It seems a real shame that the majority of undergraduate students only really start asking this question at the time of their degree shows. Most had spent the past three years perfecting their craft, mastering skills, pontificating and debating every issue under the sun with the aim of informing their practice. However when time starts to run out, many students are left wondering if it was all worth it.

Q-Art London’s second publication attempts to questions those university course leaders, asking the questions of those students to either to embarrassed, angry or scared to ask. The book interviews a selection of course leaders from the following universities and colleges: Chelsea, Camberwell, Middlesex, Byram Shaw, Central Saint Martin’s, Kingston, Cass, Slade, City and Guilds, Wimbledon and Goldsmiths.

History is important as we learn where others went wrong in order to not make the same mistakes again. Art students are not really learning as these issues have been discussed for the past 30 years. The course leader at the Slade notes: “I came to art school in the late 60s when art school was all over the newspapers being criticised for being a place where art history meets studio practice – those arguments raged even back then. The cultural battle was good for people if they knew how to use it.” The structures changed in the mid 70s when procedures took precedence over subject, people used to go to art school to undermine what was taught, now the shift is to undermine art schools altogether.

Multi-disciplinary art school should teach artists to fail rather than teaching to degrees. Another course leader noted: “It is a good thing to have the numbers on the course; it’s not a bad thing but does have an impact on studio space, art schools should think about their broad social structures”. There has definitely been a growth in numbers wanting to be artists and growth of institutionalising art, more layers of management and more jobs through government policies. Wannabe artists need to be aware of the world they are entering and teachers should teach their students such, there will always be organic crisis in art – not the real issue rather the inorganic crisis – the bureaucracy that is forming around the teaching of art and the backlash of the expansion of art schools.

Another course leader mentioned: “There is a shift in the way the subject is being presented to the students, away from disciplines to a more broad based way of teaching. I was never questioned by my tutors but now asked by my students to question them”. The idea of the discipline is very problematic even at art schools.

Another course leader: “Pathways can be competitive and very hierarchical. Making through a medium is a very outdated way of doing things, we need to undo what students think fine art practice is, open up students to think outside of the way they think things. People are not touched by God, they need to think about what they are doing and why the medium is appropriate to what they are doing. Lastly workshops that are run by technicians are important.” Opening up ways and means of thinking is absolutely essential, if a student only thinks art as painting you could be denying them the chance to be a world class film maker.

Subject areas are crucially important as students and staff should be working across those subject areas. An artist isn’t defined by their studio practice. The discourse between staff and students should pick out thinking and medium situations outside of own fixed positions. Another leader: “We are in a process of change that has been going on and will continue to go on as there is no consensus as to what art is and how it should function within our society, why does somebody want to study art? We are guilty of falling short if the outcome is for people to become successful.”

Fine art will suffer most with the fee rise, contact hours have to be produced and what jobs are available after graduation. In the past people went to art school to get out of the class system, to challenge the status quo. Is it the responsibility of tutors to counter the argument about just getting jobs at the end? Apparently the MA is not really important; it is only for networking and the learning spaces that can be created.

How can students know what every art school is doing around the whole country in order to ascertain the relevancy of the course for them? The Q-Art course leader’s book provides some crucial insight into the structure of the courses in London and the thinking by those courses. Invaluable to any potential student interested in how art courses are developed. The book imparts utilitarianism, the difference between what is useful and what is not. Some students learn more from other students rather than the tutors and a lot of people being sucked into higher education when they would be better served elsewhere.

Art education should be about providing the space for creativity going beyond the curriculum. The things people are not taught is what makes people stand out from the crowd. Researching artists is not the same as recycling artists, it’s good to look at how an art practice has evolved over the years, the histories of art are important.

What fine art is and what fine artists do needs to be looked at and challenged through the discussion between tutors and students. Students will be expecting more in the fee rise and most universities will not be able to deliver. Art foundation courses might become extinct.

The difference between satisfaction and achievement – students should achieve but may not necessarily be satisfied.