I recently came across a blog post on "Education Next." The piece was written by Mark Bauerlein who worked on arts education policy at the National Endowment for the Arts under Dana Gioia. The post, "Arts Education Goes Activist," focuses on Bauerlein's concern that the National Art Education Association had adopted a theme of social justice for their 2010 convention. Bauerlein seems to be wholly dissatisfied with any arts education outcomes that are not arts-discipline based.
Maxine Greene's name was cited given her writing on aesthetics and social justice. I don't know how closely Bauerlein has read Greene's works, but any reckoning of "outcomes" in her writings on aesthetics is not solely clad in social justice chain mail. Her promotion of students engaged in encountering works of art is linked to imagination and inquiry and the desire to learn more, know more.
Imagination, inquiry, desire may all be traits of social justice, but they are also traits of critical thinking and creativity. I realize that there is value in advocating for the arts on the basis of skill development in art production, but why stop so short? Why not highlight traits that are shared across disciplines? Why not integrate multiple entry points in a learning situation to reach as many students as possible? Why not focus on how the arts pervade our lives beyond the canvasses on museum walls?
Value can be defined in myriad ways. I think it's our job in the business of the arts/education/curiosity to help others explore the multiplicity of value when it comes to the arts.
No comments:
Post a Comment