Caracterización y análisis del sistema ambiental

This section discusses art schools’ outside perception, that is, art schools’ attributed identity. First, I look at the hierarchy between the Russell group universities and the ex-polytechnics, as well as the hierarchy between art and design subjects and science and technology subjects in the UK. Next, I consider the “two traditions” as the context of these hierarchies. In the last subsection, I examine what outsiders think the art schools are, through my interview data in the UK and China. The outside attitudes to art schools have similarities in the two countries. Hierarchy between Universities and Subjects Hierarchy between the Russell Group Universities and the Ex-Polytechnic Universities

In the UK, there was a tradition of hierarchy and snobbery between “Russell Group Universities” and the “Post-1992 Universities” (or the Ex-Polytechnics). The “Russell Group Universities” are “old universities” that existed long time before the period from the 1960s to the 1980s when the “ex-polytechnics were founded54_{. The “Russell Group Universities” are research-driven while the}

establishment of the polytechnics was to provide vocational and professional teaching for the needs of industry and commence (Alan Crisp). Due to this division, Russell Group Universities are “obviously” considered superior to polytechnics, and in some people from Russell Group Universities’ opinion, although the

161 polytechnics were upgraded to universities in 1992, they could “never be proper universities” (Carol Jones). The perception that the upgraded post-1992 universities are still inferior to the Russell group universities can be seen from the inside and outside pressure of the post 1992 universities. From the inside of the post 1992 universities, some members such as Jill Journeaux were optimistic about the newer universities. She thought the ex-polytechnics could compete with the older universities in terms of “measurement of student survey, employment, and research” on one platform. As long as the ex-polytechnics were good enough, they could move up the league table. However, there are also some negative feelings inside of the ex- polytechnics. Many staff were not psychologically confident enough because deep in their hearts they believed that the new post-1992 universities were not the old universities and were somehow located at “a second tier”. From the outside of the ex-polytechnics, the real situation was also stressful for the post 1992 universities. Most of the ex-polytechnics were at the bottom of the league table while the old universities were sitting at the top. Hierarchy between Art and Design Subjects and Science and Technology Subjects This chapter will now consider how the hierarchy between universities related to art and design schools and subjects. The majority of the art and design schools and subjects in the UK are within the “Post-1992 Universities” sector except some fine art institutions at Oxford, Newcastle and Slade (Carol Jones; Ann Priest; Alan Crisp; Sandra Harris; Jill Journeaux; Andrew Brewerton). From the late 1960s to the late 1980s, because of the government’s political and economic arrangements, the majority of the independent art and design schools in the UK were merged into polytechnics. Based on the circumstances between the “Russell group universities” and the “post 1992 universities”, art and design schools in these ex- polytechnics were in a passive position.

162

This governmental arrangement for art and design schools to some extent reflected art schools’ attributed identity from a social perspective. In the opinion of people from the Russell group universities, “art and design did not belong to proper universities with science and engineering subjects. They should stay in polytechnics” (Carol Jones). According to Ann Priest, social consideration of art and design and the class system “did not allow” or “did not consider” that art and design schools should join the old universities, which were considered to be “seats of learning”. The then-government’s political and economic arrangement for art and design schools ended with art and design joining polytechnics because the polytechnics focused on skills and economic development, which were believed to be the purposes of art and design subjects, rather than the intellectual development of the higher order which science and engineering subjects in the old universities represented. The reason the government elevated science and engineering subjects was not exactly because they thought these subjects were of a higher intellectual order. Ann Priest believed the reason was economic. She thought the government “was looking at the economic impact of science and technology”. They focus on science, technology, economics and mathematics (STEM) because the government believed if the country “lose these subjects areas and analytical explorations of these areas, it would lose the innovative core” (Ann Priest). This would consequentially affect the attributed identity of art schools. Art schools were second-rate and were not as promising as science and engineering from an educational aspect. Due to this economic reason, as some of the participants said, “art and design will never be as strong as science and engineering, and science and engineering will always have a louder voice” (Andrew Brewerton). This arrangement for art and design, and science and engineering; and for polytechnics and universities had a context of “two traditions” in the UK.

163

The Two Traditions: Autonomous Tradition and Service Tradition in the UK

There is a reason and tradition for this “lower status” of art and design, and the relatively negative outside perception (attributed identity) of art and design schools. Before the polytechnics were formed by the governmental arrangement, the “two traditions” which created the system of higher education were rooted in history (Pratt, 1997, pp. 8-9). As Pratt stated, universities and colleges of advanced technology were in the “autonomous sector” whilst the technical colleges and colleges of education were in the “public sector”. These two sectors referred to two traditions: university tradition and service tradition. These two traditions represented different classes: middle class and working class. On the one hand, as Pratt (1997, p. 9) interpreted, the “autonomous tradition” could be characterised as “aloof, academic, conservative and exclusive”. People in this tradition often resisted the “demands of society or of government or students”. Half of their time was spent doing research. This tradition focused on “preservation, extension and dissemination of knowledge for its own sake” and was protected by the government so that they had “a kind of autonomy” (ibid, p. 9). They were exclusive and they accepted middle-class students rather than working class students. As they were universities and colleges of advanced technology, which were seen as having a high economic impact for the country, the universities and colleges in the autonomous tradition were well-funded by the government and protected by charters (ibid, p. 10).

On the other hand, the service tradition could be seen as “responsive, vocational, innovative and open” (ibid, p. 9). The purpose of the “service tradition” was mainly “teaching” for the needs of “vocational, professional and industrial based education” which could not be provided by the universities (ibid, p. 9). The colleges in the “service tradition” had a responsibility to the “social needs” and to provide higher education for “working people and their children” (ibid, p. 8), which were the lower classes group that were “excluded” by the universities in

164

the “autonomous tradition” (ibid, p. 10). In this tradition, institutions did not claim to “pursue knowledge for its own sake”, and “research” only meant to solve problems for some external companies (ibid, p. 10). Opposite to the autonomous tradition, institutions in this service tradition were under the control of local authorities economically and educationally and were not protected by charters (ibid, p. 11)55.

Then when polytechnics were developed, the former independent art and design institutions were included in the public sector, which referred to the “service tradition”, with technical colleges and colleges of education. The two traditions were inherited then by the “old universities” and the ex-polytechnics (post-1992 universities). One has to admit that the “service tradition” did represent part of the art and design institutions’ aims and purposes. Although the schools of design in the UK were built for economic purpose, they were also supposed to have a role for society, community and people’s daily life. However, the hierarchy brought about by the two traditions put art and design institutions into a humbler, second-tier, position. Actually, Ann Priest pointed out that because part of the role of art and design institutions was for society’s needs and people’s lives, and because of their “way and tradition of making”, the art and design institutions would suffer and would be discriminated against if they moved into the university sector. However, also because of the way and tradition of art schools, they can only be moved into polytechnics as second tier institutions, but not into universities at that time. Even though some of the art and design schools are now within universities, they are “adorable but not necessary” (Carol Jones) because of the utilitarian tradition of hierarchy and snobbery. 55_{That was why there was a process of “academic drift” in the UK that institutions in the service tradition} sought autonomy and university status. The establishment of the polytechnics was to end this “academic drift” (Pratt, 1997, p. 11).

165

This tradition was rooted within the UK’s class system, where working class is seen as inferior to middle class. Teaching is inferior to research. Higher educational organisations’ role for society and life is inferior to the role for advanced knowledge and economic profits. The long-time class tradition, the ignorance about arts and culture, and the disregard for design and products in everyday life, led by the government and authorities, created this hierarchy in subjects’ division, to education, and even to people’s life. This not only created art schools’ self- doubt about themselves but led to their negative attributed identity. In China, there is something similar to the UK’s “two traditions” of universities and colleges. Universities in China are divided into the top-level universities: “985” universities and “211” universities, and the second-rate universities: “second level universities” and the “third level universities” by league tables. Most of the universities in China have established their own art and design subject disciplines or art and design schools, and they see art and design subjects as “student attractors”. As China did not have a national university amalgamation specifically to move art school into second-tier universities, the hierarchy is not as evident as it is in the UK. However, based on the same reason, the snobbery and hierarchy also existed in education system and even in their society. Art and design as a whole is seen as an informal and alternative subject for students who are not good enough at science and technology and who could not compete with the top-level students in the University and College Entrance Examinations. Art and design are seen as inferior to science and technology, which are believed to enhance national competitive power in high-tech and innovation and seen as not necessary but only “embellishment of the life” (Dan Su).

166

Art and Design Schools are “at the shop front but never in an engine room” in the Universities

Based on my interview data on the sample art schools in the universities in the UK and China, art and design schools are considered “at the shop front but never in an engine room” in the universities

(Jill Journeaux) due to the hierarchy and snobbery within society and higher

educational system which I discussed in the last sub section. The attributed identity from a university level is that art schools are “not important and have decorative purposes mainly” both in the UK and China (Dan Su; Anying Chen; CN15; Gan Zhang; Terence Kavanagh; David Vaughan). This attributed identity of art schools does not match what art people believe and profess the art schools to be: special and important. From the outsiders’ perspective, art schools are no different from any other subject disciplines within the university (Zhiyong Fu; Ray Cowell).

Take Tsinghua University in China for instance. As it is one of the best universities in China, it has many strong subject disciplines, especially in the science and technology areas. So, although Academy of Arts and Design is one of the best art schools in China, it is not treated as importantly as it is entitled to be inside the university. Art and design are not considered serious subject disciplines. What art and design school can provide to the university is the beautiful surface. Its existence in the university is to “enrich the university life” and to “provide a

Figure 4: An Art shop at the front door of School of Art and Design, Nottingham Trent University

167

culture of beauty” (Dan Su; Anying Chen; CN06). Anonymous participant CN15 cited his colleagues’ words that, Academy of Arts and Design is like an “elaborately decorated vase” that is only there for “decoration” purposes. For example, the university consistently takes government assessors, or visitors and educators from other universities to look around the art school for its exhibitions, experimental laboratories or arts and design lectures and seminars (CN06; Jian Hang) because all these are “visible” and ready to be “shown” to others. In addition, the biggest advantage of having an art school in a university in some outsider’s opinion is that the art school “could help and beatify the campus” in terms of proposing construction programmes, designing activity posters, decorating buildings or making 100 pieces of large sculptures for the university’s centennial (CN06; Dan Su). It is as Gan Zhang and Dan Su said, the university values the art school as an embellishment, but it does not realise the real function and role of art and design and it does not take full advantage of the art school. The idea that the Academy of Arts and Design is at the “shop front” can also be seen from the position of the art Principal at the university. In the first few years after moving the art school into Tsinghua University, the Principal of the art school was also promoted to a university position as a Pro Vice Chancellor, in order to win the art people’s trust. However, after the former Principal of art school and Pro Vice Chancellor of the university retired, the school of art and design was “degraded” (Gan Zhang). No Pro Vice Chancellor since this time has come from the art school. Gan Zhang thought this university arrangement indicated that in the university’s consciousness, the art school could never reach the level that other science and technology departments could. The school of art and design is not at the centre, but is marginalised by the mainstream organisational culture of the university. Similarly, in the UK, art and design schools are also marginalised, to some extent, by the UK universities. Take Nottingham Trent University for example. It is one of

168

the post-1992 universities that was formed by combining an art school, a technical school and a college of education. Its former Vice Chancellor Ray Cowell indicated, due to the reputation and long history of the art school, the history of the university could be traced back to the Victorian times and one of the art buildings, the Waverly Building, can be seen as a flagship of the university. Moreover, as Simon Lewis indicated, as the art school is so visible because of its fashion shows, exhibitions or winning various competitions, for instance, in the Far East, China or Korea, art and design professionals and students think that Nottingham Trent University is simply an art and design school. The rest of the university does not exist for them. That is why some art people could be confident and consider, to some degree, that the brand of this university is based on the brand of simply the art and design school (Simon Lewis; Carol Jones). However, this was only art people’s one-sided wish. Carol Jones believed this is not how art and design school is perceived around the rest of the university. She thought “sometimes it feels like that the art school is not recognised to be as important as it should be”. The former Vice Chancellor of the university Ray Cowell thinks highly of the art school and recognises the importance and excellence of it. However, as a leader for the whole university, he has to think and organise globally. He did not believe the university’s reputation depends on the school of art and design. In his opinion, the university’s reputation is based on “the fact that it has many strengths across the board”. One is art and design, but the university’s national reputation is based on “biological sciences, law and humanities”. Although the art school ranks higher than the university in league tables (Carol Jones) and contributes to the reputation of the whole university (Simon Lewis), the art people still feel that the art school is a “marketing tool” for the university (Simon Lewis) and it does not receive the status that it deserves. The situation of art schools that have merged into Russell group universities or other non-post 1992 universities does not seem any better than that of art schools in post-1992 universities. Loughborough University is one of the most prestigious

169

universities in the UK. Rather than being forced to merge, Loughborough School of Art chose to move into the university because of economic and academic reasons. In eliminating the snobbery between Russell groups universities and post-1992 universities, the art school in Loughborough University has its problems as well. There is “a lot of academic snobbery in the university” and the art school is still seeking the same status as other schools inside the university (Terence Kavanagh). Cumbria Institute of Arts in the University of Cumbria is another merger example that took place outside the main merger period from the 1960s to the 1980s. The situation is even worse there. In David Vaughan’s opinion, many people in other parts of the university did not “appreciate creativity” of art and design subjects, and the rest of the university subjects “just take the art school for granted” rather than “promote it”. This situation that art and creativity are not appreciated can be studied from an engineering perspective. As an engineering professor, Graham Cokerham in Sheffield Hallam University admitted that although he knew “the world would be a duller place without creative artists and designers”, which is similar to the perception of art and design in China-the “embellishment of life”, he still thought “engineers do not see and appreciate the benefit of aesthetics or creativity”. He revealed a common view in the science and engineering group, which leads the mainstream organisational culture of the university. “Engineers all want to think that what they do is quite important and that what other people do it not very important”. To be more specific, “the engineers tend to downgrade things like aesthetics and place emphasis on the ability to do mathematics and predict the