In the second in our series of think pieces to unpick the policy conflation of the arts and creativity, Anna Cutler – writer, researcher, consultant and CLA Research Associate – examines how an emphasis on creativity within policy discourse has obscured the vital role of the arts and arts subjects in schools, and why it is vital to recognise and support the distinct contribution of arts education within the schools system. Anna was formerly Director of Learning and Research at Tate and was Director of Creative Partnerships, Kent 2002-6.
We are also publishing a new Creativity Timeline which sets out the context for this series of articles.
In recent decades, the term ‘creativity’ has been increasingly invoked across arts-education research and policy discussions in England. While this expansion reflects the growing focus on ‘creativity’, it has also led to ambiguities that mask deeper structural challenges within the arts in education. This short paper reflects on the use of ‘creativity’ as an all-encompassing ‘end’, often at the expense of meaningful engagement with the specific arts disciplines, methodologies, and pedagogical ‘means’ through which creativity is cultivated.
Do we have a problem?
Is it just me, or have you noticed that the term ‘creative’ has started to be applied in increasingly expansive and varied contexts? It is now employed to describe a wide spectrum of phenomena, including human abilities and mindsets, dispositions, comprehensive pedagogical approaches, behaviours, play, and even entire curriculum arts subjects. I’ve frequently maintained that flexibility with language shouldn’t be cause for concern, but I don’t think it’s helpful to conflate arts subjects with creative characteristics, functions or approaches in education.
It would appear that while the cultural and educational value of ‘creativity’ has persisted and arguably grown, the arts and art subjects themselves seem to have lost ground. Individual art subject specialisms in schools are being reduced to curricular might-haves or has-beens. Is it that an emphasis on creativity is extinguishing the foundational engine in schools that actually helps drive it? If so, how has this happened?
A bit of background
I would contend that one of the reasons for this recent conflation stems from the late 1990s and early 2000s. A period marked by renewed debates on creativity and culture owing to the perceived need to nurture innovation, specifically, innovation aimed at driving economic prosperity. At the time, with an emergent knowledge economy, rapid changes in technology and the inevitable shifts in the professional needs of the future workforce, an education strategy was designed that sought to build the ‘human capital’ required to achieve this. This strategy, published as the NACCCE report (1999)1, identified culture and creativity as catalysts for the educational change required; it defined creativity as ‘imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value.’
Implementation
Very few recommendations from this report were ever adopted. One that did see the light of day involved the partnering of cultural individuals, organisations and schools2. These were delivered through a government initiative called Creative Partnerships, which was established within the Arts Council, England, in 2002. Initially, this programme was conceived as a research project but quickly transformed into a programme that sought to develop students’ creative skills, improve their academic performance, and enhance their personal and social behaviours. I was informed by the programme lead at the time that the word ‘creative’ in Creative Partnerships had only been chosen because nobody could really decide on a title. That, and it mirrored the ‘Creative’ Industries that had developed as an idea in 1998, which described a vast array of jobs that relied on ‘imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value.’
Sitting behind all this talk of creativity was the question of how one created creative people who were going to be able to innovate. How were children going to develop creative skills and capacities? Was it possible for everyone, or just the gifted few?
Enter the arts, which rely on the making of a ‘thing’, an object, a performance, a dance, a piece of music, etc., as the imaginative process of bringing abstract ideas to life, actively stimulating emotion and creating valuable works that encourage social meaning-making, critical interpretation, and significant problem-finding and solving. It’s not a huge leap to see how these processes align with the definition of creativity that was being used, and they were swiftly and effectively brought into schools.
It would be foolish to say that only the arts can generate the conditions for creativity, but it would be fair to say that they excel at this, and do so effortlessly, bringing with them a host of other social and personal benefits of which schools are in urgent need and from which children get pleasure. Research from Creative Partnerships did find positive results from the programme, and also that the arts are not in competition with other subjects. They support and enhance learning across the curriculum, often doing so when added to the timetable, in ways that might seem counterintuitive.
So, what’s the problem?
I would suggest that the problem within this ‘picture’ is the dynamic between ‘ends’ and ‘means’. The imperative to realise creativity as a driver of economic prosperity positioned the ‘end’ as the principal objective, frequently and unhelpfully, dominating the narrative. Consequently, the examination of the pathways, disciplines and methodologies by which such creativity might be attained, the ‘means’, received comparatively scant attention and lost airtime. Did we forget to ask what fuel best stokes the creativity fire?
Of course, I don’t believe issues of ends and means are the only reason for the current muddle. I suspect that the broadening of what constitutes ‘art’ or ‘the arts’ has a part to play, alongside the desire to avoid privileging ‘high’ art, not to mention the blurring of boundaries between art forms and their technologies. These have, I believe, all contributed to people avoiding the terms ‘arts’ or ‘expressive arts’ (meaning dance, drama, music, and art & design) in favour of a seemingly more inclusive term. Ironically, this is more misleading than inclusive. Ultimately, it is in danger of excluding the arts.
Conclusion
While creativity and creative learning are invaluable across educational settings, they are not interchangeable with arts subjects. The arts inherently nurture creativity, equipping students with unique skills and experiences that go beyond generic creative objectives. But ‘Creative and cultural education are not subjects in the curriculum, they are general functions of education.’3 To truly advance creative development, it is essential not to conflate the arts with creativity but to recognise and support the distinct and vital contributions of arts education within the broader educational landscape.
- National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE). All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (1999). Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. ↩︎
- See page part 8 of the above report. Page 138. ↩︎
- National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE). All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (1999). Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. ↩︎
