (soon after to become Manchester Metropolitan University: MMU). Arriving there, I was reassured to find no rubric for practice (no requirement for utilitarian planning templates such as ‘schemes of work’, lesson planners etc) or indeed, any National Curriculum – all this was still to come. Instead we were encouraged to reflect on what we already knew as artists, supplementing this specialist knowledge with further research, and speculating as to how we could make a contribution in what were becoming very large London comprehensive schools. Lectures supported the challenge and many of the specialist gurus of that time made a contribution. Interestingly, however, many of these contributors to the theoretical underpinning had no specific comment for teaching art in secondary schools other than the fact that questioning assumptions was paramount. Some from my particular year included Bert Irvin (painter), Harry Thubron (artist/post-16 educator), Nell Dunn (playwright), Roger McGough (performance poet) and Richard Gregory (neuroscientist) who, in different ways, stressed the creative possibilities of knowledge. For those who remember this course in the early 1970’s they will recall the unprepossessing course base as ‘M@B Motors’, a location that gave the adventure a frisson of revolution. In my case the ‘training’ took place alongside my own development as an artist and this appeared to be valued by Goldsmith’s staff as ‘practising’ art seemed a prerequisite for teaching the subject. Buoyed up with extremely positive experiences I exhibited work at the Craftsman’s Art Exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in 2003 (1) and was interviewed by Eduardo Paolozzi at the Royal Collage of Art (RCA) for a place on the research programme in the ceramics department. Reassuringly, to become a teacher was not necessarily the confirmed destination as doing this postgraduate course was, for many, diagnostic rather than a professional affirmation. My personal artwork was unusual as it combined Fine Art intension with a traditional craft form (ceramics) and I enjoyed modest, but short lived, success having a small studio in Herne Hill, London, as part of a local sponsorship initiative. The application for the RCA was soon considered unsound as the two year commitment came at a cost and required funding that I did not have. More particularly my research focus on ‘ceramic furniture’ was whimsical in the extreme! I reasoned that teaching was both a personal challenge and a financial necessity.
Teaching brought its own rewards with untypically rapid promotion over three years and the exceptional good fortune of being identified by Her Majesties Inspectors (HMI) as one of 14 art departments in the country exhibiting what they thought were the characteristics of ‘good practice’. (2) In my case the commendable features of my department included ‘collaborative initiatives (such as vertical mixed age groups) and the relevance to ‘transferable employable skills’ (textiles/print/photography/ceramics).
Moving to the Midlands in 1988 to take up a post at the Birmingham School of Art I was given the opportunity to contribute to one of the largest PGCE programmes in the UK (72 students rising to 91 students in 1992). I accepted leadership of the programme from 1990 and embarked on a project to develop high expectations for art and design enquiry based on the ‘risk’ ventures endorsed by the Goldsmiths experience. Challenges were welcome and accolades associated with related research followed (Bursary Prize, National Guidance: PGCE Teacher Training, (3) Teacher Training Agency Critical Studies case files, Arts in Schools, HMI working groups (4), publications and International collaborations). The combination of this serendipitous contribution culminated in a Professorship and the role of Head of School of Art/Design Education but the tide in educational policy had already started to turn and the viability of a demonstrably successful PGCE programme, outside of a university ‘education department’, was not considered tenable in the view of Ofsted inspectors who had ‘marked our card’, so to speak, as unorthodox and unsupportable in their revised ‘framework for inspection’. Here the Ofsted policy was to grade the particular university for the general provision of teacher training rather than individual courses in different faculties/department (this being true in our case). Consequently, and without consultation, the course and the PGCE art/design staff were redeployed to the education department ending what had been a traceable training for specialist teachers that had its roots in this particular late 19th century School of Art. Personal health issues followed this demise but two years later, restored to my former self, I continued with the research originally a major part of my doctoral thesis and looked for opportunities to continue a contribution albeit outside of my former institution.
Presently, I am very active as a painter with a studio and small gallery space in France. In addition I am researching the demise of art education in UK schools and leading, on a very much part-time basis, a Fine Art module at another university.
1) Craftsman’s Art Exhibition and Publication. New work by British Craftsmen at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London 1973. Exhibits included ‘environmental object’ slip-cast clay and Perspex (1972) and ‘stoneware kitchen cabinet’ slip-cast clay, decorative slips and underglazes (1972).
2) Art in Secondary Education 11-16, Department for Education and Science, 1983, Publisher 1983. 14 Art Departments.
3) Supporting Assessment for the award of Qualified Teacher’s Status. National Exemplification Material for Specialist Teacher Training, Secondary Art and Design (publication and Video training materials). Publisher Teacher Training Agency, London 1998. www.teach-tta.gov.uk
Publication number 98/2-00
4) The Arts Inspected, Good Teaching in Art, Principal Author Peter Jones HMI, Office for Standards in Education, (Ofsted). Contribution of school case files – West Midlands and consultation. Heinemann 1998.
Having taught the ‘subject’, ‘discipline’ or ‘area of experience’ for over 40 years, I have seen the benefits of a progressive, liberal and liberating attitude towards the contribution that the arts can make to pupils’ learning. Pitted against this there has been a significant growth in the perceived need for utilitarian accountability based on economic factures. Both have always been a dimension of educational policy and each has its own rationale backed by theoretical reasoning.
As a secondary school teacher and teacher trainer I know the demands of the job as ‘practice’ and that the comparative luxury of reflecting on the various theoretical perspectives is easy to resist. Indeed many teachers and trainee teachers, after qualifying, do not consider theory as an essential aspect of their role. Researchers, in contrast, frequently have little experience of ‘practice’ and tend to regard it as non-essential in reflecting on teaching and learning. With a foot in both camps, my career history has traversed the conflicts and compromises of specialist art and design education with fond memories of what appears to be the halcyon days of low levels of prescription, the elevated status of personalised learning and teaching as an extension of the creative arts process (individual/collaborative learning, individual choice, and experimental delivery).
I trained as a teacher on the postgraduate ‘Art Teachers Diploma’ (a forerunner of the Postgraduate Certificate in Education: PGCE) at Goldsmith’s College, London in 1972-73 after completing my degree at Manchester School of Art and Design (soon after to become Manchester Metropolitan University: MMU). Arriving there, I was reassured to find no rubric for practice (no requirement for utilitarian planning templates such as ‘schemes of work’, lesson planners etc) or indeed, any National Curriculum – all this was still to come. Instead we were encouraged to reflect on what we already knew as artists, supplementing this specialist knowledge with further research, and speculating as to how we could make a contribution in what were becoming very large London comprehensive schools. Lectures supported the challenge and many of the specialist gurus of that time made a contribution. Interestingly, however, many of these contributors to the theoretical underpinning had no specific comment for teaching art in secondary schools other than the fact that questioning assumptions was paramount. Some from my particular year included Bert Irvin (painter), Harry Thubron (artist/post-16 educator), Nell Dunn (playwright), Roger McGough (performance poet) and Richard Gregory (neuroscientist) who, in different ways, stressed the creative possibilities of knowledge. For those who remember this course in the early 1970’s they will recall the unprepossessing course base as ‘M@B Motors’, a location that gave the adventure a frisson of revolution. In my case the ‘training’ took place alongside my own development as an artist and this appeared to be valued by Goldsmith’s staff as ‘practising’ art seemed a prerequisite for teaching the subject. Buoyed up with extremely positive experiences I exhibited work at the Craftsman’s Art Exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in 2003 (1) and was interviewed by Eduardo Paolozzi at the Royal Collage of Art (RCA) for a place on the research programme in the ceramics department. Reassuringly, to become a teacher was not necessarily the confirmed destination as doing this postgraduate course was, for many, diagnostic rather than a professional affirmation. My personal artwork was unusual as it combined Fine Art intension with a traditional craft form (ceramics) and I enjoyed modest, but short lived, success having a small studio in Herne Hill, London, as part of a local sponsorship initiative. The application for the RCA was soon considered unsound as the two year commitment came at a cost and required funding that I did not have. More particularly my research focus on ‘ceramic furniture’ was whimsical in the extreme! I reasoned that teaching was both a personal challenge and a financial necessity.
Teaching brought its own rewards with untypically rapid promotion over three years and the exceptional good fortune of being identified by Her Majesties Inspectors (HMI) as one of 14 art departments in the country exhibiting what they thought were the characteristics of ‘good practice’. (2) In my case the commendable features of my department included ‘collaborative initiatives (such as vertical mixed age groups) and the relevance to ‘transferable employable skills’ (textiles/print/photography/ceramics).
Moving to the Midlands in 1988 to take up a post at the Birmingham School of Art I was given the opportunity to contribute to one of the largest PGCE programmes in the UK (72 students rising to 91 students in 1992). I accepted leadership of the programme from 1990 and embarked on a project to develop high expectations for art and design enquiry based on the ‘risk’ ventures endorsed by the Goldsmiths experience. Challenges were welcome and accolades associated with related research followed (Bursary Prize, National Guidance: PGCE Teacher Training, (3) Teacher Training Agency Critical Studies case files, Arts in Schools, HMI working groups (4), publications and International collaborations). The combination of this serendipitous contribution culminated in a Professorship and the role of Head of School of Art/Design Education but the tide in educational policy had already started to turn and the viability of a demonstrably successful PGCE programme, outside of a university ‘education department’, was not considered tenable in the view of Ofsted inspectors who had ‘marked our card’, so to speak, as unorthodox and unsupportable in their revised ‘framework for inspection’. Here the Ofsted policy was to grade the particular university for the general provision of teacher training rather than individual courses in different faculties/department (this being true in our case). Consequently, and without consultation, the course and the PGCE art/design staff were redeployed to the education department ending what had been a traceable training for specialist teachers that had its roots in this particular late 19th century School of Art. Personal health issues followed this demise but two years later, restored to my former self, I continued with the research originally a major part of my doctoral thesis and looked for opportunities to continue a contribution albeit outside of my former institution.
Presently, I am very active as a painter with a studio and small gallery space in France. In addition I am researching the demise of art education in UK schools and leading, on a very much part-time basis, a Fine Art module at another university.
1) Craftsman’s Art Exhibition and Publication. New work by British Craftsmen at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London 1973. Exhibits included ‘environmental object’ slip-cast clay and Perspex (1972) and ‘stoneware kitchen cabinet’ slip-cast clay, decorative slips and underglazes (1972).
2) Art in Secondary Education 11-16, Department for Education and Science, 1983, Publisher 1983. 14 Art Departments.
3) Supporting Assessment for the award of Qualified Teacher’s Status. National Exemplification Material for Specialist Teacher Training, Secondary Art and Design (publication and Video training materials). Publisher Teacher Training Agency, London 1998. www.teach-tta.gov.uk
Publication number 98/2-00
4) The Arts Inspected, Good Teaching in Art, Principal Author Peter Jones HMI, Office for Standards in Education, (Ofsted). Contribution of school case files – West Midlands and consultation. Heinemann 1998.