art education :The purpose of art education is to nurture artists, not necessarily leaders.

"... those who sought a more active role for artists within the burgeoning field of higher education believed they had the necessary expertise to cover content that bridged studio experience, art historical themes, and philosophical issues.

This, after all, was what contemporary artists seriously thought about. It seemed reasonable to surround the artist(as a teacher) with aspiring students who would benefit from serious exchange on topics about art and life. As such, curriculum content could not be specified in any formal way and techniques could not be introduced as prerequisites for creativity: Teaching became conversation and learning focused on individual aesthetic problem-solving. This version of the expert-novice model relied on the image of the artists as a social outsiders engaged in an intense pursuit of a personal vision. Consequently, the criteria for newness were not seen in relation to past or existing image banks or stylistic brands but by a measure of radical difference. The drive toward the illusion of “things never seen” reached a mythical status that kept the social constructed-ness of art practice at bay, at least until the theoretical onslaught of post-modernism."- Graeme Sullivan.

Although the final statement is no longer applicable within current theoretical frameworks, Graeme Sullivan's paragraph effectively highlights the intricate dilemma regarding whether artists/designers should function as institutions of learning or institutions should manifest as embodiments of artistic learning. While it is conceivable to support the credibility of these academic positions—artists/designers as institutions and institutions as conduits of learning—by citing numerous instances found within the construct of "successful artists and designers," it is equally essential to acknowledge that the ongoing crisis in the art and design realm is partly a consequence of these very academic stances. 

The presumed reciprocity between "the value of an outcome and its broader social significance" and the procedural output of an academic process has long been a contentious issue within institutional settings.

Beyond the societal and market influence exerted by artists, the historical role of artists as institutions of learning has often been limited to delineating specific practices for students within their particular areas of expertise. Similarly, academic and pedagogic approaches, characterized by scientific and theoretical frameworks, have struggled to substantially contribute to creative practice beyond validating one's readiness based on the subjective expertise of the instructor. This process further accentuates the artist's (instructor's) role as a subjective institution, creating a complex situation bereft of a straightforward solution.

A strategy for establishing a coherent mutual practice within individual-to-individual, individual-to-community, and community-to-society interactions must evolve within academic contexts. This evolution requires acknowledging one's subjective potential and constraints rather than adopting an authoritarian stance. In the absence of such development, where the theoretical or physical outputs remain subsets of this subjective institution, the growing predicament of individual creative practitioners and their relevance in a society marked by egalitarian technological access and universal values will loom large, casting doubts on the significance of academia and institutions in the future.

Compounding this dilemma is the shift from the pre-nineteenth-century notion of enlightenment centred around meaningful creative practice and truth to the post-twentieth-century emphasis on the statistical significance of meaning and the subjective interpretation of truth. This shift could potentially subject the objectivity of institutional learning to conditional assessment. 

To put it differently, if institutions fail to address the necessity for a harmonious practice aligned with one's life position, elevating this position to an objective of living rather than regarding subjective living as a statistical deduction of truth, counterarguments against the broader goal of the learning process could emerge. Such counterarguments could be rooted in the prevalence of reactionary practices and their apparent sufficiency—a notable example being the widespread prevalence of "cut and paste" approaches, which have inundated the contemporary art and design landscape.