In 2011, a major reform in Swedish teacher education substantially altered qualification requirements for primary school teachers in visual arts. Students enrolled in the general teacher education programme with a specialization in leisure-time pedagogy can now qualify to teach and assess visual arts up to grade 6 after completing only 30 ECTS credits in the subject, in contrast to the more extensive subject studies required for certification grades in 7-9. This paper is part of a broader research project that examines the consequences of this reform by analysing how visual arts education policies are enacted, negotiated, and locally configured across different teacher education institutions in Sweden. 

Departing from the notion that conceptions of visual arts as a school subject are not only articulated in policy texts and syllabi but also embedded in material and infrastructural arrangements, the case study presented in this paper focuses primarily on the spatial organisation of teaching environments in these institutions. The study is guided by the research question: How are conceptions of visual arts as a school subject enacted and negotiated through the spatial organisation of visual arts teaching facilities? More specifically, it explores how different configurations of studios, classrooms, storage rooms, equipment and material resources express and shape locally situated interpretations of national policies in visual arts education, and how these configurations contribute to the construction of distinct subject cultures within teacher education.

Theoretically, the study draws on policy enactment theory (Ball et al., 2012), which conceptualises policy not as something implemented top-down, but as something that is interpreted, translated and enacted within specific institutional and cultural contexts. At the same time, enactment processes are shaped by power relations that construct and privilege particular conceptions of what visual arts education is and should be. From this perspective, the enactment of the 2011 teacher education reform can be understood as a complex process in which teacher educators select, interpret and translate national policies into local syllabi, spatial arrangements and teaching practices. These enactments give rise to locally specific subject cultures, shaped by historical traditions, institutional resources and professional identities, while simultaneously reflecting broader structures of governance and control embedded in contemporary education policy. In this paper, particular attention is paid to the material/spatial policy enactments and how they in turn privilege certain pedagogical practices, subject traditions, and forms of knowledge while constraining others. 

Although empirically grounded in a Swedish case, the study addresses issues of clear European and international relevance. Across many educational systems, visual arts and other art subjects face challenges related to reduced instructional time, changing qualification requirements and shifting priorities in curriculum reform. By highlighting the relationship between policy, material conditions and teacher agency, the paper contributes to broader debates about the status and role of arts education in schools undergoing structural and ideological change. By making visible the conditions under which visual arts education is shaped, constrained and transformed in contemporary policy contexts, the study contributes with insights that may inform both teacher education and compulsory school development.

In order to make the material conditions of visual arts education visible and possible to analyse, the study adopts a visual ethnographic approach. Visual ethnography can help direct attention towards aspects of mundane spatial and material arrangements that are otherwise often taken for granted or forgotten (Pink 2021; van den Scott 2018). As proposed by Pink et al. (2018), visual documentation is particularly useful for exploring the relationships between everyday practices and more policy-driven narratives in different fields of society. In educational contexts, this approach makes it possible to examine how official accounts of reform and curriculum are translated into, or come into tension with, the material realities of teaching and learning. In this respect, visual ethnography can be used to access what Prosser (2007) refers to as “the visible but hidden curriculum” of schools. This includes forms of visual culture and spatial organisation that are fully observable, but whose influence on teaching practices and pedagogical possibilities often escapes explicit attention. As emphasised by Prosser, such material conditions are not limited to formal teaching spaces, but also include non-teaching areas, such as storage rooms and other adjacent facilities, which play a central role in structuring everyday educational work. Empirically, the study draws on photographic documentation of teaching facilities for visual arts education at seven higher education institutions offering teacher education in Sweden. The material includes both wide-angle photographs of entire teaching spaces and close-up images of specific material arrangements, equipment and storage practices. It is important to point out that the analytical process begins already in the moment of photographing, as the selection of what to document involves an initial interpretation of what is considered analytically relevant. The visual material is therefore not treated as neutral representations, but as situated and theoretically informed materials shaped by the analytical choices made in the moment of documentation (Pink, 2021). The photographs are further contextualised through field notes based on conversations with teacher educators conducted during guided walks through the facilities. Analytically, the material is interpreted through a policy enactment lens, focusing on how conceptions of visual arts as a school subject become visible in spatial arrangements and material configurations. Rather than treating teaching facilities as direct translations of policy, the analysis approaches them as sites where educational policy is both enacted and challenged through everyday material organizations.

The preliminary analysis reveals substantial variation between institutions in how visual arts teacher education is materially and spatially organised. Teaching facilities varied in terms of size, equipment, and spatial layout, resulting in significantly different conditions for teaching and learning across institutions. These differences can be understood as spatial expressions of a “hidden curriculum” where inherited material arrangements and environments continue to structure pedagogical possibilities. Within these variations, tensions between different conceptions of visual arts as a school subject can be identified. On the one hand, both policy documents and most teacher educators participating in the study frame visual arts education as a visual culture subject, oriented towards contemporary image creation practices and critical visual literacy. On the other hand, this orientation coexists with a continued emphasis on more traditional craft-based practices, embedded in traditionally furnished and equipped art classrooms. A further finding concerns how negotiation and enactment of policy takes place not only through spatial organisation but also through everyday practices of use and non-use. Certain artefacts or spaces, such as kilns or darkrooms, remain physically present but are repurposed, only occasionally used, or used in ways that differ from their original pedagogical intentions. These practices reveal how inherited infrastructures are pragmatically adapted to new curricular priorities, and how policy enactment unfolds through everyday decisions. The analysis also points to an emerging ambition to align visual arts teacher education more closely with the material conditions of current compulsory education. In several sites, increased use of recycled and low-cost materials reflects an attempt to prepare future teachers for the resource constraints typical of primary schools. While this alignment may enhance professional relevance, it also raises questions about the extent to which teacher education risks normalising restricted conditions and lowering expectations regarding the material and symbolic status of the subject.

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Pink, S. (2021). Doing visual ethnography. 4th Ed. SAGE. Pink, S., Fors, V., & Lindgren, T. (2018). Emerging technologies and anticipatory images: Uncertain ways of knowing with automated and connected mobilities. Philosophy of Photography, 9(2), 195–216. Prosser, J. (2007). Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual Studies, 22(1), 13–30. van den Scott, L.-J. K. (2018). Visual Methods in Ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47(6), 719–728.