MODE2RESEARCH

NPO/AUSTRIA

IGK-SYMPOSIUM

1999

Lecture presented on 23 January 1999 at the IGK Symposium "Education Information Entertainment III" hosted by the Institut fr Gegenwartskunst, Akademie der bildenden Knste, Vienna.

In Praise of Normalisation

Eva Kosa Higher Art Education as University Education We proceed from the premise of the need for a reform of higher art education within the context of a fundamental reorientation of the entire European education system. Our projects are devoted to the objective of separating issues relevant to a contemporary concept of art studies from a too narrowly defined, art-specific context and placing them in a significantly broader context of educational and academic policy roughly that of a rationalisation concept for artistic practice in civil society. The application of insights and models from educational science, scientific research and other fields to the specific constitution of art studies and art schools may be helpful in this effort. In any event, we must undertake a critical analysis of the professional identities or vocational profiles propagated at European schools of art as they continue to be reflected in curricular concepts today. Our contribution to this symposium aims to sketch current developments in the young field of research in the sociology of art and knowledge that is just now beginning to take shape in vague contours in Europe. To what, precisely, is the term "normalisation" meant to refer? What problems does it address? We use the word normalisation in reference to the international trend toward "universitisation" in art schools that were previously assigned exclusively to the tertiary sector of education. This process of system-related or cultural change in higher art education has not, of course, come end with the passage of a new University Studies Act by parliament (1998), as in Austria, for example, nor will it have been completed following organisational restructuring under the newly elected Rector in the coming academic year. A much more profound rethinking process is unavoidable in institutional policy, one comparable in political terms to Austria's entrance into the EU and similar from the standpoint of academic history to the integration of the technical colleges into the university system in the early 20th century. By way of recapitulation it can be said that the traditional function of higher art schools consisted and presumably still consists, as it has yet to be opposed,

KOSAS-E.RTF

MODE2RESEARCH

NPO/AUSTRIA

IGK-SYMPOSIUM

1999

even today quite simply in the training of professional artists. The fact that the art school system remains based upon an implicitly guaranteed program of excellence, an elitist concept that has a market-regulating function, has never been critically examined: "training in keeping with the highest standards and selection of the 'most gifted' ". The principle of talent that is so important to elitist concepts undoubtedly assumes a metaphysical character from the standpoint of problem-oriented university research and surely makes it difficult to conduct rational discussion in the current reform climate. When Hllinger/Steinbacher noted with irony some years ago in their essay entitled "Geheimnisse der Elitenbildung" (The Mysteries of Elite Education)1 that "in its opposition of the elite and the masses above all, the elitist model is a very simple model of social organisation. And thus in somewhat more differentiated societies it may survive at best as a feasible, practicable solution in societal niches alone", they describe with unintended emphasis the continuing dilemma or the status quo of curricular programs in the art school sector. In other words, under the pretence of fostering the growth of professional artistic elites, traditional art academies will (for lack of professional profiles in keeping with contemporary needs) find themselves confined, for better or for worse, to the production or revival of elites of identity. Bauhaus educational theory was and remains a determining factor in shaping the character of art schools as training institutes for artists. This is true not only of the so-called schools of "applied" art but for traditional art academies as well as Thierry de Duve pointed out in his lecture on the historical paradigms of art education at the symposium on "The Academy between Art and Scholarship" presented here at the Institut fr Gegenwartskunst in 1992.2 The design theorist Dietmar Winkler3 attributes the narrow-mindedness of Bauhaus educational theory and its emphasis on intuitive problem-solving behaviour and formal results to its status as a "typical German Fachschule, a school preparing students for vocational practice no more, no less". In this context, Zoe Strickler, also a scholar of design, sees in Bauhaus educational policy the cause of the theory-practice dichotomy in 20th-century art and design (training), which has yet to be eliminated. She explains: "Implicit in the European trade school system of which the Bauhaus was a part is an education removed from the traditions of university scholarship."4 Like that of the classical manual trades, this system revolved around the principle of workshop or studio apprenticeship based upon a master/student teaching concept which ruled out critical enquiry with respect to the fundamental knowledge upon which it rested. Zoe Strickler is thus prompted to conclude that
S. Hllinger, Universitt ohne Heiligenschein Aus dem 19. Ins 21. Jahrhundert, passages, Vienna, 1992. Thierry De Duve, "Das Ende des Bauhaus-Modells", in: Denys Zacharopoulos (ed.), Akademie zwischen Kunst und Lehre: Knstlerische Praxis und Ausbildung eine kritische Untersuchung, Vienna, Akademie der bildenden Knste, 1992. 3 Dietmar Winkler, "Design Practice and Education: Moving Beyond the Bauhaus Model", in: Frascara, Jorge: User-centered Design: Mass Communications and Social Change, London, 1997. 4 Zoe Strickler, "Elicitation Methods in Experimental Design Research", in: Design Issues, Special Issue: Design Research, Volume 15, Number 2, 1999, MIT Press.
2 1

KOSAS-E.RTF

MODE2RESEARCH

NPO/AUSTRIA

IGK-SYMPOSIUM

1999

"This emphasis on aesthetic and technical knowledge transmitted through a master/apprentice relationship has created a discipline subtly lacking in reflection on how we know what we purport to know". Viewed from this perspective, higher art education in its customary form, though often described in euphemistic terms, is vocational or professional Erziehung.5 And this is precisely why it is so difficult in the present reform climate to abandon obsolete conceptions of artistic vocations as models of Erziehung and eradicate them from curricula. If Erziehung, and thus personalisation, is the hidden underlying principle of art education, then this stands in direct opposition to the intersubjective and objective orientation of a kind of education focused upon and grounded in knowledge. If art is ultimately conceived after all this time as nothing other than a privileged mtier and education in art as Erziehung, then the concept of cultural competence based upon knowledge as the foundation of socially oriented cultural practice cannot (yet) play a meaningful role. Still, we see signs of a tendency towards this kind of cultural competence, and at least some of these signals are coming from the established art scene. Okwui Enwezor, curator of the next DOKUMENTA 2002, has pointed out that he prefers the term "culture" to the term "art" because "art" is all too often confined to the art market, whereas "culture" leaves room for a much wider range of meanings and interpretations. Simultaneously and symptomatically both the conservative philosophers Burger and Lissmann and the art educator Wagner have appealed for a programmatic distinction between art and culture in the course of an ongoing discussion of these issues in Austria. Thus normalisation could also mean that higher education in art is no longer viewed as elite art education but as university education liberated from restrictive definitions, which supplies cultural competence to and within the society of knowledge. That, in turn, would mean that highest priority is given at all universities of art to the production and communication of knowledge about cultural production, cultural interaction, etc. in a practice-based, problemoriented approach and not to the "making" of artists and/or art. Accordingly, a potential point of emphasis in university development would be an independent mode of research elaborated at the universities themselves, a practice of the kind that has already been established in other countries, most notably in England and Finland. A major focus in the work of MODE2Research NPO/AUSTRIA involves the changes to which the role and conception of art are subject in a society of knowledge and the consequences that emerge from them.

Translator's note: The German word Erziehung, though generally translated as "education", has connotations unrelated to the idea of school education and suggests the kind of informal instruction for personal development which children receive at home. English terms such as "upbringing", "breeding", etc. have no place in the present context, however.

KOSAS-E.RTF

MODE2RESEARCH

NPO/AUSTRIA

IGK-SYMPOSIUM

1999

(Paper by Attila Kosa) The Production of Knowledge: Concepts and Perspectives What do we mean by "knowledge society"? We speak of the "knowledge society" or the "knowledge-based society" where the structures and processes of material and symbolic reproduction within a given society are largely permeated by knowledge-based operations, and where information production, symbolic analysis and corresponding expert systems become increasingly important as compared to other factors of reproduction. This applies not only to the society as a whole but to every social subsystem and thus naturally to the subsystem of art and culture itself.6 It is also important to note that the knowledge society is never one in which the subsystem of science/research dominates but rather one in which all subsystems are shaped and controlled by knowledge-based interdependence. Thus it is significant that the members of such a society are educated and trained at length and in keeping with high standards; it is equally significant that products and environments become increasingly "intelligent". That is the scenario in which cultural workers of the future will have to be capable of operating. Michael Gibbons7 among others speaks with reference to this process of societal change of two distinctly different modes of dealing with knowledge. The one is traditional discipline-oriented research, which is practised primarily in the academic world and which he calls MODE 1. It involves the production of knowledge without an explicit practical objective. (Here, in particular, but not only at this point, the idea of traditional research equates with the concept of socalled "free art".) MODE 2, the second model of knowledge production, is a recent development and typical of the newly developing knowledge society. It involves a problemoriented, "situational" approach. Whereas MODE 1 is discipline-oriented, as mentioned above, MODE 2 is transdisciplinary and interprofessional. MODE 1 emphasises individual researchers and individual creativity. The role of the author is emphasised. In contrast, MODE 2 favours teamwork and network structures. The individual author disappears; what counts is interactivity. In MODE 2, research and application are strictly separated. In MODE 2 they come together, and so on. Yet MODE 2 research must be clearly distinguished from applied research. Applied research is still discipline-oriented and conforms to a linear model of innovation, whereas MODE 2 abandons the specific discipline and operates within the sphere of social contexts. Many of the aspects we find typical of
See Helmut Wilke, "Dumme Universitten, intelligente Parlamente", in: Wie wird Wissen wirksam?, IFF-Texte, Vol. 1, Vienna/New York, Springer, 1997. See also Ada Pellert, "Zwischen Gesellschaftsrelevanz und Gesellschaftsdistanz. Neue Formen der Produktion von Wissen", in: Pellert, Ada/Welan, Manfred, Die formierte Anarchie. Die Herausforderung der Universittsorganisation, Vienna, WUVUniversittsverlag, 1995. 7 See Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges et al, The New Production of Knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, London, SAGE Publications, 1994.
6

KOSAS-E.RTF

MODE2RESEARCH

NPO/AUSTRIA

IGK-SYMPOSIUM

1999

knowledge production in accordance with MODE 2 correspond precisely to the more recent forms of experimental, explorative artistic practice and to the practice of artistic research as it has now become established in England and Finland, even in the official realm of university research. However, models of knowledge production also impact upon modes of knowledge acquisition. After all, learning is a form of knowledge production itself, and even Humboldt used the word "study" as a synonym for "research". And this brings us back to higher education in art. As has been emphasised repeatedly, we are convinced that higher institutions of art education must make fundamental changes in some of their attitudes. They must develop a new institutional culture and reinvent themselves as learning and research institutions within the context of a knowledge society. Therefore, we would like to stress three programmatic issues which we regard as particularly relevant to the matter at hand: 1. The goal of education is knowledge. It is always the learner who actively acquires knowledge. In other words, it is first and foremost his/her knowledge, since this knowledge is the product of his/her own, completely individual learning process. Thus a given person must be able to decide how and what he/she wants to learn and what use to make of it. In all events, the knowledge in question should make him/her more selfaware, more focused, more responsible, more competent and more self-reliant, but it should also enhance a person's desire to learn, interest in learning and capacity to acquire knowledge in other contexts, to link his/her discipline with others and to produce knowledge independently. In general, education and art education in particular should expand one's horizons. That is, it should enhance one's professional competence and multiply one's professional and personal options. In no case should it narrow one's focus to a specific, predetermined field or to the interests and beliefs of others. Above all, acquired knowledge must of all always benefit the person who has developed it, and he or she must be able to assess that benefit. 2. "Art" based upon knowledge can be learned and developed progressively through research activity. (Higher) education in art is not explicitly a form of practical training. It is much more than that. And this also means that the traditional priority given to practical instruction, practice-oriented aesthetic and technical knowledge in art education is obsolete. The benefits and the significance of critical and intellectual elements as well as research skills are clearly on the increase. At the same time, art theory if is to be adequate must be much more closely oriented towards problems and practice.

KOSAS-E.RTF

MODE2RESEARCH

NPO/AUSTRIA

IGK-SYMPOSIUM

1999

It is both possible and necessary to re-examine the foundations of knowledge in art. Only in this way can art, artistic practice and art knowledge develop and advance. Art education must not be colonialised by other knowledge- and theoryproducing disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, etc. Although these and other fields of scholarship are important in their own right and must remain a part of educational curricula, art is primarily dependent upon the production of its own theoretical and practical knowledge. Artistic knowledge is socially relevant knowledge. It is knowledge that can be important and useful in other social contexts. And thus it is essential that artistic research be constituted and established in a university environment (among others) and, what is more, that scholars and researchers in the fields of art and design forge links with the relevant international community of scholars (which explicitly does not mean the international art scene). 3. Higher art education is by all means university education.8 A premise underlying all of these considerations is our conviction that European universities are not only old-fashioned, obsolete, inefficient mass-production facilities but that they will assume a key role as publicly accessible hubs in international education and research networks in a civil society. Modern, civil universities differ significantly from traditional art academies. To merge the two models into a single institution is not really a conceivable option. Art academies are exclusive institutions in a dual sense: elite and sui generis "outside the pale". They are historical relics. Of course many universities are not a great deal more modern. And the process of change already pursued (with success) by some is far-reaching and far from completion. Yet unlike the idea of the academy, the idea of the university will take on considerable social significance in the future if for no other reason than the fact that there is no other viable
8 Remarks added by Eva Kosa: Although this last point may seem superfluous some two years after the corresponding legislative reform, we feel that it is important to emphasise it once again. It is not only that a reform of this kind would be inconceivable today, in the present political situation. It is also that important, crucial fundamental aspects of the reform were systematically weakened, watered down and de-clarified, so that one might have got the impression that some people would have been pleased if that had made it possible to reverse the even the most important advances achieved through measures to reform higher art education during the 1970s and 1980s. These included, among other things, the establishment of a scientific basis for all courses of study in art and the decision to incorporate a kind of artistic research into the legislation early on by introducing the term Erschlieung [meaning unclear, (translator)], even though no formal criteria, definitions or other conditions had been established at that point in time. In the course of the debates regarding the reform and afterwards as well, of course the necessity of creating a scientific basis for all courses of study in art, for example, was questioned repeatedly. What is worse in the white paper on higher education published by the former minister Caspar Einem, the transformation of art schools into universities is presented primarily as an imageenhancing measure (designed to document university status for the public as well). In this publication, the "development of the arts" as opposed to scholarly/scientific teaching and research is explicitly reduced to "preservation and teaching", a restriction never formulated in this form before. Many of the advances and much of the consensus already achieved were thus implicitly opened to renegotiation. There is good reason to fear that a restorative tendency is currently taking shape, a movement that is not only firmly anchored in traditional conservative social and political sectors but now suddenly appears in fields that once would have seemed immune to it. Thus one has heard quite recently, even from some of the most progressive and resistant young artists, a hymn to the principle of the master class as a hearth of nonconformism in opposition to neoliberal constraints. In our view, this new ideological "consciousness" is seriously lacking in knowledge and points to the urgent necessity that we refuse to rest content and instead continue to pursue the path we have embarked upon with even firmer resolve and explain and emphasise the fundamental goals and agreements, which only appear to have been self-evident for so long, again and again.

KOSAS-E.RTF

MODE2RESEARCH

NPO/AUSTRIA

IGK-SYMPOSIUM

1999

alternative in sight in civil society. And thus we firmly believe that university institutions will find opportunities for change and means of changing themselves and responding to new conditions. In light of these developments, the involvement of Austrian art education in these processes of change and its integration into the university system was an important and indispensable step in the right direction. The crucial question now is whether the institutions can internalise this step in a convincing manner.

KOSAS-E.RTF