One of the arguments for art education in the schools has long centered on perceived educational benefits in other subjects. In one of the many professional development trainings I attended as a teacher, the topic was on aligning art standards with TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) objectives. My eyes glazed over as I imagined teaching art purely for the geometric language and pattern recognition it could reinforce. I listened to how art improves understanding of basic mathematical concepts and could be used as descriptive writing prompts. And I wondered. Why not teach art for its ability promote understanding of the arts? Why not teach art for art’s sake? When art is appreciated only for its perceived benefits to test scores, I fear it looks like this:
Cartoon courtesy of We the Robots.
The Boston Globe had an excellent article on teaching art in the public schools. In Art for our sake, authors Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland observe:
The implications are broad, not just for schools but for society. As schools cut time for the arts, they may be losing their ability to produce not just the artistic creators of the future, but innovative leaders who improve the world they inherit. And by continuing to focus on the arts’ dubious links to improved test scores, arts advocates are losing their most powerful weapon: a real grasp of what arts bring to education.
What does art bring to education? The article identifies eight “studio habits of the mind:” persistence, expression, making clear connections between schoolwork and the world, the development of artistic craft, observing, envisioning, innovating through exploration and a reflective self-evaluation.
These skills may not be as absent from other subject areas taught in the homeschool environment as they are becoming in the test-driven curricula of many of our schools, but each is important to the child on its own, independent of its ability to improve test scores.
Art is not just a “filler subject” to be gotten to when everything else is done. It is important in its own right. In fact, in his Critique of Judgment, Kant defines fine art thus:
Fine art, on the other hand, is a mode of representation which is intrinsically final, and which, although devoid of an end, has the effect of advancing the culture of the mental powers in the interests of social communication. Selections from Kant’s Critique of Judgment
Much can be learned about a society and its ideals by studying its art. And much can be communicated through the medium of art.
I did not previously place that much emphasis on art, and was obliged to largely because of my daughter’s increasing interest in the subject. While we are currently studying some of the most influential scientists of previous centuries, I was at first shocked by the amount of time many of them spent on art, a subject decidedly separate from science. But both do place a heavy emphasis on observation and critical analysis. I will share more of how we actually teach art in an upcoming entry.
[tags]art, art education, education, homeschooling[/tags]
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
Thanks for writing on this subject. Maybe I am partial to the subject (my wife was a Fine Art major and we met in an art history class), but…
Art is an interpretive subject when taught well - what did the artist mean, what is he/she saying, what is her/his history that might prompt the creation of this particular arwork, what could you say yourself through art, etc..
Particularly in school outside the home, critical thinking and original interpretation are exceedingly rare. Creative writing, art, and even art history are important core subjects, I think, for future success.
I majored in Art in high school (and I mean REALLY majored– my senior year was gym, English, and Art classes galore) and studied Art History in Manhattan. Art is so much more than crayons and watercolors. Art in its historical form is a reflection of a culture. Art is the visual history of a culture and how individuals in that culture respond to their environment.
I studied Egyptian, Greek, and Roman art and history all in one course. It was fascinating. Since children have a natural affinity for “hands on” projects, art as a course provides the “doing” part of school while at the same time giving historical depth. Crafts are fun for elementary age, but as the child matures, art can be the greatest tool in exposing the student to other cultures, concepts, and histories.
I especially liked your cartoon, lol. I do not remember my own art classes ever being like that (although my teacher once gave me an A- because I copied his own drawing perfectly– as a prank), I can understand how children can take such things to heart. Kids are very sensitive about their self-expression. Throwing them into a performance-based class where their individual expression is judged by their peers expressions, is, in my opinion, harmful to the young student. Art is an expression of what you see and what you think. In education, it is an important component of understanding other people and their environments, too.
I understand your fear and disinterest in using art to teach mathematical skills however, the inverse of that situation also exists. I teach mathematical minded people art by putting art in the context that they understand (math). There are two separate aesthetics here … one of art and the other of math and you really don’t teach one aesthetic by means of the other however, you can blend the two aesthetics in one particular work of art/math. That is what we do with mathematical poetry. I believe in keeping both aesthetics apart however, allowing them to mingle.
Good luck!
Kaz
http://mathematicalpoetry.blogspot.com
Thank you so much for your comments and contribution to the entry, Rob and Mrs. Mecomber! I don’t remember any of my art classes, so I can’t say if they were like that or not. That is just what it seemed like in the training I went to!
Kaz, I think you misunderstood my entry. I have no “fear and disinterest in using art to teach mathematical skills.” It is a wonderful addition. I do that myself with my children.
But that is not THE reason for teaching art and should not be THE reason that we argue for keeping the arts in schools. Art is important in its own right, not merely for its ability to promote skills in the core areas.
Hi, Im from Melbourne. Please find a completely different understanding of Art and its Sacred purpose via this essay.
1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/art_is_love/index.html
Plus a related essay on the necessity of Sacred Culture for the cultivation of true sanity, and also the necessary place within which Sacred Art can only be “produced”.
2. http://www.dabase.org/restsacr.htm
Plus unique essays on Conscious Child-Rearing
3. http://www.dabase.org/children.htm
I look forward to your following entries on this subject. I have collected a lot of resources for teaching art, but have yet to really implement them.
I enjoy art, so I know that my children get some knowledge just through that, but as you thoughtfully stated there is much to be learned by taking the time to teach and reflect on the creative expressions of man.
When do you think the appropriate time to teach art history might be? Does it complement world history more, or should it be seen as more tied to a child’s/teenager’s creativity?
Just curious, kinda want to see the reasoning that might go into this in a later entry.
Thank you, Renae and Ashok.
For the quick answer, Ashok, I would say both are important and it is never really too early. But obviously what you covered has to be geared to the age group you are talking about.
I have connected art with science, history, math, etc., but we take time to appreciate it on its own as well. It does tell a lot about a culture and about an individual within the culture so can easily be used to demonstrate themes of a period.
Yes! I agree that the humanization benefits of art education are much more important for character development than any other aspect. However, the academic benefits are great in some situations.
In my district, they have reduced the elementary students to ONE day a week (45 minutes) of both art and music. Imagine trying to teach anything to kindergarten students for 45 minutes. And imagine trying to provide consistency for 5th grade students and only seeing them once a week.
When they hit sixth grade, they have one elective every day. The options are Art, Band, Choir, Spanish, Strings, Theater Arts, or Office Aide.
This means that nearly half of the students in the district end up graduating with a grand total of somewhere right around 325 hours of combined art and music classes.
We are not in peril of funding cuts for the programs (Texas high school football requires a well-funded band program). But there are numerous foreseeable problems that could potentially happen as a result.