In
America, we are living in an age when millions, excuse me, billions of taxpayer
dollars are funneled into bullets, bombs, and luxurious embassies for U.S.
emissaries around the world. The necessity to do so may be subject to debate,
but one has to wonder given all those tax dollars, who is getting shortchanged?
Should more government money be spent on education? Perhaps if school funding
were more than an issue once an election cycle, senior government officials, by
virtue of their education, would have seen 9/11 as inevitable and taken the
necessary steps politically (if not militarily) to prevent the terrible events
of that day.
In
the need to fulfill many government services, federal and state legislators
routinely shortchange public schools. School lunch programs, the athletic
department for all non-essential sports (only football is essential, obviously)
and the art departments are usually the first to fall in the battle for
funding. But are these programs even necessary? Yes, they are all vitally important.
However, if school administrators must decide upon which of these departments
are most necessary, especially which
one is most valuable to freedom, then
the art department may be the most valuable.
Though
art is often taught in pre-school through middle school, it is done so almost
as an afterthought. By the time a student reaches high school, training in art
is not likely to be offered, presumably because art is not as valued as math, science,
or history. (Let’s put aside America’s abysmal scores in these subjects for the
time being which would otherwise lead us to question the value of those
subjects as well.) Among those subjects, though, history is nothing like math
or science, and history is not particularly crucial given America’s
One-Billion-Hamburgers-Sold, consumer-driven society that routinely ignores
historical facts. Why then is history required for high school students? Because
it teaches them something,
particularly the way the prevailing local government wants students to develop
their worldview.
Traditionally
with art, it has been taught because of what it does where what it does is
necessary in safeguarding freedom. We should be requiring art classes in high school
because developing artistic talents aid in the development of critical thinking
and communication skills. Art teaches us to think in different ways, providing
us with an ability to evaluate the world around us. There is also the matter of
what art does for students as a means of self-expression.
Although
art is a form of communication primarily associated with visual arts, it encompasses
so much more. Art also comes in the form of music, literature, and our bodily
movements. Art can be found in architecture and other forms of technology as
well. As a form of communication, it is a language that coveys lessons and
messages that, “…succeeds where words fail” (Lynn Olsen). And it is a language
every bit as important as mathematics. As Albert Einstein said, “The value of an education…is not the
learning of many facts, but the training of the mind to think of something that
cannot be learned from textbooks.” Is it ethical to deprive a student of the
unique voice and ear art has to offer?
What are the implications of withdrawing art appreciation from our
schools? Without the ability to recognize and decipher the language of art, we open
ourselves to manipulation. As columnist Lynne Olsen once noted, “Totalitarian rulers
recognize the power of art.” The Nazi’s, for example, instituted strict rules upon
artists with only themes sanctioned by the state being allowed for the sake of
manipulating public opinion. If a student does not learn to think in different ways,
they become prone to monotonously linear thinking, and easily swayed to believe
any truth a government may want to invent.
Case in point 1: American cable news. Cue the Fox News logo; red,
white, and blue. Not only are these colors the colors of the American flag,
they are primary colors well known to lure flies into spiders’ webs. The Fox
News channel logo is quite intentionally, and they have the rating to prove it.
As stock quotes and headlines tick by, a once ever present “Terror Alert” graphic
reminded the public that war is permanent. Down the fauxhole our taxpayer
dollars go.
Case in point 2: Advertisers use art to manipulate consumers all
the time. All one has to do is mention the words “Coca-Cola,” and immediately, flowing
white cursive lettering on a red background – a color combination know to
invoke hunger and thirst – forms in one’s mind. But who would know to resist this
application of art without any art training? Without
critical thinking and communication skills, anyone is at risk of being open to
propaganda and advertising. If students do not learn to be creative,
conventional wisdom cannot be challenged, and what America is left with is a
population susceptible to corporations, fascism or some other form of tyranny.
Many
tyrants have imposed restrictions on artists. Art as a form of self-expression
is vehemently opposed, leading to a culturally bleak existence. An existence
without art, as artist Zel Brook put it, “…is the same as telling us that we
should go through our days ignoring our senses, with endless days of frustration…with
no hope the situation will ever change.”
In the 18th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer,
surrounded by the constant turmoil and conflict in Europe, explained that engaging
in the arts is the only way to release one’s self from an otherwise painful existence.
Another philosopher, the ill-regarded Karl Marx, felt that repressing an individual’s
expression with art will ultimately result in noncompliance or violent revolt, given
that in totalitarian or fascist societies, the public has no outlet for social criticism.
Likewise, teenagers who have not been instructed in art face limited means of
expressing themselves or will become the target of criticism by their classmates
when they buck the status quo when they do express themselves in a unique
manner. Is the American teenager’s obligatory rebellion or fits of depression a
product of artistic repression, from not being heard?
Art helps express the ineffable. Cathy McGuire, an art therapist
in Portland, Oregon, says, “The physical act of creation connects our bodies
with the external world…what we are really making is ourselves.” As any parent
can attest to, it’s hard enough to communicate with their children. Limiting
the means by which they can communicate only complicates issues. Surely,
parents would rather understand their children than roll their eyes at them. Or
would parents simply rather their children be compliant with their governing beliefs?
With parents often attempting to mold their children in their own image, I
suppose they should then be happy with the disposal of any art department. Why bother
questioning advertisers who will attempt to manipulate everyone into buying
their products, the safety or efficacy of those products be damned? Politicians,
men of power who love nothing more than more power, why wouldn’t they want to
cut funding for the arts in public schools; they simply don’t want people
thinking for themselves if they expect to remain within a sphere of influence.
That is the problem faced with art. Without artists, the world is a
colorless and dull world shaped by the demands of the figures of authority. Whether
or not such a world is the world we should be living in is another question,
but without all the practical tools and languages with which to debate the
question, how can we be sure of the truth?
Few people will dispute the pleasure of freedom. However, it
should be realized that freedom and artistry cannot live without each other. Is
it necessary for the arts to be taught in high school? Yes, it is vital to
everyone’s freedom if freedom is in fact what we value.
