• Class Number 3792
  • Term Code 3430
  • Class Info
  • Unit Value 6 units
  • Mode of Delivery In Person
    • AsPr Chaitanya Sambrani
  • Class Dates
  • Class Start Date 19/02/2024
  • Class End Date 24/05/2024
  • Census Date 05/04/2024
  • Last Date to Enrol 26/02/2024
    • Francis Kenna
SELT Survey Results

This course provides students of art history and curatorial studies with applied knowledge of curatorial and exhibition-making processes, and understanding of current issues in the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) sector. In seminars led by ANU staff, curators and GLAM professionals, students will learn about current exhibition-making policy and practice. In accompanying workshops students will extend their learning through applied exercises and participatory tasks, developing important transferrable skills. Where possible, students will engage in object-based learning activities through access to the School of Art & Design and ANU art collections (subject to access conditions). Throughout this course, students will encounter, observe and learn about the inter-related activities that make creating and visiting art exhibitions both educative and enjoyable. Please note: Due to the applied and practical nature of this course, changes to the assessment tasks and/or class formats may be required at short notice.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

  1. critically describe the respective and inter-related roles of GLAM professionals in developing and presenting exhibitions;
  2. critically evaluate the practical and conceptual premises behind exhibitions and creative programming;
  3. conceive of and develop independent curatorial and program proposals, in response to real-world scenarios;
  4. identify and critically analyse the curatorial and exhibition-making processes and requirements of different types of GLAM institutions; and
  5. plan and apply key techniques of artwork care and exhibition installation.

Research-Led Teaching

This course is supported by my own curatorial experience as well as the participation of GLAM sector professionals from various national, regional and local institutions.

Field Trips

We will be visiting galleries and arts spaces on and off campus in addition to the National Cultural Institutions during timetabled hours. Details will be communicated to students through Wattle and email in advance.

Additional Course Costs

Students will be responsible for transport-related costs when classes are conducted off-campus.

Examination Material or equipment


Required Resources

Many sessions will involve students working in small groups and undertaking research in class. Students may wish to bring their notebooks, laptops, tablets and/or other devices to facilitate this.

Whether you are on campus or studying remotely, there are a variety of online platforms you will use to participate in your study program. These could include videos for lectures and other instruction, two-way video conferencing for interactive learning, email and other messaging tools for communication, interactive web apps for formative and collaborative activities, print and/or photo/scan for handwritten work and drawings, and home-based assessment.

ANU outlines recommended student system requirements to ensure you are able to participate fully in your learning. Other information is also available about the various Learning Platforms you may use.

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

  • written comments
  • verbal comments
  • feedback to whole class, groups, individuals, focus group etc

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.

Class Schedule

Week/Session Summary of Activities Assessment
1 Course Overview & Introduction Please note: Course activities are subject to change. Please refer to the Class Schedule on Wattle for a complete, up-to-date list of activities.
2 Curators' Perspectives
3 Working with Collections and Objects
4 Working with Artists: Commissioning
5 Working with Words: Arts Writing and Publishing
6 Arts Funding and Policy Assessment Task 1 Due: Tuesday 26 March, 09:00 am
7 Public Programs and Events
8 Online Curating and Exhibitions
9 Curating in Artist-Run Initiatives and Small Galleries Assessment Task 2 Due: Tuesday, 30 April, 09:00 am
10 "Assembly" at China in the World Gallery
11 Exhibition Planning, Installation and Design
12 Final Presentations and Wrap-Up
13 Assessment Task 3 Due: Thursday 30 May, 9.00am

Tutorial Registration

ANU utilises MyTimetable to enable students to view the timetable for their enrolled courses, browse, then self-allocate to small teaching activities / tutorials so they can better plan their time. Find out more on the Timetable webpage.

Assessment Summary

Assessment task Value Due Date Learning Outcomes
Applied Exhibition Proposal 25 % 26/03/2024 3,4,5
Public Programs Proposal 25 % 30/04/2024 3, 4
Final Reflective Analysis Essay 40 % 30/05/2024 1, 2, 4
Individual Participation in Course Activities 10 % * 1,2,3,4,5

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details


ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines , which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Integrity Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Wattle’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.


Seminars and Workshops in this course are designed to facilitated active participation. Students are expected to attend regularly and actively participate in class activities. Individual participation in course activities is worth 10% of the final course grade.



Assessment Task 1

Value: 25 %
Due Date: 26/03/2024
Learning Outcomes: 3,4,5

Applied Exhibition Proposal

Students will develop an exhibition proposal for a real-world exhibition space and institution (TBC, depending on availability of access to specific spaces due to roofing works across several buildings on campus). They will draw on and respond to a specific art collection, and by doing so they will gain and demonstrate applied understanding of that collection. Students will have to convincingly communicate their exhibition proposal in written form. The core components that must be included within the proposal will be:

  • An exhibition rationale
  • Overall discussion of chosen works
  • Extended label texts (c. 100 words each) for no more than three key artworks (extended labels are included in word count)
  • An exhibition checklist, presented in the form of exhibition labels with full artwork details (artwork details in labels are not included in the final word count)
  • Instructions on hanging/installation (diagrams, wall elevations, layouts can be included here)

Word limit: 1500 words

Value: 25%

Presentation requirements: Submit via upload to Wattle (Turnitin). Written submission should be 12-point font, double spaced, using Chicago style referencing (footnotes and bibliography). Other proposal documents (diagrams, etc) will be submitted to a separate portal on Wattle.

Due date: 26 March 2024, 09:00 am

Estimated return date: two weeks later.



Does the proposal have a clearly articulated curatorial rationale that responds to the set scenario?




* No curatorial rationale is articulated, or it is very limited and/or incomplete.

* Curatorial rationale is either underdeveloped or unclear.

* Very limited or unclear response to set scenario.

* Curatorial rationale is well articulated and includes clear response to the set scenario.

* Could be developed with greater nuance and/or attention to detail.

* Curatorial rationale is very well conceived and articulated.

* Connections and responses to set scenario are thoughtfully considered and well developed.

* Curatorial rationale is extremely well conceived and compellingly articulated.

* An imaginative and/or highly informed response to scenario.

Does the proposal demonstrate why its chosen artworks support the curatorial rationale?


* No clear demonstration of how chosen artworks fit the curatorial rationale.

* Some connections made between chosen artworks and curatorial rationale, but unclear or underdeveloped.

* Clearly articulates how chosen artworks fit and develop the curatorial rationale.

* Could be developed more critically, or could show greater depth/breadth of artwork choice.

* Clearly and critically articulates why artworks have been chosen and how they support the curatorial rationale.

* Clearly, critically & compellingly articulates why artworks have been chosen and how they support the curatorial rationale.

* Artwork choice is sophisticated and highly informed.

Are the artwork details well documented in the checklist and the extended wall labels well written?’



* Artworks are poorly documented, lacking key details.

* Extended labels are not clearly written.

* Artwork details are included but may lack key elements.

* Extended labels are lacking clarity, depth and/or focus.

* Artworks are well documented.

* Label texts are well written, but lacking some clarity or depth.

* Choice of artworks for extended labels could relate more clearly relate to curatorial rationale.

* Artwork details are thoroughly documented.

* Extended label texts are very well written. Clear, concise and well chosen artworks to focus on.

* Artwork details are meticulously documented.

* Extended label texts are extremely well written. Choice of focus artworks further enhances curatorial rational and overall proposal.

Does the proposal appropriately consider layout and installation?


* No consideration given to layout or installation requirements.

* Some consideration given to layout or installation requirements.

* Good consideration layout or installation requirements.

* May be lacking some understanding of certain practical considerations.

* Very good consideration layout or installation requirements.

* Demonstrates clear, informed understanding of practical considerations.

* Excellent consideration layout or installation requirements.

* Demonstrates highly informed understanding of practical considerations.

Assessment Task 2

Value: 25 %
Due Date: 30/04/2024
Learning Outcomes: 3, 4

Public Programs Proposal

Students will work in small groups to develop and present a proposed program of Public and/or Education Programs in response to a future exhibition scenario. Students are encouraged to consider the relationship between ‘in person’ and ‘online’ events and activities, and to design their proposed program accordingly.


Groups will submit a written Public Programs Package that should include elements such as (but not limited to):

* An overarching rationale for the program and how it responds to the scenario

* A statement about intended audiences, and how the program will reach them

* A list of proposed activities, with full details, descriptions and timelines

* An education resource, connected to the program, that targets a particular cohort of students


Detailed task instructions and information about the specific scenario will be provided through Wattle. In addition to the written submission, students will participate in group presentations in Week 12.

Word limit: 1000 words per person (plus group presentation)

Value: 25%

Presentation requirements: Submit via upload to Wattle. Students can use creative design elements to present their proposal.

Due date: Tuesday 30 April 2024, 09:00 am

Estimated return date: two weeks later.



Does the proposal respond to the set scenario? Does it make a compelling case and argument?


* Proposal demonstrates no clear understanding or response to the scenario.

* Proposal does not make a case or argument.

* Proposal responds to the scenario, but in a limited or unclear way.

* Case presented is not well argued.

* Proposal demonstrates a clear response to the scenario.

* A relevant case is presented, but could be argued more strongly and critically.

* Proposal demonstrates a well informed response to the scenario, considering a diversity of thinking and responses to the task.

* Puts forward an informed and convincing argument.

* Proposal demonstrates an well informed, imaginative and diverse response to the scenario. Variety of approaches significantly enhance the response to the task.

* Puts forward an informed and compelling argument.

Does the proposed program of events engage effectively and diversely with its chosen gallery space(s) and scenario?


* Proposed program of events is underdeveloped

* Does not engage effectively with chosen gallery spaces/scenario.

* Proposed program of events is limited in scale and scope.

* Does not engage with gallery spaces and/or scenario effectively or comprehensively.

* Proposed program of events is well considered, and engages well with chosen gallery spaces and scenario.

* Limited in terms of diversity/scope of events proposed.

* Proposed program of events is very effective and well thought through.

* Engages thoughtfully and realistically with chosen gallery spaces and scenario.

* Presents a range of events.

* Proposed program of events is extremely effective and imaginative.

* Engages critically and realistically with chosen gallery spaces and scenario.

* Presents a range of events, each with defined goals.

Does the proposed program of events critically consider its target audience(s)?


* Proposal does not demonstrate a consideration of audience(s).

* Proposal considers its audience(s) on a very minimal level.

* Proposal considers its audience(s) well, but remains underdeveloped.

* Proposal considers its audience(s) on multiple, well-developed levels.

* Proposal considers its audience(s) on multiple levels, well-developed and critically astute.

How well does the oral presentation convey the proposal’s key goals?


* Presentation is not effective, lacks clarity and organisation.

* Does not keep to time.

* Presentation is not entirely effective in conveying goals. May lack clarity, organisation or focus.

* Does not use time effectively.

* Effective presentation. Describes proposal well, but could convey goals more clearly.

* May not keep to time or use time effectively.

* Very effective presentation. Clearly and engagingly conveys the proposal’s key goals.

* Keeps to time.

* Extremely effective presentation. Compellingly & imaginatively conveys the proposal’s key goals.

* Keeps to time.

Assessment Task 3

Value: 40 %
Due Date: 30/05/2024
Learning Outcomes: 1, 2, 4

Final Reflective Analysis Essay

In this task, you will critically reflect on key elements of the course and what you have learned. Students are encouraged to choose 3 key weeks from the course, and use them to develop focused and comparative reflections on the different elements of curatorial work and exhibition-making. Through choosing specific weekly themes or tasks you should consider how you built on your knowledge during the semester, what insights you gained, and how you might continue to apply/develop this knowledge and experiences in the future.

As part of your reflections, you should draw critically on the various discussions, guest lectures, activities and readings that you engaged with across the semester. While this is not a research task, the Reflective Essay does need draw on relevant readings and scholarly materials in order to deepen the reflective analysis. Students should use the Chicago style referencing (footnotes and bibliography) to cite these references.

Word limit: 2000 words

Value: 40%

Presentation requirements: Submit via upload to Wattle via Turnitin. 12-point font, double spaced, using Chicago style referencing (footnotes and bibliography)

Due date: Thursday 30 May 2024, 9.00am

Estimated return date: with final results.



Range of examples from across the course are reflected on


* Extremely limited range of examples considered.

* No understanding of the breadth of the course is demonstrated.

* Adequate but limited range of examples discussed.

* More variety in choice of examples is needed.

* Considers a range of examples and experiences.

* Diversity of examples chosen could have been improved.

* Considers a diverse, well-chosen range of examples that cover multiple elements of the course.

* Considers a diverse and imaginative range of examples that cover diverse, multiple elements of the course.

Overall quality of reflections


* Does not adequately engage in self-reflection or description of examples and experiences.

* Elements of reflection are present, but overall poorly developed.

* Mainly presents summaries rather than active reflections. 

* Reflection is present, but not developed at a critical level.

* Certain parts are more summaries than active reflections.

* Reflection is integrated across the submission, and is developed to a level that presents informed, critical analyses.

* Demonstrates a sophisticated level of reflection across the entire submission.

Makes connections across and between different examples


* Examples are discussed entirely separately. No connections made across different examples.

* Examples are largely discussed separately. Very little connections made across different examples.

* Connections are made between different examples. Comparisons could be explored in greater reflective depth.

* Very strong, informed connections are made across examples. Comparisons are made that enhance the overall quality of the reflections.

* Submission seamlessly integrates comparative reflection and analysis across diverse examples.

Structure and organisation


* Submission has no logical organisation or structure.

* Submission has a structure, but key sections or elements are lacking organisation. Discussion lacks flow.

* Submission has a clear and logical structure. Certain sections may lack flow between discussions.

* Submission is structured effectively and clearly, enabling a very well-developed discussion that flows well.

* Submission is structured in a way that is imaginative and/or is highly effective in presenting detailed critical reflections. 

Engagement with scholarly literature to strengthen and enhance reflections



* No engagement with scholarly literature.

* Minimal engagement with scholarly literature.

* Does not reflect on processes of curation more broadly.

* Some engagement with scholarly literature, but limited and/or not used effectively.

* Does not reflect much on broader processes of curation

* Very good engagement with scholarly literature.

* Used to enhance reflections on broader processes of curation.

* Sophisticated engagement with scholarly literature.

* Used to significantly enhance reflections on broader processes of curation. 

Conclusions drawn about personal learnings and their future applications



* Essay does not draw any meaningful conclusions.

* Essay draws some conclusions about student’s learnings, but not in depth.

* Essay draws solid conclusions about what student has learned, and how they might apply learnings in the future. Could be developed further. 

* Essay draws very good and considered conclusions about what student has learned, and how they might apply learnings in the future.

* Essay draws excellent, highly considered conclusions about what student has learned, and how they might apply learnings in the future.

Clarity of written expression




* Poorly written with many spelling and grammatical errors.

* Adequately written, but with errors in grammar and spelling.

* Well written. Usually correct grammar and spelling.

* Fluently written. Minimal grammatical and spelling errors.

* Highly articulate, written in an eloquent style. Very minimal grammatical and spelling errors.

Referencing (Chicago, Footnotes & Bibliography style)


* Inadequate referencing.

* Adequate referencing, but with mistakes and inconsistencies.

* Good referencing, with a few mistakes.

* Careful referencing with almost no mistakes.

* Meticulous referencing.

Assessment Task 4

Value: 10 %
Learning Outcomes: 1,2,3,4,5

Individual Participation in Course Activities

Seminars and workshops in this course are designed to involve active participation. Students are expected to attend regularly and actively participate in class activities.

Value: 10%

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.

The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.

The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.


The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.

Online Submission

You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.

Hardcopy Submission

For some forms of assessment (hand written assignments, art works, laboratory notes, etc.) hard copy submission is appropriate when approved by the Associate Dean (Education). Hard copy submissions must utilise the Assignment Cover Sheet. Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.

Late Submission

Late submission permitted. Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks is not accepted after 10 working days after the due date, or on or after the date specified in the course outline for the return of the assessment item. Late submission is not accepted for take-home examinations.

Referencing Requirements

The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material.

Returning Assignments

Grades and feedback on assignments will be returned to students via Wattle.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Resubmission of Assignments

Resubmission of individual assignments is not available for this course.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.
In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.

Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

AsPr Chaitanya Sambrani
6125 8402

Research Interests

Modern and contemporary art in Asia; art and nationhood; art and politics; contemporary curatorship.

AsPr Chaitanya Sambrani

Tuesday 16:00 17:00
Francis Kenna

Research Interests

Francis Kenna


Responsible Officer: Registrar, Student Administration / Page Contact: Website Administrator / Frequently Asked Questions