This course offers postgraduate coursework students the opportunity to work on the subject of a curatorial project undertaken by a member of staff, or a research associate in the Centre for Art History and Art Theory (CAHAT). Students will have the opportunity to reflect upon a research-led exhibition or public program that is in development, allowing them access to real-world examples of exhibition development and collaboration between academics and the GLAM sector. The content of the course will differ each year, subject to the projects in development by CAHAT staff and associates.

Learning Outcomes

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

1. question how research is presented to the public
2. critically evaluate the practical and conceptual premises of the exhibition
3. demonstrate an understanding of exhibition logistics including transport, care, and installation of works of art
4. identify the audience for exhibitions and public programs related to the project

Research-Led Teaching

This course draws upon the lecturer's practical experience gained as a curator, programmer and researcher of modern and contemporary art.

Field Trips

N/A

Additional Course Costs

N/A

Examination Material or equipment

N/A

Required Resources

N/A

Recommended Resources

Whether you are on campus or studying online, 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	Introduction and course overview
2	The curatorial premise
3	Exhibition proposals and public programming
4	Budgets and exhibition logistics	Assessment 1: Exhibition Proposal Outline due
5	Self-guided site visit
6	Self-guided site visit	Assessment 2: Budget and Logistics Report due
7	Expansions and afterlives: How does your work live past the exhibition?
8	Finding your curatorial voice
9	Site visit
10	Guest panel
11	Student presentations	Assessment 3: Student Presentation due
12	Student presentations	Assessment 3: Student Presentation due
13		Assessment 4: Final Exhibition proposal due in exam week

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
Exhibition Proposal Outline (1500 words) 20%	20 %	20/03/2026	1,2,3,4
Exhibition Budget and Logistics Report (1500 words) 20%	20 %	24/04/2026	1,3,4
Student Presentation (10-minute presentation + 1000-word paper) 25%	25 %	*	1,2,3,4
Final Exhibition Proposal (3000 words) 35%	35 %	05/06/2026	1,2,3,4

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

Policies

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:

• Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Extenuating Circumstances Application
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure
• Code of practice for teaching and learning

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 ‘Canvas’ 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.

Participation

As this is a hands-on practical course aimed at developing students’ individual curatorial practices, participation is an essential component of the course. Students are required to actively participate in group activities and discussions and come prepared for required presentation sessions and group critiques.

Assessment Task 1

Exhibition Proposal Outline (1500 words) 20%

For the first assignment, students are required to develop a proposal that outlines a small independent curatorial project. This should elaborate on their project concept and rationale and provide details on its venue, format and target audience. The proposal should also include an initial artist shortlist of up to 4 artists with a supporting rationale, as well as an outline of public programming activities with associated rationale and budget. Please include Chicago Style Referencing and a Bibliography.

Rubric

Criteria	Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction
Critical Translation of Research for Public Contexts (LO1)	Research is unclear, absent, or not meaningfully connected to the project.	Research is referenced but weakly integrated into the proposal.	Research is evident but largely descriptive or academic, with limited public translation.	Research is clearly presented and meaningfully connected to the proposed exhibition and public programs.	Research is critically and imaginatively translated into a public-facing curatorial proposal. Demonstrates strong awareness of how research informs exhibition and programming decisions beyond academic contexts.
Curatorial Concept and Project Coherence (LO2)	No clear curatorial concept or rationale is evident.	Concept is loosely defined and largely descriptive, with limited critical framing.	Concept and rationale are present but unevenly developed or partially articulated.	Curatorial concept and rationale are clear and well developed, with minor gaps in coherence or depth.	Presents a compelling, well-articulated curatorial concept with a clear and convincing rationale. Conceptual and practical premises are coherently integrated across the proposal.
Target Audience, Public Programming, and Engagement Strategy (LO1, LO2, LO4)	No identifiable target audience or public programming strategy.	Limited or vague reference to audience and public programming.	Audience and programming are addressed but remain broad or underdeveloped.	Target audience is identified and linked to the exhibition and programs with clear rationale.	Target audience is clearly defined and thoughtfully embedded in both exhibition design and public programming. Programming is well justified and appropriate to the audience.
Exhibition Logistics, Budget, and Feasibility (LO3)	Exhibition logistics are not addressed or are fundamentally misunderstood.	Minimal engagement with logistics or feasibility.	Addresses some logistical elements, but discussion is limited, generic, or partially unrealistic.	Demonstrates sound understanding of key logistical considerations with minor omissions or feasibility issues.	Demonstrates strong and realistic understanding of exhibition logistics, including transport, care, installation, venue constraints, and budget considerations. Logistical planning supports curatorial intent.
Professional Presentation, Referencing, and Structure (LO1)	Proposal is poorly presented, unclear, or lacks required referencing.	Writing lacks clarity or contains significant referencing errors.	Writing is generally clear but inconsistently structured or referenced.	Writing is clear and well structured, with mostly correct Chicago referencing.	Proposal is clearly structured, professionally written, and accurately referenced using Chicago Style. Bibliography is thorough and appropriate.

Assessment Task 2

Exhibition Budget and Logistics Report (1500 words) 20%

For the second assignment, students are required to submit a report that reflects on the budget and logistics considerations of their exhibition and details their plans to meet these requirements. The report should provide a realistic budget estimation for the exhibition and its various components. It should include research on what potential funding channels can be pursued to fund the necessary budget. The report should also detail exhibition logistics considerations like artwork production and material sourcing, technical installation, artwork maintenance and any other logistics requirements.

Rubric

Criteria	Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction
Critical Translation of Research for Public Contexts (LO1)	Research is unclear, absent, or not meaningfully applied.	Research is referenced but weakly connected to public-facing or practical considerations.	Research is evident but mostly descriptive or inconsistently applied to planning decisions.	Research is clearly applied to exhibition planning and budget decisions, with thoughtful links to public outcomes.	Research is critically synthesised and applied to inform budget, logistics, and public-facing exhibition decisions. Demonstrates strong understanding of how research underpins professional curatorial planning.
Target Audience and Engagement Strategy (LO1, LO4)	No identifiable target audience or engagement strategy.	Minimal or vague reference to audience or engagement considerations.	Audience is mentioned but broadly defined or inconsistently applied.	Target audience is identified and linked to budget and logistics decisions.	Target audience is clearly defined and meaningfully informs budget priorities, resourcing decisions, and logistical planning. Demonstrates insight into how audience needs shape exhibition delivery.
Exhibition Logistics, Budget, and Feasibility (LO3)	Logistics, budget, and/or funding strategy are absent or fundamentally misunderstood.	Minimal engagement with logistics, budget, or feasibility considerations.	Addresses logistics and budget, but discussion lacks detail, justification, or realism; funding research is limited.	Demonstrates sound understanding of logistics and budget considerations, with plausible funding avenues identified.	Demonstrates a thorough, realistic, and professional understanding of exhibition logistics, budget development, and funding strategies. Plans are feasible, well-researched, and clearly aligned with curatorial intent.
Professional Presentation, Referencing, and Structure (LO1)	Report is poorly written, disorganised, or lacks required referencing.	Writing lacks clarity and/or contains significant referencing or structural issues.	Writing is generally clear but inconsistently structured or referenced.	Writing is clear and well structured, with mostly accurate and consistent referencing.	Report is clearly structured, professionally written, and accurately referenced. Tables, figures, and formatting (if used) enhance clarity and readability.

Assessment Task 3

Student Presentation (10-minute presentation + 1000-word paper) 25%

Students will present their final projects to the class. Presentations should clearly communicate both the conceptual rationale and the practical considerations of the curatorial project, including how their research is translated into a public exhibition context. Aside from gaining peer feedback that can be helpful in fine tuning individual projects, these critique sessions are designed to help students gain confidence with the peer feedback loop that is a key feature of contemporary curatorial practice. These presentations will be 10 minutes, the written component will be 1000 words, and each will conclude with discussion time and questions from fellow students.

Rubric

Criteria	Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction
Critical Translation of Research for Public Contexts (LO1)	Research is unclear, absent, or not meaningfully presented.	Research is referenced but weakly connected to public presentation.	Research is evident but largely academic or descriptive, with limited public translation.	Research is clearly communicated and generally accessible, with thoughtful framing for a public audience.	Research is critically and imaginatively translated for public presentation. Demonstrates strong awareness of curatorial mediation beyond academic contexts.
Curatorial Concept and Project Coherence (LO2)	No clear curatorial concept or rationale.	Concept is loosely defined with minimal justification.	Concept is present but unevenly developed; rationale is partial or descriptive.	Concept is well considered with a clear rationale; minor gaps in integration or clarity.	Concept is clearly articulated, critically grounded, and compelling. Practical and conceptual premises are coherently integrated.
Target Audience and Engagement Strategy (LO1, LO4)	No identifiable target audience.	Minimal or vague reference to audience.	Audience is mentioned but broadly defined or underdeveloped.	Audience is identified and meaningfully linked to the project.	Target audience is clearly defined and thoughtfully embedded in curatorial decisions and presentation approach.
Exhibition Logistics, Budget, and Feasibility (LO3)	Exhibition logistics not addressed or misunderstood.	Minimal engagement with exhibition logistics.	Addresses some logistical elements, but discussion is limited or generic.	Demonstrates sound understanding of key logistical considerations with minor gaps.	Demonstrates strong and realistic understanding of exhibition logistics (transport, care, installation, spatial considerations) aligned with curatorial intent.
Professional Presentation, Referencing, and Structure (LO1)	Presentation and accompanying paper are poorly presented, unclear, or lack required referencing.	Presentation and accompanying paper lacks clarity or contains significant referencing errors.	Presentation and accompanying paper are generally clear but inconsistently structured or referenced.	Presentation and accompanying paper are clear and well structured, with mostly correct Chicago referencing.	Presentation and paper are clearly structured, professionally presented and written, and accurately referenced using Chicago Style. Bibliography is thorough and appropriate.

Assessment Task 4

Final Exhibition Proposal (3000 words) 35%

For the final assignment of the course, students are required to build on the preceding assignments #1 and #2 to present a final proposal plan for their independent project. The final plan should include a budget, public programming activities, reflect on potential avenues for content creation and include a communications roll-out plan. it should also reflect on potential extensions and afterlives of the project, including documentation and archiving. Please include Chicago Style Referencing and a Bibliography.

Rubric

criteria	fail	pass	credit	distinction	high distinction
Critical Translation of Research for Public Contexts (LO1)	Research is unclear, absent, or not meaningfully applied.	Research is referenced but weakly connected to public outcomes.	Research is evident but inconsistently applied or remains largely descriptive or academic.	Research is clearly integrated and meaningfully informs public-facing elements of the proposal.	Research is critically synthesised and imaginatively translated into a public-facing exhibition proposal. Demonstrates strong awareness of how research informs exhibition design, programming, communications, and audience engagement.
Curatorial Concept and Project Coherence (LO2)	No coherent curatorial concept or rationale is evident.	Concept is loosely defined and largely descriptive, with limited critical framing.	Concept and rationale are present but unevenly developed or partially articulated.	Curatorial concept and rationale are clear and well developed, with minor gaps in coherence.	Presents a sophisticated and compelling curatorial concept with a clear rationale. Conceptual and practical premises are fully integrated across all aspects of the proposal.
Target Audience and Engagement Strategy (LO1, LO4)	No identifiable target audience or public programming strategy.	Minimal or vague reference to audience and public engagement.	Audience and programming are addressed but remain broad, generic, or underdeveloped.	Audience is clearly identified and meaningfully linked to programming and engagement strategies.	Target audience is clearly defined and deeply embedded in exhibition design, public programming, content creation, and communications strategies. Demonstrates strong insight into audience experience and engagement.
Exhibition Logistics, Budget, and Feasibility (LO3)	Exhibition logistics and budget are absent or fundamentally misunderstood.	Minimal engagement with logistics or feasibility considerations.	Addresses logistics and budget, but discussion lacks detail, justification, or realism.	Demonstrates sound understanding of logistics and budget considerations with minor omissions or feasibility issues.	Demonstrates a thorough, realistic, and professional understanding of exhibition logistics, including production, transport, installation, care of works, and budget planning. Logistical decisions clearly support curatorial intent.
Professional Presentation, Referencing, and Structure (LO1)	Proposal is poorly presented, unclear, or lacks required referencing.	Writing lacks clarity or contains significant referencing errors.	Writing is generally clear but inconsistently structured or referenced.	Writing is clear and well structured, with mostly correct Chicago referencing.	Proposal is clearly structured, professionally written, and accurately referenced using Chicago Style. Bibliography is thorough and appropriate.

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

Individual assessment tasks may or may not allow for late submission. Policy regarding late submission is detailed below:

• Late submission not permitted. If submission of assessment tasks without an extension after the due date is not permitted, a mark of 0 will be awarded.
• 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. Any use of artificial intelligence must be properly referenced. Failure to properly cite use of Generative AI will be considered a breach of academic integrity.

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.

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).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Accessibility for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents all ANU students