As a result of the government's post-Thatcher policy of commercialising all public services, and its reliance on market forces to decide outcomes, individual teaching in higher education has in many art schools been replaced by half-baked mass production. Even the interview prior to enrolment has been abandoned by some colleges. At present, when democracy is in decline, and individuals' and communities' views are regularly overridden in favour of the interests of big business, small and medium-sized local art schools continue to be closed down or are swallowed up by larger universities in the interests of so-called economies of scale. Large universities as a result have numerous levels of highly paid chiefs and, especially when funds begin to run out, a diminishing number of overworked and stressed Indians.
Following the government's example, these large universities are run by micromanaged methods. This results in many hours wasted in form filling and box ticking, at the expense of teaching hours and job satisfaction. University status for art schools might raise standards and be a source of pride, but the evidence suggests that it is more about snobbery, and creates a demand for bogus research in order to attract additional funding. Because they have become enterprises rather than institutions, universities seek out chairmen, directors and rectors from the media, politics and big business because they are household names. Their boards of governors are increasingly made up of accountants, lawyers and directors of multi-national companies at the expense of artists.
At least until the 60s, the figurehead principals of art colleges were eminent artists or designers. They varied considerably in their willingness to involve themselves in the day-to-day running of their establishments, but their contribution was usually appropriate and they were often very popular with their staff. Now, however, when vacancies for these posts occur the successful applicants will be expected to raise much of the finance for their universities, as well as running them. This would seem to limit the choice to individuals with friends in big business.
Due to their lower status, further education courses are poorly funded, and foundation courses are incapable of preparing sufficient numbers of suitable students to satisfy degree courses. Some degree courses are therefore obliged to include some foundation content.
Narrowing and concentrating the content of courses into what amounts to training rather than education allows parsimonious government to systematically reduce the duration of courses. More students can be crammed in and costs are reduced. In time, degree courses will be done in one year, and their status further devalued.
The managers of our universities will no doubt have observed the growth of private colleges. Your correspondent Maurice Carlin (AM319) put the case for this alternative approach well in his account of the setting up of the Islington Mill Academy in Salford. This option - setting up a small independent course - is a trend in the UK, but several of my friends are now running courses overseas in the Raffles group of colleges. They are seriously run on business lines, but comparisons between teaching conditions here and in these new ventures have proved unfavourable to the British evolutionary approach.
Colin Maughan, Crawley, from the letters page, Art Monthly, October 2008.Go back to the debate about art education
