#artmatters
I don't want to be overly political on this blog, but I came across two worrying statistics this week, that must act as a wake-up call to anyone in Britain who cares about culture and the way we view Arts Education in particular.
Our artistic achievements are the very essence of our humanity and should be known, understood and appreciated as widely as possible - it is a responsibility borne by every generation to the next. I feel we neglect our culture at our peril, a society that doesn't value its arts is surely a dead civilisation. Even on a personal level for well being there is growing research that proves the importance of creative pursuits to alleviate many mental health issues.
The arts are central to the idea of education being about instilling a love of learning, of acquiring knowledge. It is no accident that the arts are traditionally connected with the idea of being 'educated'. Hence an educated person is assumed to be interested in the arts.
I have for sometime felt a great level of concern about the lack of time given over to the creative subject in our Primary schools in the UK, sacrificed in the pursuit of higher achievement in literacy and numeracy. It has often troubled me how poor basic creative skills are, when I have done children's workshops. The draughtsmanship of how to hold a pen or use a pair of scissors is obviously diminished and the cognitive creative process seems lacking in may of our young people.
I have comforted myself with the thought that this was just a 'pause' in their development and that it would be corrected at secondary school, when they would free to pursue their creative interests again. However, the EBacc seems to suggest that these interests might be squeezed out of formal education all together.
What is the EBacc?
The Department for Education's plans for a new English Baccalaureate or 'EBacc' exclude creative, artistic and technical subjects.
The new EBacc will make a minimum of seven GCSEs (and as many as nine) effectively compulsory for secondary school pupils in England.
The average number of GCSEs taken by pupils is 8.1 - the EBacc will leave little room, if any, for creative, artistic and technical subjects.
What does this matter?
As it stands, the new EBacc has already had a harmful impact on the uptake of arts subjects at GCSE level.
Bacc for the future is calling for creative subjects to be included in the EBacc and ABacc or for the measure to be abolished. You can learn more and sign the online petition on the website: baccforthefuture.com or follow the campaign using the hashtag #baccforthefuture
The second worrying news story this week for the Arts in the UK was that the last exam board to offer History of Art at A level have decided to axe the subject which surely begs the question about its future as a 'viable' degree subject in the future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37642722
While it is true that while the intake of students wanting to study Creative Arts may have increased at University, those wishing to study Art History have significantly fallen. Still studying Art History is actually still one of the few ways of getting a good job in the arts sector. It’s hard to be a museum curator, work in any senior position in an auction house or gallery, or a become a serious art critic without it.
Furthermore for all of the exploration of the 'New' in modern art, there is still a need for that art to be rooted in something (it's past) and the only way to learn that is to know its history. Surely, one learns the rules first in order to know to break them? A contemporary artist like Grayson Perry is brilliant partly because of his expert knowledge of art history, not despite it. This is a battle that has been successfully fought in other subjects like English Literature and the Classics, but Art History remains neglected.
A friend sighed and said to me the other day that her daughter who is one of these rare creatures currently studying History of Art is expected to come out of University with a debt of 28K and hopefully a degree that will still mean something. A fact that I think is fundamentally wrong to the next generation and can cripple creative aspirations before it is given time to bloom. I know the level of student debt for the under forties has already delayed their place on the property ladder and don't get me started on saving for our old age. Some I know have even put off having children all together, but those who have ventured late into parenthood will not be in a position to help out the next generation of aspiring arts historians. This is not a sustainable model and without the safety net of Parental support, students will be driven to do courses (if they aren't already) that are seen only as doorway to a high earning job.
My friend said, as a parent what can you do but encourage your child to do something they love. I praise her ideals, but I wonder for how much longer it will be able to exist. I know from my own experience that an Arts degree is not the fast track to fame and fortune, but it is no less valuable to the individual and their development or to the bigger society. It all comes down to whether you want to live a life that feeds your soul of just your back account.
Having said that the Art world is not without profit, according to the Government's own figures the Creative Industries are worth more than £87 billion a year to the UK economy. This is comparable to the financial services and construction industries, surely this makes it worth investing in for the future.
Twentieth-century German philosopher Ernst Cassirer explained the importance of the arts as follows:
‘Science gives us order in thoughts, morality gives us order in actions; art gives us order in the apprehension of visible, tangible and audible appearances.’
A good education includes a good arts education, introducing children and young people to great literature (novels, poetry and short stories, plays), dance, visual arts, music and film is vital for creating rounded human beings and a well balanced society. How a school prioritises the arts may be up for debate, but a school should still be committed to introducing children to the best there is in as many art forms as possible.
Rant over!
Feel inspired then Get Creative at BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37642722
While it is true that while the intake of students wanting to study Creative Arts may have increased at University, those wishing to study Art History have significantly fallen. Still studying Art History is actually still one of the few ways of getting a good job in the arts sector. It’s hard to be a museum curator, work in any senior position in an auction house or gallery, or a become a serious art critic without it.
Furthermore for all of the exploration of the 'New' in modern art, there is still a need for that art to be rooted in something (it's past) and the only way to learn that is to know its history. Surely, one learns the rules first in order to know to break them? A contemporary artist like Grayson Perry is brilliant partly because of his expert knowledge of art history, not despite it. This is a battle that has been successfully fought in other subjects like English Literature and the Classics, but Art History remains neglected.
A friend sighed and said to me the other day that her daughter who is one of these rare creatures currently studying History of Art is expected to come out of University with a debt of 28K and hopefully a degree that will still mean something. A fact that I think is fundamentally wrong to the next generation and can cripple creative aspirations before it is given time to bloom. I know the level of student debt for the under forties has already delayed their place on the property ladder and don't get me started on saving for our old age. Some I know have even put off having children all together, but those who have ventured late into parenthood will not be in a position to help out the next generation of aspiring arts historians. This is not a sustainable model and without the safety net of Parental support, students will be driven to do courses (if they aren't already) that are seen only as doorway to a high earning job.
My friend said, as a parent what can you do but encourage your child to do something they love. I praise her ideals, but I wonder for how much longer it will be able to exist. I know from my own experience that an Arts degree is not the fast track to fame and fortune, but it is no less valuable to the individual and their development or to the bigger society. It all comes down to whether you want to live a life that feeds your soul of just your back account.
Having said that the Art world is not without profit, according to the Government's own figures the Creative Industries are worth more than £87 billion a year to the UK economy. This is comparable to the financial services and construction industries, surely this makes it worth investing in for the future.
Twentieth-century German philosopher Ernst Cassirer explained the importance of the arts as follows:
‘Science gives us order in thoughts, morality gives us order in actions; art gives us order in the apprehension of visible, tangible and audible appearances.’
A good education includes a good arts education, introducing children and young people to great literature (novels, poetry and short stories, plays), dance, visual arts, music and film is vital for creating rounded human beings and a well balanced society. How a school prioritises the arts may be up for debate, but a school should still be committed to introducing children to the best there is in as many art forms as possible.
Rant over!
Feel inspired then Get Creative at BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts
No comments:
Post a Comment