Mark Snyder wrote: There is a huge difference between turning on the radio and learning to sing or dance or play an instrument.
There is a huge difference between watching TV and writing a story or performing a play or even just reading a passage out loud, whether it be a play or a poem or whatever. There is a huge difference between going to a museum or gallery and looking at paintings or sculptures and actually learning to paint or sculpt. In each case, the former treats people as simple "consumers" of art as opposed to being actual participants in the latter. One of the biggest problems we have in our society is that we have too many who are too willing to simply sit back and consume and not enough who are willing to participate. The last thing we should want to do is further encourage that by relegating the arts as simply something to be consumed. If we were to discontinue arts in our schools, who do you think is going to create the music, paintings, sculptures, etc. of tomorrow? Who do you think is going to write the plays, poems or even TV scripts of tomorrow? Sure, some parents can afford to enroll their kids in programs apart from the schools, but most kids, especially in Minneapolis, would be out of luck. Mark Anderson replies: Okay, so your argument is that the schools teach students to create art instead of just to consume it? Fair enough, that's mostly true. But I still find it hard to believe that people would stop creating art even if the public schools dropped it entirely. Will there be no music, paintings, or sculpture if the public schools don't teach it? You know that's certainly not true. Did the ancient cave painters have schools to teach them how to do it? The desire to both create and consume art is built into humanity. We don't need the schools to tell us to do it. They can improve our technique, but we won't do it unless we want to. Mark Snyder: However, what science and math don't do very well is teach communication. I know tons of engineers and scientists who cannot write or express themselves worth a lick. And it doesn't matter what you know or how smart you are if you cannot share your knowledge with others. That's where the arts come in. The arts are about communication, interaction and expression. When I attended the U of M, I majored in chemistry and minored in philosophy. While it was my chemistry degree that qualified me for the job I hold today, it's been my arts and philosophy background that has most helped me be successful in my job because it was my creative writing classes in high school and my philosophy classes in college that taught me how to express myself clearly. Mark Anderson: I'm confused here. You are comparing philosophy with the arts. I don't see the comparison. I've taken philosophy classes in college. In philosophy you have to write a lot, and clarity is at a premium in this subject. So, indeed, your philosophy minor might well have helped you become more literate. As I said before, literacy is one of those areas that are fundamental to being a successful adult in our society. You give a very good example -- that even in the science professions, literacy is very important. As I recall, Michael Atherton put literacy as the most important item for the schools to teach, so it's not like he considers it unimportant. I believe his point was not that math and science is should be the most important subject to teach, but that the Minneapolis schools rank it far below its rightful place. For example, the arts seem to more important a subject to the Mpls school system that math and science. He may be right about that -- compare the number of magnet schools for the arts to those for math and science. Mark Snyder: Art is not simply something to give students "some kind of break from heavy academics all the time" it's a crucial part of a child's development. Just as much as the 3R's. Mark Anderson: I still don't get it. All kids have exposure to the arts, as I've stated before. Most kids will draw pictures, sing, etc., with no prompting at all, because they enjoy doing such things. Why is it crucial to a child's development to learn art techniques? How can you consider this equal to the necessity of learning to read and compute? Do you think an adult who has had concentrated exposure to the arts his entire childhood, but can't read or compute, will be as happy as someone with no formal arts education but can read and add/subtract? Dire poverty doesn't sound like fun to me. And these stark choices seem to be the option in some cases. We have a number of illiterates in our schools, and in response I've been hearing that these disadvantaged kids need more exposure to the arts. The reverse is true, I think. Mark V Anderson Bancroft REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
