There was an overriding consensus that much student work was now very often considered "safe", and this was viewed as disappointing by the tutors I spoke to. Whilst the work may be technically competent and well executed, there was a definite sense that students who do not have a distinct 'voice' and edge to their work were just "getting by" and not excelling as artists. Again, this issue is at the core of the debate of the artist vs technician/craftsperson - very advanced in technical ability, but lacking in ideas. (See diagram in "Art's growing family").

One lecturer tried to approach his subject like this;

"What I've attempted to do with the course is keep the professional practice of the discipline to ensure technical and process standards are being met - which are well established in industry - but allow a creative tension for the students with the art school environment which we are part of. That way hopefully the students won't just be churning out masses of polished but bland work. They should be open to all ideas, from cubism, politics, literature, and everything else."

36.

Another lecturer said that if it was entirely appropriate for the direction the student was working in, that work should also be "dangerous", though there was obvious boundaries and limits. But going on to say that tutors should not act as censors to students work.

There were two overall opinions of why much work is safe and not very challenging;

• Because students are too concerned with the grades they might get, and don't want to appear to be too radical.
  
  
• Because many students are now lacking in confidence to express their opinions, don't connect creativity with radicalism, or don't see ways to express their feelings.