UNESCO-NIE Centre for Arts Research in Education (CARE)

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Journal: 
Australian Art Education
Name(s) of Author/Editor(s): 
Neil Brown and Felicity Haynes
Refereed: 
Yes
Volume No.: 
14
Issue No.: 
1
Page numbers of article: 
31-36
Year of publication: 
1990
Country of publication: 
Australia
Country of Research Data: 
Australia
Language: 
English
Abstract: 
To counter recent federal initiatives to direct the curriculum towards economic rationalism, Broughton and Aland in a recent article suggested that arts educators must promote the essential role of art and design in the curriculum. This paper argues that such action may be misguided in several respects: that without a clearer analysis of what the arts stand for, the rhetorical debate may well be seen as an act of appeasement, and have no force in promoting art as such. The distinction that Broughton and Aland draw between pure art and a more utilitarian view, between work skills and life skills may not be as black and white as they indicate, leaving peripheral space for technology and design in art curricula. In the long term, it may be more efficacious not to address politicians directly, but to appeal more broadly to popular support for the arts. The priority is to make the nature of the visual arts more publicly available before its value can be shown.
Start New Search

Browse by Category

Browse by Type

Submissions

Do you have an article or research paper relating to arts education? Submit to our database!

Social Media

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter

https://www.facebook.com/NIECARESG

https://twitter.com/NIECARESG