Are You an Art Mom?
"She knows that more and more admissions officers at colleges and human resource professionals seek out applicants who have arts experience in their background. Amy the Art Mom knows that creativity and innovation give America the competitive edge in the global economy and that China and India are working assiduously to catch up."- Really? Are you kidding? "Hmmm, the economy is in peril. I know, I'll take the kids to an extra theatre class." Er, no, Sir, I don't think so.
But then follows this with a comment that is much closer to the mark:
"Amy knows that the arts have a humanizing effect on her children -- when participating in the arts, she sees how her teenager is more engaged in school and how her younger kids are more curious about the world and all the people living in it."- this is somewhat closer to what drives me, but even then, it's an external set of values being dumped over the whole thing. It's about end product instead of about process. I don't encourage my children's creativity because it's "good for them" or "good for their society" though these are very happy by-products. I don't believe that art is a 'humanizing' influence - it's just that without it, we become de-humanized.
To me, art is something you do, not something you consume. This means art in all its forms - mark making, music, movement. I encourage creativity in my kids because I think that creative expression is their birthright as human beings.
There's no question that arts funding is important, and it goes without saying that the college arts auditorium should be as well funded as the football field. But the argument that creative people are desirable employees is one that I am wary of - it certainly shouldn't be applied to senior arts, as it is an argument that dilutes the critical evaluation of arts programs. (ie. ok, so only 5 percent of arts graduates are working in their field after ten years... but they make valuable employees in other areas. Being in a service industry or a Public Servant is NOT why we go to art school.)
One thing that concerns me is the level of commitment that Krevolin expects from his iconic Art Mom.
"Amy the Art Mom is a fiercely dedicated mother of three who spends her weeknights and most of her weekends driving her kids from play rehearsals, to pottery classes, to the media-lab and then to piano recitals. In between work, making dinner, and her children's extracurricular activities, Amy attends school board meetings to ensure that her children have art and music classes and that the schools have adequate teachers and facilities for these subjects."- Weeknights, most of my weekends? Where in this do we fit time for dinnertime discussions, story reading, time with the family and, heaven forbid, PLAY? It seems to me that the Art Mom is set to burn herself and her kids out before they even get to highschool. Perhaps the reason that, as Krevolin says, "Amy the Art Mom has not materialized into real life yet in the manner of Joe the Plumber" is that real life Art Moms and Dads, while they do their share of time on committees, and taxi driving to dance and music, recognize that the most important cultural activities happen around the kitchen table. Sometimes it's baking cakes, or rolling salt-dough, or creating dioramas out of cereal boxes. Sometimes it's trying to build a Lego tower that reaches the ceiling, or making greeting cards. Sometimes it's simply conversation - an art form in itself, learning to speak and to listen and to explore ideas and share stories. Art Moms and Dads know that you don't need an arts degree to have fun finger painting, and that spending time with people who love you is a sure way to develop the security and confidence for lifelong creativity.
Comments
Studies do show that children with early exposure to the arts do better at math and science.
That’s true, Starr, but I think it’s a slightly skewed reason for doing art – it makes art the servant of the ‘more important’ fields of maths and science.
Art should be enjoyed for its own sake.
I suppose it’s a fair argument to make if you’re battling against a system which only funds activities which offer potential economic gain.
I wonder if they’ve done a study like that where they’ve exposed children to art outside the home and without parental involvement. Most “arty types” I know have wide-ranging interests that includes science and an appreciation of the value of mathematics.
Wow, you summed it up perfectly, Helen. It’s somewhat ironic that, in trying to make an argument for further arts education, the assumption is that it has to be justified by market driven, consumerist (ie: “measurable”) goals. Making kids better at math and science and keeping our “competitive edge” is fine — but art is about the process of observing, living, creating, and doesn’t need consumerist goals to be justified. The other great point you bring up is what good is all this (thank goodness theoretical) hard-core art education if the kids don’t have time to be kids? (I wonder if the writer of that article about “Amy” is actually a parent.) Attentive, loving parenting is the first and most important form of education. If that were done with the same enthusiasm and concentration we give just about every other activity half the world’s problems today would be non-existent.
One of the first comments I got when I said I wanted to be an artist was — ‘but you can’t make money at it’. Over the years, I’ve met a lot of people that use financial value as the yardstick for everything they do. If it can’t translate into a higher income, it has no worth.
To me, that’s a huge mistake. As an artist, I have learned (and am still learning) to really see the world around me. I notice more than I ever did before and I work hard to express some of that through my drawings and my writing. And more than that, I have learned through this enhanced perception to think outside the box. Those are skills I bring to other areas of my life … and even if I couldn’t I would still be an artist because it brings me great joy.
My children have watched my efforts. They ask questions, express curiosity, and I work with them to get exposure, take lessons, engage in creative play (we’ve been decorating stepping stones for the garden … my daughter is learning basic origami from websites … my son discovered that he loves carpentry, his shelves hold our most special pieces), give it all a try. Find that which brings them joy.
Anthony – absolutely, I couldn’t agree more. I count myself fortunate indeed that I’ve been able to stay at home with my kids – I wish every parent could have such freedom of choice.
Tori – that’s funny, that’s what people told me, too! My dad made me learn to type ‘as a backup’ (gosh I’d be a terrible secretary… but it’s come in handy for my writing!)
I think that curiosity about the world, that enhanced perception you mention, is something shared by most artists and is also a typical childhood trait. Maybe we are just overgrown children!
I often wonder about the fact that we only take an activity ’seriously’ if it is done as a profession. Being an amateur – doing something by definition for the love of it – is seen as inferior, half-hearted, badly done….
And on another tangent, I worry at the way everything becomes a competition and a test and a performance. There are music exams, eisteddfods, dance exams, music recitals and end of year shows … you can’t go to dance class just to play at being a fairy and learn some steps. There is always months of routine-learning and sequin-sewing to take all the fun out of things!
The National Endowment of the Arts has shown (see Artists in the Workplace) that the Art is a HUGE employment base. Art is a 78 billion dollar industry in the USA.
Ask yourself would the Sistine Chapel be standing today if there was no art inside? Why does the Smithsonian have pottery made by ordinary people on display in their museum? Art has dated humanity from its’ earliest days.
The art created today, at the important millennium change, will likely be preserved, but the fortunes of Bill Gates or Donald Trump will likely be gone.
The Romans were invincible…where are they now? Their art is still around. That tells me artists have more staying power than…money!
Hi. I too have in the past found myself caught up in thinking I need to find an academic justification for the arts. But what I found in doing so was I lost my origianl love of the arts. So now my philosophy is simple and makes me so much happier… be creative because it makes me (and my children) happy. Create art for the fun of it. All the measurable benefits… well I am glad they are there and I know they are important, but all I want is for me and my family to have fun.