Rocco Landesman’s #Supply Demand and Arts Education—But Not Just Any Old Arts Education
NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman
In his recent blog post #SupplyDemand, NEA chairman Rocco Landesman highlights the fact that there is currently a surplus of supply in the arts, and a deficit in demand. Landesman goes on to suggest that perhaps it’s time to prune the arts sector to more realistically address diminished demand. Suffice it to say, Landesman’s remarks have sparked a sassy debate across the arts blogosphere. But while many arts professionals have railed against the NEA chairman, few have posed clear solutions to the very real problem he has brought to light.
I think it is important to mention that three chapters within the 20UNDER40 anthology specifically address this issue—and offer possible new routes for the arts sector to take. But that’s a whole other story…
What I think is significant at this juncture is the fact that one of Landesman’s primary suggestions for bolstering arts participation is increasing arts education. It baffles me that in last week’s State of the Union Address president Obama called for an investment in education, and now this week Rocco Landesman is calling for an increase in arts education—but the arts sector has been slow to move on new strategies to capitalize on the potential of arts education to address our country’s needs. [See my previous post for an arts education response to the State of the Union Address.]
In my opinion, the field of arts education is well poised to make an argument for its worth in our economy now more than it has been in decades. But I also believe that just saying “we need more arts education” is not enough. In significant ways the field of arts education is just as ossified and out-moded as many of our professional arts organizations are said to be. Public opinion of arts education is lagging because the cliched image one has of arts education are, as 20UNDER40 author Bridget Matros notes, handprint turkeys and the cotton ball snowman. Hardly sexy. Hardly innovative. Hardly 21st Century. In order to make a strong argument for arts teaching and learning, arts education professionals need to re-invent their field and rebrand themselves in a manner that proves their worth.
A common banner waved by the field of arts education is that arts teaching and learning enhances student creativity—a “21st Century Skill.” I think this is a pretty shallow argument to make, first, because so few people have a clear definition of what “creativity” even means. Second, because—should we even come to a common definition of creativity—what clear, causal evidence is there that arts teaching and learning experiences yield increased student creativity?
Creativity theorists rarely agree on specifics, but most would generally concur that creativity can be loosely described as that which is both novel and useful. And this is an important point. Those of us in the field of arts education need to ask ourselves: what is new, and what is useful about arts teaching and learning?
Are there too many fish in the arts pond, as Landesman and Diane Ragsdale suggest? Yes. Do we need to think of alternatives to traditional arts models as Rebecca Novick suggests? Yes. Should arts organizations be downsized, merged, and even eliminated as Brian Newman suggests? Yes. And should arts organizations also consider limited lifecycle models rather than cling to ambiguous mission statements as David J. McGraw suggests? Yes, yes, yes.
But we must also take very seriously the important point made by Landesman—that the best way to increase arts participation is through increased arts education. But not just any old arts education will do. We must be innovative in our approaches to arts teaching and learning, reassess what is being taught and learned in the arts, and pursue arts teaching and learning experiences that do indeed have utility—not just in building the arts audiences of tomorrow, but in meeting the needs for more innovative thinking that president Obama called for in his State of the Union Address.
Attending to the supply/demand crisis in the arts is imperative. Arts education experiences that are relevant to the increasingly plugged-in, globalized, and media saturated world we live in may very well be the key to this conundrum. But it will take the support of the entire arts ecosystem to advocate for the reform, implementation, and proliferation of arts teaching and learning experiences that will best serve students today, tomorrow, and in the decades to come.
It is sad that there is so little understanding of the relationships among these variables. Statements that suggest arts education leads to ’21st Century creativity deficits’ are misguided. Arts education does not exist to solve the ills of a poorly run system.
The pendulum swings and politicos insist on trying to make problems and solutions dichotomous.
Forgive me.
The second sentence should read “Statements that suggest that arts education will correct ’21st Century creativity deficits’ are misguided.”
I second Dr. Timony’s remarks. It is also sad that you consider arts education to be nothing but education for participation in the ‘arts industry’. Contrary to what you way, there is ample evidence, by way of much creditable research world wide, demonstrating that children who receive arts education are better readers, with wider vocabularies, have more enhanced critical skills, and are better equipped to learn any other subject or discipline.
I agree that the focus on creativity is problematic. New for the sake of newness is pointless. Novelty without substance might be fun, but it’s pointless. Creativity must be part of the process of skills acquisition, and informed enquiry. A good maths teacher is also an artist, if s/he is finding appropriate ways to inspire the students to engage with the subject. A good music teacher enables students to engage with maths from a perspective of joyful recognition and understanding rather than bored apathy.
Here is one link that will give you access to many research studies: http://www.jstor.org/pss/40317579
Thanks for the comment Flloyd. I looked at the article you sent. 1980? That would mean data collected for that study would have come from the mid-1970s and the youngest students who were even closely related to that research would be in their mid-to-late-30s today.
I think this is exactly the problem with arts education, you’ve articulated it clearly. We work off of a model that is over three decades old. It’s a changed world. Arts education needs to change along with it.
I do however agree that there is a disconnect here—and Landesman has set us up for it. Would arts education professionals really say that the work they do is meant to bolster the arts audiences of tomorrow? Some maybe, but really? I think arts education has broader goals than that, and Landesman should do a little more homework before he calls on the field of arts education to fill the empty seats in our theatres and breathe the stale air in the increasingly less inhabited hallways of our traditional arts spaces.
But while we’re swapping articles, how about trying on this classic from the turn of the Millennium for size: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3333637
Cheers,
Edward.
Thanks for prompting a lively discussion here, Edward. I’m going to contribute from a non-scientific, non-data-driven, completely common-sense point of view.
Arts very often create HAPPINESS. That’s it. It’s fun to make things, and especially things that express something of YOU. Kids get so much crammed into their heads, and then they are TESTED, which is anxiety-provoking. Good arts experiences are joy-creating and enlivening. They are an antidote to stress, and they help people recognize other ways of seeing and being in the world. They create, “OH! ME, TOO!” experiences. They open up possibilities right before people’s eyes.
Kids who are stressed and depressed, I would common-sensibly argue, are not going to want to go to school. They are going to be less effective learners. They may find nowhere to shine, to be seen, to succeed. They may even not show up at school at all, which will dramatically lessen their chances of learning ANYTHING. Kids who feel happy, energized and open to experiences will thrive.
Arts have always been part of social life. They are a natural outgrowth of it. In fact, to call them “arts” and put them in a separate category would probably be bizarre to early humans, who sang and danced and played and drew for all kinds of reasons, utilitarian and not. Arts should be (and will be!) part of schools because schools are social places. To separate them out into one period in the school day is just weird. Music-making, moving, drawing, poetry-making, media-making, story-telling and any other art form you can think of should be intricately interwoven with every subject at every time. All teachers should be artful, and all classrooms arts-infused.
What I’m talking about is a mindset shift in a massive way. Arts are not (and should not be) separate from physics. We should start looking for connectedness, rather than ways to separate the disciplines we teach. Some kids could be entirely happy and engaged without the presence of what we call “the arts”, some kids absolutely flounder without them. As long as schools are “education mills” trying to assure that every kid emerges with the same “knowledge”, in my humble opinion, we are screwed.
Thanks for listening….I think this all would be clearer if you could see my interpretive dance that goes with it!