Art theory – handmaiden of neoliberalism?

Abstract

The Art&Language Art Theory course proposal of 1969 was an incisive ideological exposé of the restructuring of art school education as university-level education, as a result of the Coldstream Report of 1960. I consider this course proposal together with a paper written by Terry Atkinson some 30 years later, addressed to the Fine Art Board at the University of Brighton reflecting on the reach of art theory in fine art education in 2002. Both Atkinson texts critique the institutional divide that structures fine art education into studio and academic work, which I consider historically, ideologically and from a feminist perspective. Finally, I consider the current dynamics of art theory in fine art education, describing a shift in emphasis and exchange value suggested by a recent article International Art English, on the rise – and the space – of the art-world press release by Alix Rule and David Levine, published in 2012.

Keywords:

• art education
• art theory
• French theory
• feminism
• Art&Language
• neoliberalism
• Terry Atkinson

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Naomi Salaman is an artist, curator and lecturer. Her works are about institutions and information systems; What She Wants (1994), Postcards on Photography (1998), Parenthesis (1998), Nothing is Hidden (2000), Changed Press Marks of the Private Case (2001), Parapraxis 1896 (2001), Hospital (2004), Looking Back at the Life Room (2008)(2010), Sylvia Pankhurst (2011) and GPO (2014).

Notes

1. My thanks to Dave Rushton, former student and subsequent member of Art&Language, who gave me a photocopy of the unpublished document Dip.AD Fine Art Policy Statement, by Terry Atkinson and Michael Baldwin (1969) from his personal archive.

2. I would like to thank Peter Seddon, for kindly giving me a copy of the Terry Atkinson unpublished paper (2002) and the National Association of Fine Art Education for asking me to present my thoughts on it at their conference in March 2014. The Design Archives at Brighton have begun work to make the unplublished papers, discussed in this article available in their archive.

3. Howard Singerman refers to Art Students Observed in his work (2001). Singerman's Art Subjects (1999) is an important text in considering the history of modern academic credibility of art study in the USA. Thanks to Tim Dunbar for bringing to my attention Lynda Morris's recent article Midville, in New Art West Midlands 2013

4. See for instance (Atkinson 1992). Here, there are recollections by Atkinson about that time, but he admits they are memories, and not crystal clear.

5. My thanks to Tim Huzar for organizing the symposium Brighton and Protest and asking myself, Sue Gollifer and some second year Critical Practice students, Lizzie How, Tilly Sleven, Phoebe Hill, Molly Maher, and Lois McKendrick to present a session about the Brighton School of Art student occupation 1968. See http://bit.ly/1h7ZFlj.

6. My practice based PhD Looking Back at the Life Room, a visual essay and researched text, considered the history of art education, investigating the divide between seminar room and studio within a longer historical narrative, revealing the seeming paradox that before the modernising of art education in this country in the 1960s, the place of art theory in art education had been taught and assessed in the drawing studio, in the life room.

7. Both Hito Steyerl and Martha Rozler write stinging counter articles to Rule and Levine, published in e-flux journal, while The Guardian wrote a jeering comedy piece about the nonsense of art writing.