International Journal of Cultural Policy

ISSN: 1028-6632 (Print) 1477-2833 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcul20

The dance goes on forever? Art schools, class and

UK higher education

Mark Banks & Kate Oakley

To cite this article: Mark Banks & Kate Oakley (2016) The dance goes on forever? Art schools,
class and UK higher education, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 22:1, 41-57, DOI:
10.1080/10286632.2015.1101082

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1101082

Published online: 04 Nov 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1205

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcul20
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2016
Vol. 22, No. 1, 41–57, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1101082

The dance goes on forever? Art schools, class and UK higher

education
Mark Banksa* and Kate Oakleyb
a
Department of Media and Communication, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7JA, UK;
b
School of Media and Communication, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
(Received 19 June 2014; accepted 17 February 2015)

For most of the twentieth century, the UK ‘art school’ was widely seen as an
accessible alternative to University. In Art into Pop, Simon Frith and Howard
Horne revealed how this state-funded art and design training, linked to manu-
facturing industries and backed by relatively low or informal entry require-
ments, offered the prospect of social and economic uplift for hitherto
marginalised working-class youth. More recently, however, while enrolments
have expanded, art schools have become absorbed into conventional universi-
ties and the class profile, at least at the more prestigious colleges, has changed
significantly. Simultaneously, art schools, together with other forms of higher
education (HE) have been yoked to a broader public policy agenda of the
‘creative economy’ – one that often marginalises working-class people. This
paper takes the changing nature of the art school as its starting point for
discussion of class, HE and the creative economy workforce.
Keywords: art school; class; mobility; creative economy; higher education

Introduction
In the UK ‘art school’ refers generally to further and higher education (HE) under-
taken in the fine or visual arts, design or affiliated subjects. Most of this now takes
place within universities and a small number of independent art colleges, but for
most of the twentieth century many smaller UK towns and cities had their own
independent art school, predominantly serving local working- and lower-middle
class populations. As only a few universities offered fine art degrees and tended to
recruit their students from more privileged social groups, the art school came
widely to be known as an accessible alternative to university, offering the ‘masses’
the viable prospect of practically-oriented craft and aesthetic education (Field 1977,
Frayling 1987, Strand 1987, Le Grice 2011). While independent art schools flour-
ished until the start of the 1970s, the last four decades have seen a significant num-
ber close down, or else become absorbed into the wider HE system.
Should we be concerned at the decline or disappearance of the local art school?
At first glance, there doesn’t seem to be much call for unease – since the idea of
going to art school persists, but in a different form. In fact the last two decades
have seen an enormous expansion in HE, a widening of participation and a rapid
proliferation of university courses in fine and applied arts and design – all of which

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

42 M. Banks and K. Oakley

appear to have broadened the social base and enhanced and diversified the skills,
talents and ambitions of art students. There are now more graduates with ‘creative
arts and design’ degrees than ever before (Universities UK 2013). The fact that
many local or independent art schools have disappeared is a surely a minor collat-
eral cost, one easily offset against the benefits of a more integrated, formalised –
and still widely dispersed – system of art education. The expansion of university-
based HE has arguably been to the benefit of art schools, given that many precari-
ous institutions appear to have had their lives extended by becoming absorbed into
singular or federal partnerships within the university system.
Further, given that the official statistics tell us that more people than ever before
are employed in the creative industries (DCMS 2014) – many presumably applying
the skills acquired through arts-based diplomas and degrees – there seems even less
cause for concern as creative education and the creative economy appear to co-exist
in a prosperous and happy alignment. While there is perpetual undertow of debate
regarding the extent to which HE is ever able to ‘meet the needs of employers’, it is
not uncommon for business interests and politicians to talk up the value of the
creative industries and the systems of academic and vocational education that are
imagined to serve them. The prevailing common sense is that both the creative indus-
tries and universities of Britain are ‘amongst the best in the world’ (Cameron 2010).
Thus, in the teleology of the creative economy – and in the idea of Britain as a
‘creative nation’ – the role played by art schools and art education has been quite
distinct. The success of the creative industries is believed to owe much to the ways
in which its art school system has provided training for, and routes into, music,
publishing, television and film, art, fashion and design. It’s also been widely
assumed that the systematised provision of arts education and training has allowed
a more socially-diverse population to obtain a career in creative industries, as well
as effecting absolute increases in the total numbers employed.
The aim of this paper is to challenge some of these assumptions. Firstly by not-
ing some of the costs and contradictions of the shift away from more informal and
less instrumental arts school training to a more systematic provision. Secondly by
exposing some of the fallacious assumptions that have hitherto driven such an
expansion, namely the promise and guarantee of social mobility – and good jobs –
for ordinary people who enter arts education and go on to work in the cultural or
creative industries. This article is offered as commentary in respect of the themes
of this special issue, but also in complement to a set of rapidly expanding inquiries
into the neo-liberalisation of HE (e.g. see Collini 2012) and cultural or creative
industries education in particular (Banks and Hesmondhalgh 2009, Ashton and
Noonan 2013, Oakley 2013b)

The origins of the art school

The art school in Britain originated in the nineteenth century, mainly as a response
to emergent industrialisation and the need for more skilled craft, creative and arti-
sanal workers. Many art schools grew out of existing organisations such as Mechan-
ics Institutes (established in the 1820s) as off-shoots of an established system of
technical and industry education. It is important to note that most local schools of
art and design were originally state-funded, not necessarily because of an enlight-
ened cultural policy, but through an effort to help improve the competitiveness of
indigenous trades. For example, design education was first funded by Parliament in
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 43

1837, with the aim of improving the skills and knowledge of the UK’s manufactur-
ing industry, seen to be losing out to ‘better designed’ European exports after the
passing of free trade agreements (Strand 1987, Bird 2000). Parliament agreed a grant
of £10,000 to fund a Government School of Design in London (now the Royal
College of Art), with a proposed network of regional schools set up in the UK’s
major manufacturing centres thereafter (Frayling 1987). Subsequently, the Board of
Trade, and other forms of government-backing, aided by admixtures of philanthropy,
commercial investment and local public fund-raising, helped many institutions
develop and flourish.
Yet, in offering a technical training in craft-trades of printing, textiles, ceramics,
and other forms of design and industrial manufacture, the local art school not only
provided skills but the basic foundations of an aesthetic education. Indeed, since
their inception, art schools have always walked an uneven path between utility and
ornament; between the purely pragmatic necessities of serving industry and the
desire of teachers and students to move beyond such ‘narrow’ instrumental
concerns. To give a random, but somewhat typical example, the foundation of the
Macclesfield School of Art and Science in 1877 was marked by much civic fanfare
emphasising the harmony that might ensue as the two cultures met in service of the
local silk industry. The Macclesfield Courier and Herald reported the town’s Mayor,
Alderman Birchenough, as enthusiastically welcoming an institution that held the
high aim ‘to cultivate a taste for the beautiful and at the same time to raise the staple
manufacture of the town’, the reporter going on to praise the new college for its
focus on affairs ‘thoroughly practical in nature’ while aiming to nobly instil in its
populations ‘sweetness and light’ and a ‘love of the beautiful’ (Macclesfield Courier
and Herald 1877). Yet this happy union was being questioned only four years later
by Walter Scott, the Master of the School who opined that in Macclesfield ‘“Tech-
nics” and Art … should be clearly separated’ – imbued, as they were, with funda-
mentally different purposes and ambitions (Longden 1980, p. 174).
Here exemplified is two centuries of argument both about the purpose of the art
school and by extension, the purpose of art and design itself. A tension and oscilla-
tion between art and industry, free production and ‘useful’ design has been a con-
stant of art schools since their earliest inception (Strand 1987, Oakley et al. 2008,
Williamson 2013). Like many of the British universities established in the nine-
teenth century, local employers and civic administrations were often heavily
involved in the founding of art and design colleges, and the idea of further and HE
‘meeting the needs of industry’ is by no means an invention of neoliberal capital-
ism. Indeed, what would now be called ‘cultivating human capital’ or ‘investing in
the knowledge economy’ has long been a baseline activity for those local art col-
leges keen to support ‘staple manufacture’ and so appear civically useful, rather
than merely decorative.
Yet the separation of artist from artisan has long been institutionalised in arts
education. The painter William Dyce, in an 1837 letter to the Academy for the
Encouragement of Arts and Manufactures in Edinburgh, reported on the differences
he observed between European arts schools and those in the UK, noting that: ‘the
foreign school[s] of design deal with artists or designers as if they were to become
workmen, and with workmen as if they intended to be artists’ (quoted in Frayling
1987, p. 18) – understood by Dyce as an affront to the essence of each. The British
approach, in part under Dyce’s guidance, was to try and avoid this apparent
44 M. Banks and K. Oakley

problem by fiercely distinguishing between ‘fine arts’ and ‘commercial art’, the
former being the refuge of the Romantic artist and critic, the latter being the home
of both the craft worker and industrialised processes. Thus, despite some occasional
ambitions to meld the two cultures (such as in the Arts and Crafts movement) an
assumed division between ‘technics’ and art has long persisted in the UK. As the
art school evolved over the course of the twentieth century, the tension between art
and industry, or between creative freedoms and commercial necessities, appeared to
become somewhat more, rather than less, pronounced. Yet, as we’ll see, at the same
time the relationship transformed, or took on new appearances, in the light of wider
social, governmental and technological changes.

The art school dance

The mid-twentieth century expansion of art schools was underpinned by some
wider transformations in the UK education system. The 1944 Education Act had
led to the national introduction of free secondary education for all, compulsory to
the age of 15 (later 16), which was crucial in opening up new opportunities for arts
(and other forms of) education. This was followed (in the wake of the Robbins
Report of 1963) by investment in a whole range of existing and new universities,
and subsequently in polytechnics (tertiary and vocationally-oriented HE providers)
as well as local colleges of further and HE – including many specialists in arts,
media and design. This resulted in many thousands of working and lower-middle
class people, who had previously been denied opportunities for any significant arts
and cultural education, suddenly coming of age, not only as more educated and cul-
turally omnivorous than their forebears, but hungry for new experiences in the
expanding world of UK HE. Buoyed by free tuition, living on maintenance grants
administered by Local Education Authorities, and empowered by creative freedoms
integral to the pursuit of an art qualification, young people could find new worlds
open to them, new ways of seeing and being in institutions that were geared to
encouraging them to find their creative vocation.
By the early 1960s, most art schools were independent entities offering a mixed
array of post-secondary further education, short courses and more substantial quali-
fications, including degree-equivalent diplomas (see below). Art schools were there-
fore regarded as not only vital to local trades and emergent economies of art and
design but institutions that increasingly ‘played a major role in making HE avail-
able to young men and women who would not have considered university but
could get a grant to study art’ (Le Grice 2011, no pagination). How students
applied themselves to that study, or what they did after it, was regarded as no more
or less significant as opening up the possibility for mass participation and engage-
ment with aesthetic education (Strand 1987).
While it is difficult to specify precisely what the demographic profile was in
each of the emerging art schools, as little data on socio-economic background was
collected at the time, (Archer et al. 2005), the absolute and relative rise in working
class (and other minority) participation in FE and HE, especially from the mid-
1960s is widely acknowledged, and such groups were recognised as significant ele-
ments of the art school population (Strand 1987, Blackburn and Jarman 1993). Fol-
lowing the introduction of the so-called ‘binary system’ of post-school education in
the mid-1960s, the majority of the huge growth in HE participation was concen-
trated in the polytechnics, arts schools and technical colleges that made up one side
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 45

of the ‘divide’ (Universities being the others). As well as the academically

less-qualified, these institutions were particularly welcoming towards adult return-
ers-to-education and part-time students, both of which featured a higher than
average proportion of working class students (Ross 2005).
Thus by 1987 Simon Frith and Howard Horne’s book Art into Pop was able to
celebrate the unruly vitality of the post-war British art school and its central impor-
tance in providing Britain with social democratic opportunity and an array of new
artistic talent. At this point, despite some difficulties caused by the Thatcher gov-
ernment’s swingeing cuts in the HE budget, and the creeping expansion of a man-
agerialist tendency, Frith and Horne still felt confident in affirming the ongoing
significance of art school as ‘a place where young people, whether students there
or not, can hang out and learn [or] fantasize what it means to be an artist, a
bohemian, a star’ (1987, p. 21). This freedom to imagine and inhabit new social
worlds was, they suggested, at the very essence of the ‘art school dance’ a dance,
they maintained, ‘that goes on forever’ (1987, p. 22).
As Art into Pop noted, because art schools were ‘not infiltrated by the public
schools or infested with parental income’ (1987, p. 28), they offered opportunities
for enhancing the intellectual development and social mobility of a particular
fraction of a hitherto marginal class. Art schools provided a particular context for
people who had few qualifications or class credentials, and little cultural capital, but
whose social ‘awkwardness’ – as Frith and Horne described – seemed to have some
sort of creative potential (1987, p. 80). Art school was where erstwhile ‘council
estate yobs and truants’ (ibid.) such as Keith Richards could find an outlet for their
latent talents, and where a ‘bright, disruptive, lower class grammar school boy with
no O-levels’ like John Lennon could find a temporary location that was ‘better than
working’ (ibid.). More recently John Beck and Matthew Cornford have described art
schools of the period as refuges for working-class ‘malingerers, lateral thinkers and
[the] institutionally maladjusted’ (2012, p. 63) – and in fully approving terms. Even
the Ministry of Education, in overseeing the expansion in art schools in the 1960s,
had recognised that art schools offered congenial sanctuaries for those students
‘temperamentally allergic to conventional education’ (quoted in Strand 1987, p. 10).
Art schools therefore welcomed the ‘talented but academically unqualified’ (Frith
and Horne 1987, p. 28), who were encouraged to be self-expressive, and ‘find their
way’, but also embody the virtues of the idea of art as a practice – as an
open-ended, indeterminate and materially-specific process of inquiry. In doing so
they ideally learnt to not only respect and subvert the ethical standards of art and art
education – but to become an artistic person:

Art schools place constant emphasis on experimental practice, but also preserve art’s
traditions, teach the established art techniques against which students are expected to
rebel. Art school students have usually accepted the challenge, showing a healthy dis-
dain for the demands of the past – except that is for the romantic demand that being
an artist means living as an artist. (Frith and Horne 1987, p. 35)

What was being offered was a more fully-developed aesthetic education and self-
identity, increasingly divested of the kinds of instrument and pure necessity that
characterised earlier periods of art school training – one that both shaped and was
shaped by the accelerated pace of wider social change. The working class artist
rode the wave of the post-war welfare settlement, as well as an emergent cultural
46 M. Banks and K. Oakley

sensibility that encouraged a radical break with tradition. To be an artist was to

escape – and to become someone else.
The grounds of this social revolution were of course closely imbricated with a
set of wider economic transformations. The so-called ‘golden age of capitalism’
(Marglin and Schlor 1992) marked by strong growth and relative prosperity in the
West helped furnish and fund the kinds of education and employment opportunities
now being opened up to hitherto marginal social groups. The accelerated expansion
of a consumer capitalist society, where people’s desires for new symbolic goods
and experiences were being stimulated and increased, partly to fill expansions in
spending power and leisure time, was hugely significant in allowing art schools to
further flourish. New subcultures and consumer fractions were emerging that further
encouraged aesthetic innovations across the whole range of popular culture. Tech-
nological innovations such as cheaper, more portable communications and media,
material innovations in art-making, reproduction, and new printing technologies,
and new distribution systems were all vital to the art school moment. Thus the gen-
eral shift from societies based on heavy industry, to service-industry and tertiary
sector production, with a strong focus on symbolic and cultural production, further
invigorated the perception of art, design and affiliated sectors as sources of eco-
nomic opportunity. No doubt the art school student was a significant beneficiary of
these macro-transformations (see Strand 1987, Savage 1991).
Arguably, however, the first significant impact of the post-war art school was
social. The art school provided an opportunity for a working-class population to
not only obtain an advanced qualification but expose themselves to new social and
cultural worlds. The social type of the ‘art school student’ began to feature more
prominently in the landscapes and imaginaries of post-war Britain. Like their less
outré contemporaries ‘the scholarship boys’ (and girls), art students were symbolic
of a more motile class structure – but where they ‘belonged’ was not yet certain.
These new bohemians were in flight from proletarian tradition yet also contemptu-
ous of middle class mores and ‘straight’ society; rebelling against the hand of a cer-
tain fate, yet dismissive of an easy escape into the bourgeoisie. By the mid-1960s,
the art school had become much more than just a site for the (re)production of ‘sta-
ple manufacture’ or of an established and conservative Romanticism, since it flour-
ished also as a context for an emergent counter-cultural sensibility and fresh
experiments in class (and especially ‘youth’) sociality. Crucially, in the context of
the art-commerce dialectic, this was a period where a sense of the radical potential
of Art in art education regained the upper hand (Williamson 2013).
Yet what is also interesting is how a working-class presence was enabled not
only by social democratic desires to confer a universal education, or a more liberal
and ‘permissive’ social moment, but from some quite conventional state impulses to
both standardise and regulate. In 1959 the Ministry of Education commissioned a
review of art school education, proposing to replace the standard four-year National
Diploma in Design (largely focussed on traditional vocational skills) with a new
three-year qualification designed to be both more industry-friendly, while also aca-
demically rigorous. Chaired by Sir William Coldstream, Slade Professor of Painting,
the subsequent ‘First Coldstream’ Report of 1960 recommended the introduction of
compulsory theoretical elements into art school programmes, within a new Diploma
of Art and Design (Dip.AD.). Under this scheme colleges were free to devise their
own courses and timetables, and administer their own examinations, but were sub-
ject to external review and scrutiny and required to obtain accreditation to teach and
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 47

administer the qualification. A requirement of accreditation was to be able introduce

some significant art history into the curriculum, and to conceive of art training as a
conjunction of vocational skill and ‘theory’ – more in line with a ‘liberal arts’
degree training (Beck and Cornford 2012). As Beth Williamson notes, ‘the twin
objectives of raising standards and liberalizing the institutions were, in themselves, a
remarkable combination’ (2013, p. 362) having the effect of introducing more prac-
tical and academic rigour, while also giving licence for colleges to programme their
own ‘complementary’ theoretical studies.
These complementary studies became laboratories for all manner of highly
experimental and often radical and maverick teachings 1 that no doubt played a
significant part in energising the curricular and extra-curricular activities of art
students of the 1960s and beyond (Strand 1987, Savage 1991, Bracewell 2007,
Williamson 2013). It is not straightforwardly the case therefore that art schools in
their pomp were ‘freer’, more unfettered and unregulated, since the great efflores-
cence of the post-war art school is actually accelerated by Coldstream’s mandated
interventions. If, from today’s vantage point, 1960s art schools are somehow
regarded as more ‘radical’ or ‘anarchistic’, it ought to be understood that this was
is some significant part state-enabled, if not quite state-authorised.

The accident of economy

As Frith and Horne suggest, if the first achievement of art school was to mobilise
working-class bohemia, and ignite some social or aesthetic ‘uplift’, a secondary
effect was to foster the cultural economy, by training populations that would enter
the newly emerging and rapidly expanding arts and cultural industries. This is
where utility, or some version of it, comes back into the frame.
As its title suggests, Art into Pop places particular emphasis on how art schools
helped generate an economy of British popular music – and in fact locates art schools
at the epicentre of those aesthetic innovations that would help produce the British
beat boom, progressive and glam rock, punk, post-punk and New Romanticism. Frith
and Horne revealed how most of the more significant or influential British pop and
rock musicians of the period had been through, or were allied to, local art schools.
They also approvingly cited Laing’s One Chord Wonders (1985) which suggested
‘nearly a third of punk rock musicians had been students of some kind and most of
these had in fact studied art’ (Frith and Horne, p. 127). The role of art school in pro-
viding the (unplanned) context for the production of what is now thought of as an
inordinately rich and productive twenty years of British pop music industry seems
evident, and led Frith and Horne to conclude optimistically that the art school might
continue to provide the context for fertile pursuit of musical innovation, in its contin-
gent and varied intuitional settings.
Frith and Horne’s crucial claim is that while art school rarely explicitly ‘trained’
these musicians (and their supporting professionals) in the practices in which they
later excelled, what it did provide was an opportunity to experiment in one’s cho-
sen discipline, and much beyond, without the pressure to pursue any particular
career pathway. So while students were educated in some particular artistic or craft
skills, they were not bound by them, nor discouraged from taking opportunities that
might contingently arise from their contextual undertaking, as Beck and Cornford
here describe:
48 M. Banks and K. Oakley

For many working-class students, art school became not just a skills provider but a
portal through which the most advanced cultural debates and practices of the time
could be encountered. It is this collision of tradecraft and high art experienced by an
unprecedented socially diverse student body that produces the moment of the British
art school as an engine of unforeseen cultural outcomes. (Beck and Cornford 2012,
p. 61)

These ‘unforeseen outcomes’ weren’t confined to the music industry. As Frith

and Horne argued, and writers such as Savage (1991) and Bracewell (2007) have
since explored, from the 1960s onwards, innovations in ‘pop-art’, pop music,
avant-garde and counter-cultural politics, commercial practices of design, publish-
ing, retailing, and all the creative affordances of an expanded media culture, most
productively came together in the art school context, so providing blueprints for
what have since become known as the ‘creative industries’. Here, Janey Ironside,
the first Professor of Fashion at the Royal College of Art, describes the conse-
quences for fashion design of a more widespread working-class entry into the arts
academy:

… one of the best results of the social revolution in Britain since the Second World
War has been the release of many young designers 2 to the world. By a system of
local and government grants, young people are enabled to go to art schools and col-
leges and have the freedom to experiment. Before the war most of the people who are
now well known designers would probably have been maids in other people’s house,
miners, or working in shops … (Ironside date unknown, cited in Bracewell 2007,
p. 52)

This analysis is commensurate with a general perspective that suggests, in Britain

at least, the mid-to-late century growth of the arts, media and cultural industries,
and the range of jobs in them, could quite justifiably have been said to have had a
positive effect on absolute social mobility (Goldthorpe and Jackson 2007).3 This
might reasonably be regarded as a genuine moment of social democratic progress,
where working-class people enter worlds of society and work hitherto denied to
them – and partly through their own efforts help create new kinds of ‘creative’
industry, unanticipated and unplanned. Long before the idea was taken up as a pub-
lic policy nostrum, localised creative economies and innovative cultural production
were taking place in a way that was more inclusive than later iterations would be
able to reproduce.
Thus the traditional tension between art and commerce, free aesthetics and pur-
poseful industry, takes on a particularly productive cast from the 1960s. Open and
diverse institutions, producing both radical and innovative art and design, and serv-
ing a plurality of commercial tastes and markets appeared to be in the ascendancy
– offering gains all round. But note that the art school was regarded by Frith and
Horne less a conveyor belt or production line for fully-formed creative industry
‘talent’, and more as an indeterminate context for the cultivation of a type – the
creative or artistic personality – whose ‘career path’, was regarded as an extrinsic
and external matter. As Beck and Cornford (2012, p. 60) aver, the art school was
less a sausage factory and more a ‘condition of possibility’ whose principal bene-
fits were more ‘environmental and affective’ than instrumentally educative. This
sense of openness and indeterminacy might be contrasted with what was soon to
come.
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 49

Saving the last dance? The art school today

While Frith and Horne were optimistic that the art school dance would last, they
were sanguine enough to sound a warning:

The problem now is that the material conditions of art education are becoming
increasingly less conducive to three years of experimentation and discovery (…) the
free creative personality is becoming a less and less viable option. (p. 39)

The sense of a world about to change looms in the background of Art into Pop,
though the resilience of the art school is assumed to be sufficient to withstand the
chill winds of any anticipated financial and managerial reform. However, change
was already significantly advanced, since many art schools had been absorbed into
the polytechnics, and, from the mid-1970s, more traditional universities had begun
to offer students the option of fine art and design degrees.4 Art education became
much further removed from the kinds of idiosyncratic (albeit state-accredited) pro-
vision that had marked the earlier era of the Dip.Ad. This occurred partly in
response to wider demands to draw greater value for money from HE, and conjoin
it more squarely to national economic priority as the ‘golden age’ began to draw to
a close (Strand 1987). It is notable however, that throughout the 1990s with further
consolidation of the shift towards neo-liberal national governments (firstly Conser-
vative, then New Labour) there is both a rationalisation of costs and institutional
structures in HE, and an expansion of arts HE, both in terms of enrolled student
numbers and the range of arts and design qualifications being offered.
Under New Labour an overall investment in HE was matched by a new strin-
gency in internal and external accounting and management, and ensuring that HE
was incentivized to more closely align its ambitions to government economic pol-
icy. At this time, local art schools continued to disappear or be absorbed into uni-
versities or other institutional partnerships, rendering them (arguably) more durable
and effective, under tightened financial and managerial regimes. Such innovations
ran in parallel with the rise of the creative industries as a recognisable industrial
‘sector’ and object of government, and under New Labour especially, universities
were encouraged to lay clearer developmental pathways between HE and creative
industry. Thus the traditional utilitarian links between art school and the worlds of
work were reasserted, but in a newly intensified and specific form. The following
sections consider the impact of some of these measures on art schools and arts
education.

Gaining entry
The global expansion of HE is well documented and the UK has seen a growth in
undergraduates wanting to study subjects related to the arts and cultural industries,
with a 30% growth in ‘creative arts and design’, between 2003/4 and 2011/12
(Universities UK 2013). The general expansion in the number of university places,
heavy promotion of the necessity and virtue of having university qualifications, and
the lack of viable employment alternatives at post-secondary school level drove
many UK students onto arts (and other) degree programmes. Thus, in terms of
absolute numbers enrolled, the art school (or rather, the university arts department)
is more inclusive than ever before, though one thing we should note is the cluster-
ing of students from higher-class social groups within elite universities and arts
50 M. Banks and K. Oakley

colleges, the majority of which remain relatively closed to working-class entrants

(Comunian et al. 2010, Oakley 2013b).
Change is afoot, however. From the point of view of current and future stu-
dents, the effective privatisation of HE has been brought home most fiercely via
the introduction of high tuition fees, currently around £9000 a year in most English
universities. Such fees mean that a student that began a degree in 2012 will be
expected to graduate with debts of over £50,000 (Johnston 2013), approximately
twice the current national average wage and more than most of those who work in
the arts will ever earn. And indeed applications for arts and design degrees showed
their first decline for some time with a drop of 15% in 2012 (Creative & Cultural
Skills 2014). The rhetoric of the scheme and particularly the fact that students pay
no fees ‘up front’, but rather take out a loan which is repaid only once post-gradu-
ate income crosses a certain threshold, seems to suggest that working class students
are not unduly disadvantaged in such a system. In fact there have been some falls
in applications to HE among working class boys, while other ‘non standard’ groups
that made up a vital part of this art school population, such as mature students,
have seen a 14% drop in applications (Independent Commission on Fees 2013).
However, as Johnston (2013) has demonstrated, even if fees did not disadvantage
poor students, they do disadvantage poor graduates. The longer taken to pay off the
debt (and they are only written off after 30 years), the higher the overall costs.
Rising costs also mean that living away from home as an undergraduate is con-
siderably less common in than it was, and is less likely to be the case for working
class than for middle class students (Holdsworth and Patiniotis 2005, HEFCE
2009). Such changes to student funding and the introduction of fees have helped
produce a more calculating relationship between students, HE and the labour mar-
ket, one in which assumptions about the student experience, common even twenty
years ago, no longer apply (Ramsey and White 2014). The ecology of old, whereby
working class students could attend for free (and without incurring financial penalty
through dropping-out), any number of locally or regionally located arts schools or
arts-teaching universities, as a means of improving career opportunities – or reso-
lutely avoiding them – is no longer available. The costs of this – in terms of
inequality, potentially frustrated social mobility and stymied innovation and creativ-
ity – are difficult to calculate, though perhaps already qualitatively appreciable
(Barnett 2011, Tickle 2013, Haste et al. 2014).

Training contra practice

The notion that universities should now simply ‘train’ arts workers – rather than,
say, provide some fertile, independent context for learning or for the cultivation of
an artistic sensibility or practice – has become more pronounced. These changes
have had profound consequences for arts curriculum content and delivery, as well
as shaping the practices and ambitions of students themselves. The kind of infor-
mal, situated and practice-focussed arts education outlined in Art into Pop has been
superseded by requirements for HE institutions to demonstrate appropriately stan-
dardised and regulated programmes that point to specific learning and employment
outcomes.
In curricular terms, while negotiating the tensions between art and commerce
remains an essential feature of art school, a more pronounced focus on external out-
comes, and the wider skills and employability agenda, has arguably driven the
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 51

emphasis much more towards the commercial than the artistic. A decade ago, Jon
Thompson railed against the accelerated imposition of an ‘accountancy function’
(2005, p. 218) into HE, which he regarded as an affront to the foundational purpose
of the arts, and argued instead for the retention of a strong sense of art education
as unfixed practice:

In fine art, learning occurs very largely through personally directed conceptual and
material experimentation. The teaching ‘input’ can only ever be highly speculative, its
relevance and effectiveness is uncertain. The learning ‘outcome’ is correspondingly
unpredictable, and since it depends on developmental factors outside the teaching situ-
ation, it is often indeterminately delayed. (2005, p. 216)

This is not romanticism or a prescription for anarchy, but a claim about the objec-
tive qualities of a practice (MacIntyre 1981): an activity that contains certain intrin-
sic values and goods that might well be inimical to standard forms of accounting
or a wholly external measure. And while art schools generally do retain some sense
of this practice, it is certainly clear that recent developments have challenged the
kinds of ideal Thompson envisaged, as well as routine procedures more characteris-
tic of a previous art school era.
Under the present austerity, and after the end of public funding for baseline
teaching, the challenges faced by art schools are formidable (Sutton 2014). Many
institutions have been forced to close down unprofitable or loss-making degree
courses, reduce what are often costly studio and technical workshop facilities and
disinvest from foundation and undergraduate provision, focussing instead on more
lucrative postgraduate courses that command premium fees; a picture recently con-
firmed by the trade journal Art Monthly:

… art education is now run as a business in a competitive environment in which

universities are pitted against each other. More concerning, however, is the fact that
individual courses have now been plunged even further into an internal market where
they compete for resources within their host universities; courses that do not show a
competitive return on investment relative to other programmes are now at risk. Fine
art courses, with their expensive studio/workshop requirements, lack of industry spon-
sorship and limited opportunities to develop patents or intellectual property, look par-
ticularly precarious. (Barrett 2013, no pagination)

As late as 2000 or so, the idea of art schools as incubators of the creative industries
was still regarded as secondary to their core teaching purpose – or at least a priority
only equivalent to that of nurturing a culture of aesthetic critique, arts participation
and social democratic opportunity. Yet as the curriculum has become more man-
aged, so its connections with the world beyond have become more instrumental.
Such an approach neglects many of the traditional, informal links between art
school and the cultural sector, that sustained a relatively porous and indeterminate
relationship between HE and the wider world, replacing them instead with a more
formal ‘knowledge transfer’ model. This includes activities such as offering consul-
tancy and commercial research, funding of start-up and spin-out companies (cer-
tainly at the technology end of the ‘creative and media’ disciplines), sale of
intellectual property, and the growth of student placements, internships and other
forms of what once was called ‘work experience’, but increasingly is just unpaid
work (Allen et al. 2012, Ashton 2013, Noonan 2015). This is not to say that valu-
able and worthwhile collaborations between arts colleges and industry do not exist
52 M. Banks and K. Oakley

– far from it – but to suggest that the kinds of multiple, indeterminate and
open-ended engagements that characterised an earlier period (and as Frith and
Horne showed, proved so productive) appear under threat from a more instrumental
imperative that often fails to deliver what it promises.

Getting into work

The number of people (of all social classes) with arts qualifications has dramatically
increased alongside an apparently unprecedented growth in creative economy occu-
pations and jobs (Oakley et al. 2008, NESTA 2013, DCMS 2014). This implies an
innate inclusivity and an educative and economic success. Yet the opportunities for
working-class people to enter and progress in creative industry job market are less
clear-cut than forty or fifty years ago – mainly because of the colonisation of all
kinds of (now highly prestigious) creative industry jobs by middle-class workers
and the cementing of particular structures of opportunity and inequality that serve
to exclude working-class participants.
That the arts and cultural industries workplace is strongly stratified by class (not
to mention by ethnicity, gender, age and disability) is not in doubt (e.g. see Banks
et al. 2013, Eikhof and Warhurst 2013). Nor is the argument that such a pattern is
generally getting worse rather than better (Oakley 2013a, Randle et al. 2015). Con-
trary to popular rhetoric, recent research by Comunian et al. (2010) suggests that
arts graduates often struggle to find jobs in the creative industries – in their esti-
mate only around half of all ‘bohemian’ graduates (as they term them) find jobs in
creative industries or other creative occupations, shortly after graduation. The
majority of jobs (and the best jobs) in the creative sector tend also to be taken by
graduates from elite (known as ‘Russell Group’) universities, regardless of whether
they have an arts-based degree or not. Their implication is that the route to success
lies in holding a degree (in any discipline) from an elite university, and they
emphasise ‘the fact that bohemian graduates are more likely to study in “new” uni-
versity or colleges and less likely to come from Russell group universities might
harm their career prospects (at least initially)’ (2010, p. 400). There is no evidence
that these prospects improve in the longer term. In short, for ordinary people, going
to art school is no guarantee of even entering the creative industries, let alone
obtaining a good job or salary.
This further suggests that while the traditional art school may have once helped
elevate working-class people into emergent arts careers yet to be fully colonised by
middle-class labour (especially the pop culture industries), this absolute mobility
wasn’t – and has never really been – matched by a relative mobility; an elevation
of working class people up the ladder at the expense of middle-class others.
Research has shown consistently that the best guarantee of success in the creative
industries is not to be possessed of a personal artistic ‘talent’, that one has been
able to develop at art school, and then express naturally under the meritocratic
affordances of the free market, but to draw benefit from the intergenerational trans-
mission of advantage – to have wealthy parents, attended a ‘good’ school and been
to a ‘decent’ university (Sutton Trust 2006, Sayer 2009, Allen et al. 2013, Creative
& Cultural Skills 2014). In industries well-known for their informal and individu-
alised recruitment processes, to have the right ‘face’, ‘image’ and social back-
ground is to be regarded as being the right ‘type’.
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 53

There are other ways in which the middle classes are now hoarding creative job
opportunities. For example, the use of unpaid intern labour has become a standard
practice in the cultural and creative industries. Yet internship availability tends to
be restricted to those social groups who are already socially ‘networked’ (e.g. the
children of established professionals and managers) or who can afford the luxury of
working for free – usually those backed by independent or parental income. Thus,
opportunities in the more prestige creative industries (especially journalism, televi-
sion and film, fine art) are narrowly dispersed amongst the offspring of the already
well-off. The opportunities for working class or otherwise disadvantaged groups to
obtain these vital footholds in their chosen industry are thereby diminished –
further narrowing the social basis of the sector (Malik and Syal 2011, Perlin 2011).
Finally, the opportunities for work are regionally variable, and financially
dependent. The cost of HE, increased indebtedness, unpaid or low paid work in the
cultural industries and the concentration of creative employment within London
and the South East of England, the most expensive part of the UK for housing, all
combine to make class exclusion an increasing feature of arts and cultural industry
work, even as the sectors themselves expand in terms of education provision and
total employment.
Indeed, in a bizarre twist, the privately-educated and most socially-privileged
are increasingly seen as vital sources of future artistry; here the most prestigious
public (i.e. fee-paying) school of all – Eton – is re-imagined as a hotbed of creative
industry talent:

From Wellington to Gladstone, and Macmillan to Cameron, Eton College has long
been a seedbed for British politics and for the diplomatic service. More recently a
smattering of television personalities, conductors and Olympic sportsmen have also
been able to look back at schooldays spent on the celebrated playing fields. Now
though, that famously establishment school near Windsor is increasingly being hailed
as a first-rate launch pad for a theatrical career Leading Old Etonian actors such as
Tom Hiddleston, Harry Lloyd, Eddie Redmayne, Henry Faber and Harry Hadden-
Paton are suddenly at the top of the list for casting directors on the most prestigious
film and television projects. (Thorpe 2012, no pagination)

What does this tell us about meritocracy – and the popular myth that in the creative
industries ‘anyone can make it’? And what future role does it ascribe for art
schools, and the working class talent that once populated them?

Conclusions
The success of art schools of the mid-to-late twentieth century lay in their abilities
to attract and retain a social class hitherto excluded from HE, to provide them with
conditions congenial to the development of a practice, and a set of principles and
ideals transferable into the cultivation of an artistic (or otherwise creative or criti-
cal) identity and persona. Their secondary success in helping to seed the extraordi-
nary efflorescence of what came to be termed the UK ‘creative industries’ suggests
that not only were they relatively successful as experiments in open and democratic
education, but provided an unanticipated ‘use’ as economic ‘incubators’ – all of
which took place prior to the neo-liberalisation and privatisation of HE and its
re-purposing to ‘meet the needs of industry’.
54 M. Banks and K. Oakley

As McRobbie and Forkert (2013) suggest, a worthwhile priority now would be

‘to safeguard good practice in these historic institutions without romanticising
them5’ and to re-visit what made them so successful thereby ‘defending their exis-
tence but dissecting what it is that has that made them important to national cul-
tural life and beyond’ (2013, p. 3). But the current policy approach to HE, and to
particular questions of access, equality and representation, betrays how far we have
come from the cultural and social milieu of Frith and Horne’s art school. For exam-
ple, one recent intervention (Creative & Cultural Skills 2014), addresses clearly
what it sees as three related issues: rising youth unemployment, declines in social
mobility and low pay or unpaid work in the cultural industries. Its solution to such
problems is one favoured by the current UK Coalition Government, a major expan-
sion of apprenticeships offering below-minimum wage work (subsidised for
employers) combined with training, which provides a non –graduate route into
working in the cultural sectors. Commenting on the need for apprenticeships, the
Creative and Cultural Skills agency says:

While a straightforward business case is difficult to establish, particularly in a sector

as adverse to long term planning as the creative industries, it is apparent that a mix of
factors can and is persuasive to encourage employers to take on young people. The
mix of altruism with regards to youth unemployment, the need to increase workforce
diversity in order to drive innovation, the new skills and abilities young people
possess in relation to the current workforce and the ability for employers to build a
pipeline of talent should all be seen as key. (2014, p. 25)

Leaving aside the bizarre suggestion that taking on subsided workers requires
‘altruism’, the deep instrumentalism of such an approach leaves very little room for
arguments about the wider benefits of arts education and practice. The solution to
the difficulties of paying for HE for working class children is to give them work-
place training, leaving HE for those who can afford it. It’s hard to imagine a clearer
statement of the abandonment both of the benefits of education as a good in itself,
and the role of HE in particular as an engine of expanded possibilities, both educa-
tional and social.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes
1. As Beth Williamson (2013) and Bracewell (2007) have outlined, these included theoreti-
cal, art-history teaching influenced by (amongst many others) Dadaism, abstract expres-
sionism, pop-art, Bauhaus, psychoanalysis, revolutionary Marxism, cybernetics, radical
ecology and so on.
2. For example Ossie Clark, Vivienne Westwood, Zandra Rhodes, Antony Price, Terence
Conran.
3. Absolute mobility captures movement in the aggregate size of different classes, and the
proportions of populations allocated to them – thus in the mid-twentieth Century the
shrinkage of the traditional working class and the expansion of a new middle class gave
rise to increases in absolute mobility as large numbers of people migrated from the former
to the latter. In contrast, relative mobility measures the likelihood of any one individual
moving between classes, when the absolute size of classes is held constant.
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 55

4. The BA Hons eventually replaced the Dip.Ad. in 1974, and higher art education became
fully absorbed into the mainstream of university qualifications (see Strand 1987).
5. Certainly art schools contained their fair share of inequalities, injustices and substandard
practices; and it’s also worth noting that the main beneficiaries of the art school era
where white men, rather than women or ethnic minorities. We have insufficient room
here to do justice to this more complex and variegated history – though of course
recognise the importance of addressing it.

References
Allen, K., et al., 2012. Doing diversity and evading equality: the case of student work
placements in the creative sector. In: Y. Taylor, ed. Educational diversity: the subject of
difference and different subjects. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 180–200.
Allen, K., et al., 2013. Becoming employable students and ‘ideal’ creative workers: exclu-
sion and inequality in higher education work placements. British journal of sociology of
education, 34 (3), 431–452.
Archer, L., Hutchings, M., and Ross, A., eds., 2005. Higher education and social class:
issues of exclusion and inclusion. London: Routledge.
Ashton, D., 2013. Industry practitioners in higher education: identities, norms, and values.
In: D. Ashton and C. Noonan, eds. Cultural work and higher education. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 172–192.
Ashton, D. and Noonan, C., eds., 2013. Cultural work and higher education. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Banks, M. and Hesmondhalgh, D., 2009. Looking for work in creative industries policy.
International journal of cultural policy, 15 (4), 415–430.
Banks, M., Gill, R., and Taylor, S., 2013. Introduction: cultural work, time and trajectory.
In: M. Banks, R. Gill, and S. Taylor, eds. Theorizing cultural work. London: Routledge,
1–16.
Barnett, L., 2011. British art schools: class dismissed. The Guardian, 10 Apr. Available
from: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/10/art-schools-funding
[Accessed June 2014].
Barrett, D., 2013. Disrupting art education. Art Monthly, May. Available from: http://www.
artmonthly.co.uk/magazine/site/article/disrupting-art-education-by-david-barrett-may-2013
[Accessed June 2014].
Beck, J. and Cornford, M., 2012. The art school in ruins. Journal of visual culture, 11 (1),
58–83.
Bird, L., 2000. Art and design education: historical overview, Working Papers in art and
Design 1, University of Hertfordshire.
Blackburn, R. and Jarman, J., 1993. Changing inequalities in access to British universities.
Oxford review of education, 19 (2), 197–215.
Bracewell, M., 2007. Remake/remodel: art, pop, fashion and the making of Roxy Music,
1953–1972. London: Faber and Faber.
Cameron, D., 2010. Transforming the British economy: coalition strategy for economic
growth, speech delivered 28 May 2010. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/
speeches/transforming-the-british-economy-coalition-strategy-for-economic-growth
[Accessed June 2014].
Collini, S., 2012. What are universities for? London: Penguin.
Comunian, R., Faggian, A., and Li, Q., 2010. Unrewarded careers in the creative class: the
strange case of bohemian graduates. Regional Science, 89 (2), 389–410.
Creative & Cultural Skills, 2014. Building a creative nation: evidence base. London: Crea-
tive and Cultural Skills.
DCMS, 2014. Creative industries economic estimates. London: DCMS.
Eikhof, D. and Warhurst, C., 2013. The promised land? Why social inequalities are systemic
in the creative industries. Employee relations, 35 (5), 495–508.
Field, D., 1977. Recent developments and emerging problems in English art education. Art
education, 30 (8), 5–8.
Frayling, C., 1987. The Royal College of Art. One hundred and fifty years of art and design.
London: Barrie & Jenkins.
56 M. Banks and K. Oakley

Frith, S. and Horne, H., 1987. Art into pop. London: Methuen.
Goldthorpe, J.H. and Jackson, M., 2007. Intergenerational class mobility in contemporary
Britain: political concerns and empirical findings. British journal of sociology, 58 (4),
526–546.
Haste, P., Hayton, A. and Jones, A., 2014. Promoting diversity in fine art education the case
of fine art at goldsmiths. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1–19. ISSN 0142-
5692.
HEFCE, 2009. Patterns in higher education: living at home. HEFECE Issues paper June
2009/20. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2009/200920/
09_20.pdf [Accessed June 2014].
Holdsworth, C. and Patiniotis, J., 2005. Seize that chance! Leaving home and transitions to
higher education. Journal of youth studies, 8 (1), 81–95.
Independent Commission on Fees, 2013. 18,000 Fewer mature students apply to university
since fees increase. Available from: www.independentcommissionfees.org.uk/word
press/?page_id=47 [Accessed March 2014].
Johnston, R., 2013. England’s new scheme for funding higher education through student
fees: ‘fair and progressive’? The political quarterly, 84 (2), 200–210.
Laing, D., 1985. One chord wonders. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Le Grice, M., 2011. History lessons. Frieze, No. 142, October. Available from: http://www.
frieze.com/issue/article/history-lessons/.
Longden, G., 1980. Further education in Macclesfield 1835–1945. Masters in Education.
Faculty of Education, University of Manchester.
Macclesfield Courier and Herald, 1877. Laying the foundation stone of the new school of
art. 10 Nov, 2. microfiche archive, Macclesfield Library.
MacIntyre, A., 1981. After virtue: a study in moral theory. London: Duckworth.
Malik, S. and Syal, R., 2011. Internships: the scandal of Britain’s unpaid army. The Guar-
dian, 4 November. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/nov/04/in
ternships-scandal-britain-unpaid-army [Accessed April 2014].
Marglin, S. and Schlor, J., eds., 1992. The golden age of capitalism. Oxford: Clarendon.
McRobbie, A. and Forkert, K., 2013. Artists and art schools: for or against innovation? A
reply to NESTA, variant, 34, 3–4.
NESTA, 2013. A manifesto for the creative economy. London: NESTA.
Noonan, C., 2015. Constructing creativities: higher education and the cultural industries
workforce. In: K. Oakley and J. O’Connor, eds. The Routledge companion to the cul-
tural industries. London: Routledge, 442–451.
Oakley, K., 2013a. Absentee workers: representation and participation in the cultural indus-
tries. In: M. Banks, R. Gill, and S. Taylor, eds. Theorizing cultural work. London:
Routledge, 56–68.
Oakley, K., 2013b. Making workers – higher education and the cultural industries
workplace. In: D. Ashton and C. Noonan, eds. Cultural work and higher education.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 25–44.
Oakley, K., Pratt, A., and Sperry, B., 2008. The art of innovation. London: NESTA.
Perlin, R., 2011. Intern nation: how to earn nothing and learn little in the brave new econ-
omy. London: Verso.
Ramsey, P. and White, A., 2014. Arts for arts sake? A critique of the instrumentalist turn in
the teaching of media and communication in UK universities. International journal of
cultural policy. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10286632.
2013.878338.
Randle, K., Forson, C., and Calveley, M., 2015. Towards a Bourdieusian understanding of
the social composition of the UK film and television workforce. Work, employment and
society, 29 (4), 590–606.
Ross, A., 2005. Access to higher education: inclusion for the masses? In: L. Archer, et al.,
eds. Higher education and social class: issues of exclusion and inclusion. London:
Routledge, 45–74.
Savage, J., 1991. England’s dreaming: Sex Pistols and punk rock. London: Faber and Faber.
Sayer, A., 2009. Contributive justice and meaningful work. Res Publica, 15, 1–16.
Strand, R., 1987. A good deal of freedom: art and design in the public sector of higher edu-
cation, 1960–1982. London: CNAA.
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 57

Sutton, I., 2014. Is this the end of the British art school? New Statesman, 20 Nov. Available
from: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/11/end-british-art-school.
Sutton Trust, 2006. The educational backgrounds of leading journalists. London: Sutton
Trust.
Thompson, J., 2005. Art education: from Coldstream to QAA. Critical quarterly, 47 (1–2),
215–225.
Thorpe, V., 2012. Eton spawns a new breed of stage and screen luminaries. The Observer,
21 Jan. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/21/eton-stage-
screen-luminaries [Accessed June 2014].
Tickle, L., 2013. Johnny Vegas finds state of the arts is no joke. The Guardian, 21 May, p.
36.
Universities UK, 2013. The funding challenge for universities. London: Universities UK.
Williamson, B., 2013. Recent developments in British art education: ‘Nothing changes from
generation to generation except the thing seen’. Visual culture in Britain, 14 (3),
356–378.