Do Degrees Define an Art Form’s Value?

Recently, I came across an interesting fact: Stockholm University of the Arts offers a bachelor’s degree in circus. Yes, circus. While this discovery initially amused me, it quickly led me to a deeper question—does the existence of a degree program in a particular performing art mean that the art form itself is considered important? Or does an art form need to be considered important first before a university decides to institutionalize it?

The relationship between an art form’s perceived importance and its place in academia is not as straightforward as it may seem. If the mere existence of a degree program were enough to elevate an art form’s significance, then every field with a university course would naturally thrive. But we know that’s not always the case. Many disciplines struggle for recognition and funding despite having academic legitimacy. Conversely, some art forms flourish without ever being formally taught in universities.

The Relationship Between Importance and Institutionalization

The logic behind university degree programs typically follows a clear path: a discipline is deemed valuable—either culturally, economically, or socially—so institutions create formal study programs to train professionals, researchers, and educators in the field. This applies to sciences, humanities, and even the performing arts. The presence of a degree, in turn, reinforces the art form’s status within the national and global landscape. However, does this necessarily apply to all art forms?

Take circus, for example. While often seen as a niche entertainment industry, its institutionalization in Sweden suggests a different perspective—one that recognizes it as a legitimate art form requiring rigorous training, artistic development, and intellectual discourse. The fact that Stockholm University of the Arts offers a bachelor’s degree in circus suggests that, in Sweden, the discipline has achieved a level of prestige and recognition that warrants formal education.

Do Degrees Follow Demand, or Create It?

The relationship between the perceived importance of a field and the establishment of university degree programs is complex and bidirectional. While the prominence of a discipline can lead universities to develop specialized degrees, the introduction of such programs can also elevate the field's status and contribute to its growth.

Historically, universities have introduced degree programs in response to societal needs and the growing significance of certain disciplines. For instance, the increasing demand for healthcare professionals has led to the expansion of nursing and medical programs. In Queensland, Australia, a surge in student interest in nursing and teaching degrees aligns with workforce shortages in these sectors, indicating that the societal importance of these fields influences academic offerings .

Conversely, establishing degree programs can legitimize and promote a field. By formalizing education in a particular area, universities can attract students and resources, fostering research and development that contribute to the field's advancement. For example, the introduction of undergraduate research opportunities has been shown to enhance students' understanding of the research process, increase self-confidence, and clarify career paths, thereby strengthening the discipline .​

Case Studies: The European vs. Malaysian Context

A comparison between Malaysia and European countries reveals stark differences in how artistic disciplines are institutionalized. In Malaysia, degree programs exist for theater, dance, and music—suggesting that these fields are recognized as foundational to the nation's cultural and artistic development. However, traditional art forms such as Makyung, Randai, and Wayang Kulit do not have their own specialized degree programs. Instead, they are often subsumed under broader categories like traditional performing arts subjects parked under more generic degree programs. Does this imply they hold lesser cultural significance? Or does their exclusion from specialized degree programs reveal deeper structural biases in academic and policy frameworks?

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argued that institutions play a key role in legitimizing and reinforcing cultural hierarchies. The absence of standalone programs for traditional Malaysian art forms may not reflect their intrinsic importance but rather their lower institutional cultural capital. These art forms exist outside dominant academic structures, which prioritize fields with perceived economic viability, historical prestige, or Western influence.

Michel Foucault’s theory of knowledge suggests that disciplines are shaped by power structures rather than objective merit alone. The presence of a circus degree in Sweden, for example, indicates that academic recognition is not solely determined by artistic significance but also by policy priorities and national cultural strategies. In contrast, Malaysia’s traditional art forms may be sidelined due to systemic factors—colonial academic legacies, shifting governmental priorities, or a market-driven approach to education.

Government policy also plays a decisive role in what is institutionalized. Sweden’s support for circus arts may stem from a broader cultural tourism strategy, while Malaysia’s categorization of traditional arts under general performing arts programs suggests a preference for consolidation rather than specialization. This aligns with Raymond Williams’ argument that cultural practices are shaped by economic and political forces, rather than by artistic or historical merit alone.

This raises a fundamental question: does an art form become important because it is institutionalized, or is it institutionalized because it is important? The reality is likely a feedback loop—academic recognition grants an art form cultural legitimacy, which in turn increases its visibility and sustainability. Without this institutional support, traditional forms risk further marginalization, as the absence of degree programs can discourage formal study, professionalization, and long-term preservation.

If Sweden can grant circus arts academic legitimacy, why hasn’t Malaysia done the same for Makyung, Randai, or Wayang Kulit? The answer lies not in the inherent artistic value of these traditions but in the structural forces that determine what is deemed worthy of formal education.

The Gaps in Malaysia’s Performing Arts Education

If we assume that offering a degree is what makes an art form important, then Malaysia’s theater and dance industries should be thriving. Yet, many graduates struggle to find work in these fields, and the industry itself remains underfunded. This suggests that having a degree program alone does not automatically guarantee the growth or survival of an art form—especially when funding, infrastructure, and audience engagement remain lacking. As Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital suggests, degrees can legitimize a discipline within academic and professional spheres, but they do not necessarily translate to real-world viability.

On the other hand, some traditional performing arts continue to exist without formal degree programs, surviving through cultural transmission, apprenticeships, and grassroots initiatives. This aligns with Michael Polanyi’s concept of tacit knowledge, where embodied and experiential learning plays a crucial role in mastering an art form. For many traditional arts like Makyung, Randai, or Wayang Kulit, skills are often best transmitted through direct mentorship rather than institutionalized curriculum.

However, the absence of dedicated degree programs raises concerns about sustainability. While traditional performing arts are included as subjects within broader programs—such as those offered by ASWARA—this level of institutional recognition may not be sufficient for long-term preservation and development. UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage framework highlights that non-institutionalized art forms often struggle to secure funding, visibility, and new practitioners—especially in the face of globalization. 

Having said that, we must also bear in mind that while degrees can elevate an art form’s status, they are not the sole determinant of its survival. A more holistic approach—one that combines institutional support, state funding, and grassroots sustainability—is necessary for Malaysia’s performing arts ecosystem to truly thrive.

What Would It Take for Traditional Arts to Have Specialized Degrees?

If a specialized degree program signals an art form’s importance, then what conditions must exist before Malaysia sees degrees in Makyung, Wayang Kulit, or Mek Mulung? Would these degrees help preserve and elevate these traditions, or would they simply exist as academic exercises with little impact on real-world practice?

A possible model could involve stronger collaborations between universities, cultural institutions, and performing arts groups. This would ensure that any new degree programs align with industry needs and cultural sustainability efforts. Additionally, government support and policy changes could play a role in prioritizing traditional arts education at the tertiary level.

The existence of a degree does not automatically make an art form important, nor does the lack of one mean it is insignificant. What truly matters is how society values the art form—whether through institutionalization, active practice, or community engagement. Universities can play a role in shaping the artistic landscape, but they should not be the sole arbiters of what is considered important.

So, should universities lead the way in legitimizing performing arts, or should they merely respond to existing cultural trends? Perhaps the real question is not whether a degree makes an art form important, but whether the presence (or absence) of one reflects how much a society truly values its artistic heritage.