Post by gator on Apr 21, 2007 5:29:13 GMT 10
Has anyone been following Melbourne Uni's first step towards Corporatisation?
The American Model has now been imposed on Melbourne Uni. and I would imagine other institutions will be watching this experiment with some interest.
For music ,this is yet another blow to educating our young players, because the fact that Australia enjoys a tiny fraction of the arts philanthropy that the U.S has,seems to have been overlooked-or perhaps not..
It may seem of little consequence to most of you but having read Mark and Gut's terrific comments about the importance of backing your own creativity, the drain that teaching imposes on it, the sacrifice and the gamble of it all, I thought I might add this counterpoint to what is happening in the so called "secure teaching environment".
Firstly, as Vicki points out elsewhere, there is no security anywhere,anymore.Teaching jobs for musicians have been treated with the same casual contempt by most schools and Universities since I can remember, apart from the few teachers who have truly entrenched themselves into academia,but never was this more shaky than now.
This is often a response to the difficulty we have in this country of granting creative teachers and particularly performing artists, permanent teaching posts. That they may just exploit the situation by pursuing their intangible(to anyone else) artistic ideals at the expense of the institution is so unacceptable, it is now,within the Melbourne Model going to be more commonplace to regulate the activity of artists and researchers in the University environment, by increasing teaching loads and research demands, and monitoring these with a view to eventually splitting the paradigm into those who research and those who teach, where teaching is definitely the more subordinate position of the two.
There are individuals in every department/ profession who exploit their work environments,but the arts cop it because theres a national ambivalence toward them.
The notion of what artistic research is, is another problem for the same reason; that the research/practice ,may not result in anything directly tangible or marketable is a huge issue for a university now. Great research is and always will be the passion of people to explore what fascinates them, not some prescribed activity driven by the need to perpetuate the institution.
I personally have a problem with performing arts in a University environment anyway-most universities will try and offset the popularity of their performing arts departments with poor resourcing in a cynical gesture to get more students in but at less cost to the institution... and the embedded attitudes of academia can be antithetical to performance,which is something European Institutions figured out centuries ago!Hence the Conservatorium as opposed to the University.
The point of all this is that if you are a performer/you will find it very hard to research/practice in the university environment,and following the Melbourne model, you will have to teach in an environment where your own artistic development is not valued.Who wants that?Teaching at Uni level requires that you should be recognized as an artist, right?Obviously not any more...
The future for music departments will be in conceptualizing innovation, talking about it, but never actually being able to do it, whilst out on the street, people will continue to make music and innovate.
I hate to say it, but the culture of performing is being replaced by the culture of informing, until the time when performing is recognized for its own inherent value to humanity.
Mark and Gut's, you guys are on the right track, better to do your own research, cop the responsibility, and the rewards.
The American Model has now been imposed on Melbourne Uni. and I would imagine other institutions will be watching this experiment with some interest.
For music ,this is yet another blow to educating our young players, because the fact that Australia enjoys a tiny fraction of the arts philanthropy that the U.S has,seems to have been overlooked-or perhaps not..
It may seem of little consequence to most of you but having read Mark and Gut's terrific comments about the importance of backing your own creativity, the drain that teaching imposes on it, the sacrifice and the gamble of it all, I thought I might add this counterpoint to what is happening in the so called "secure teaching environment".
Firstly, as Vicki points out elsewhere, there is no security anywhere,anymore.Teaching jobs for musicians have been treated with the same casual contempt by most schools and Universities since I can remember, apart from the few teachers who have truly entrenched themselves into academia,but never was this more shaky than now.
This is often a response to the difficulty we have in this country of granting creative teachers and particularly performing artists, permanent teaching posts. That they may just exploit the situation by pursuing their intangible(to anyone else) artistic ideals at the expense of the institution is so unacceptable, it is now,within the Melbourne Model going to be more commonplace to regulate the activity of artists and researchers in the University environment, by increasing teaching loads and research demands, and monitoring these with a view to eventually splitting the paradigm into those who research and those who teach, where teaching is definitely the more subordinate position of the two.
There are individuals in every department/ profession who exploit their work environments,but the arts cop it because theres a national ambivalence toward them.
The notion of what artistic research is, is another problem for the same reason; that the research/practice ,may not result in anything directly tangible or marketable is a huge issue for a university now. Great research is and always will be the passion of people to explore what fascinates them, not some prescribed activity driven by the need to perpetuate the institution.
I personally have a problem with performing arts in a University environment anyway-most universities will try and offset the popularity of their performing arts departments with poor resourcing in a cynical gesture to get more students in but at less cost to the institution... and the embedded attitudes of academia can be antithetical to performance,which is something European Institutions figured out centuries ago!Hence the Conservatorium as opposed to the University.
The point of all this is that if you are a performer/you will find it very hard to research/practice in the university environment,and following the Melbourne model, you will have to teach in an environment where your own artistic development is not valued.Who wants that?Teaching at Uni level requires that you should be recognized as an artist, right?Obviously not any more...
The future for music departments will be in conceptualizing innovation, talking about it, but never actually being able to do it, whilst out on the street, people will continue to make music and innovate.
I hate to say it, but the culture of performing is being replaced by the culture of informing, until the time when performing is recognized for its own inherent value to humanity.
Mark and Gut's, you guys are on the right track, better to do your own research, cop the responsibility, and the rewards.
