This paper is an examination of an artwork produced by a sixth-form student who explores the prohibited spaces of queer lives. She does so through the production of an installation, a dominant format in contemporary art, in which space is a central semiotic vehicle. Rather than choosing a confessional strategy, she distances herself from her own emerging lesbian identity by imagining these spaces from the subject position of a young gay male. This process enables her to engage audiences in questioning the historical and social structures that reproduce heteronormativity without falling into the tropes of popular confession. With reference to the work of Judith Butler, I analyse how the student enacts and reconfigures representations of gender and sexuality to afford a space for the construction of queer identities.

This article examines the findings of the London Cluster research, 'Critical Minds', in which the Institute of Education, University of London (IoE) worked in collaboration with Whitechapel Chapel Art Gallery (the lead London gallery), Bow Arts, Chisenhale Gallery and Space -The Triangle, and four east London comprehensive schools. By collaborating with art departments and by focusing on learning within the gallery context, the research team questioned whether the perceived constraints of traditional art and design pedagogy can be overcome by changing the conditions in which learning takes place. The following analysis focuses on these conditions as outlined in the research report's recommendations.

Learning Outcomes models, particularly constructive alignment, are the default theoretical' tool underpinning HE curriculum design in the UK despite continuing doubts as to their efficacy. With reference to the literature, this article summarises the history of the Learning Outcomes movement and charts the perceived benefits and deficits of Learning Outcomes/Assessment as it pertains to art and design. It proceeds with an examination of the theoretical assumptions that underpin its principles specifically in relation to inclusivity and creative practice. Drawing on cultural historical activity theory a case is made for a less prescriptive model, one that recognises socially constructed, situated meaning-making, and the impossibility of second-guessing the affect-laden motivations that generate specific learning needs.