What a job – trying to distil the arts into a few years of education between K-12, bearing in mind existing teacher training, limitations of school resources and changes in general perceptions in the field outside school. Of course, contexts change, priorities change, and we often see things coming round again: we’ve had ‘painting is dead’ and its revival; and there’s a contemporary ‘indie-craft’ version of the crafts, while so many who got involved 50 years ago and in the generations since, and up to the present, are thoroughly professional. Design has changed in scope and perception as well; from anonymous designers to design superstars, and to the notion of design as a conceptual process and ethic for all kinds of planning.
I was asked recently to look at this curriculum in relation to ‘design’, and noticed discrepancies to do with ‘the crafts’:
1) In ‘Defining the arts’, it is all very much to do with self-expression, which I do think is important for school, but there is no real acknowledgement that an ‘audience’ is also a ’marketplace’. Eventually someone might (but not necessarily want to, and this is acknowledged) want to also make a living from their work. This applies as much to the art market as to craftspeople or designers.
So in Defining the Arts: 8, they talk about ‘representing their reality’, ‘communicating’, ‘apprehending’ and ‘comprehending’, but not ‘using’, ‘applying’ or ‘being commissioned’, or ‘working to a brief’ – all these apply to all the arts. That makes it difficult to fit ‘design’ in, even though design is both a process and often a product (as is art, or craft). Hard to fit in some elements of the crafts as well, which cross art and design, in the way design also has crossovers. (I notice though, that in Visual Arts learning Years 11-12, they do talk about ‘users’.)
2) They have had to be very general in their descriptions, because once they get into detail, it becomes too difficult to cover every possible element. Thus in Defining the Arts: 9: Creativity, Design is included across all art forms. However, in the last sentence, they talk about being aware consciously or unconsciously about the aesthetic dimension of design, but they don’t talk about being engaged in the process of either conceptualising or making. While this leaves out this particular aspect for design, it also leaves out that aspect for the crafts – because the crafts aren’t necessarily always ‘art’.
3) In fact, I think it is what ‘the crafts’ represent, that is the loser here (and I am talking about a range of professions, or approaches to a way of working, not ‘craft’ as object, though the crafts are usually identified through certain media). The notion of knowing about materials, and developing skills, in contemporary expressions of traditions is implied in phrases such as in 2.3.5: Defining Visual Arts, ‘engagement with …material skills and technologies’; ‘a multi-modal’ visual world’; and ‘Visual Arts includes objects…[etc]’. But ‘the crafts’ as such, aren’t actually mentioned. (Yet I am always intrigued how often the term is used in the context of writing, making music, performing, painting, printmaking etc etc – as well as working in eg. clay, metal, glass and textiles.)
4) Thus, when it comes to talking about the ‘histories, theories and critical contexts informing the body of knowledge…’, it is OK for ‘art’ and even ‘design’, because they ARE mentioned, but there is no stepping stone for crafts/applied arts/ histories, which are considerable. We know that teachers generally teach what they were taught, and if there aren’t ‘clues’ or examples, they won’t follow them up.
5) So, to me it is noticeable that they have diligently put ‘and design’ after ‘art’ in each case, however it may be interpreted, but I think an argument could be made for actually saying ‘art, crafts and design’ in practically all the sections in Defining the Visual Arts, and in the Years K-12 sections. We can imply that the crafts are meant to be part of art – but we can’t be sure unless they are mentioned. In the same way, the crafts are also part of elements of ‘design’, but you can’t be sure unless they are mentioned.
6) It may be that there is a case to be made for including ‘Design’ as 2.3.6. (I see after all, that ‘Media Arts’ has its own category.) I would have thought design, in the context of visual arts and crafts, could also have its own section. It would need to be different from the separate Design & Technology curriculum, which may be quite functional in its intent.
However, if it were to be included in ‘the arts’, it would need to acknowledge the crossover between expression and imagination (art), experimenting through materials knowledge and skills (the crafts), and imaginative resolution of design challenges (usually to do with a brief of some kind). These areas also have some collaborative involvement with industry, and they also imply the ability to meet in the middle when working to a brief (as indeed ‘artists’ do when working on commissions).
7) The bibliography looks as if it could do with some additions. The titles seem to be to do with art education, rather than the context of some of these areas; both should be of use to teachers.
By the way, there was an Australia-wide survey and report ‘Education and the Arts’, in 1977, published as a volume for each state and one overall national report. The chair was Ken McKinnon, and it was commissioned jointly by the Australia Council and the Schools Commission. I’m looking at the national report now: I imagine they did go back to this report, do you think? The idea that the arts could underpin all education was groundbreaking at the time! Some observations are still interesting – but while they did talk about ‘visual arts and crafts’, ‘design’ didn’t feature at all!
