Part 1, 20th century: values, practice, professionview comments on Part 1, 20th century: values, practice, profession
|Title||Part 1, 20th century: values, practice, profession|
|Published in||43: Profession and Practice|
|Published by||Engage, the National Association for Gallery Education|
|Publication date||Autumn 2019|
Ceri Jones, with significant contributions from Sarah Plumb
What key developments, individuals and institutions have helped to shape how gallery education in the UK is practiced, understood and valued?
Since the establishment of Engage in 1989, gallery education has become a significant force in the UK’s art museums and galleries, enabling participation and engagement with art for a range of audiences, challenging the dominance of ‘elite’ art and inspiring non-artists of the possibilities that lie in our own creativity. However, despite the growth in gallery education and other participatory forms of art,1 public investment in the visual arts, and in museum and gallery education, has been in decline since 2008: a casualty of the global recession and the politics of austerity, or the result of a government that does not really understand the value of arts and culture? The societal backdrop that helped to shape and influence the development of gallery education is also changing, facing us with difficult (and overwhelming) decisions about how society should be organised, how we use the planet’s natural resources, and how we feed and care for a growing population. The cuts to public spending for arts and culture seem very shortsighted in the light of the power of art and culture to help us examine our values,2 and ‘change how we see ourselves, relate to others, and make sense of our place in the world’.3 This capacity for reflection and meaning-making, to help people ‘think critically about and question their experiences and those of others,’4 is perhaps one of the most powerful elements of art and culture. By harnessing our imaginations, and inspiring our creativity, gallery education and art practice could be one of the most powerful tools we have to answer these challenging questions.
But how did we get here? What are the key developments, individuals and institutions that have helped to shape how gallery education is practiced, understood, and valued? This overview will give one perspective, exploring, as far as possible, both the ‘macro’ (broad societal factors) and the ‘micro’ factors (individuals and institutions that played an important role) that have contributed to the development of gallery education, as well as the wider gallery and museum sector. As professionals who are committed to ‘developing capacities of critical thought, empathy for others and imagination of a better world’,6 what has shaped their values, attitudes and approaches?
The roots of gallery education
From their inception in the 18th and 19th centuries, galleries and museums have been concerned with education, albeit an often paternalistic view of education as moral, spiritual and intellectual improvement. 19th century reformers saw an opportunity for newly established museums and galleries to ‘be instruments of social change, capable of strengthening the social order.’7 Art in particular was valued for its ability to educate and inspire. In 1900, the Whitechapel Gallery in East London (which today combines cutting edge contemporary art with a community role) was founded ‘with the ambition of bringing culture to a poor, and especially Jewish, working class neighbourhood,’8 and in 1902, the opening of the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, led Glasgow’s Lord Provost to announce that, ‘art was in itself a refining and improving and enabling thing.9 Yet, despite this apparent zeal for education, specialist education services were slow to develop in museums and galleries over the 20th century.10 By the 1960s, the relationship between museums, galleries and their audiences was generally one-dimensional; ’the museum was all-powerful and the uncontested authority.’11 What we now think of as ‘traditional’ museum and gallery education tended to be didactic, and expert-led, in the form of talks, lectures and gallery tours, led by curators or art historians, that were secondary to the exhibitions and displays.
This began to change from the 1960s. The shock and excitement of the changes that swept over society in the 1960s and 1970s still seem palpable today, as a number of movements that grew up from socially and politically motivated experimentation came to influence gallery, and also museum education practices and approaches, as well as impacting on our understanding of cultural institutions more generally.12 Often marginalised within institutional frameworks, gallery and museum educators were attracted to particular educational and social theories that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, including informal education, de-schooling and work outside of the classroom.13 Another important influence, particularly in gallery education, was community art, a radical, grassroots approach that aimed to support communities to articulate their own cultural agency, seeing education and revolutionary ideas about citizens as producers of art as key to individual and societal change. It was characterised by a belief in empowerment though participation in the creative process, a dislike of cultural hierarchies and a belief in the creative potential of everyone.14 The work promoted diversity and difference and included a wide range of artistic action that was mostly ignored by established arts institutions and by the funding system. Many artist collectives and radical community art centres were formed, such as Hackney Flashers and Brixton Artists Collective, with strong left-wing political ideologies and activist approaches.15 As Felicity Allen wrote in 2008, gallery education evolved out of these radical ideas as a strategy ‘to shift art from a monolithic and narcissistic position into a dialogic, open and pluralist set of tendencies that renegotiate issues of representation, institutional critique and inter-disciplinarily.16
Stepping back, we can also see how the ferment of intellectual ideas and theories about art and its role in society helped to create the climate in which contemporary ideas about gallery education could emerge, particularly radical changes in how the visual arts were understood and practiced. In the 1970s, ‘visual art almost deconstructed itself into theories, ideologies and concepts,’17 with the expansion and diversification of conceptual art. Many conceptual artists were disillusioned with the way in which the larger art galleries had been relatively unaffected by the radical movements of the 1960s, and it was left to the smaller galleries to lead the way. Exhibitions such as 3→????: New Multiple Art in 1970 (1970) and Art for Society at the Whitechapel Gallery, and Art for Whom at the Serpentine (1978), both in London, displayed art that reflected social issues, often produced for, or with, particular communities, and explored ideas of ownership, with artists often opposed to the idea of art as the ‘possession of the few’ and who were in favour of an art that was ‘engaged and egalitarian.’18 Newer galleries often displayed artists from backgrounds that were not represented in traditional art, including women and ethnic minorities, whose struggle to find acceptance within the art world mirrored the struggle to find acceptance in a (then) openly racist and sexist Britain. New organisations were established to give opportunities to those who were excluded from the mainstream and, as a result of Naseem Khan’s damning 1976 report, The Arts Britain Ignores, the Arts Council funded a Minority Arts Advisory Service, which functioned as a networking and enabling organisation for Black British artists, performers and producers.19 Collectors such as Robert and Lisa Sainsbury were also important to broadening the concept of visual art, opening their collection to the public in 1978 at the Sainsbury Centre, University of East Anglia, and other galleries outside London that collected contemporary art included the Museum of Modern Art in Oxford, the Glynn Vivian in Swansea, and city art galleries in Leeds and Sheffield.20
The Arts Council also provided significant support for contemporary visual art through its activities.21 At first the Arts Council had struggled with the newly emerging arts and culture of the 1960s, which ‘opposed traditional definitions of art in its character, venue and content,’22 but from 1969–1973, it funded some of the new work through its Experimental Projects Committee and also turned its interest to the community arts movement. Whilst the Arts Council rejected the aim of community arts as a ‘liberation from the cultural values of the elite’, it was more accepting of projects that were interested in encouraging people to ‘participate in creative activity rather than merely to experience it passively,’23 and, under Roy Shaw (Secretary-General 1975–1983), education was seen as a central concern of the Arts Council. Through its activities, the Arts Council was effectively ‘nudging artistic change in directions which suited its own thinking.’24
The ‘explosion of theory’ within a range of cultural practices was another important development of the 1970s, where progressive ideas about education and learning, cultural diversity, and society would eventually filter into gallery education.25 New and radical ideas that emerged in France in the 1960s were being picked up in academia — the ideas and theories of Althusser, Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan — and came to be disseminated through higher education programmes, such as at the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, led in the 1970s by the radical intellectual Stuart Hall. Here, cultural studies became a recognisable and credible discipline,26 and Hall, too, inspired generations of students and academics with his ideas on meaning, representation and cultural identity, 27 and his ‘ability to synthesise complex concepts into compelling arguments that speak across a range of disciplines and contexts.’28 The ‘new art history’ that emerged during this period rejected traditional concerns in favour of examining social context and ideology, deconstructing the ‘hegemonic perspective of mainstream art history’ through the lens of feminism, Marxism, semiotics, postmodernism and post colonialism.29 Constructivist theories about learning and education were also influential, in particular ideas around active learning, engagement, personalised meaning-making, facilitation and experience, as well as exploring the idea of authority and ‘voice.’30 In galleries and museums, influential theorists include John Dewey, George Hein,31 Falk and Dierking,32 and Eilean Hooper-Greenhill,33 who demonstrated that gallery and museum education was more than the transmission of cognitive and rational ‘knowledge’, but is embodied, multi-sensory, and affective.34 Gallery educators have been keen to develop alternative learning opportunities to those of formal education, particularly following the introduction of the prescriptive National Curriculum, rejecting the idea of education as a target culture, preferring to see learning as creative, artistic, playful, where learners can explore, take risks and make mistakes,35 Gallery education also draws on, and deconstructs, long-held ideas about art; that it is intellectually, emotional and morally beneficial, a purely aesthetic experience, or one focused on meaning-making, where meaning is not a fixed entity decided by the artist but emerges in the ‘active’ exchange between the artwork and the viewer and the negotiation of individual meaning. Gallery education therefore draws from a number of both complementary and conflicting ideas and theories which are made explicit and negotiated within art practice, particularly the contention as to whether art interpretation is felt, ‘read’ by the viewer without support, or whether we need to be taught how to ‘read’ artworks.36 Considering the dominance of women, and feminists such as Felicity Allen, key ideas from the women’s movement are also critical including self-reflexivity, dialogue, collective working and thinking, presenting multiple and alternative viewpoints or hidden histories, and critiquing and demanding change to mainstream institutions through interventionist and separatist strategies, demonstrations and performances.37 These influences can be seen in contemporary gallery education which is characterised by open-ended, explorative, and collaborative teaching and learning, with a specific understanding of creative practice as ‘conceptual.’ It encourages critical analysis and self-reflexivity, to think about where our ideas and assumptions when looking at art come from.38 From the US, Visual Thinking Strategies, which has become embedded in many contemporary gallery education experiences as inquiry-based and open-ended questioning,39 and the Getty Centre for Education in the Arts’ discipline-based art education programme were also influential on art teacher and art gallery education practice in the 1980s.40 However, this acceptance of radical theory was not always welcomed by wider society, nor by artists, some seeing it as an attempt to further the ‘mystification’ of art and creating a sense of inferiority for those who did not understand it.41
Gallery education’s roots, therefore, lie in this revolutionary period, and whilst some galleries have never realised the full implications of what radical artists and activists wanted to achieve, there has always been a link between gallery education and activism in the desire to harness the transformative power of art to ‘change the world’ and challenge how we perceive, make and value art.42 The desire to develop gallery education was political, ‘to re-situate and expand art practices within the performative space of the gallery, but also to claim public museums and galleries as genuinely public’.43 Felicity Allen’s journey into gallery education, for example, was rooted in feminism and early ideas around socially engaged practice in museums and galleries.44 Women artists had struggled to break into the male dominated art world and education jobs became a way of making an income. Eventually some artists were offered permanent employment to develop gallery education programmes, bringing with them ideas from the Women’s Movement and the ‘new art history.’45 There has also been a strong sense of autonomy in practitioners of gallery education, of wanting to do things in a different way, rather than following the whims of funders or government policies; as Felicity Allen notes, she considers strongly that gallery education should be led by artists, their insights and experiences, not by imposed frameworks like the National Curriculum.46 While the community arts movement began to flounder, gallery education emerged as a recognised field of practice in its own right.
A growing sector: gallery education in the 1980s and 1990s
The young, emerging profession sustained itself through informal networks, collaboration, exchange of ideas, pooling of resources and mentoring. Art magazines and journals disseminated radical ideas around gallery education, along with lectures, public debates and conferences, such as the ICA’s interdisciplinary seminar programme.47 Its history is shaped by particular individuals and pioneers (and individuals can make a difference, as Nightingale and Mahal reveal in their discussion on changes in how equality and diversity are perceived in museums and galleries),48 including Maria Balshaw (Director of Tate art museums and galleries, London), Sally Tallant (Liverpool Biennial, Serpentine Gallery, London), Sue Clive (Cornerhouse, Manchester), Mike Tooby (Mappin Art Gallery, Sheffield, Third Eye, Glasgow), Helen Luckett, (Southampton City Art Gallery, Hayward Gallery London), Alison Cox (Walsall Art Gallery), Sylvia King (Jubilee Arts, Sandwell), Wendy Harpe (Black-E, Bluecoat, both Liverpool), Vivien Lovell (Ikon Gallery, Birmingham), Felicity Allen and Jenni Lomax (Whitechapel Gallery, London), Vicki Mitchell (Cartwright Hall, Bradford) and Sue Grayson-Ford (Serpentine Gallery, London). Largely appealing to women, gallery educators typically studied Fine Art or a related field,49 before finding their way into the field often in unstructured or serendipitous ways. Annabel Johnson’s journey into gallery education led to working at the Whitechapel Gallery on projects such as Creative Connections (2002) and Hidden Curriculum (2013) which were influenced by the artist’s practice, but showed that young people could engage with challenging ideas and philosophical questions. However, the lack of resources for exhibitions and time pressures ultimately limited what could be achieved.50 Emily Pringle’s interest in community arts began at art school; signing up to a course funded by the Arts Council which trained artists to work in educational contexts, Emily followed this by working as an artist doing residencies in schools, as well as volunteering for the Southwark Arts Forum, before moving into gallery education at the Chisenhale Gallery. In the early days her work was informed by a similar ethos to community art, it was very much about supporting people to come into the gallery space and engage with art on their own terms.51 Jane Sillis, Director and founder member of Engage, was excited about the primacy that gallery education gave to participants’ responses, and how the role of the artist was very different to more traditional approaches in museums, where authority was given to the curator or academic expert.52 The prominent role of women in gallery education was also a challenge to the more traditional, male-dominated world of the curator,53 and the tension between curators, artists and educators was a real one, with many artists who work in gallery education concerned that curators do not take them seriously or show a lack of interest in their work.54 Greater support for gallery educators came with the establishment of Engage in 1989, which aimed to connect and give voice to practitioners across the UK.55 Artists, too, benefited from the developments in gallery education, such as Les Bicknell, who writes about the positive impact of gallery education work on his professional development as an artist, seeing the workshop as a creative tool in which participants become collaborators in the creative process.56
The reorganisation of local government in the 1970s, the appointment of an education post in the Arts Council’s Visual Arts Department, followed by publication of its first statement on education, The Glory of the Garden in 1984, are cited as instrumental to the development of gallery education, part of a wider strategy to develop an infrastructure for the contemporary arts.57 The Glory of the Garden outlined a ten-year development plan that would attempt to create a more equitable distribution of arts funding by encouraging local authorities to increase their funding of museums and galleries.58 New regional art centres such as IKON in Birmingham, Arnolfini in Bristol, and the Museum of Modern Art in Oxford were established with curatorial and gallery education posts. Gallery education became part of the creative economy in the mid 1980s, consolidated within the experimental end of the public funding infrastructure, supported by well-positioned individuals like Sandy Nairne, Director of the aforementioned Visual Arts Department, who had demonstrated his commitment to feminist, cross-cultural and public education agendas during his time as the Director of Visual Arts at the ICA.59 The 1980s saw a push towards galleries and museums developing education programmes that would increase visitor numbers,60 spurred on by the introduction of market forces into public institutions, and the need to demonstrate value for money.61
Despite the ‘cultural conservatism’ of the 1980s,62 or perhaps because of it, this period saw the development of groundbreaking gallery education programmes at the Whitechapel Art Gallery (Martin Rewcastle, Jenni Lomax), Tate Liverpool (Toby Jackson), Cornerhouse and South Bank (Sue Clive) and Southampton (Helen Luckett), to name a few.63 As well as the need to address difficult and challenging legacies such as slavery, the impact of colonialisation and imperialism, war and conflict, revolution and repression, there was also a growing recognition of galleries and museums as powerful spaces that could promote political activism, provide legitimacy and enable self-representation for excluded, oppressed or marginalised groups.64 In the 1980s, artists including Lubaina Himid, Maud Sulter and Keith Piper, curators and museum directors engaged in debates around culture, representation, equality and access, that led to shows like Himid’s The Thin Black Line (1985) at the ICA, London, which featured work exclusively by Black women artists, such as Sonia Boyce, for the first time in the UK.65
The concern with how galleries and museums could democratise culture, and meet the needs of a changing society, continued into the 1990s, with cultural and social policies pushing institutions to be more reflective of modern Britain.66 Although the cultural sector was a major employer, making up nearly two per cent of the workforce, it was also heavily subsidised by public funding,67 and pressure on public services forced galleries and museums to think about who could access their collections and how that access was facilitated and supported.68 Despite cuts to funding, and inherited problems of infrastructure and conservation, local and regional museums were often the most innovative, driven by local and national government priorities and policies including inner-city regeneration schemes, Health Action Zone and Anti-Poverty strategies.69 Jason E. Bowman describes the thriving cultural scene in Glasgow of the ‘80s and ‘90s where art and culture played an important role in the regeneration of the city following the devastating decline of heavy industry, spawning a range of communitarian practices that included the Gorbals Art Project, Castlemilk Fringe Gallery, Birds of Paradise Theatre Company, Dolphin Arts Centre and Third Eye Centre. Glasgow City Council’s arts officers worked across the city, embedding arts and culture within communities by providing activities in libraries, schools, community centres and youth clubs, as well as funding artist-initiated projects.70 Gallery education practice began to spread internationally.71 In Dublin, the Irish Museum of Modern Art (IMMA) was established in 1991 with a policy of access and inclusion to the visual arts that aimed to create engagement in meaning and practice, supported by the post of Curator for Education and Community. IMMA incorporated the values of community arts practice into its education programmes, working with artists and local communities to make and exhibit their own art.72 Similarly, from its inception in 1996, The Singapore Art Museum sought to embed education into its core identity, taking a constructivist approach to education and learning to provide students with ‘a far more realistic experience of making judgements in a complex world than other subjects that concentrate more on showing them how to arrive at the right answer.’73
- Matarasso, F. (2019), A Restless Art: How Participation won, and why it matters. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London
- Worts, D. (2003), ‘On the brink of irrelevance? Art museums in contemporary society’ in M. Xanthoudaki L. Tickle and V. Sekules (eds) (2003), Researching Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries: An International Reader. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.215–231
- G. Cossack and P. Kaszynska (2016), Understanding the value of arts and culture. The AHRC Cultural Value Project, Swindon: Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), p.43
- 4 Matarasso, F. (1997), Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Stroud: Comedia, p.84
- P. Crawford, B. Brown, M. Kvangarsnes and P. Gilbert (2014), ‘The design of compassionate care’ in Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23 (23–24):3589–3599; Culture:Unlimited (2009) Museums of the Mind: Mental health, emotional wellbeing and museums. Bude: Culture:Unlimited
- Mackenzie, B. (2015), ‘The difference money makes: The ethics of corporate funding of gallery education’ in Raney, K. (ed) Engage 35: Twenty Five Years of Gallery Education. London: Engage, the National Association for Gallery Education, pp.115
- 7 O’Neill, M. (2002), ‘The good enough visitor’ in Sandell, R. (ed), Museums, Society, Inequality. London: Routledge, p.25
- J. Reeve and V. Woollard (2015) ‘Learning, Education, and Public Programs in Museums and Galleries’ in McCarthy, C. (ed) The International Handbooks of Museum Studies: Museum Practice, first edition. Malden, Oxford and Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp.565–566
- Quoted in O’Neill (2002) op.cit., p.25
- Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007), Museums and Education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. London and New York: Routledge
- J. Reeve and V. Woollard (2006), ‘Influences on Museum Practice’ in C. Lang, J. Reeve, and V. Woollard, The Responsive Museum: Working with audiences in the Twenty-First century. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, p.5
- S. Plumb (2017), How might the experiences and perspectives of community participants collaborating in socially engaged art practices be heard, considered and equally valued alongside those of the artist and gallery? What ethical implications for the artist and the gallery arise when community participants’ experiences are considered in this way? Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leicester; Reeve and Woollard (2006) op.cit.; Moore-Gilbert, B. (1994), ‘Introduction: Cultural Closure or post-avantgardism?’ in Moore-Gilbert, B. (ed.), The Arts in the 1970s: Cultural Closure? London and New York: Routledge, pp.1–28
- Reeve and Woollard (2006) op.cit.
- Pringle, E. (2006), Learning in the Gallery: context, processes, outcomes. London: Engage
- Plumb (2017) op.cit.
- Allen, F. (2008), ‘Situating gallery education’ in Tate Encounters, [E]dition 2, http://www2.tate.org.uk/tate-encounters/edition-2/tateencounters2_felicity_allen.pdf (retrieved 26.08.2019)
- Sillars, S., 1994, ‘Is it possible to do nothing as my contribution? Visual art in the 1970s’ in Moore-Gilbert, B. (ed), The Arts in the 1970s: Cultural Closure? London and New York: Routledge, p.259
- Cork (1978) quoted in Sillars (1994), p.264
- Moore-Gilbert (1994) op.cit.
- Sillars (1994) op.cit.
- Moore-Gilbert 1994:15
- Laing, S. (1994), ‘The politics of culture: Institutional change in the 1970s’ in Moore-Gilbert, B. (ed), The Arts in the 1970s: Cultural Closure? London and New York: Routledge, p.40
- Arts Council 1976, quoted in Laing (1994) op.cit., p.45
- Sillars (1994) op.cit., p.275
- Allen (2008) op.cit.
- Jenks, C. (1993), Culture. London and New York: Routledge, p.155
- For example, see Hall, S. (ed) (1997), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications
- K. Tomaselli and R. Teer-Tomaselli (2014), ‘Stuart Hall’ in Critical Arts, 28 (2). pp.317–318
- Jelinek, A. (2006), ‘Actions speak louder than words’ in Engage 19: Diversity. London: Engage, the National Association for Gallery Education, p.29
- J. Reeve and V. Woollard (2015), ‘Learning, Education, and Public Programs in Museums and Galleries,’ in McCarthy, C. (ed), The International Handbooks of Museum Studies: Museum Practice. Chichester, Malden and Oxford: John Wiley and Sons. pp.551–575
- Hein, G. E. (1998), Learning in the Museum. London and New York: Routledge
- J. Falk and L.D. Dierking (2013), The Museum Experience Revisited. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; J. Falk and L.D. Dierking (2000), Learning from Museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto and Plymouth: Altamira Press
- Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007), Museums and Education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. London and New York: Routledge; Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed) (1999), The Educational Role of the Museum, second edition. London and New York: Routledge
- K. Gregory and A. Witcomb (2007), ‘Beyond Nostalgia: The Role of Affect in Generating Historical Understanding at Heritage Sites’ in S. J. Knell, S. Macleod and S. Watson (eds), Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed. London and New York: Routledge, p.265
- Allen (2008) op.cit.
- Pringle (2006) op.cit.
- Allen (2008) op.cit.
- Pringle (2006) op.cit.
- Plumb (2017) op.cit.
- Reeve and Woollard (2015) op.cit.
- Moore-Gilbert (1994) op.cit.
- Raney, K. (2015), ‘Editor’s Introduction’ in Raney, K. (ed), Engage 35: Twenty Five Years of Gallery Education. London: Engage, the National Association for Gallery Education, pp.6–14
- Allen, F. and Raney, K. (2015) ‘Maintaining a radical vision’ in Raney, K. (ed), Engage 35: Twenty Five Years of Gallery Education. London: Engage, the National Association for Gallery Education, p.23
- Ibid, p.23
- Allen (2008) op.cit.
- Allen and Raney (2015) op.cit.
- Allen (2008) op.cit.
- Nightingale, E. and Mahal, C., 2012, ‘The heart of the matter: Integrating equality and diversity into the policy and practice of museums and galleries,’ in Sandell, R., and Nightingale, E. (eds), Museums, Equality and Social Justice. London and New York: Routledge, pp.13–37
- Raney (2015) op.cit.; Allen and Raney (2015) op.cit.
- Johnson, A. (2015), ‘A professional journey: teacher/educator/curator/mother/artist’ in Raney, K. (ed), Engage 35: Twenty Five Years of Gallery Education. London: Engage, the National Association for Gallery Education, pp.80–93
- Pringle, E. (2016), ‘Take Three: From community practice to Gallery Education’ in Community Arts? Learning from the Legacy of Artists’ Social Initiatives, Stages, 5. https://www.biennial.com/journal/issue-5/take-three-from-community-practice-to-gallery-education (retrieved 25.08.2019)
- Sillis, J. (2015), ‘Gallery education: a co-operative community’ in Raney, K. (ed), Engage 35: Twenty Five Years of Gallery Education. London: Engage, the National Association for Gallery Education, pp.15–19
- Raney (2015) op.cit.
- J. Stewart (2015), ‘Some are more equal than others’ in Raney, K. (ed) Engage 35: Twenty Five Years of Gallery Education. London: Engage, the National Association for Gallery Education, pp.61–69
- Sillis (2015) op.cit.; Raney (2015) op.cit.
- Sekules, V. (2003), ‘The Celebrity Performer and the Creative Facilitator: The artist, the school and the art museum’ in M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle and V. Sekules (eds), Researching Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries: An International Reader. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.135–149
- Allen and Raney (2015) op.cit.; Pringle (2006) op.cit.
- B. Casey, R. Dunlop and S. Selwood (1996), Culture as Commodity? The economics of the arts and built heritage in the UK. London: Policy Studies Institute, p.120
- Allen (2008) op.cit.
- M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle and V. Sekules (2003), ‘Introduction: Museum Education and Research based Practice’ in M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle and V. Sekules (eds), Researching Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries: An International Reader. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.1–12
- Stewart (2015) op.cit.; Raney (2015) op.cit.
- Moore-Gilbert (1994) op.cit.
- Allen (2008) op.cit.
- Message, K. (2014), Museums and Social Activism: Engaged Protest. London and New York: Routledge; Reeve and Woollard (2006) op.cit.
- A. Dewdney, D. Dibosa, and V. Walsh (2012), ‘Cultural Diversity: Politics, Policy and Practices, the Case of Tate Encounters’ in R. Sandell and E. Nightingale (eds), Museums, Equality and Social Justice. London and New York: Routledge, pp.114–124
- Reeve and Woollard (2006) op.cit.
- Casey, Dunlop and Selwood (1996) op.cit.
- J. Dodd and R. Sandell (2001), Including Museums: Perspectives on museums, galleries and social inclusion. Leicester: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries
- C. Lang, J. Reeve and V. Woollard (2006), ‘Introduction to Part 1’ in C. Lang, J. Reeve and V Woollard, The Responsive Museum: Working with audiences in the Twenty-First century. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, p.3
- J.E. Bowman, (2016), ‘What is at stake in community practice? What have we learned?’ Community Arts? Learning from the Legacy of Artists’ Social Initiatives, Stages, 5, https://www.biennial.com/journal/issue-5/what-is-at-stake-in-community-practice-what-have-we-learned (retrieved 25.08.2019)
- See Reeve and Woollard (2006) op.cit.
- O’Donoghue, H. (2003), ‘Come to the Edge: Artists, Art and Learning at the Irish Museum of Modern Art (IMMA), A Philosophy of Access and Engagement’ in M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle and V. Sekules (eds), Researching Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries: An International Reader, Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.77–89
- Leong, J. (2003), ‘Art Museum Education in Singapore,’ in M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle and V. Sekules (eds), Researching Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries: An International Reader, Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.61