Curiosity over curriculum: embracing a precarious pedagogy

What if art education was no longer defined by rigid structures, but by a fluid network of relationships that valued curiosity over curriculum? Drawing from the principles of Jeroen Lutters' No University (2021), the alternative approaches of the Copenhagen Free University, and my own experiences in teaching and observing experimental, open learning within my institution, this provocation proposes a future where art schools are no longer tied to fixed structures but are instead embedded within a fluid network of relations (Illich, 1971; Giroux, 2020). The Copenhagen Free University, which operated from 2001 to 2007, provides a practical lesson for this reimagining. Its deliberate positioning as "emphatically an institution" while rejecting traditional institutional forms demonstrates how educational initiatives can simultaneously critique and reclaim institutional power. Its emphasis on socialised research, where the form was the content offers a model for education that prioritises process, community, and relation over product and credential. Jereon Lutters' vision of the "No University" further highlights this. Lutters presents education not as an institution but as "a meeting place of people with an interest in higher forms of thinking, feeling, making" (Lutters, 2021, p.137). In this environment, "learning was self-learning" and " a centre for radical free thinking. A place where higher education was a constant challenge of crossing borders: borders between countries, borders between disciplines, borders between the Self and the Other" (Lutters, 2021, p.125). Unlike conventional university settings that prioritise measurable outcomes, Lutters advocates for educational processes where “the only sufficient outcome of a process of inquiry was a unique narrative, a non-copied product, a work of art composed by the students themselves” (Lutters, 2021, p.78). This approach reframes art education as a "network of science, technology, ecology, art and the meaning of life" where "creative inquiry was the central idea” (Lutters, 2021, p.115). This inquiry explores the territory where institutional critique meets educational reimagining. At a time when art education increasingly faces market pressures and corporate logic, models like the Copenhagen Free University offer vital counterpoints. Their approach to 'socialised research' resonates with current discussions about dismantling educational hierarchies and fostering genuine cultural cooperation. By examining these alternative frameworks alongside Lutters' 'No University', we can speculate future art education as a fluid network. In conclusion, I propose that there needs to be space where creativity isn't reduced to economic value but instead serves as a foundation for civic engagement and social transformation (Giroux, 2020). It can be argued that as art schools grapple with questions of purpose and relevance, alternative models demonstrate how education might simultaneously embrace institutionality while rejecting its corporatised forms, creating opportunities for genuine collaboration between traditional and experimental approaches to art learning. Embracing Lutters' principle that higher education should be "a place for the maturation of the Self" and "a centre for radical free thinking," my exploration offers an approach to art education directed by the motto: "No curriculum, Only Curiosity." (Lutters, 2021, p.121)