Watch the podcast here: https://youtu.be/mcc3IhpDZiY
The recording was made on 11th December 2024. I wrote the personal reflection shortly after and gathered audience feedback in January and February 2025 through an online listening session, written and oral feedback delivered remotely.
Episode Summary
This episode tracks the development of the archetypal image of Santa Claus. We discuss the original Saint Nicholas, war propaganda featuring Santa Claus, Coca-Cola and the racist colonial history behind some Santa traditions.
After receiving feedback from episode 1, I decided to include much more image analysis – as evidenced by the Gillian Rose framework in my notes – and to allow my guest to draw their version of Santa as a starting point.
Below is a copy of my notes, including bibliography:
Personal Reflection
What went well?
- Tom was very knowledgable, this added a lot of depth to the discussion. I learnt things too!
- The conversation around social justice issues felt really positive. Tom made a cracking joke.
- Addressed feedback from part one: focused the topic, leant into the image analysis, added more images to look at.
What could be improved?
- I took a back seat as host – is that ok? Is that a lack of confidence from me?
What will I do next?
- Tom is editing this episode for me, I have to sit back and wait for a bit!
Audience Feedback: Online Listener Session
I invited peers from my course, students, and critical friends to listen to and watch the podcast on Google Hangout.
The listeners could then submit feedback through a number of avenues:
- Live in the Google Hangout through speech
- Live in the Google Hangout through the chat
- Anonymously through the Google Form
ARP Feedback Form
Hangout Feedback
It was amusing watching emojis pop up as the episode went on. People left comments when they enjoyed a section, I also answered a couple of questions.
All of the feedback has been anonymised.
This is the feedback given orally, it was transcribed at the time and edited for clarity:
“I liked the conversational vibe, it felt relaxed and easy to listen to even though I don’t know much about art history.”
“I would like more structure – I wanted to know what I should take away at the end of each image analysis, maybe it could be a recap? Or a summary.”
“I found it hard to follow the history and geography, you could use the video to add a time line or extra details.”
“I thought Tom was more of an expert than an audience insert – but I did enjoy him analysing the images, he knows his stuff! It sounded like you were surprised too.”
“Could you introduce the guest and yourself more clearly? So that we understand what base knowledge each host has. At the moment I’m like, why should I trust this man?”
“I needed some technical terms to be explained – this could be onscreen if missed in conversation.”
“I felt like if I kept listening to more episodes I would start learning more about analysing images.”
“It was really easy to take in the information. I could understand a lot of what you were saying, even though I had holes in my base knowledge.”
“Because it was a story, I could find myself again if I got lost.”
“I’m not an aural learner, I like visuals more. The things that stood out to me I already knew a little about – like Coca-Cola and Santa. I remember the images well.”
“The racist imagery stood out to me – not in a bad way! You were able to talk about it in a way that was still respectful but had humour. It felt cathartic. Like these images are so ridiculous. You took them apart and that took away a bit of their power.”
Form Feedback
“The podcast is informative and causal. The presentation and images that pair with the podcast made learning easier and more approachable. The subject itself is relatable – everyone knows something about Christmas but not its history. The conversational tune also helped in making the learning easier. I don’t feel spoon fed information. I also liked that the content is not too “art/design specific” which makes the learning more approachable.”
“I learnt about how story, history and representation of Santa was twisted through myths, caricature and beliefs.”
“Seemed like more image analysis and maybe a quicker pace too so it felt like it flowed really well and I felt v engaged the whole time. Maybe this was also because I already had a strong interest in the topic, so just generally was more captivated than the previous epi. Also a big thing for me was that Holly and Tom were coming from different angles and had different knowledge but it came together really well, gave me a really great understanding of the subject matter.”
“Really liked learning about the basic timeline of Father C’s evolution, and then how Tom and Holly were questioning how things changed together, to come up with more juicy ideas and thoughts to build on the hows and whys and link things together. I think it was really helpful how there was a structure but they still allowed themselves to steer slightly off when interesting questions or ideas got brought up. That really got my mind buzzing too, felt like it made the subject more exciting because they were both really excited and were learning new things / thinking of new ideas together.”
“Part of the podcast is about criticizing the racist history/artifacts which was very interesting. I would have loved to seen it with more drama/shock eg. Maybe zoom into the black faces of santa or show how horrific looking the children or demon are looking in the print?”
“There could be even more images, particularly when talking about a specific part of an image – would be great if Holly could crop or zoom or highlight on the screen. Did the images say where they from/found? I can’t remember now but that could actually be really helpful for future ref and looking back on the episode without the audio or Holly nearby. I wonder what would happen if there was like a summary at the end? I’m not sure, but I feel like when I was discussing it after I found some bits that were mentioned at the very start harder to remember.”
“Really liked the duo. And obviously liked the visual analysis and all the different arts – I am the target audience for sure.”
“I would have liked to see the zooming on the details of the images at the same time that they mention they are doing it.”
“I really thought it was a good level and mix of facts, and bouncing off each other, with jokes and other historical references.”
“For Tom, I think for a non-specialised audience having people who know iconography etc. is always a really good thing. Tom was kind of my audience insert, but not fully. They both taught things to the audience in different ways. Tom is the first recipient and person to learn from their info, then as the listener we kind of receive both informations together as complimentary. I would like more episodes!”
Additional Sent via Email
- I enjoyed the contrast of Tom’s background experience with illustration and drawing, it felt like a really good balance to Hol
- The general enthusiasm for art history combined with humour I really really enjoyed. Art History can be such an elitist field and there’s not a lot of similar approaches to the topic that I know of (I’ve actually looked for podcasts about Art History before and never found any I enjoyed). Loved this, it feels like it fills a gap in the market!
- The narrative of exploring visual depictions of father christmas to tell stories about changing culture really worked! I learned a lot, both about the history of Father Christmas as a figure but also about the wider changing context of art history through time, and stereotypes/prejudices through time.
- I learnt loads through the visual analysis! I knew pretty much nothing about the history of FC and also really enjoyed the info about wider contexts such as Christian history and Irish history
- Tom actually almost knew too much to be an audience insert! Even though it feels mean to say that it ‘took me out’ of the podcast that he knew so much, I do actually think the podcast might have flowed better if one person knew NOTHING about art history/illustration, and was purely there to respond or unpack the information from the ‘expert’. I’m thinking of examples like The Dollop, or You’re Wrong About where one host is an ‘expert’ and the other knows little about the field. The clearer definitions of those roles helps with immersion for me as an audience member as you don’t feel ‘left behind’
- My boyfriend has been listening with me and says “I don’t know if this is aimed at BA students, but Tom seems more PhD level”. We both loved the episode and my boyfriend says he’ll be going away to look up a lot of the things mentioned, but he did say that because Tom knew so much it might go above the head of a BA level student if they were not prepared to ‘follow up’ on some of the reference points.
From an anonymous critical peer on the BA course!
