Inspired by recent conversations I have been revisiting some of the ideas around and literature on creative learning that emerged in the UK in the early to mid-2000s. Reading these texts has reminded me how important the concept of creative learning is and got me thinking about how it remains all too relevant to museums today.
But first a brief bit of history. The impetus for the interest in creative learning at that time was in part due to the publication of the ‘All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education’ report in 1999. This document was produced by the National Advisory Council on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE), chaired by the influential exponent of creative education, Sir Ken Robinson. Amongst other recommendations, the NACCCE report argued strongly for a much greater emphasis on creative and cultural learning in formal education and a rebalancing across the curriculum away from the acquisition of knowledge and skills to focus on exploration, experimentation, and creativity. The report led directly to the establishment by the then Labour government of the large-scale and well-funded ‘Creative Partnerships’ programme which ran from 2002 – 2011 and sought to embed creativity across schools in England. It was in many ways an optimistic and exciting period where the value of creativity and cultural education appeared to be recognized and supported by policy makers and educators.
My own interest centred on the connections between creative learning and artistic practice. I researched and wrote on artists’ processes of creation and teaching and learning. Specifically I was interested in how artists’ questioning, experimentation, analysis, reflection and learning through doing align with the fundamentals of creative learning, which include imaginative thinking and engagement through active, meaningful learning. I explored with Viv Reiss how some of the other characteristics of creative learning – such as challenging assumptions and conventions and making inventive connections – are what artists seek to ‘teach’ when they are working in educational settings. And I examined to what extent the art museum offered a fertile space for creative teaching and learning to thrive.
I remember at the time being very struck by the writing of artist and educator Roy Prentice who argued that creative learning could only take place where collaboration, trust and dialogic exchange existed. In his view, learners including small children needed to have autonomy and to see the relevance of what they were being expected to learn. He argued that the learning process should be as open-ended as possible, with inbuilt moments of reflection so students can explore and make sense of things as they go along.
Re-reading these texts in light of my more recent interest in professional practice in the art museum, prompted me to wonder to what extent these characteristics of creative learning are present in the work we do as, amongst others, curators, educators, and conservators in the museum. To what extent do we feel we have autonomy? Are we able to use imaginative and inventive thinking to challenge conventions in productive ways? How much time do we have for meaningful reflection and learning in the post-pandemic working environment? I suspect not a great deal.
In the early 2000s I also did a fair bit of observation of artist-led creative learning in action. I saw firsthand how transformational it could be when learners were trusted and enabled to work creatively and often collaboratively. I know too how empowering it is to embed questioning, and more open-ended processes within the workplace. For these reasons alone, it is worth celebrating and embedding creative learning, not just for visitors, but also for those working in the museum.
PRAM 