CON • TEXT - Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i Oslo - AHO

E S T A B L I S H I N G A M Y T H ?mandate and regulation? The artists involved did not want their artisticfreedom tampered with, and kept the project. As a result several headmasterschose to withdraw from participation in the project, and where criticised,even though they very clearly based their decisions on the mandate they haveas an educational institution within the state. This is a discussion that, in myview, ended too soon, and will hopefully reappear as a discussion on theethical considerations of both teaching in general, and externally introducedprojects such as DKS in particular. This is the one explicit case where the‘school world’ actively used their professionalism to reject a DKS workpractice they found problematic.If the collaboration were on equal basis, the decision from the ‘school world’to not accept an offered project should be respected by the ‘art world’ Whythen, does the ‘art world’-heavy jury (M:regjeringen.no 2007a), in theGullsekken award, choose to disregard the professional statement from theseheadmasters by deciding to reward the same project the prize of 100.000NOK? Is it a political statement that schools should not interfere with artisticjudgement? Or are they simply ignorant of the fact that the ‘school world’finds this problematic and not in accordance with the regulations they have touphold? In any case, be it agenda or agenda-free, it is a problematic decision,even more so when the official document reports the result with nodeliberation on the incident (KKD 2007). The question that it never answers,and that it would be interesting to discuss, has been raised in evaluationsearlier: “Maybe what we see is a development where the pedagogs(educators) hand the field over to the artists, while the artists experience ademand of pedagogical relevance and structure that guides and limits theirfreedom?” (E:Mæland 2006:13). 179Attack and DefenceThe narratives show that the artist hero display a strong conviction based inone HCP, while the teachers have their balancing act between several worldviews and HCPs. The official 2007 document and the arranged Gullsekkenprize seem to accede to the stereotypes that have been created in the medianarratives rather than heed the evaluation results. The artist hero displays noproblem justifying handing out a prize to a project the obstacle opposes, asthis is the purpose of the artist hero — a purpose that, to some extent, issanctioned by the 2007 document (KKD 2007). By invoking the stereotypeand artistic freedom the ‘art world’ can, to some extent, disregard curriculumframes, and criticise any quality judgement presented by the ‘school world’.179 OQ: “Kanskje ser me ei utvikling der pedagogane overlet feltet til kunstnarane, medan kunstnaraneopplever at det blir stilt krav om pedagogiske relevans og til rette legging som styrer og avgrensar fridomendeira?”.153