Perpetual Mootness

In her article for Edutopia.org (http://www.edutopia.org/arts-music-curriculum-child-development), Fran Smith lays out familiar points in favor of arts education such as early exposure to the arts and governmental policies recognizing the value of arts. The decline of art programs as part of school curriculum is noted with the added caution of the difficulties encountered when these programs are reintroduced. Ann Hulbert points out that the arts do not offer quantifiable results in overall school performance in her article, Drawing Lessons (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-lede-t.html). She cites statistics and studies to illustrate the fuzzy logic of art education supporters and their claims of success and the reality of clinical investigations that continually show little connection between art and testing success.

The Edutopia article by Fran Smith is an example of the confidence the pro-art education faction has in their beliefs. The Rand Corporation is cited as a supporting authority, as well as other other studies and evaluations. The difference between the two articles lies in the mechanics of the investigations and their results. Ms. Smith takes the academic approach in defining her case by presenting articles, quotes and positive results in classroom examples. The Hulbert article cites clinical examinations by professionals working within the scientific method. The facts and opinions in Drawing Lessons can hardly be disputed without resulting in fingers wagging and desperate appeals

The methodical, double blind placebo examinations cannot be easily disregarded. I must argue that the scientific process can only be superficially applied to art and art education. The success that comes from an early education enhanced by exposure to the arts does not neatly fit onto a Scantron sheet. Studies and opinions can be cultivated to support any side of an argument. This is learned early by any who want to add authority to their opinion. The discussion between the two articles will never find common ground since they are not two sides of the same coin. Since art education is, conceptually, a fluid condition in terms of knowledge acquisition, the level of integration and expression is as different as every pupil in a class is from each other. The Smith article reflects the opinions of many in the arts and simply reinforces popular beliefs. A serious obstacle to dissuading believers, and I am in this group, is the observational and experiential evidence we have witnessed. We know what we know because we have seen what we’ve seen. Not a very good argument in logical terms but strong enough to plant the feet of many art educators against naysayers and bean counters.