First of all I think it is brilliant that things like FLAG happen, that students, tutors, researchers and artists get together and speak about how art schools are run.
I found the most interesting presentations were given by Rebecca Fortnum, Emily Pethick from the Showroom and Ana Laura de la Lopez Torres because they described very directly and honestly what they've been doing.


Noticeable was that, although the afternoon discussion were well attended, loads of people seem to come in only for the Private View. Was that because of the free alcohol? Or why did the PV attract more people than the actual event?


I think overall the space worked very well, especially given that the Triangle Gallery is a very difficult space, its a bit like a car park. It was interesting to see how people reacted to the furniture modules, for example Linda Drew stood behind one during her talk, whereas Dennis Atkinson sat on it (being therefore slightly lower that his audience). It also worked very well when the SALT people assembled the furniture to a productive workstation and folded their latest issue.


Funny enough, most of us went directly from FLAG to the Hayward Conference about "De-schooling society". I took this picture of one of the talks, and for me it sums up the failure of most discussions about "the educational turn" or the challenging of social hierarchies. I mean a set-up like this, with selected speakers sitting on a stage and the audience being banned to the dark, is completely the opposite of a de-schooled society. There is just such a discrepancy between the content/aims of the conference and what it actually does.
I guess the questions are: How can you really have an impact, instead of just imitating the current system or providing a new terminology for old institutions? How can you do your own thing, without unconsciously striving for the approval of the establishment? And why does this whole discussion remain strictly within the artworld/artschool?