Introduction

In Teaching to Transgress, bell hooks (1994) discusses education as a practice of freedom, characterised by caring for each other, which creates intimate encounters based on authenticity and commitment. ‘As a classroom of community, our capacity to generate excitement is deeply affected by our interest in one another, in hearing one another’s voices, in recognizing one another’s presence’ (hooks 1994, 8). Such commitment to a collective effort with/in a communal place relies upon dialogic making, acting, communicating and being, creating and constructing. hooks’ engaged pedagogy builds on Paolo Freire’s (1973) notion of praxis, combining reflection and action to transform structures. Embodied knowledge emerges through restless, hopeful and critical enquiry with other people about their engagement with the world, as proposed by Freire (1973). Praxis, rather than the traditional pedagogic model of receiving and depositing knowledge inherent in authoritarian forms of education, is an inventive way of life encouraging reflection and thoughtful action allowing for ‘knowing’ the world and changing it. The liberation and freedom of the oppressed transpire through dialogue leading to intervention and political change, what Freire (1973) calls ‘process praxis’. hooks’ call for democratic society in which each individual has a right to education permitting them to achieve their maximum growth as a person, is shared by many, among them Maxine Greene (1995), who echoes hooks and argues for education providing each person with access of discourse to personal meaning. hooks’ freedom of learning is not an entitlement but it is our duty to support any measures that should be taken to remove obstacles preventing individuals from achieving it.

The title of this themed issue is ambitious, inviting the readers to engage in an open dialogue on transformative education within Fine Art education. For hooks, Freire and Greene, and many others, education is the key instrument for the transformation of society. However, to be truly transformative, it needs to rethink and revise the confines of pedagogy and consider its frayed edges. The etymology of the word ‘transformation’ suggests a change of form, going or moving beyond and across. The transformative potential of pedagogies is central to feminist discourse, and contributors to this themed issue consider an engaged pedagogy and progressive holistic education which offers a space for change and invention catalysing a liberatory politics for all involved; educators, students and institutions. Such politics of transformation within (a)cross-cultural and transnational communities, is not only needed but necessary everywhere and elsewhere, within and beyond centres, institutional settings and social and symbolic orders.

This themed issue seeks to explore the challenge of inclusive education, crossing territories of cultural production that are ever expanding in their reach and in their terms of reference. Rather than argue for the preservation of what is or the recovery of what was, contributors explore a range of views and perspectives that might influence and improve the democratic freedoms and inclusive rights of access to the means of cultural production for all in our society, or at least those who seek to engage with Fine Art as a discrete area of cultural contribution and experience. We are aware that the issues discussed are predominantly considering the Anglo-Saxon context but we hope the shared dialogue initiated here will continue with/in and beyond the PARADOX Fine Art Education Forum,¹ the members of its network and participants of its events.

The contributions in this themed issue have been developed from conference proceedings delivered at the PARADOX conference in London in September 2017 and in Riga in September 2019. The London conference initiating the focus for this themed issue was given the title ‘For, About, Nearby: The Value of Diversity and Difference in Fine Art Practice, Research and Education’. In truth, this theme, or something similar, could be given to all PARADOX conferences. Vicky Gunn’s keynote at the conference, a theme developed in her published paper in this themed issue, pointed to ‘the sting in the tail of postmodern identity politics, prejudice shored up with structural advantage (is) alive and kicking’. The questions of ‘For, About, Nearby’ are fundamental and remain urgent; they certainly cannot be taken for granted now that cultural producers, institutions and educators have become familiar with a language and set of strategies that can quantifiably measure progress towards something ideal, specifically if it is yet to be determined if there is an ideal. What is particularly complicating is not complexity in itself but rather a reality that is confronting arts education communities; now, as before, there is a genuine responsibility to devolve cultural freedoms beyond the reach of political institutions. We, as a whole community, have to aspire to the transformative potential of arts-based learning but not on the basis of an inclusive offer, more on the basis of practices and normative behaviour that are not exclusive. What brings the papers in the themed issue together is the tactic of the nearby, rather than on behalf of. The goal of the 2017 conference was, rather than argue for the preservation of what is, or the recovery of what was, to explore a range of views and perspectives that might influence and improve our democratic actions; rights of access to the means of cultural production, for all in our society, or at least those who seek to engage with Fine Art as a discrete area of cultural contribution and experience.

Art is political. This can’t be a surprise; in truth, everything is political, even without self-conscious intent. Contemporarily, we are asking art education to be, amongst other things, the politics of agrarian and egalitarian, though reformist by nature, eutopic decentralisation; an enactment of democracy with expanding parameters. ‘To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing’ (Williams 1989, 118). And, at the core of every supposed democracy is the innate privilege of the human condition, that of cultural production. A part of the human condition is that we tend towards an impulse for action; possibly reflexively, mostly responsively, frequently thoughtfully, often meaningfully, commonly through our own initiative, hopefully effectively and sometimes purposefully. Mostly, as people, we want to contribute to society; from each to all, however modest the gesture. It is reasonable to believe that these are some of the instincts that motivate individuals to engage with the arts as producers or critical thinkers. However, the rights of access are not so straightforward and too easily materialise as a granting of permission or tolerance, as demonstrated by Gunn’s reference to prejudice shored up with structural advantage. The papers assembled in this issue approach aspects of change and changing perspectives from a range of vantage points. With the understanding that this is a very brief snapshot it is, nonetheless, a clear indication of the initiative and motivation of academics and practitioners across the sector and a directive for sharing dialogues around the expanding notions of Fine Art practice as core and multitudinous rather than contextual.

Reference to an expanding field for the arts, and for Fine Art practice in particular, is, primarily, an improving acknowledgement of the many and wide-ranging means by which people can reinforce culture and cultural exchange in the interest of their own social engagement and, thereby, become active. This is, by now, our only real and effective recourse to democracy, therefore we, as a practice community, are right to develop anxieties around its guarantee. Art is a democratic process. It is one means by which an individual or collective can find and adopt control over their cultural voice and expression. We can have potency, as individuals, because we can correspond and form identity with others. We have power because we can interact with our environment and context through embodied, spiritual, emotional and intellectual means without the necessary diminution of other voices. The word ‘art’ references multiple processes and possibilities for cultural exchange, or democratic practices. What is less clear is whether the institutions and policy environment for art and art education are sufficiently responsive to yield to change and to an expanding community as well as an expanding field. This is urgent to the point of emergency and that is evident in the range of concerns and genuine attempts at forcing both change and consideration reported on through member-led networks such as PARADOX.

PARADOX is a European Forum for Fine Art Education. It originally emerged from the European League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA) network but has settled into a fairly informal network as an alternative response to an accelerating formalisation and professionalisation of debate around Fine Art pedagogies in a number of contexts. PARADOX maintains a loose and, safe to say, friendly structure. Those driving the activity do so as a consequence of genuine commitment. There are two notable relevancies in the currently proposed conference ‘Urgencies and Emergencies’ planned for Turku, Finland for September 2020. The first is that the themes have not shifted hugely; thanks to contributions fielded at conferences in London in 2017 and in Riga in 2019, some seen in this themed issue, it is clear that the one thing that required additional clarity is the urgency of debate and action. The second is that the active members of the network are, through their own efforts, moving to an annual rather than biannual cycle. The aim is to generate a regular forum at which the community can cooperatively identify and discuss current concerns and challenges that will bear influence on the present and future conditioning of Fine Art education at all levels. In and of itself, a refreshing approach to managing up change rather than responding to the attentions of policy or the hierarchies of institutions. There are many complexities to ‘navigating the Institution’, as discussed by Knezevic and Walsh in their contribution to this themed issue, therefore it follows that self-actuation is the key platform for future discovery, and the assertion of complexity itself. It matters very much that we are diverse of opinion, experience and priority, because we should not assume that there are answers. Solutions are, in essence, our enemy. Our challenge is to remain open, to ignore borders, to oppose dogma, to resist division, and to grow as a community. The range of papers in this themed issue points to the range of concerns that become manifest in the face of a history of exclusion when those occupying the contemporary are left to make redress or disrupt normal for the sake of a new every normal.

Vicky Gunn contributes with a ‘manifesto of the liminal’ based on the underlying principle of an attentive outrage in Fine Art higher education, respectful of intersectionality and mindful of a limiting variety of cultural hegemonies shaping representations of presence or their lack of. She calls for a shared responsibility in articulating equalities-based injustice; understanding and recognising the role of visual practices in constituting intersectionality; comprehending and interrogating ‘the power of white, ablest, matter’ in and through the curriculum; inquiring the resonances between visual disruptions and cultural essentialism and appropriation; and fostering student-centred radical wilfulness. The manifesto demands our action against forms of Othering intensifying the affects of difference and proposes attentive outrage to underpin curricular activity in Fine Art programmes.

A similar commitment to a pedagogy focused on the possibility of freedom of action is echoed by Anik Fournier, who discusses a Bachelor of Fine Arts programme Base for Experiment, Art and Research (BEAR) housed at the University of the Arts in Arnhem, The Netherlands. It is a unique tutorial system that enables the students to work in small tutorial groups under the guidance of established artists. It fosters a horizontal structure, strengthening the relations between theory and practice, and it is committed to the Socratic Design method emphasising active listening which invites collective participation and welcomes different positions, traditions and embodied knowledge to emerge. The dialogic process, based on a plurality of embodied voices, creates conditions for sharing and production of knowledge that is collective and relational. Fournier argues that these dialogues, in which listening is not placed in an inferior position to speaking, encourage engaged, civic subjects to develop democratic relationship with the other and, through fostering respect and mutual trust, recognise difference and actively contribute to the world.

The dialogic approach and intersubjective exchange within Fine Art education is further explored by Marsha Bradfield, who discusses the Critical Practice Research Cluster, part of the cultural ecology of the Chelsea College of Arts at the University of the Arts London, and its self-organised learning culture. Critical Practice welcomes members from all levels of education, also those who are not enrolled or work at the Chelsea College of Arts. Its aim is to develop a shared ethic towards public goods through openness, being open and functioning as an open organisation. Understanding publicness in practice is fostered by the collective questioning of discursive art practice through two types of instituting; para/pata: institutionalism. The meaning of ‘para’, as ‘beside’, ‘nearby’ or ‘proximate’, is stimulated by the openness of the initiative and the dialogic tensions driven by self-organisation and -regulation, peer-to-peer exchange and autonomous experimenting exploring formats of practice, and instituting collaborative reflexivity.

Carl Rowe interrogates self-identified collectives and investigates the agency of sociability, dissecting the notion of the degree show in art schools in the UK and questioning its relevance. Rowe specifically explores situational learning embedded within group activities leading to the degree show at Norwich University of the Arts. Such learning, happening outside of the physicality of the institution, enables the replacing of a familiar and predictable environment with uncertain and new situations that automatically invite or provoke thinking and creative behaviour. This learning considers elements of the curriculum while providing a less hierarchical environment fostering situations that are porous and flexible and as such welcoming of a dialogical relationship between artists and students. Within this participatory model based on collaboration and a sharing of energy, the student becomes a type of apprentice who learns through their proximity to artistic practice. The working together combines the do it yourself model with the do it with others proposition, and the very act of collaboration constitutes a creative outcome.

The relevance of the modernist frame of reference for the degree show is also addressed by Katrine Hjelde in her discussion on the topic positioned as exhibitionesque on one hand and as a form of expanded practice on the other. Hjelde’s analysis focused on the University of the Arts, London, through the concept of ‘institutional isomorphism’, articulates the multiple institutions and apparatus involved in the event and the public positioning of art schools disregarding the fairly recent changes in the curatorial field. Hjelde questions art education beyond the art school, similarly to Rowe raising the issue of participation in communities of practice, and the critical and pedagogic potential of exhibition(s). She proposes that the concept of the ‘curatorial’ has potential beyond the field of curation and curatorial studies, and can help expand the art school as a critically reflexive institution that is engaged with society.

Finally, Barbara Knezevic and Amy Walsh explore the potentialities of ‘femagogy’, an intersectional feminist method they use in their teaching at the Technological University Dublin in Ireland. Its underlying principle relies on the collaborative ethos, discussed by all contributors to this themed issue. Knezevic and Walsh’s approach prioritises ‘making with’ instead of ‘telling to’ and creating space in which multiple narratives and knowledges can emerge, be explored and co-created. Such reimagining of knowledge production in the academic systems of contemporary art schools is not only needed but necessary. The authors address the embodied affective qualities residing in language and its potential to disrupt and encourage an active dismantling of hierarchical structures within education. This allows for a range of positionalities, sensibilities and experiences that enable open and plural approaches to art education. Knezevic and Walsh connect those strategies with feminist new materialism, which they encourage to inform contemporary ‘makingthinking’ and co-making that is spread across disciplines and breaks down binaries.

Looking through the contributions of Gunn, Fournier and Bradfield, it is confirmed that value is created by disruption, and encounter, and rehearsal, and curiosity; all distinctive habits commonly associated with art makers, thinkers and practitioners. The importance of these characteristics might be summarised as divergence and an opening up of ideas and the creative critical: or latent agency. In practice, recognising, responding to, and relinquishing authority in the face of unfamiliar voices and experiences can be anxious making or even, at times, tense. Part of that tension is that it does become increasingly likely that our task as educators is to resist an outcomes-based logic or problem-solving regime. Hjelde, Bradfield and Rowe point to realities that effectively challenge the institutions to expand and de-limit borders. The sense of a student project should rarely seek to conclude or close off; effectively do not resolve your discourse or adventure with any form of summary point. The encounter with and experience of trying to make art is, of itself, an issue and it is an outcome, but it is not a solution. In the context of the art school it has often been the case that the actors, the stakeholders, the participants, and all those involved with the endeavour (learning and research), have discovered their aims and their shared values by doing and by being active. There is nothing revelatory in this; more that the concerns and intentions and needs of those involved have also become their motivation and have, in most cases, restored or reformed an activism that was already there, just by giving it more agency, as further explored by Knezevic and Walsh. Therefore, the question is how to ensure access that allows and reinforces influences. This is an important point. As ‘freedom beings’ we all tend to seek communion through varied means and very often resort to outward expression that addresses content beyond our isolated experiences. We make or produce culture because we have an innate need and because normal social interaction is, otherwise, fruitless. Cultural production is an instinctive characteristic of our daily experiences and we have to hope that the entitlement that promotes power via this means can be more readily experienced so that no reality remains ignored. There are those that do it more frequently than others as a concentrated and intensive set of practices and there are those that do it most of the time and as a vocation but, in any context, its stimulus emanates from a breadth of tacit realities involved with being human.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on editors

Basia Sliwinska is an art historian and theorist working as a Senior Lecturer at the University of the Arts London, UK. Her research is engaged with feminist visual activism and transnational and intersectional figurations in contemporary women's art practice. Basia is on the research team of the Visual Activism and Sexual Diversity in Vietnam project funded by the AHRC/GCRF Research Networking grant. She is a member of the College Art Association's Committee on Women in the Arts and of the Steering Group for the PARADOX European Fine Art Forum. She is on the Editorial Board of the journal Third Text.

Paul Haywood is Dean of Academic Programmes for Art and Performance at UAL: Central Saint Martins. He is Visiting Professor in Creative Community Engagement at the University of Salford. This opportunity supports his interest in developing tools for learning recognition for informal and non-formal educational experience. Paul is co-Chair of the National Association for Fine Art Education in the UK and a member of the Steering Group for the PARADOX European Fine Art Forum. He is on the Project Team of the global Shared Campus partnership. Paul's collaborative initiatives affecting change in the local context include Guns to Goods CIC.

Jason E. Bowman is an artist with a curatorial practice. He is a Senior Lecturer and Senior Researcher at the HDK-Valand Academy of Arts, University of Gothenburg; and a member of the Steering Group for the PARADOX European Fine Art Forum. He is the Principle Investigator of Stretched: Expanded Notions of Artistic Practice in Artist-led Cultures (2015–20), funded by the Swedish Research Council. Stretched's curatorial initiatives include: In Case There's a Reason: The Theatre of Mistakes (Raven Row gallery, London, 2017); Setting the Table (BALTIC Contemporary Arts, Gateshead, 2018) and queer timɘs school prints (Gallery of Modern Art, Glasgow, 2018).

Notes

1 PARADOX Fine Art Education Forum (https://paradoxfineartforum.com) is a community of Fine Art practitioners, thinkers and educators whose aim is to foster dialogue and advocacy concerned with the evolving landscape for Fine Art education, teaching and research across Europe and beyond.