The Arts Shape Paper for the Australian Curriculum: Implications for Creative Industries

The Visual Arts Consortium: Australian Curriculum is an interest group representing a broad cross
section of the creative industries including artists, designers, critics and writers, film-makers, graphic artists,
architects, museum and gallery practitioners and art education professionals from schools and universities.

The Visual Arts Consortium was formed out of concern that a new Australian Curriculum should continue to
provide a pathway from a strong visual arts education for students to participate in creative industries. This
consortium aims to ensure that there is an informed dialogue between the creative industries and education
groups so that industry participants are cognisant of and responsive to the issues affecting their particular
area. The Consortium supports the development of a national curriculum for the Arts. We recognise the vital
contribution the Arts make to Australian culture. We support ACARA’s stated commitment to develop a 21st
century curriculum drawn from best practice.

Visual Arts Consortium members support curriculum frameworks that would foster:

1. A National Curriculum with a forward looking and authentic Arts Education - a curriculum
framework based on the best current research and practice to ensure that students are equipped to
contribute actively and knowledgeably to the artistic, cultural, symbolic, political, and economic
dimensions of Australian life.
2. An outstanding Visual Arts Curriculum - within the Arts curriculum which provides a strong
foundation for students to engage with the Visual Arts as part of the pathway of education and
training for creative industries.
3. Successful and vibrant creative industries – supported by related educational pathways that enable
students to participate knowledgeably in their chosen field within the Arts and related creative
industries and contribute culturally and economically to national interests such as entertainment,
digital and multimodal applications, art and design, and tourism.

Our members have met the release of the Draft Shape Paper for the Arts and the proposed curriculum
framework with considerable concern. We believe that the proposals in the Draft Shape paper represent a
serious diminution in the quality of curriculum currently available for Australian Visual Arts students. While
these issues are addressed from the perspective relating to our group’s visual arts focus, it is the view of our
members, many of whom work in and across the Arts, that the issues with the Draft Shape Paper for the Arts
will have impact for all artforms.

The Visual Arts Consortium will be making detailed submissions during the consultative process on the
Draft Shape Paper for the Arts but for now we would draw your attention to our key concerns in regard to the
curriculum proposals in the document.

Our key concerns in relation to the Draft Shape Paper are:

1. The use of the generic curriculum framework of the Strands for all of the Arts
The Strands, Generating, Realising and Responding in the Draft Shape paper are generic descriptors
that mask and diminish the rich traditions within each of the artforms and within Visual Arts. They
present a false assumption that there are consistent common and transferrable approaches across the
arts while at the same time hiding the authentic practices and conventions within the Visual Arts and
those particular to other artforms. These Strands do not reflect contemporary practice in each of the
artforms or the creative industries and thus provide educational frameworks that are at odds with the
wider professional field in Visual Arts.

1
 There are other frameworks for learning and content currently in use across the states based on what
artists do, what they make, what they make works about and who they make them for that would
register meaningfully with the field. These frameworks connect with the contemporary field of
Visual Arts and could provide a model for the Arts as a whole. They provide sufficient scope and
opportunities for students to continue to engage meaningfully with the rich and changing nature of
these fields.

2. The limiting nature of the definitions of the Arts and the Visual Arts
The Draft Shape paper defines Arts Education as aesthetic experience so learning and understanding
is based in experience, feeling and process rather than in the practices and content of the field. This
is a narrow definition of the aesthetic which is now outdated and denies other ways of understanding
the field of Visual Arts that are supported by broader explanations of the aesthetic and recent
research. While imagination and sensory feeling are undeniably part of these fields of practice, there
is much more that is hidden from students as well as limited by this framework. For Visual Arts, it
does not provide ways of engaging with recent practices in visual arts, design, film making or
architecture.

Student learning is limited by these definitions and this curriculum will not provide a strong
educational pathway to post schooling participation in the field. The strength of current syllabuses
are acknowledged by universities in their practice of accepting high achievers in Visual Arts with
bonus ATAR marks when they apply for related courses in Art and Design.

3. The outdated model for learning presented in the Draft Shape Paper for the Arts
The curriculum model proposed in the Draft Shape paper is already an outdated model. In some
states, this model for learning has not been used for over twenty years. As such, regressing to such a
model for learning does not provide a forward looking curriculum based on recent academic research
and best practice in Visual Arts Education. Much of current Visual Arts education research on
learning and cognitive development, from both local and international academics, is not
acknowledged or incorporated in the Draft Shape Paper for the Arts. This is not consistent with the
Federal Government and ACARA’s aims for an aspirational curriculum that takes students forward.

The Consortium urges Federal and State government ministers to give sufficient time for wider consultation
and to rigorously review the proposed framework in the Draft Shape Paper for the Arts.

There is much at stake, educationally, culturally and economically and any compromise that places swift
delivery of the curriculum over a suitable structure and content should be avoided. Time is needed to
promote rigorous dialogue amongst interested parties and to develop an excellent Visual Arts curriculum that
is positioned in a knowledge-based Arts framework that values practical and critical reasoning.

To foster and develop the Arts and our creative industries, we need to ensure the delivery of a contemporary
and world class Visual Arts Curriculum - a curriculum which has the potential to produce knowledgeable,
well informed and future looking makers and consumers and creative industries participants,

Our members look forward contributing positively to the development of a National Curriculum for the Arts
and would be pleased to provide further briefings for Ministers about the issues raised here.

Sincerely,

Visual Arts Consortium: Australian Curriculum

visualartsconsortium@gmail.com

The Steering Committee,

Luise Guest Karen Profilio
Dr Susanne Jones Wendy Ramsay
Karen King Janet Rentz
Brain Ladd Dr Kerry Thomas
Dr Karen Maras Sharon Tofler
2
VISUAL ARTS CONSORTIUM: AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUM - SIGNATORIES

Annie Aitken Janet Laurence

Suzanne Archer Tamara Lawry
Justine Armstrong Karl Logge
Elsa Atkin Bernadette Mansfield
Lionel Bawden Dr Karen Maras
Hilary Bell Annette Mauer
Dr Jodie Benton Naomi McCarthy
Helen Berkemeier Nicky McWilliam
Dr Dora Booth Dannie Mellor
Margaret Bishop Associate Professor Joanna Mendelssohn
Sue Boaden Ron Miles
Natalia Bradshaw Claire Morgan
Professor Emeritus Neil Brown Natalie O'Connor
Leeanne Carr Tim Olsen
Dr Judith Carroll Dr John Olsen OBE AM
Doreen Coburn Anne Pata
Kathryn Coleman Daniel Pata
Sarah Cottier Marcus Patching
Fiona Crawford Peter Pinson
Tanya Crothers Karen Profilio
Jane Dawson Dr Dick Quan
Viisti Dickens George Raftopoulos
Andrew Donaldson Wendy Ramsay
John Dunn Tessa Rappaport
Merran Esson Maura Reilly
David Fairbairn Reg Richardson AM
Ann Ferran Ron Robertson-Swann OAM
Daphne Flax Ana Robson
Dr Althea Francini Liane Rossler
Maeva Freeman Julie Rrap
Todd Fuller Lynne Schroder
Julia Gao Wendy Sharpe
Jane Gillings Tienne Simons
Rebecca Goldsmith David Solomons
Professor Richard Goodwin Manjula Sri-Pathma
Dr Kathryn Gruska Michelle Stathakis
Luise Guest Marian Strong
David Handley Anita Taylor
Pat Harry Mark Tedeschi QC
Kathryn Hendy-Ekers Dr Kerry Thomas
Professor Ian Howard Sharon Tofler
Dr Susan Jones Paolo Tortaro AM
Orest Keywan Eleonora Triguboff
Matthew Kiem Jennifer Turpin
Karen King Jackie Vidor
Lou Klepac OAM Mark de Vitis
Emma-Piaf Kroeger Craig Wadell
Brian Ladd Rachel Ward
Amanda Weate
Angela Wong
William Yang
Tanya Zdjelar
3
4