At this point, I believe that the prevailing public perception is that arts education is only for young people who want to be artists—“Glee” wannabes. If we applied this mindset to science, we would teach science only to students who aspired to be chemists, biologists, or astronomers.this is so on-target. as the daughter of two "left brained" lawyers, i shied away from art a lot when i was a kid, believing that since i would surely never be an artist, there was nothing for me to explore by creating things. i don't think anyone ever told me this, but it's how i felt, and it's something that i regret. it's such a shame to waste the adventurousness and inventiveness of childhood by planning out kids' futures for them years before they have any inkling of what they really want to be when they grow up.
and even if what they grow up to be is a lawyer, why should that stop them from discovering other outlets for their creativity?
It shouldn't and by applying the arts to other subjects: math, social studies, science, etc. it can definitely enhance the learning experience, and at the same time, give kids/students to self discover that they too can be artistic.
ReplyDeletethere's a phenomenon i see in lots of our outreach programs that's related to this. young kids who are teaching artists work with are always excited about art. if you ask them what they want to be when they grow up, we're talking 20% baseball player, 20% astronaut, 20% president, 2% internet entrepreneur, and about 38% artist. they all love art. when we work with high school students, you'll be in a room of 35 kids and maybe 1 wants to be an artist. the majority of the kids all tell you 'i can't draw. i'm no good at art.' what happens in those middle years? what's completely sapped that enthusiasm? it's an attitude that art isn't for everyone. you only do it if you're good. and the message lots of these kids get is "you're not good at it." we need a change.
ReplyDelete