NiTRO Creative Matters

Perspectives on creative arts in higher education

From STEM to STEAM: Art Education, Innovation and Universities

By Professor Brad Buckley and Associate Professor John Conomos — Recently, there has been much discussion in the press and beyond about the importance of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) subjects at high school and at university. In particular, the Commonwealth Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda has focused exclusively on STEM disciplines. However, that discussion misses the central importance of creativity, inventiveness and innovation.

The importance of inventiveness to Australia has increased, as we – along with many other Western nations – face a declining or exhausted manufacturing base. This has meant that we, like many other countries, are now scrambling to maintain an edge in the global economy through the production of new knowledge and invention, or innovation as it is generally termed in national policy discussions.

In the US, inventiveness is widely considered to be the product of STEM alone. However, former Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) president John Maeda and other academics at RISD have led the way with a groundbreaking initiative that places art and design at the centre of the equation, transforming STEM into STEM + Art = STEAM. According to Maeda, STEAM ‘addresses creative problem solving, the translation of complex data for broad audiences through visualisation, and how to bring ideas to market through design’.[1] He has also made this salient point: ‘I believe art and design are poised to transform our economy in the 21st century as science and technology did in the last century.’[2]

Maeda’s STEAM concept contests the prevailing belief that invention can only take place in the sciences. Further, and critically, having a broad, empirical and pragmatic view of invention that includes the creative sector would advance knowledge, government innovation policies and technology, and would considerably improve our cultural, economic and social life.

The art school should be at the centre of this shift. In essence, because of their speculative and inventive pedagogies, art schools question the narrow and hierarchical systems and approaches that have been adopted by our universities, which demonstrate an inability to understand what it means to be creative, innovative and life-affirming in today’s local and global economy.

It is a shame that C.P. Snow’s wise ‘two cultures’ debate from the early 1960s has been erased from the institutional memories of our universities. The consequence of this is that our neoliberal federal and state governments are reducing, to the point of removing altogether in some cases, their funding of art, cultural works and universities, along with art galleries, museums, cultural precincts and green spaces. Our senior university bureaucrats, politicians and captains of industry display a classic instance of the resonating wisdom of Oscar Wilde’s observation that some people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

There is a general distrust of artists, poets, musicians and intellectuals evident in our universities’ policies, especially at the moment, so it is small wonder that they define creativity and innovation narrowly, within the STEM framework. It is a form of educational rationalism. This is, bluntly put, a lose-lose game. No one benefits from this policy.

As evidence of the dominance of neoliberal ideology, one only has to witness the closure of art and design schools in the TAFE sector across Queensland and NSW over the past decade, at Western Sydney University, the University of Newcastle, and the current sustained attack on Sydney College of the Arts.

In terms of public policy, Governments and universities are also prone to adopting the pop psychological myths of ‘left-brain, right-brain’ theory – that the two hemispheres of the brain have neatly divided and opposite functions. Ironically, the explosion in neuroscience knowledge has confirmed what artists, poets and musicians have long suspected: that the two hemispheres communicate with each other through the corpus callosum.

It is a pity that our senior university bureaucrats, politicians and policy think tanks ignore this information, which supports the move from STEM to STEAM. This shift is indispensable if we are to have any place in the Asian 21st century.

Born in Sydney, Brad Buckley is an artist, activist, urbanist and Professor of Contemporary Art and Culture at Sydney College of the Arts, the University of Sydney. He was educated at St Martin’s School of Art, London, and the Rhode Island School of Design. His work, which operates at the intersection of installation, theatre and performance, investigates questions of cultural control, democracy, freedom and social responsibility. His work has been exhibited internationally for over three decades. He is also the editor, with John Conomos, of several books the most recent of which is Erasure: The Spectre of Cultural Memory (Libri, 2015).

John Conomos is a Sydney–based artist, critic and writer who is an Associate Professor and Honorary Principal Fellow at the Faculty of the Victoria College of the Arts and the Conservatorium of Music, University of Melbourne. He had been internationally exhibiting his autobiographically–inflected art since the 80s which focuses on the ‘in-between’ spaces, contexts and links between contemporary art, cinema, critical theory, and literature. He has been a prolific critic and writer since the same time and has contributed to many academic conferences, symposia, and forums around the world. He has, over the years, also collaborated with Professor Brad Buckley in co-editing books and co-chairing international conferences. He is recently also collaborating with Steven Ball in a new exhibition called “Deep Water Web” which will open at the Furtherfield Gallery, London, on September 9,  2016.

[1] To read John Maeda’s comments on STEAM in full, go to (accessed 13 July 2013).

[2] For a further discussion on inventiveness and innovation see Brad Buckley, John Conomos and Andy Dong (eds), Ecologies of Invention, Sydney University Press, 2013.

More from this issue

More from this issue

By Su Baker, President, Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Creative Arts — Over 2 decades the creative art academic community has grown and matured as a sector - so have the questions of method and purpose of publically funded research, that influence the processes of evaluation. Discussions around impact and ‘end-user’ value is a live issue at the ARC and we look forward to the new thinking that will shortly emerge. The creative arts depend almost entirely on end-user experience, and the impact of these experiences aspire to have real and meaningful impact on peoples lives.
By Dr Jenny Wilson. DDCA’s Research officer Jenny Wilson caught up with Henk Borgdorff in Amsterdam in April 2016, hot on the heels of his recent speaking tour of European and UK universities, art and music schools, to find out more about artistic research and European experiences of the politics of art and higher education.
By Professor Graeme Sullivan Visual arts has no singular function because it can be called on to do just about anything. Arts’ usefulness is because it is edgeless and homeless—art is masterful at shape shifting and form fitting
By Professor Jeri Kroll Since the Strand report (1998), scholars have been unpacking the manifold ways in which creative works can be research. Explaining the usefulness of questions to doctoral candidates not only keeps supervisors honest, but also keeps at the forefront of everyone’s mind why theory is unavoidable.
By Professor Paul Draper and Professor Scott Harrison Communities of profession, the old academy and the new academy, intimately rub up against each other and while some research may still be considered ‘more equal’ than others for now – this evolving mix can only positively impact on the rise of artistic research, its acceptance in society and its measurement by governments and universities.
By Associate Professor Cheryl Stock AM — The narrative of knowledge is almost always underpinned by the cognitive but how we know the world is often through the experiential. Whilst we have moved a long way in redefining knowledge in research terms to include the processes and outcomes of our practices (artistic, creative, professional) and importantly have privileged the artist’s voice as the expert in this recasting of what a knowledge claim might look like, some art forms prove more problematic than others in this endeavour.
By Dr Danny Butt — During the 1990s and 2000s, as readers of NiTRO know well, an intensive debate took place among art and design academics as to whether their practices and those of their graduate students could be called research, and if so what “contribution to knowledge” might be made by the creative output, as distinct from the writing that has traditionally accompanied submissions in higher degrees in creative arts.
By Professor Margaret Sheil — On my last outing in an ACUADS conference, I was described by Flinders University’s Julian Meryick as the “artist’s ideal of a scientist… impatient with the reduction of everything down to short term utility.” So as I venture once again into the creative arts domain, I draw on a scientific analogy. The principle of chemical equilibrium refers to a system in which the rate of consumption of inputs is the same as that at which outputs are produced so that the system is in a stable state of consumption and production.
By Professor Ross Woodrow — The decision by the Australia Research Council (ARC) to achieve the long-mooted merging of the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) and the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) exercise by adeptly disappearing the HERDC has been welcomed by many discipline leaders, and not just those in the creative arts. With the inclusive ERA becoming the singular evaluation of research quality across Australia, there couldn’t be a better time to rethink the classification of research in universities.
By Associate Professor Robert Burke and Dr. Andrys Onsman — Criticism of the scientific methods of doing research has increasingly pointed out that all experimental research involves some sort of creative leap. In the performing arts such creative leaps are fundamental to artistry.
By Dr Jenny Wilson As many in creative arts grappled with the amalgamation challenges of the 90s, few were aware that the Dawkins reforms also had increased the centrality of research to university funding. This ‘blissful ignorance’ was not to last.
By Dr Leo Berkeley — The creative practice of filmmaking, understood as a form of academic research, has been growing in scale and significance within Australian universities for several years. While doctorates involving the making of a film have been occurring for decades, it is only relatively recently that the academic screen production community has been seeking to more systematically establish how the production of a film can lead to the discovery of new knowledge.
By Professor Estelle Barrett and Professor Barbara Bolt — At a roundtable at the Australian Council of University Art Schools (ACUADS) annual conference in 2014, panelists were asked to address the following question: What impact are higher degree research programs having on emerging trends and themes in contemporary art? Whilst the panel felt that the development of higher degree research programs in creative arts did not lead to better “art” they did agree that it has profoundly affected the way art is framed and understood both within the academy and beyond.
By Dr Kate Tregloan and Professor Kit Wise — Interdisciplinarity has been widely recognised as a valuable response to the wicked problems of our time. The ability to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries brings together different perspectives and expertise, and allows entirely new approaches and solutions to emerge. To prepare students and graduates for the complex challenges of the twenty first century we need good quality interdisciplinary programs. But how do we know what is ‘good’?