I hate
curriculum language. It tries to say
everything in very particular words and winds up not being understood by
anyone. This is what I feel about the
way the Arts Education curriculum has gone.
There was this great idea…the arts work together. They do similar things and look at the world
in similar ways. Artists of all kinds
make and create. The arts fulfill a
similar cultural and societal function throughout history. The arts are meant to be viewed, appreciated
and experienced.
I want to put it more simply…create…respond…and history.
This is what makes up all the arts.
They have history.
They create.
They require response.
I want to put it more simply…create…respond…and history.
This is what makes up all the arts.
They have history.
They create.
They require response.
Somewhere
along the way, we lost sight of that and became concerned with “strands”. Hell, my report card has them as separate
grades. I feel like we went from
investigating the world through the arts to worry about covering strands. It makes me sad, because in 1990 when I was
an undergraduate we were the avant-garde program with this amazing new
curriculum. At one point I think we
spent more time workshopping this curriculum at teacher in services than we did
in a classroom.
The
constant message was don’t worry about the strands, make a creative,
responsive, historical experience for the students.
So that is what I would like us to get back too. A few years ago, I stumbled across this talk by Sir Ken Robinson about creativity on TED talks and at the beginning of the school year I rewatch it to remind myself that I want to foster creativity...that is what inspires me:
So that is what I would like us to get back too. A few years ago, I stumbled across this talk by Sir Ken Robinson about creativity on TED talks and at the beginning of the school year I rewatch it to remind myself that I want to foster creativity...that is what inspires me:
