As an art educator working in a relatively independent context I was unsettled to perceive in JJ Charlesworth's article, Opting Out (AM317), a sequence of prejudices around the potential of progressive art education; or art in education. I share his discomfort in the prospect of an end to radical learning in some formerly stellar educational institutions.
But Charlesworth's comments pull back to a model of the artist as an individual formed through association with quality staff within the academy. This is in opposition to the noble artist who forfeits autonomy and independence in favour of context sensitivity and open discourse. For me autonomy and independence ring as privilege and genius. His Art Schools, outside the system, sound like the internships that prevail as access points to most work in the creative fields. These guarantee the exclusivity and elitism of art: or, as Charlesworth puts it, makes success in these careers elusive.
The moment when we can catch a glimpse of art in educational systems is at points of transgression or perversion - I guess that is why art is so good and quite hard to learn. How can Charlesworth's model possibly promote risk taking? I don't like the hierarchical, value-based framework, built on quality staff, that I associate with precisely the bureaucratic codes of management he critiques.
Some who attempt to forge an independent path in art education engage with learners through relational, issue-based, and discursive possibilities in a democratic framework, not by being Sir Joshua Reynolds.
Andrew J Stooke Art Director, Sherborne School, from the letters page, Art Monthly, July/August 2008.Go back to the debate about art education
