Copied from Corridor8’s website:

Art School Alternatives
Liverpool John Moores’ University
7th October 10 – 6pm

A participatory symposium that looks to the communal and collaborative in the current debates on art education.

The symposium will explores methods of learning and ideas of school, and draws together a range of practitioners including Department 21, Heath Bunting, Kate Rich, Islington Mill Art Academy, Lady Lucy, Circa Projects, Megan Wakefield, Black Dogs, A Latento, No Fixed Abode, and Artmarket/Kunstfreund.

Art School Alternatives is supported by Liverpool Biennial and Liverpool John Moore’s University.

The event is free but booking is required. Please visit www.artschoolalternatives.info for more information

To find out about our suggestions, ranging from RCA: Royal Condominium of Art to RCA: Royal Consultancy Agency, download the booklet:
- online version
- booklet for print (print on A4 double sided)

As it previously occurred, Department 21 has abandoned its physical face once again. It is dormant again, waiting for new possibilities to emerge. It is still unclear what form D21 will take from next term on, although the RCA has reserved a space for it on the third floor of the Stevens Building.

Here we finally publish the proposal we wrote in collaboration with CA&D tutors David Blamey and Debbie Cook and Learning & Teaching Coordinator Chris Mitchell:

Pilot Project: Interdepartmental Space 2010/11
This proposal is for the establishment of a pilot interdepartmental space for interdisciplinary learning and teaching in the Stevens Building. The establishment of such a space would build on the experiences and evidence gathered during the 6 week Department 21 experiment and respond to increasing College-wide student demands to develop new models for learning and teaching. For example, in a recent survey of students 87% thought that it was either important or very important that a space like Department 21 exists within the RCA.
This represents an opportunity to develop and test new models of cross-disciplinary education, while making efficient use of a space that has been set aside for accommodating increased student numbers.

Why now?
This proposal would help to reaffirm the College’s progressive position in contemporary academic practices in art and design. In the light of education research at Tate Britain, the Hayward Gallery and the Serpentine Gallery, the project would offer an opportunity to imagine a learning and teaching power dynamic that breaks with conventional ‘master and scholar’ models. Students who want to question and expand their practice beyond the traditional paths based on specific processes and mediums need to be supported in a more imaginative and meaningful way.
A number of institutions and courses have already begun to experiment with interdisciplinary learning programmes, such as:
_ MA Creative Practice for the Narrative Environment, Central Saint Martins
_ Design Matters, Art Centre College of Design
_ Aalto University
_ Master of Fine Arts in Transdisciplinary Design, Parsons The New School for Design
_ Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability, Stanford University
_ Design Academy Eindhoven

What are you proposing to do?
We are proposing to create an open and vibrant learning and working environment for interdisciplinary education.
The project would fit with the current idea of transforming part of the Stevens Building into a bookable, interdepartmental space. Over the period of one year, different interdisciplinary models would be offered and carefully evaluated. By structuring the management of this initiative around the concept of constant redefinition this would become a fertile space for the support of a wide range of interests and needs within the College.

How will the project be carried out?
The project will be student-led but supported by a representative College-wide Advisory Group. Each term the space would either be facilitated by two recent alumni, an elected member of staff or a recent alumnus, in collaboration with a current research student who could sustain a dynamic of critical engagement and energy within the space through their own research interests. In maintaining the space, facilitators would fulfill a range of vital functions, such as supporting the students as coordinators, administrators and, in some cases, technicians.
With the aim of being inclusive, the layout of the space will remain flexible and open, with space allocated towards ‘permanent’ workspaces, a common area, a bookable multi-purpose space and a more enclosed area. The ‘permanent’ workspaces will be offered to students on a half-termly basis, available to two students from each Department across the College.
Students would apply to work in the space by writing an expression of interest that would be considered by the Advisory Group. Staff would apply on the same terms and negotiate with their HoDs for time away from their Departmental duties to contribute to this initiative. A ’supply’ force of existing staff, whose practices are already interdisciplinary in nature, would support student-centred learning.
The terms of engagement to work in the area would be democratically agreed each term and reflect the needs and opinions of the participants, including any external collaborators.
Initially, each term would explore and evaluate a different structure or approach. These could include:
_ Collaborative projects that coalesce around individual student practice and shared student interests
_ A project starting from a global issue like mobility, ageing population or climate change
_ A project starting from more abstract issues like wealth, gender or biopolitics
_ A project with a non- visual arts department in another UK educational institution
_ A project run by the Helen Hamlyn Centre along the lines of the Methods Lab
_ An external project with an industry partner

Outcomes
It would be agreed that each initiative had a specific outcome that engages a wider audience, i.e: an exhibition, a publication, an event. Furthermore, each student, facilitator or member of staff would be asked to produce a reflection on their experience following their time in the interdepartmental space.

Impact: Who will benefit from the project, and how?
The project would:
_ Test interdisciplinary and student-led approaches to learning and teaching in order to inform future strategic thinking in the area
_ Create a space to bring together, develop and promote the activities of students across disciplines
_ Enable emergent subject specialisms in interdisciplinary areas to be identified
_ Offer a hub of activity in South Kensington for fine art students in Battersea wanting to engage with other Departments
_ Catalyse the energy generated by working across disciplinary boundaries without compromising disciplinary practice.

Students would benefit from the opportunity to:
_ Test and refine their leadership skills by organising and leading a variety of activities relevant to their practice
_ Analyse and develop their practice in relation to other disciplines
_ Establish a strong network with practitioners from a wide spectrum of disciplines
In addition, the project will also benefit recent alumni who, as facilitators, would be able to develop their connections with the College in a professional capacity and broaden their connections with a variety of practitioners.

Costs
Alumni working in the space as facilitators would need to be paid part-time and a budget for materials and expenses would need to be allocated to the project.
As the interdepartmental space would potentially provide a temporary home for students away from their Department the project could be funded by cross-charging the Department in question a proportion of the student fees.

Future Developments. How will it be sustained?
As emergent subject specialism’s in interdisciplinary areas are identified new lead curriculum developments could arise out of genuine student concerns and interests. Research areas that encompass subject areas outside art and design could attract a wide range of research funding.
The space could attract PEP students wanting to analyse and develop their practice in relation to other disciplines. Research into interdisciplinary practice and student–led teaching could lead to a culture that could be attractive to for international educators as professional development.

Errata corrige: The title of David Blamey and Debbie Cook’s contribution to the book should be Departed 21.

These are the key points that emerged during the discussion (transcribed by Shirley Surya):

1. Cultures of resistance in the form of re-imagining our relationship with the material world such that we reject mass consumption for a more ecological relationship by re-organising our lives and how we exchange goods. This requires a redefinition of well-being, to see that the disconnection from the world around us is undermining our sense of well-being. The basic objectives of society is to create conditions in which people can flourish, grow, and live long happy lives.

2. The arts and cultural industries play an important role in re-imagining such new relationships, in enabling society to make a leap in imagination, to show the possibility of another world in which we can be more engaged and invigorated in our interaction with people, materials and the environment.

3. The question of innovation always comes up – but to what end? Within these environmental limits, how do we create a new kind of creativity? Innovation can be small and diverse, drawing inspiration from the past, such as collective memory from the past.

4. Are universities still the centres of critiques where rethinking takes place? If this isn’t the space, where is it? Thus the need to create new spaces for discourse and action – in networks of people and tapping on systems such as the museum or gallery systems where people want things to be done differently by allowing small innovations, perceptions can change. It’s about connecting people, creating a dialogue that becomes very powerful as it creates a focal point. Different think-and-do tanks should be connected and open up space to increase the amount of inspirations and connections.

5. When we try to change things, should we think about changing ourselves? What’s the basis of our own practice?

These are some of the references we shared on the day:

The Work Foundation
Offers research, consultancy and advocacy to make workplaces more effective, successful and fulfilling.

The Young Foundation
A centre for social innovation based in London.

The Soul at Work – From Alienation to Autonomy
by Franco Berardi

Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire
by Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri

Commonwealth
by Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri

justfortheloveofit.org The freeconomy community
Promotes skillsharing

21 hours – Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century
by new economics foundation

A Bit Rich – Calculating the real value to society of different professions
by new economics foundation

Here a few of the things on sustainability and design that we discussed with Sophie Thomas of thomas.matthews:

- implementing sustainability into your designs means that you need to understand the whole process your ‘product’ goes through
- once you understood the whole process, this knowledge can feed into changing the design brief you have been given
- 80% of the impact of a product is influenced by its design
- find out what are your own principles, understand them and act according to them
- design your research into your projects

And here a few references that we shared:

Cradle To Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things
by By William McDonough & Michael Braungart

Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network (CIKTN)

Three Trees Don’t Make A Forest – with a large knowledge bank on sustainability for the design community

Download the leaflet advocating for an RCA children’s centre: small_talk_poster

Guerilla crits. Interdiciplinary encounters: student-led conversations with practioners about their work. Led by Dialogues in Design, a team of research students from the History of Design Department.

Simon Elvins, Julie Hill & Tom Mower from St. Pierre & Miquelon discuss their practice and how collaboration keeps them on track.
Here a few notes on what Simon, Julie and Tom shared with us:

• supporting each other after graduation in order to develop new projects and to share resources was important
• all three continue working individually as well as in collaboration
• all three have a variety of sources of income
• there is no fixed studio space for St.Pierre & Miquelon, which means pubs and other free spaces become make-shift meeting rooms
• the division of roles within the group is flexible
• the authorship of projects is shared, which can be problematic in a world that prioritises individualization

Read one of the texts, which Barbara Steveni shared with us:

#1 Context is half the work

This central axiom, (my manifesto title) developed from APG practice in the 70s, carries today a necessary component for current and future action for art, or for any other activity for that matter, which engages / impacts on an ‘other’.
Constructed to traverse time, place and discipline, this approach does not impose on any context, place or person, but rather suggests engagement between the artist on the one hand and invitation by the potential host on the other.
(APG’s text to the Zentrum fur Kulturforschung Bonn 1980)

Emphasise the following guideline engagement principles for an effective form of association of artists with organisational structures:

1. That context is half the work.
2. That the function of the medium of art is determined not so much by the factual/concrete object, as by the process and the levels of attention to which the work aims. (By level of attention is meant the consideration of human long-term identity)
3. That the proper contribution of art to society is art. (that society is starved of an important ingredient if ‘creative’ individuals are kept out of the working parts of governments/ organisations and institutions. (This is not to suggest that other individuals and specialists are not creatives)
4. That the status of the artist within organisations must necessarily be in line with other professional persons, engaged within the organisation.
5. That the status of the artist within organisations is independent, bound by invitation rather than instructions from authority within the organisations, departments, company, to the long-term objectives of the whole of society.
6. That, for optimum results, the position of the artist within an organisation should (in the first stages at least) facilitate a form of cross-referencing between departments.
7. That the artist’s brief remains open. Negotiations are contingent upon both participants having this understanding and a mutual confidence. This requires intelligence and strength in art and a reciprocal response from within administrations. To these principles/premises for engagement, I add in the context of the ‘greed economics’ of the day (quote Tony Benn Darwin Lectures)
8. That artist and host organisation QUESTION WITH RIGOUR their motivation for engagement. Perhaps Tony Benn’s questions he lists when addressing people/institutions with power apply equally here to artists when considering engaging/working with a potential hosting organisation.

* What power have you got?
* Where did you get it from?
* In whose interest do you use it?
* To whom are you accountable?
* How do we get rid of you?

Glenn Adamson, in conversation with Stephen Knott, presents a talk on De-skilling in amateur art, craft and design practice.

Here some of the things that were discussed on the day:

Getting started

• In order to get people together to initiate a group, there needs to be found a common ground, goal or aim. Commitment, enthusiasm and trust seem to be key attributes to keep a group going.

Communication

• How to form a horizontal structure? Might horizontality mean equal opportunity?

• How to keep up a healthy communication within the group? The chemistry in the group is important.

• Trans-college communication should be improved so that like-minded students can meet across colleges.

• Self-initiated educational initiatives will always be institution-specific, but still connecting across institutions can prove valuable and supportive.

• Documentation vs. Legacy – for an initiative it might be more productive to leave something that sparks imagination and reflection, rather then a 1:1 representation of the activities.

Accessibility

• How to keep a group accessible? How public do you want a project to be? Does a project become elitist, if the information is not stored in a place that can be accessed by everyone?

• Open calls for participation are a common mode of keeping groups open. Here often just one person gets back and this is already seen as a success.

• What other, maybe more efficient, modes of keeping a group open are there?

Group vs. Individual

• What role play personal interests within a collective goal? Where do you find an agreement between the individual and collective interests?

• It seems to be beneficial, if in a group there is space for employing personal skills.

Authority

• How to deal with the question of authority in student-led or extra curricula projects? What authority do you need for those initiatives to be accepted by the student body? Could the work or participation in them not be valued as everything else one does in college?

Organisation

• Critical Practice share their draft budget guidelines online.

• More about open organisations and transparent decision-making can be found here.

Re-shaping

• New necessities evolve throughout running a project, so it is necessary to adapt to these in a flexible way.

• It seems to be beneficial, if initiatives have some sort of perpetual restructuring build in.

Supporting

• How to network if you don’t do shows? Is cash all you can support these practitioners with? Could we think of a way to support people who have a non-medium based practice?

And finally:

• There is no good or bad practice, lets speak about productive practice instead.

All day long: post-modern British-Asian food by Jan Lun Lee & Bart Marett.