I believe it is way past time to get out "heads out of the sand."
During the late 1980s a junior high art teacher was explaining his program to parents at an evening open house. When he mentioned that recent lessons related directly to the business world, a parent in the back row woke up from his nap and became very attentive.
Why Teach Art?
Dana Gioia, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, believes that art is not a luxury. Does any outsider agree? Why do we teach art? Do parents think about why we teach art? Does the general public? Do our peers? Do boards of education and administrators? Do academicians in other fields think about why art is taught? Does the business community? Those in the K-12 trenches often wonder why they teach art when treated like strange relatives from the other side of the tracks.
Public school art education in the United States has been around for over 125 years. Professional art education associations of one kind or another have been with us for at least 100 years. The National Art Education Association has provided information and support to art teachers for many decades, but the truth is that most public school art teachers battle constantly for recognition, adequate funding, adequate classroom and storage space, and support-often without success.
I have been a member of NAEA for 48 years. From my point of view, the overwhelming preponderance of negative attitudes about art education from people outside the profession is being ignored. I believe it is way past time to get our "heads out of the sand." The sand is much deeper these days because of increasingly diverse student and parent populations, and major repercussions from the 9/11 tragedy. These two factors are not the focus of this material but weigh heavily on art teachers and art programs.
Here are comments from two retired elementary art teachers to support my point of view. A conclusion contains insights regarding potential directions for developing positive attitudes and relationships. After 125 years of only marginal success, focusing on something different certainly can do no harm.
Elementary Art Teacher #1
I retired after 26 years. There were good times and not-so-good times. I have reason to believe that during my early and middle years of teaching I was a good art teacher. I attended state and national conferences and made a point of being exposed to new ideas and to trying new methods and lessons. My curriculum focused on relating art experiences to the lives of students. I must admit that the anti-art attitudes and behaviors dished out by the administration finally got to me in my later years. Still I never gave up trying to do my best. I know that my experiences were common to other art teachers, and I know that in most places throughout the country these same negative conditions remain.
"I had 30 hours beyond my BFA when I was hired but I was asked to get a master's degree. By working evenings and summers, I received my MFA degree. My first assignment was to teach art at two elementary schools. One principal was new to his position. My first days at one school were met by student comments such as, 'We got rid of three art teachers last year. How long are you staying?' Along with student comments were parallel comments by the new principal. he said he didn't like art, didn't know anything about it, and didn't care to. I was to do my job and leave him out of it. The second principal required daily reports of my 'progress' as a new teacher, then complained about it to other teachers in the building.
"When an art assignment in a single school became available, I jumped at the chance. There was an art classroom, but supplies were located in six different areas of the building. I found out the student population was nearly double the designed capacity. The superintendent was invited to address the PTA and provide solutions to the overcrowding. These solutions were to be discussed and voted on by the parents. The principal of the school told me the meeting would not involve me and I need not attend. I found it interesting that he would take his time to tell me I was not involved, so I went to the meeting and sat in the front row.
"The principal's proposal was to drop art from the school program and make 'better' use of the classroom. I was to be reassigned to another school. The parents were emphatic in their comments about wanting their children to have art, but they could not save the art classroom. The next year I worked out of an art cart-and was assigned another school as well. The other school had an art room. As I recall, I was not required to make out grade cards at either school. Art grades were unimportant. Administrative interest was in giving planning time to classroom teachers. Guess what? I provided that planning time.
"I should mention that an addition was built on one school that included a combination art and music room. After the first year, the room was used exclusively for music and I had to use a cart. Apparently, you can't teach music from a cart. Teaching art from a cart is a frustrating experience especially when there is no break time, travel time, adequate budget, or support from classroom teachers as well as from the administration.
"The principal retired and a new principal came aboard. I was supposed to have an art room but when teachers came back in the fall, two other teachers were in the art room. They had bulletin boards up. My supplies (once again) had been moved in boxes to a storeroom. The new principal told me that she let the two teachers have the room because she couldn't bear to tell them to take down their bulletin boards.
"The rigors of using a cart, having two sets of building rules, two sets of discipline rules, two principals, two PTA groups, many bulletin boards, totally inadequate storage, and a budget that was ridiculous-made my job increasingly difficult each year. And that's putting it mildly. Then there was the number of students. One year my teaching schedule included 900 students. The physical stress became such that I asked for a 4-day assignment. If granted, I expected to have one school. It was not to be. Even with a 4-day assignment, the administration still forced me into a two-school situation.
"My art supervisor asked me to change one of my schools as a favor to him. He promised that I would not have special education students. Fourth-grade students came into the classroom for the first time and sat down. Included were eight special education students. Their teacher, peeking around the door, was ready for her planning time. The school system ultimately eliminated the supervisory position.
"My personal situation prevented me from seeking an art position elsewhere and I could not quit because I needed the money. The administration made things increasingly difficult for me to encourage my retirement. My MFA + 30 hours was costing them too much money. When I retired, the administration hired two art teachers. I had a total of 12 different principals during my time in the art classroom. Two were supportive. Wow! That's almost 17%.
"Art teachers and art programming are not important now, were not important in the past, and will never become important unless some major changes in attitudes occur about the importance of art as a school subject."
Elementary Art Teacher #2
Background information includes the fact that I have encountered a vast array of working conditions. I began with an art position in two schools, moved to a position in four schools, then to a job in one-and-a half schools and finally a job in one school. My work space has varied from an art room in each school to no art room. I had a cart at one time and, at another time, a cabinet but no cart. Storage was always a problem, but I know that is not unusual. There was a sink in most of the rooms, but not all. I taught in a second floor room without water, necessitating filling a bucket on the first floor and carrying it upstairs.
"The past 6 years have been most rewarding and successful while at the same time the most stressful and disappointing in 36 years of teaching art. The rewards and successes have come from watching eager students excited about making art and being creative. My students, art programming and teaching have received awards and recognition from various prominent organizations.
"When a new principal came on board 6 years ago, stress soared. Unnecessary changes to the art program began immediately. The art budget was frozen, and prior to the second year the art room was moved to a smaller space. I had little storage but was told that I could order cabinets, which were installed 3 years later. Repeatedly, I was told that 'regular' classroom needs came first. It was not the practice in the district to deny attendance at educational workshops, but denial to me was part of the principal's priorities, even though I had a history of making presentations at state and national conventions.
"The principal ordered the maintenance crew to remove and destroy art department equipment that had been built by my students and used each year. The principal denied that any work order had been issued, until presented with one bearing the principal's signature. The principal suddenly remembered signing the document-but denied ever sending it to maintenance. The principal ordered relocation of the kiln claiming insufficient wiring. The electrician indicated there was nothing wrong with the wiring. This kind of harassment of the art department was constant from this administrator.
"After years of highly successful and time-consuming art shows that included an art exhibition, auction, raffle, and student puppet productions, the principal eliminated half the allotted school time for preparation. This annual show received excellent community support and school recognition for over 30 years. The principal indicated that having a substitute teacher for such an event was a 'poor use of instructional time.'
"It is extremely disappointing to realize that logical, rational explanations and the hard work of a dedicated teacher are not enough to maintain a quality art program. It is unfortunate that so many administrators and school boards fail to see the educational value that an art program can provide. Many of the issues I have faced would never happen to 'core' subject teachers, or a P.E. program.
"Perhaps someone can tell me why, throughout the years, I have felt that my job as an art teacher was in jeopardy. Why is it that art teachers have to 'look over their shoulders' to see if they still have an art room, a decent budget, and a job? My experiences with some administrators lead me to believe that it is more important than ever to maintain quality art programs.
"We must train future art educators to think beyond art production. Beginning art teachers must be made aware of how art is perceived by boards of education, administrators and educators outside the field of art. They must be equipped to present administrators and school boards with evidence of the validity, necessity, and significance of visual art in education. My students and public were highly supportive of the art program. Too many administrators and board members were not."
Conclusion
We need parents, the public, the community, boards of education, and administrators who believe art programs in the public schools are essential. Public school art teachers, with few exceptions, have received lousy support. So, what is the recommendation?
Art teachers must re-work content and programs and focus on relationships and connections to what is important to society as well as what is important to art and education. This relates to the work of Ellen Dissanayake (What Is Art, For?, 1988). She made a keynote presentation at one of the national conferences which was loudly applauded by the NAEA membership-then quickly forgotten. Dissanayake focused on history; we must focus on today-and tomorrow, if possible.
If we change art program gears, let's get something straight up front. We do not eliminate studio processes such as drawing, painting, computer graphics, sculpture, ceramics, or "the basics." We do not eliminate knowledge about the art world, past or present. Rather, what we need is to integrate "why" art is important into most everything we teach.
First, we must put the residue of negative attitudes under the microscope and make a strong effort to do something about them. People tend to believe that art is unimportant because:
* Students or parents are not told why art is important.
* Little or no thought is given to how products are designed by artists.
* Students are not told why they are doing what they are doing.
* Students play with clay and get their hands dirty.
* Students play with all kinds of materials, and make beads and puppets.
* Young students paint cute images, mostly based on emotion.
* Students have fun but they don't think in an art class; there is no rigorous content such as English grammar, biology, algebra, or geometry.
* Reading is important; art is not.
* Doctors, lawyers, and businessmen are important, artists are not.
On and on the reasons appear. And reappear, and reappear. Problems have cropped up from within the profession as well. One is art teacher attitude. "Let me do my thing and leave me alone" is not a unique statement and as a result, administrators are permitted to put more funds into athletics and less into art programs. Another problem is how we define art. We have tended to limit our definition of art to fit our own background and interests. By limiting definitions, we have shut out support.
One of the major ways to convince the public and get support is to think of art and visual imagery as being not only related but also important and vital to each other. Visual culture theory has helped in this regard but the emphasis has been more on surface treatment than in seeking the underlying connections that can be used effectively to change public attitudes.
We have not taken advantage of connections between art and society and we have not perceived how those connections have increased dramatically during the last four decades. There are artists and art teachers who resent technology but, ironically, rapid technological change has created greater relationships between the art world and the world in which most of us live. The 1980s through 2003 might be labeled as the "Age of Ages" because of the growing importance of certain concepts and the increasing connections between them and art. These include (Hicks, 2001):
Age of Multidimensional Communication: Visual imagery and art are required to handle an overload of information. The English language and the languages of mathematics and science are too limiting.
Age of Analogy, Paradox, Symbolism, and Metaphor: Our brains and nervous systems have become accustomed to the bombardment of multiple meanings. Art courses that emphasize metaphor, symbolism, interpretation, and other thinking skills become essential to everyone because of the needs of our rapidly changing society.1
Age of Abstraction: Abstraction, or abstract imagery, has become more important than reality for the majority in our culture. Movies, computer software, television, required visualizations for the world of business, and electronic equipment are only five examples of important cultural abstractions. Abstract art relates directly to our abstract society. Art education is essential to help people understand their rapidly changing world.
And perhaps most important for art programs, is the Age of Aesthetics: Because products work as expected, people are more interested in how they are effected, how they look, how they fit into an environment, and how they help create a personal identity. Ugly products don't sell. Increase in complexity has led to the need for more aesthetic decisionmaking. The age of aesthetics is all about art, which is why art education has become more important (Hicks, 1993; 1999).
Other contemporary 'Ages', which support the importance of art, include transition-transformation, fragmentation-synthesis, and interactivity. Perceptual development always has been important but has become even more important. Art teachers must tie their curriculum into such concepts to help the public understand the importance of art programs. We already have excellent models regarding the relationship of art education to architecture. Art program information related to community has been published in the field also but, for the most part, has focused on changing art teacher attitudes rather than changing public attitudes (London, 1994).2 We must utilize these models more and in new ways.
Members of the business community can no longer operate without art and visual imagery but they don't think about it. Art teachers must help them think about it. Our appliances and communication products cannot exist without, art and visual imagery but people don't think about it. Art teachers must help them think about it. When parents, administrators, and boards of education treat art programs like reading programs, we will know that we have become of age-in an Age of Ages that requires art.
[Sidebar]
From the Trenches
Why is it that art teachers have to 'look over their shoulders' to see if they still have an art room, a decent budget, and a job?
[Sidebar]
When parents, administrators, and boards of education treat art programs like reading programs, we will know that we have become of age-in an Age of Ages that requires art.
[Reference]
REFERENCES
Dissanayake, E. (1988). What is art for? Seattle: University of Washington.
Hicks, J. (1993). Technology and aesthetic education: A crucial synthesis. Art Education, 46 (6), 42-47.
Hicks, J. (1999). It's catch-up time for aesthetics. Art Education, 52 (4), 42-46.
Hicks, J. (2001). How do you cure a sick horse? Art Education, 54 (2), 6-10.
London, P. (1994). Step outside: Community-based art education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
[Author Affiliation]
John M. Hicks is professor emeritus, Drake University. E-mail: johnhicks@mchsi.com
