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

T H E ’ S C H O O L W O R L D ’ A N D ’ A R T W O R L D ’1987 (M87) (KUD 1987). The romantic ideals were at its clearest in M74.The subject changed names again to Art and Crafts with the Curriculum of1997 (L’97) (KUF 1996). The romantic ideals were still present, but temperedby a renewed focus on societal questions and knowledge. This approach tothe subject area was also introduced as a way of thinking from other politicaldocuments (Kulturdepartementet 1992). The curriculum was divided into the2D ― image and fine art, and 3D ― crafts and sculpture, which provided anunclear division between fine art and material culture (Digranes 2006b). Thefine art orientation was still strong, and the use of named ‘artist canons’ wasimportant. Design and architecture were mentioned in the subject-matter asparts of 3D thinking.Prior to the launch of L’97, there was a heated debate concerning the newname of the subject (Vestøl 1995b). The debate came as a reaction to the newdevelopments in the curriculum. The different sides were for 1) keeping theexisting name (Sundvor and Melbye 1995), 2) giving it the name Art andDesign (Lied 1995), or yet again the name 3) Art and Crafts (Reitan 1995).The craft orientation, which, even in times of romantic ideals, has been andstill is strong in educational practice, resisted the change to Art and Design asit was seen as too far removed from the craft tradition. This debatesurrounding the change of subject name is an example of what a name can,and should, signal for the future of a subject in view of content andepistemology. The debate was later given the name Navnefeiden ― ‘Thebattle of names’ (Vestøl 1995b), and in the aftermath, Art and Crafts wasestablished (Vestøl 1995a). The name of a program or field can thus be ofsuch importance that extensive debates will be held in case of any change. Aname will signal what a specific field or subject prioritises in terms ofepistemology and ontology, and knowledge concerning both, not only to theexperts but to the lay community. The orientation towards a clarification ofthe importance of the physical environment was enhanced in the curriculumof 2006 (KD and Udir 2006). In the Knowledge Promotion (LK06) of 2006the new sub-categories Fine art, Architecture, Design and Visualcommunication allows for an understanding of the difference between fine artand our physical surroundings. Even as the debate concerning names endedwith another conclusion in 1997, I find that Art and Design didaktik in lightof this new development will be a better choice of name. Design, as opposedto craft, will also cover architecture and the new visual medias (Nielsen2008), as well as the traditional crafts (Reitan 2007).The new sub-categories spell out and illuminate the characteristics andimportance of the different parts. This has an impact on the struggle forrecognition and legitimisation that is taking place in the curriculum debate inrelation to the new focus on the knowledge society. As these subdivisions55