[curatorial.net] FW: [E-Bulletin] Public debate: The Future of Art Education

[Paula Orrell]

------ Forwarded Message
From: <e-bulletin at list.artmonthly.co.uk>
Reply-To: <e-bulletin at list.artmonthly.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:07:06 +0100
To: e-bulletin <e-bulletin at list.artmonthly.co.uk>
Subject: [E-Bulletin] Public debate: The Future of Art Education



Public Debate: The Future of Art Education
Ikon Gallery, Birmingham
Monday 6 October 2008, 6.30pm

A debate about the future of art education is raging on the pages of Art
Monthly. In October readers will have the opportunity to come along and put
their questions to our panel of educational professionals and policy makers.
The panel will debate the future of art education ­ is further
privatisation, corporatisation and instrumentalism inevitable or are there
alternatives? 

Read all the articles from this debate at www.artmonthly.co.uk

1968 and all that
Will the 40th anniversary of the 1968 protests inspire today's students to
demand radical improvements in art education?
Students at the London College of Communication have had enough and have
officially registered their dissatisfaction by demanding the return of their
fees in protest at staff shortages and the lack of organisation. Staff, for
their part, are over-burdened by bureaucracy, rising student numbers, low
pay and low self-esteem. Vice chancellors, meanwhile, are focused on
corporate-style branding and the commissioning of gleaming new buildings.
The legacies of St Martins School of Art in the 60s, or Goldsmiths in the
80s, should serve as reminders that it is not buildings that make for a
dynamic teaching environment but people.
Extract from editorial April 2008

Mayday Mayday
The sad truth about art education today is that New Labour has finished what
Thatcher started
Ironically, Thatcher's plans for factory-style education were only to be
truly achieved under New Labour. It was the setting up of the dreaded
inquisition, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), by the first New Labour
government in 1998, barely one year after the election, which made the
institutionalisation of what Stephen Lee in his letter aptly describes as
'educational Taylorism' possible. The QAA, and its spawn, the Teaching
Quality Assurance (TQA), became the means by which the product, broken down
into bite-sized pieces as a result of the imposition of American-style
modularisation, could be tested. Since the government had already begun to
refer to the arts as the 'creative industries', a term first coined when
Labour was still in opposition, this must have seemed like a perfect fit
between the so-called 'aims' and 'outcomes' of an art education.
Extract from editorial May 2008

Can't Get No Satisfaction
Anyone considering studying fine art (at undergraduate level) in England and
Wales should google the National Student Satisfaction Survey, particularly
the Results By Institution. Six of the bottom ten are or were art schools.
Bottom of the survey, that is to say the 'least satisfactory', is the
University of the Arts London. This will come as no surprise to anyone who
has studied or taught there recently.
Extract from letter by Graham Crowley published in April 2008

Educational Taylorism
I can appreciate the current state of educational Taylorism and the
overbearing, corporate-style management that Graham Crowley describes. The
corporate model is a powerful one. It tends to be one-dimensional and
seamless, where accountability and success can be clearly measured. To
understand the impact of the corporatisation of art schools it's important,
I think, to examine the language or jargon used to organise and disseminate
learning, then look at the extent to which fine art students adopt this
language. Fine art graduates talk of promotion and marketing, or finding a
niche market for their work. If a critic writes about a graduate student's
work, the artist may not necessarily see this as participation in an
independent critical arena. On the contrary it's likely they may see it as
an opportunity to gain an additional promotional tool with which to market
their work. My point is that the corporate model is pervasive in our wider
culture industry
Extract from letter by Stephen Lee published in May 2008

Creative Industries
Estelle Morris posed three questions for debate. 'Will the structure in the
paper - with all its committees - actually damage creativity? Will the
accountability mechanisms jeopardise risk-taking? And, will mainstreaming
discourage some people from wanting to work in the creative sector in the
first place?' 
Extract from report on the government's new strategy document Creative
Britain: New Talents for a New Economy published July-August 2008

Debate panel will include representatives from Colleges, Unions and
Government Departments.

This event is free but booking recommended
To book call 0121 248 0708

> 
> 


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.curatorial.net/pipermail/curatorial/attachments/20080725/9101a612/attachment-0001.html