NiTRO reader and colleague Peter Anderson recently sent me an article that he published when the Strand Inquiry into Research in Creative Arts was in its early stages [1]. In it he raises issues that still resonate today – how the Australia Council distinguishes between artists inside and outside academia and the diminished recognition between traditional scholarly publications and those in creative arts formats (Category J in the old Research Quantum days). His call for “greater consideration” of “the interaction between the various spheres of activity within the artworld … the university, the public art space and the commercial gallery” reflects a balance that we are still striving to achieve.
In 1996 he noted that:
“ … there does not seem to be a great deal of research available that examines the activities of artists employed as academics, and within the general research on artists incomes and employment circumstances … the artist as academic seems to disappear, with little account being taken of the very different career structure and economic foundation …”
Nearly 25 years later, there is still little visibility or understanding about artists employed in tertiary education.
As we cautiously “celebrate” greater recognition and reflection of creative arts disciplines promised by the recent ANZSRC review[2], this reminder has prompted me to ask just how far have we REALLY come since Strand was in its early investigative stages? With a paucity of evidence and analysis, do we really know what we have gained through the myriad of past changes?
In this edition of NiTRO, our contributors consider “change” from a variety of angles:
Lizzie Muller (UNSW) argues the corrosive effect of “disappearing” arts in government visibility prompts a change in cultural leadership style
Steven Alderton (National Art School) traces NAS history to highlight the major changes to the institution, and art education, that have occurred
Paul Gough, formerly RMIT now recently appointed VC of the Arts University Bournemouth UK, considers the changing perspectives of the studio as he compares the Australian and UK
Julia Prendergast (AAWP and Swinburne) and Craig Batty (UTS) discuss the changes that continue to affect AAWP
Tim Cahill, MD of Research Strategies Australia and a regular contributor to DDCA, predicts some of the transformations to research in Australia’s higher education sector
James Oliver (RMIT) analyses the nature and conditions required for change as he asks whether universities can really engage with these needs
Herman van Eyken (Griffith Film School), hot off the plane from the European Film Schools meeting, shares current global thinking on artistic research and film practice.
For many Australians, Climate Change has dramatically intervened in their day to day lives as they recover from the impacts of bushfire and flooding. Kim Cunio (ANU) and Paul Dalgarno (Melbourne) highlight how tertiary artists and their institutions have responded to these recent tragedies.
References
[1] Anderson, P. (1996) ‘A New Art Academy?’ Eyeline 31 QUT. https://www.eyelinepublishing.com/issue/eyeline-31
[2] DDCA submissions to this review are available at: https://www.ddca.edu.au/advocacy