|
Skip nav
Arts debate
Back to Debate topics home
Arts education – the key to engagement?
This week we were interested to read a new paper on education and learning in the arts by Sara Robinson and Teo Greenstreet for Mission, Models, Money. The key theme of the paper is that arts organisations may be missing a trick when it comes to arts education – too often it’s a marginal and under-resourced activity, when it could and perhaps should lie at the heart of what we do.
Robinson and Greenstreet argue for an end to separate education departments, which work only with small and specific groups such as school children, and for the beginning of a new approach that engages all audiences and participants in the learning process.
The paper puts forward an important idea: that the ways in which people engage with art “should be valued as highly as we value the arts and the artist”. We can’t think of a better modern-day interpretation of the Arts Council’s Royal Charter objectives of excellence and access. And encouraging wider and deeper public engagement with the arts is one of our long-term strategic challenges.
But what does this mean in practice? How can public funding encourage arts organisations to place audience experience at the core of what they do? Are we confident this can happen without compromising quality? What are the signs of success? Is education – in its broadest and most inclusive sense – the key? And how can funding bodies like the Arts Council themselves learn from the experiences of the artists and arts organisations we fund?
Join the debate
* = required
Click on the image to access a PDF (990Kb) of the new summary report, What people want from the arts
News
-
Arts debate overall findings now available!
06 November
-
Open space event report
11 October
-
Final stage of arts debate fieldwork highlights the importance of quality of experience
28 September
more news > >
How would you make art interesting for young students who only lsiten to hard heavy metal?
Education is the key and the future for arts organisations.It is the means by which future audiences are created and simultaneously develops the individual who is educated,so at once being both people and institution centred. It also maximises the resources of organisations by utilising artists/staff for other than their core activities. Artists have to cooperate of course and need proper remuneration. The important education work of organisations is often at the margins because it is under-resourced. My only personal caveat is that the educational work MUST preserve the integrity of the art form and as such may not be immediately accessible to all e.g. hard heavy metal heads (see above post). This is the connundrum with all education as a group activity. Accessible to all often means dumbing down.Real art needs some effort to appreciate and thus benefit from. How one gets over this with the culturally disenfranchised is a huge problem. To my mind arts organisations are not the place to attempt this remedial work. Specialist units are needed.
Heavy Metal is art. Isn't that what this paper is saying? That we need to massively broaden our view of art, invite it in, mix it up and stop defining traditional art as THE art and people who don't get THIS art as the ones needing to be EDUCATED. We all learn. That's the beauty of art. You (Geoff) could learn about the art of heavy metal as much as heavy metal heads could learn about Mozart from you (assuming that is your taste). There is room for it all, and organisations that acceot and embrace thi fact are the ones that are much more dynamic (and financially savvy). We need to dispense with terms like 'high art' and 'low art'. We need to engage with wider forms of art and a wider public and education (I don't think this means kids and schools alone) might just be the yellow brick road.
Ok Rosa I glad i've provoked some debate anyway. So you include heavy metal in your definition of art.How do you 'value' it alongside Mozart? can they be compared? If we are attempting to find ways of valuing the arts, with regard to public funding, some sort of criteria are necessary. Someone has to make a value judgement or do we rely on the 'market'or solely popular public mandate? Both very dangerous options for art I would suggest.
There has to be a balance between people centred and art centred 'learning'. The learning programmes that organisations set up will be very varied according to their activities. Getting someone to engage with heavy metal will be very different to getting them to engage with opera for instance. If the learning activity is totally people centred then the art form that people see on stage has nothing to do with what they are doing? Some art forms can only be FULLY'participated' in by professionals. Real quality is difficult enough for them to achieve. The bottom line of Ms Robinsons paper implies that traditional of High art forms like opera will no longer exist in their current form. Is that desirable?
Mozart today may well get into decorating himself with peircings and tatoo's, and just as likely be churning out techno at 140 bpm.
whats going to happen to jazz music?
are the arts council, going to help by gving a significant funding amount?
A show at the tate gallery I think is the perfect example of the correct balance between ;the finest art and education experience which is somtimes read on the small notes, read about in the free leaflet
further deepth the catologue, and finally the bookshop
Is teen pop music? Is coronation street drama? Is graffiti visual art? Is heavy metal Mozart?
Oh yes all you trendy cultural democrats exclaim. Relativism rules! Stuff quality --real quality. Anyone is an artist anyone is creative I hear you say. Well, have a look at Richard Hoggart's polemic against relativism in " the way we live now" read Roy Shaw's "Arts and the people" both left of centre by some way in their politics, see what they think of cultural democracy which makes valuing culture impossible because there are no values. DCMS and ACE could take a leaf out of Jenny Lee's admirable 1960's apoliticism in the arts.
Stop being government cyphers, joining in with the relentless levelling that blights our society keep traditional values alive. They are worth fighting for.
Geoff - art and tradition are two words which don't fit well together. The whole point of art is that is keeps evolving and transforming - it's a product of our wider culture. Personally I think that's joyous, not least because modern day technology means not only get to creat enew art but we also get to keep and listen to all the past art we choose to(Mozart being one example). New forms of art somehow seem to threaten the old art for you. Why is that? Isn't there space for it all? And yes, limited funding means that some choices / values have to be assigned but isn't that in part, the job of the arts organisation or artist, to enagage in a dialogue with their constituency (geographical or age or background, whatever) and create art accordingly?
As one of the authors of this paper it's great to see a response in some of these comments. What I'd personally love to see here, is less of a focus on good/bad or high/low art and more of a debate about what education in the arts actually IS. This is one of the key things our paper tries to tackle; indeed we look at various definitions and we come up with our own. I'd love to hear what other people think it is - in its broadest sense - so, not just arts work with schools in the traditional use of the word 'education', but the work that almost all of our arts organisations do, to a larger or lesser degree (albetit renamed as Learning, Creative Projects and so on). Why do we do it and what is it for?
in response to sara's comment - it is a bit trite to post up the report then to try to further dictate the direction of the responses! Arts education is varied due to the diverse art forms that exist be they staic or performing. The thing that stands out for me is the lack of join/synergy between adult education providers and arts providers. A lot of arts education work is school related - however not everyone wants to grow up to be an artist. Many more steps should be made by galleries, theatres, music companies to involve and engage the public through participative arts education - groups with time such as the long- term unemployed, elderly senior citizens and the mentally ill. in addition we need to see better weekend education programmes for the mainstream working average nuclear family. Maybe then we may see improved attendance figures. Arts education should be linked to social justice. What i see happening are complementary strands taking divergent paths. Finally I am not convinced that the Arts Council is the right organization to facilitate the funding for such activity - given its complexities and track record.
Mandy
I suppose it just depends on how you "value " these newer art forms and what criteria you use to judge their quality. Public subsidy should encourage experimentation I agree but within the accepted artistic domains, which can demonstrate their credentials to the field of experts who validate their creativity.All innovation should be tested for its relevance and usefullness before it is implemented. I am arguing for a rejection of the cultural democrat position of shying away from value judgements in testing creativity, because one man's art must be seen to be as worthy as another's regardless of its quality,particularlly when compared with more 'traditional' arts.
The crucial element in the paper I see as participation.
The very word art (perhaps equally the word education), puts some people of participating in any learning experience.
I think the crucial thing is not to fight over a never large enough funding cake, but to seek ways to enable as many people as possible to 'take part' in whatever activity may be taken to be art, at any level: there is no simple division between professional and amateur here, the latter may be more able and doing it for the love of it (or because they must). Many people simply feel that they are simply passive consumers, and are condemned to be exactly that because they are not 'enabled' to take part (and learn).
The Mission Unaccomplished paper calls for the term 'education' to be replaced by the "more inclusive term 'learning and engagement.'" It defines this as the process by which people are engaged in the art and the art and the organisation are informed by people. However, the term 'learning' is either redundant or ancillary. What is at stake here is engagement period.
I agree with the paper's somewhat diffused axiom that deeper engagement and/or engagement with more people should be central to a modern arts organisation's purpose. However, it is not the case that our arts organisations share that view. This is the first battle to be won, before we beef up our education teams.
When engagement is central, we then need to see what can be done to increase that engagement. Education is part of that, as are participation, interaction with artists, pro-am provision, community and grass-roots activity, engaged artistic practice, digital co-production and so on. And its worth reminding ourselves that excellent programming should itself be a large part of how we achieve our engagement aims.
We could do worse than view all our activity in terms of an engagement aim/mission and assess it correspondingly in categories such as those listed above. This would allow us to see what we are doing well, where the gaps are, what resources we need, etc and all from the standpoint of organisational strategy rather than changing funder agendas.
Also, I agree with the paper's sub-point that activities do not need to be described to audiences/participants/customers/citizens in terms of where they come from in the organisation (e.g. call it a music workshop from teenagers, rather than a youth education event). But I would extend this to the paper's call for organisations' education functions to be given more clout. It confuses mission with delivery structures and may even be unecessary. Organisational structure needs to be tailored to deliver the mission, not to reflect it. So if the mission is about engagement, this can be delivered by departments of education, arts programming, community contact, events, publishing, training, et. Rather than continuing the boring and counterproductive 'my department should be more important' game lets make engagement central to what we do. Lets map everything we do against engagement. Then lets improve and keep improving.
John, are you saying education is a part of engagement or vice versa? You go on to list 'participation, interaction, pro-am provision, community and grass-roots activity, engaged artistic practice, digital co-production and so on.'
Isn't the paper saying that education IS engagement (and vice versa) or do you use the term educaton purely to mean arts work with the formal learning sector? I ask because it seems that its language that is partly at the heart of this problem i.e. education's (in it's broadest sense) inability to take a central space in arts organiations, not least because people think it means arts work with school children when in practice it means everybody.
Good to see this debate taking place at last. What other forums are there for discussing arts education specifically? All advice welcome
Mandy, I'm saying education is a part of engagement rather than vice versa. I'm saying the first priority should be establishing engagement as central to arts organisations' activities. I agree that language is important here, but I think the focus on the term 'education' is misdirected. 'Education' is an existing part of the of what organisations provide. And whilst it is not a clearly bounded term, it becomes a little meaningless if extended to include, for instance 'participation, interaction, pro-am provision, community and grass-roots activity, engaged artistic practice, digital co-production and so on.'
'Engagement' on the other hand can and, I believe, should cut across all activities, forming the backbone of an arts strategy.
I underdstand what you are saying Jon, but where then that does leave education? If you define it as somethign other than engagement, participation, interaction, pro-am provision (what is this?!) etc then what is left that is education? My take on it is that the paper uses this term as a catch all for all of these because the sector has done so.
Geoff - in response to your assertion that the Mission Unaccomplished paper implies implies that traditional or High art forms like opera will no longer exist in their current form, request Graham Vick's free 14 page article here: It's a fascinating, real & hands on take on how traditional art forms - in this case Opera - can adapt to the 21st century whilst retaining integrity, quality and passion. It's a great read and I'd enjoy hearing your response to it
I beleive that there is great value in taking arts into schools, clubs, and minority groups, for individual projects, just as there is value in someone going to the Theatre, Opera, or an Art Gallery, each provides a unique experience for that individual that hopefully educates, uplifts or makes one think, or inspires etc. I believe that bringing arts to a cross section of the public without dicrimination is possible, street theatre and street theatre festivals are one such way. On the street you do have to care about how the public view your art, and that they are captivated by it, I don't believe this does dilute the quality of what is experienced. Infact on the street you really see what people like and don't like as they are totally free to walk away.
I feel that the arts council already has a system in place to learn from the experiences of artists and organizations it has funded by requiring feedback from the said artists.
I feel it is important not to swap one form of reaching people for another but rather to reach out to as many people possible, in as many different ways and with many varied art forms!
The success of the recent London Jazz Festival demonstrates that, after a long period of neglect, audiences are moving enthusiastically towards jazz again. Of course, if the Arts Council wishes to distribute its usual measly gesture towards jazz and be caught napping, it'll be their loss (as if they aren't sufficiently red-faced by the unsupportable gulf between their grants for opera and jazz).
There is always a class dimension to art; very often the art for those at the "top" is regarded as "fine" and given great value, while that produced for those at the bottom is devalued (kitsch) or otherwise denied the "status" of being Art. The simple question being asked here is whether Art (or art) is exclusively a bauble for those at the top, or whether the work produced in a wider culture can and should be understood as art (or Art). Those who support a hierarchial status quo and want to identify with the "top" will always decry this as "leveling" or a decline in values. It isn't. It's the difference between a stratified society where class is self-evident and the positions eternal and a democratic one where these ancient divisions are now in question.
Not a question of class Michael, any class can aspire to quality. Fine art is bourgeois to those who see art a another manifestation of class war. I happen to believe that everyone can aspire to quality BUT you have to define quality to start with.Marxist -Lennist dogma reduces art to a political football where art that does not serve political cohesion or party aims is irrelevant. Much like current Govt. policy --sorry they aren't that bad but their rhetoric leads one to believe that.
Sarah
I read Graham's speech when first published. There's no doubt about his passion for opera, commitment to quality and sheer ability as a director. However his seeming distain for mainsteam opera as a "plaything of a rich ghetto" doesn't really square with his continuing direction in very traditional opera houses, albeit in sometimes "scandalous" productions.(No criticism intended here just an observation)
His Birmingham opera group work is admirable as an exercise in engaging the culturally disenfranchised I'm sure but is that then the only future of opera? This is the question I ask. If High art like opera cannot be easily "engaged in" are they irrelevant "increasingly lumbering and unmanageable" as he puts it, and fit for the scrap heap?
Recognising the many methods of arts education I offer comments from a slightly different angle to the previous points raised.
My organisation, Voluntary Arts England (a national body of the Voluntary Arts Network) are concerned that arts and crafts education is being systematically removed from the ADULT EDUCATION arena, as providers argue they cannot adequately 'measure' whether people have learned.
Arts and crafts in adult education offers many benefits - a safe environment, arts and crafts exploration at a local and hands on level, a highly valuable creative intervention and a semi-stable income for arts and crafts practitioners
Often people attend arts and crafts 'classes' for reasons, other than to gain a qualification and surely, failure of this method of measurement alone is not an adequate reason to suggest removal of a class?
Sometimes a class of this kind is someone's 'lifeline'. Sometimes it is the only way to keep a rare craft from becoming completely extinct. Sometimes it is a way for a community to say "we are healhty, fulfilled, civil human beings".
Voluntary Arts England and members of our "Arts in Adult Education Think Tank" believe there is a role for Arts Council England in taking this vital example of arts and crafts 'erosion' on board and working with us, our sector and the decision makers to safeguard arts in adult education into the future.
John Dewey once said, "Education is a social process. Education is, not preperation for life; Education is life itself."
Albert Einstein said "Creativity is more important than intelligence."
I would like to comment on the role of art in education: as a society we seem to be more divisionist than we have been for a long time with class and race raising their ugly heads as divisive measures. Art, in its broadest sense, gives access to history and geography and analyses of who we are and how and why. By looking at all art forms across cultures we become aware of that which is common to all people and part of a bigger picture (I am a visual artist) than cavilling over who should have access to what. Art, and I really include everything, knitting socks, composing concertos, may be the strand that holds someone's life together in moments of doubt. This is the aspect of "art" education which I feel cannot be emphasised enough within the school system and beyond. We are entering times when few people will hold one career for a lifetime. The openess to new ideas that art can engender is surely the key to why it is important in education.
sorry - got cut off there!...but it's important to at least address the issue and encourage people to at least 'suck it and see'. No obligation to love opera at all but just come along - we want you to come along and we want to make you welcome. For all concerned this is a learning experience so I am in sympathy with Sara and Teo in their provocation paper. Is it education? Does it matter what we call it? This ethos and outlook should pervade every aspect of a company's work. It is the case that the term 'education' has rather muddied the waters - it is frequently taken to mean that the work is, by definition, happening in a formal education setting. I am increasingly concerned that there is a move to conformity in this area - don't know about you but our funding applications explicitly request information about separate education activities and the Arts Council's own statistical review clearly splits work into production and education. This doesn't reflect the work we do. There is also some confusion about education and accreditation too. That's another can of worms in this debate!
Why encourage students from poorer regions into "having new ideas" if you are only going to condemn and demonise them for it later? The word "have" needs more clarity.
to create, to tolerate, to accept, to catch, to sum up, to beat, to indulge in, to own?
As a teacher of Literature I frequently find myself teaching a wide range of topics, from the dissolution of the monasteries to Einstein's theory of relativity and beyond. This is because literature, and novelists in particular, need context and cover an enormous range of subjects. The need for education in the Arts is because people tend to enjoy things they understand and if they understand how opera, or ballet, or painting or poetry or drama are made, and especially if they themselves have been involved in making it, they are more likely to enjoy it. Participation, whether as a creator or a member of an audience, is immensely enriched by having knowledge of the process which has led to a work of art. If we believe that the soul of a nation resides in its art, then this education is essential for all the members of the nation. If, as I believe, every person has the ability to respond to art in some form, then shouldn't we be moving heaven and earth to give them the right to find this response?
I work in the field of arts and health and am always interested by the educational elements of work conducted in this area. I think for a long time, there?s been an assumption that this sort of work is solely concerned with putting sculptures and paintings in hospital grounds. Well this area of work is far bigger than that and much focus at the moment is centred on public health issues; and its work that can impact on individuals and communities, without being subservient to a political agenda that really hits the right spot. Much of the arts in health work that I?d endorse, in reality is arts in education work; all be it subtly delivered. Whether it?s taking place in schools, prisons, and community centres, on-line or in galleries, the arts and health agenda is increasingly about enabling change and engaging people in artistic and cultural activity. I?ll be really interested to see how Arts Council England engages with this agenda in its own right; and as a cross-cutting theme across the art-forms.
Art it is best appreciated when it is, not education, not engagement, not learning, not part of any kind of 'education programme' because art is all of these, art intrinsically is all of these. Separation, as educationalists or administrators will do, is fatal, leading to the death of art in anyone’s mind. It is only through art that one is able to come to a real experience of art. That is, it has to be experiential to be real, to have meaning, it cannot be taught.
My own experience in the 60's was in 'action space' a voluntary group of artists who left the gallery scene to work in communities, working as artsts from many different disciplines until 1978.
Our note paper was headed 'Play, Education and the Arts'. Weren't too sure about education but we found that play became the major force in our work.
When we 'Played' all art broke loose, and unselfconsciously! The action through play was developed alongside and into painting, drama, storytelling, music or simply play. A round of activity where there were no boundaries.
The work and enjoyment that came out of these activities was tremendous and there is a large archive to verify this.
The notion of Engagement has to be qualified to mean experiential. This is what happens when an artist is engaged in painting for example, is it not, it is also what happens when a viewer 'connects' with art.
At the moment I am working on an idea of linking art to philosophy in a playful play, you see there are no boundaries! That is, the problem today with so many people 'engaged' in theories and research papers and doctorates, nobody likes to play. Reams of texts - words - definitions - theses - researching and whatever.
In the experience of art also is imbedded the idea of 'thinking'. Art is to do with thinking and philosophy certainly is. Thinking is primarily about concepts and art is also because it leads to new visualisation, visions and new ways of thinking.
Art is Life evrything that surround us is the product of art.