|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2007 : 02:50:10
|
Good article in the NY Times about two advocates for art education who did a study debunking old claims about how art classes improve students' measurable academic performance in other subjects.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/arts/design/04stud.html?ex=1186891200&en=fdb08399b2c9273b&ei=5070&emc=eta1
| “When kids take a lot of art, they don't improve in their core subject areas,” she said in an interview. “We simply found no evidence of that.” |
The same two advocates then turned around and wrote a book defending the value and necessity of art education, while at the same time also defending their research. Basically they argue that courses in art improve students' critical and other types of thinking and are valuable for their own sake. They also argue that other art ed. advocates are making a grave mistake by using the argument that we should have art in school as a tool for improving student performance in other areas, because such arguments devalue art education.
| The researchers found that the visual arts classes did have broad indirect benefits, even if they were not directly related to quantifiable performance in other subjects. “Students who study the arts seriously are taught to see better, to envision, to persist, to be playful and learn from mistakes, to make critical judgments and justify such judgments,” the authors conclude. |
As an art teacher, I feel that I encourage exactly these types of thinking in my classes on a regular basis. Especially when I teach inner city kids - who are constantly demanding some direct reason and benefit of the class. These kids have a mentality that art classes are purely trade and craft classes, and that if they aren't going to become professional artists or craftsmen, it is a waste of their time. They don't understand (but hopefully they start to eventually) that I'm really just trying to get them into the habit of thinking outside of the box. There are real life skills to be learned through art, as well as a deeper enjoyment of life to be had by being readily able to perceive situations in a variety of ways.
I personally also still stick to the idea that art education is good for the self esteem of kids who especially enjoy it, and improvement of self esteem does help with every other aspect of a person's life.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 08/08/2007 02:51:36
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 04:11:20 [Permalink]
|
Well, I support art, and not just because it's my first name. For me, "Art Appreciation" in public school actually worked. (I picked up a love for music mainly from Leonard Bernstein's kid's specials on TV.)
I think it's great if art can teach critical thinking, and I salute you for using it that way, Marf. But I would never want to require that art have an application outside of its own wonderful realm. Anything beyond the joy is just a bonus.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/08/2007 04:11:55 |
 |
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 07:01:15 [Permalink]
|
I second that opinion, Half (not that it needs to be seconded).
Art IS great in its own realm and any benefit beyond that IS a bonus.
Cheers!
nico perro de tokio |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 08:27:08 [Permalink]
|
| As a minor point, I think art also enhances critical thinking when the student becomes aware of analogy. Of course, applying analogy toward other subjects is a subjectively broad area and could apply to practically any subject, i.e. science to art, art to literature, painting to music. The innovative composer Arnold Schoenberg, who's romantic music is still thought of by classical fans as highly cerebral as well as of the Expressionist movement, was also a painter and often first conceived of musical works visually as images, then applying the inspiration from the shapes and images, (as well as musical influences from other great composers of earlier times, like Bach or Mozart,) to the completely different media of musical notation. Another 20th Century classical composer, Leos Janacek, thought of melody first in terms of the rhythms of speech from his native Moravian language. But we as listeners don't have to know the Moravian language or Expressionist painting in order to understand their music. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 13:48:41 [Permalink]
|
| Mm, I'd always thought of art as a way not to learn anything in particular (such as critical thinking or whatever), but as way to learn how to express yourself in different media. But then, I hardly had any art classes - I had art history instead, in which the teacher tried to tell us the relevance of art in society, not how to do it. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Critical Thinking and Joy Through Art Education
