Visual Art Education: A Frill or a Necessity?
Willemina Foeken
The following essay was originally written for a postgraduate unit, Art in Education 6, Curtin
University, 1990. It was later published in the Artists' Chronicle, issue 18, 1992, and has been
adapted slightly to suit the present day.
Art education fluctuates in popularity and presently seems to have sunk into an all-time
low, with large numbers of art teachers retraining in other directions or joining Centrelink
queues. Many parents believe that art education is a waste of time, and with the problems
of unemployment faced by those with Visual Arts degrees, this view is reinforced. In times of
economic stability, schools are typically expected to develop individuals and prepare them for
life, as intelligent, well adjusted and thinking people. However, at times of economic stress,
education is suddenly expected to change to job preparation. As there's little money to be
gained by studying art, many people reason, there is no point in doing it. What is more, those
students who wish to continue to university will find themselves severely handicapped if they
choose to do TEE Art, as their examination results will automatically be scaled down, resulting
in lower aggregates than those of students studying mathematics and sciences. Where
university entry levels are important, this becomes a major factor in steering students away from
art.
Elliot Eisner called the arts a 'fundamental part of the human language system' and went
on to say that 'a school system that deprives children of the forms of literacy that art education
makes possible, will graduate from its schools less than semi-literate children' (Lowenfeld and Brittain, 1987, p11).
Lowenfeld considered the arts to be 'more basic to the thinking process than the traditional
school subjects'. He emphasized that all drawings, whether made by a small child or an adolescent,
demanded 'a great deal of intellectual involvements' (Lowenfeld and Brittain, 1987, p53).
The two above educators have probably influenced art education, in America and elsewhere,
more than anyone else during the twentieth century. Were they totally one-eyed and misguided,
or are we in fact seriously depriving our children?
Goulding considered that part of our problem was that art was generally grouped with
practical subjects such as Home Economics and the Manual Arts. This is due to a very old
misconception that artists have been trying to put right for a long time. Even Leonardo da Vinci
had a lifelong battle trying to convince people that art was not made with the hands but with
the mind! Bramly (1992, pp261-2) stated that da Vinci considered painting, long thought of as a
craft, as the greatest of all the arts and that it should be elevated to the level of the seven liberal arts. He considered it a
qualitative science and the highest intellectual activity in which people
could engage. Goulding quoted Ross as saying that not enough attention had been given to
symbolism and meaning in the arts (Goulding, 1982,. p326).
Powerful support tor the arts in education can be found in numerous experiments carried out
with underprivileged children in NY in the 1960s and 1970s. As a result of these programmes, it
is now no longer a mere theory that a good art education can alter the attitudes and intellectual
performances of underprivileged children. It is worthwhile to take a brief look at some of these
programmes.
Joseph Deley and Stewart Kranz (1970, p65) reported on two such studies. The first one
involved thirty normal teenagers .who took part in a 'divergently oriented' art programme along
with the usual subjects. Thirty others received no art education. They formed the control group.
At the end of two and a half years it was found that the thirty children studying art were, in
fact, now superior in every other area to those children who had received no art education! It
was considered that the development of sensitivity and originality in the art programme was
instrumental in producing greater achievements in other areas.
The secona study concerned an early childhood.compensatory programme in Harlem.
This programme was skills-oriented and designed to help inner city children to 'catch up' with
their more privileged peers. The goals were to develop language skills, perception, conceptual
abilities, and a healthy self-image; The programme featured a range of games and art-related
activities. All tests have shown that these children ultimately performed much better in all areas,
especially in language, than the control group.
The case studies above should be sufficient reason for increasing art education at least in
the lower and middle primary grades. However, there are more reasons for teaching art than
provided by the above studies alone.
Goulding (1982) listed Bloom and Remer's reasons for including arts.(including visual arts) in
education. These have been summarized as follows:
- The arts provide a medium for personal expression.
- The arts focus attention on observation and self-awareness.
- The arts are a universal means of communication.
- The arts involve the elements of sound, movement, colour, mass, energy, space, line, shape and language.
- The arts are part of our cultural heritage.
- The arts reflect our perceptions of the world.
- The arts offer a wide range of career choices.
- The arts can contribute substantially to special education.
- The arts provide us with pleasure and mental stimulation.
- The arts are a useful tool for everyday living.
To deprive children and adolescents of a good art education is to deprive them of the
chance to develop fully - mentally and emotionally. The world is full of emotional cripples. We
can prevent much of that by doing all we can to teach the whole child. When we start teaching
people rather than subjects, our emphasis also shifts from job training to education for a better
quality of life. Ultimately, isn't that what we want for our children?
Bình luận