Navigation

As many of the institutions that support artist/educators face collapse, de-funding and/or authoritarian persecution, this panel considers the instrumentalization of the arts along with the threatened dematerialization of art institutions. Schools often encourage artists, musicians, and designers alike to fall into line with the institution’s research goals and methodologies. As a result, creative practitioners are burdened with defending their practices through esoteric debates that compare/contrast, for example, practice-led vs. practice-based research, or calculating the ways art can serve other disciplines. Often lacking is constructive argument for the intrinsic value of creative work, which in and of itself generates its own content for critical examination. Support for art in the academy has increasingly been based on assertions such as “the arts [should] contribute to the gross domestic product and are good for business.” This is shaky ground--such arguments do not articulate the fundamental humanity of art, nor the dangers of pitching to monied interests, something former president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Don Michael Randel warned “make[s]­ us seem cultured as we concentrate on material goals.” Current institutional structures are not the only option; the education of artists has taken different forms over time, from family workshops to guild apprenticeships to degree-granting programs. What forms would provide the most advantages to artist/educators and young artists in the midst of rapidly changing social and environmental conditions? This panel explores this question in concert with a range of historical, radical, and emergent propositions for art education.