If I were asked this question by a principal during a job interview I would respond by saying, my professional development will be maintained in several ways. First of all, it is imperative to get feedback from my students. That’s why I’ll have end of the year surveys where they grade me as a teacher. Based on this information, I would seek out improvements to improve myself as a teacher. I believe it is important that we are always questioning ourselves and not settling for good enough. In addition, I’ll try to learn more from my fellow teachers and see what they’ve learned based on their own experiences. Since I’m still new to teaching, it’ll be important that I learn as much as I can from other people. I’ll also be teaching myself art more and making sure they I draw everyday so that I am practicing what I preach. I believe that just like education as a whole, professional development is key to understanding that there is always more to learn.

If I were asked this question by a principal during a job interview I would respond by saying, handling students who are defiant or disruptive is often part of the job of being a teacher. The most important factor is prevention. This can be done by making sure I change up activities enough and I make sure that I am giving respect to my students. Often, children won’t tell you directly what is bothering them so placing them aside the chat will help to get to the root of the issue. While I believe it’s important to be assertive, being aggressive will only make the situation worse. Giving unfair punishments or raising my voice will only provoke the issue more. I’ve learned about this while working with delinquent students during my job as a resident treatment worker at a mental health facility. I’ve watched staff yell at children but all it does is escalate the situation. By being compassionate and understanding, I can create a learning environment which is better for all my students.

If I were asked, “walk me through a lesson” by a principal during an interview I would start by explaining the content I want to teach. First, I would plan my lesson around the social environment I’m in. I would take in account the different interests and learning styles that my students have. In the lesson itself I would start with an opener to ignite interest in everyone. For example, if I was doing a lesson on comics, I would ask everyone if they’ve read comics or watched superhero movies before and have a mini discussion about it. I would then teach certain technical skills that go along with it such as inking and drawing people and designing characters and so forth. This would involve both myself lecturing, giving a demonstration, and having them practice these skills. Then we would move onto the larger project and in the end I would make sure to give detailed feedback to each individual. I make sure to give detailed notes of what students have created because they deserve in depth feedback. Often, there is a tendency for teachers to give students a grade and be done but the letter a student earns pales in comparison to good critique.

The first website that inspires me as a teacher is Youtube. In the list of resources, there was a link to a Youtube channel with several art lessons. This is a great way to learn about art and it is how I’ve taught myself how to do many things. There are many artists from hobbyists to professionals who provide great tips on improving your art and in depth guides to different fundamentals. There might be criticism from people who say that Youtube is “unprofessional.” However, there is a lot of good content if you know where to look. I might make stuff for my students so they can follow something if they missed a class. What’s nice about Youtube is that it has the most content than any other site and it is completely free and doesn’t require you to sign up for anything.

Another resource I like is a website maker such as wordpress. In particular, wordpress is free as long as you don’t get the advanced features or a domain name. I remember in high school we were all required to make a website for our art portfolio. It made it much more exciting to share with other people our art instead of just forgetting about our projects right after we made them. 

A third resource I enjoy is Pinterest because of the wide variety of high quality images. It’s a great place to find references and art project ideas. It allows me to be inspired to make art and it’s completely free. It’s main criticism is a lack of professionalism because it seems like low hanging fruit for teachers. That’s not a problem though as long as you’re not copy and pasting the information that is available. I only use it as a starting point for lesson ideas, not for the sole purpose of having it do the work for you. You can also create boards which you can share with your students as resources for their projects.

Click the link to read my philosophies about art education as a whole.

Elizabeth Garber argues that it’s the teachers’ jobs to promote social change by empowering students with democracy. This idea is crucial, she claims since its important to represent underrepresented minorities from a variety of social groups. This can have a lot of great benefits, such as students understanding of how power and social control works and the ability to question authority figures. However, social justice education can create the same problem that it is fighting in the first place. By teaching this concept, it often riddled with strong left-wing narratives on how society works and ideological ideas of how it ought to be. Garber addresses this herself when she explains that a problem exists when we present students with the purpose of social justice without acknowledging the limits of formal democracy. How can we teach social justice without proselytizing our beliefs, similar to that of a religion laden with misinformation? It’s as if teachers are preparing students to be social activists the same way religious institutions prepare missionaries to spread the gospel. Wouldn’t it be better if we present students with objective facts and let students make their own decisions of what is right and wrong? The author has already decided, for example, that we need to teach the importance of diversity amongst people. But this message implies that diversity is always good, and that no problems occur when multiple different groups that exist near each other can often cause conflict. Is diversity something we can teach, or is it human nature that we tend to segregate ourselves from different peoples even without being forced to? 

Another problem with social justice in education is that the meaning of social justice has changed from open critique to self-righteousness. Garber shares an example of how a feminist teacher tested students’ personal “biases” by having them try to predict which artworks were made by female artitists and which one by male artists. However, could the differences of male and female artwork have something to do with their innate biology, rather than simply the proliferation of societal ideals?  Contradicting the purpose of bringing people together, it shames people who don’t follow their worldview for even minor things like accidently using the wrong pronoun for someone. This fight against “hate” often breeds more hate, because social justice advocates have a very simplistic binary view of right versus wrong, you are either on their side or a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, terrible human being. When does feminism and social justice turn from equality of genders to vilifying white straight men? When does trying to protect against discrimination turn to silencing students with different opinions than the teacher? 

Pamela G. Taylor comes from a contextualist background when she argues that art education should exist beyond the classroom. She explains how postmodern art isn’t necessarily about the art itself, but rather the social influences it has. These two ideas go hand in hand with each other, since service learning in art education is all about working with people and communities. The author talks about how it’s important for students to engage in civic activities without the need for financial on monetary benefit. A problem with this however is that at the end of the day people are innately selfish. Even without a material benefit, the personal satisfaction one gets from doing a service could be argued as a self-serving benefit. If students in an art classroom are tasked with doing a certain amount of community hours for example, it’s likely because they are just doing it because they have to, not necessarily that they want to. Taylor explains this herself, citing an editorial that explains that mandatory volunteerism isn’t really volunteering. A way to counteract a little this might be to give students a choice in which outside activities they participate in, so that they feel that they are making their own decisions. There can be something powerful about students coming together and figuring out what to make for a mural, or making art for free for people in nursing homes. Maybe like Taylor explains, these experiences can help students see a part of themselves that they hadn’t before. On the other hand, this idea can be overly romantic since the impacts might not be as big as one might think. However, the idea of thinking beyond oneself is an idea that has got me thinking. There could be many ways to teach students how art affects the world around them. While discussion can be great in a classroom, actively doing something in the world is much more tangible.

The first thing I think about is what my overall goal/purpose for my students. I ask myself why I am going to teach what I’m going to teach. There are a lot of topics in art and so little time to talk about them. It’s important that I make sure each minute is not wasted and they are getting the best out of their learning experience. To me, the different parts of art include the technical aspects that involve being able to understand the rules of art. Then there is the personal aspect that involves students exploring themselves and their inner emotions, what they’re into, and how they feel about things. The third part is the social aspect which involves communicating with others, learning about history, and culture. Together, these three aspects are key to developing an art lesson that is effective and useful.

In the article, “Problems Confronting Visual Culture” by Arthur D. Efland, he points out the fine art versus visual arts culture argument. The great advantage of teaching visual culture is its ability to broaden the study of human sensory experience. Many (if not most) of the art we experience occurs throughout our daily lives and not in a critical environment. The author points out that one of the problems with fine art is its association with high class modernism. Throughout the history of art, most of it was meant for wealthy and powerful patrons, often as a way to separate themselves from the common people. However, while it was that way at one point doesn’t mean that it can’t change. This article makes a distinction between “high” or “serious” art and “common” or “everyday” art. The benefits of having students study fine art, according to Efland, is that students get a chance to look at art beyond the everyday. This isn’t to say that commercial or popular art is bad. Rather, there is a higher level of aesthetic quality of an artwork that has been meticulously made. Another advantage is that it is easier to talk about broader concepts than in visual arts culture. The author brings up the problem with visual culture studies is that it is so enormous because of the sheer amount that exists in the world. In my opinion, bringing together both fine art and popular visual arts culture allows students see a bigger picture of the world. 

In the article, “The Disconnect Between Theory and Practice” by Rebekka Herrmann, she describes what visual arts culture education should be like. The author places emphasis on students making their own inferences and discoveries rather than being parroted answers by the teacher. This is really important for any art classroom to be successful, with or without a visual cultural emphasis. Often, we are accustomed for a classroom to have a specific set of instructions for student success rather than multiple avenues. The goal of art shouldn’t be to reach a finite answer, but to ask questions. Also, I think it’s possible that visual arts culture is meant to fill a gap for art teachers who either aren’t interested or not very good at art making. It takes many hours of daily practice to be able to even reach close to understanding the fundamentals of art. However the way that the education system is set up in the united states, the over emphasis on accountability takes more time away from actually being artists themselves. Why spend time on art when it doesn’t matter to the other faculty or students? In the author’s defence, Herrmann states that art making and visual arts culture aren’t separate. However, she doesn’t provide a good example of what it would look like; most of the examples involve discussion of pre-existing artwork rather than students making artwork of their own. The main problem I have with this article is that it uses language to make visual arts culture education sound enticing, but it doesn’t ground them in evidence. 
In the article, “Art Education for New Times” by Paul Duncum, he lays out the foundation for how the “new times” affects the world and what it means for art education as a whole. The new times refers to the 21st century era we’re living in. While almost every aspect of our culture has changed from the last hundred years, education has not always caught up. One big advancement is the internet and its proliferation of images. Memes for example have a powerful effect on how we talk about certain ideas. By analyzing these in an art classroom we can understand what about them works so well, and critique some of its messages. Duncum also describes the ordinary images we encounter in everyday life. From posters to commercial products, there are aspects that are influenced by politics and the economy. The problem with fine arts education, is that it can often view art as existing in a vacuum in the past. However to this day, art has a profound impact on society and vise-versa. Lastly, the author implicates how images in media have made for more complex individuality. By being exposed to an increasingly globalized world, cultures are rapidly changing and expanding. I agree that it is important for art to relate itself to what is relevant in the here and now. Learning about the history of art can help to be able to see the bigger picture.  

On a surface level, multiculturalism in art education seems simple. “Teach about different cultural interpretations of art so we can all join hands and unite as one.” However, there are many conundrums that arise. The reality is that art in culture is so large and complex that we are only able to teach a small fraction of it. Even in the art history courses I took at Stout, despite being primarily of the western world, we only just scratched the surface of it. It’s hypocritical when teachers argue that all cultures are equal when they in turn pick and choose a few select topics. How do we as art educators decide what is worth teaching and what isn’t? 

In Harold Best’s article, Lemonade or Merlot? Authentic Multiculturalism and High Culture he argues against the guilt-driven rhetoric that aims to shrug off Western achievements in music. He explains that it’s okay to have certain preferences to certain things by saying, “Differences in kind make room for the allowance of differences in quality among kinds.” Best uses an analogy of lemonade; just because all kinds of people make lemonade differently, doesn’t mean that all lemonade is of the same quality. It’s okay to critique people’s cultural differences, as long as you don’t become an elitist. He argues that you can compartmentalize both the “good” and “bad” aspects of a certain culture; you can like Wagner’s music but be against his anti-semetic beliefs. The author isn’t trying to affirm prejudice and believing that we are in the center of it all. He explains that at the same time however, we can’t pretend that biases don’t exist or that there isn’t a “center” from which a person’s perception of the world radiates. 

As a future art educator, rather than trying to start with a singular culture, I want to teach certain qualities of art that are universal. All cultures can be linked back to something physical in the natural world. That’s why I want to start with teaching drawing techniques from life first, then branch off and slowly intersperse multicultural perceptions. This goes in line with Harold’s first proposition to help with arts education. 

The article Multicultural Art Education and Social Reconstructionism by Patricia Stuhr has an underlying narrative that as a society, it is our job to promote social justice and fight for human rights and equality. The problem is when this becomes more like indoctrination and trying to mold students to be future social justice warriors, rather than explorers. Stuhr talks about the importance of promoting “democracy,” which by definition is the control of the majority. The irony here is that she is against the promotion of the dominant culture in society. In addition, why is teaching something that exists in the dominant culture a “bad thing?” While I agree it’s great to have perspectives on cultures other than your own, the goal shouldn’t be to try to dismantle all western values.

I consider myself a formalist because I believe that art can exist for its own sake. In contrast, contextualism states that the purpose of art is meant to affect areas outside of the art itself. When creating artwork, I find myself an escapist. I like to run away for a moment from all the problems in the world and find myself. This may be seen as being too afraid, but I believe that in the end, the world is beyond our control. As a formalist, I value art that is original and shows good use of materials. While nothing is “original” per say, there is definitely a unique experience when artwork breaks away from what is conventionally accepted. The use of materials is imperative because no matter how creative you may be, there are certain skill requirements for creating an aesthetically pleasing piece. I’m drawn away from simplistic and pretentious art that tries to connect with a social issue. need something with great complexity and sense of realism for me to look at it longer than a few seconds. This isn’t to say that I don’t completely disagree with contextualism. In fact when executed well, a powerful message can be impactful. However, there comes to a point where artists can be too egotistical.

In Mr. Harsh’s lesson, he teaches aesthetics by first defining it in the context of philosophy. He provides examples to help illustrate and ground the idea. For example, he pours creamer into a glass of coffee and describes the beauty as he sees it. Mr. Harsh engages the students by using a various set of techniques. This includes using a captivating voice, asking questions to his students, and providing real life examples that everyone can relate to. The students’ engagement is evident through their eye contact, occasional laughs, and answers to questions. By speaking in both English and Spanish side by side, he is able to make sure that what he is saying is understood by most everyone. Mr. Harsh touches on topics such as abortion and suicide. I probably wouldn’t talk about abortion because that could potentially alientate students from each other. However if given to chance to talk about suicide, I would instead try to dedicate more time in a separate mental health lesson. If I were to “update” this lesson, I would use example artworks that are connecting more so to popular culture. There are many animations, movies, and video games that I’m sure students would be into. Even Fortnite for example can be described aesthetically if given the chance. 

In the second video, a ted talk “Teaching art or teaching to think like an artist” is on creativity in an art education curriculum. The speaker does a good job at separating “skill” from “creativity.” Just because someone can draw a horse realistically, doesn’t mean that it requires creativity. Creativity is about being able to connect ideas to create new and original products. Traditionally, schools are seen as machines that pump out similar factory workers. But what if the arts could help a student invent an entire new job? “In the 21st century”, she states, “I want my children to think like artists no matter what career path they choose.” This is vital because everyone needs to learn how to be creative. When doing well in any career, you need to go beyond the basic requirements in your job description; you need to make bounds beyond what you are directly told.

One of the big dilemmas I face on being a future art educator is how much my lessons will be on skill building or on creativity and self expression. If I only focus on skill building, there isn’t a lot of purpose unless they want to become a professional artist. If I only focus on creativity, then I’m being disingenuous when I’m trying to teach students about what really goes beyond a good work of art. It doesn’t matter if you have all the inspiration in the world, if you can’t understand the fundamentals of realism, it will not turn out good. Even though I took plenty of art classes in high school, probably about 5% actually helped me become the artist I am today (skill wise). That isn’t to say that I had teachers, but high level and methodical explanations of drawing on Youtube helped me build a strong skill set. Self expression and creativity are important, but skillbuilding is an important prerequisite. Much like remembering your lines for play is a prerequisite for good acting.

Do you need to be an artist to be an art teacher?

To an extent, yes, you need to have a passion for making art in order to teach it. There are many skills involved in creating art and to not understand them, you wouldn’t be able to teach it to your students well. That isn’t to say you need to be a professional artist. Even if you are an amazing artist, that doesn’t mean you’re necessarily a good teacher. I had an art teacher in the past that made amazing works, however he struggled to convey his knowledge sometimes. It is especially imperative to be an artist if you are teaching at the high school level, since students are choosing it as electives and are of an older mindset. There are many fundamentals that come with drawing, painting, and pottery that cannot be forgotten. 

Why can’t the elementary teacher be the art teacher?

An elementary teacher wouldn’t be as skilled as a separate art teacher because there is a level of specialization needed to learn skills. Lesson planning and classroom management is very different in an art classroom than a regular classroom. In addition, it gives the primary teacher a break away from the students as the art teacher watches after them. Children who are exposed to multiple minds become diverse learners.

One of the biggest questions that I believe summarizes the goal of aesthetics is: what is the purpose and meaning of art? Undoubtedly, humans have created visually striking objects since the dawn of civilization. But the purpose and place of art has been widely debated. For example the idea of “self expression” is relatively new. Vincent Van Goh was one of the first well-known artists to explore this idea. Prior to his creations, the goal of art was mostly to serve supernatural entities or a wealthy aristocracy. Artists in the early centuries were referred more as craftsmen, until that changed in the Renaissance which they were revered as creative geniuses. I talk about this history because when reading the articles, it’s important to forget the bigger picture. Philosophy is not an objective truth; it is only as real as the people who talk about it.

An activity I thought about to introduce students to the idea of aesthetics is splitting them up into groups and having them each make a poster. On the poster, they must work together to list at least 8 purposes of art. Afterwards, everyone will come back together to compare ideas. I would then connect these ideas to other aesthetic concepts adopted by aestheticians. My prediction is that students will say things as “to express yourself” or “to make the world more beautiful.” However, there plenty of art that exists that contradicts these ideas. Ask the students: “does art have to express yourself?” and “Does art have to be beautiful?” A second activity involves having students find an artwork online and responding to a set of aesthetic questions. Then they would share to the class and answer a few questions such as: “what emotions do you feel when looking at this piece?” or “what about the piece intrigues you the most?” 

In terms of formalism and contextualism, they both have their places within art education. Personally, I side with formalism slightly more being that I believe that it is okay for art to exist without any social context. Sometimes I find social justice images to be proselytizing. I much prefer art when it shows a reality, rather than trying to change it. In a way though, it is impossible to be completely one or the other even if you tried. For the formalist, they are always seeing art through the lens of their own culture, intentionally or unintentionally. For the contextualist, it is impossible to pretend that no visual stimuli produce an emotional reaction without knowing the backstory of a particular work. 

If I end up teaching at the high school level, I would teach from a mimetic approach first. This is due to the fact that all art (realistic, abstract, non-objective) comes from reality at one point. Understanding the rules of reality is imperative before one breaks those rules. If I were to leave students to do whatever they please, there would be no standards or room for self improvement. As we would progress throughout the course, I would connect types of art that students were interested in with the concepts that were taught prior. To know what students are into, I would conduct surveys that ask various questions about their visual taste. A lot of what teenagers are interested in is often connected with some form of media (video games, anime, tv shows, movies, comics) All these forms of visual storytelling have artistic merit to them. They are not “below” academic art. Any visual imagery that conveys some form of aesthetic is art.

I decided to become a visual arts teacher because it combines the two things I love most: art and teaching. Originally, I was in school for surgical technology. However, it wasn’t really jiving with me because everything seemed so black and white. It was about following instructions rather than guidelines. Being a teacher gives me the chance to express my ideas and to help others grow. I value knowledge above everything else because it’s what makes us human. Sure, you can survive not knowing who Monet is, or how to blend acrylic on canvas, but these small things expand our mind and curiosity. I believe children’s voices matters. Too often it’s what their parents want, or lawmakers, or other people. But being a teacher, you get to show them a different side of themselves. 

I remember being a cashier and a coworker complained about having to train new employees. However, I felt the exact opposite because I greatly loved trying to bring people up. To me, when people struggle with learning a new skill, it is an opportunity, not a hindrance. In art, there are many fundamental skills which are challenging. For students to be introduced without being too overwhelmed or frustrated, they need a role-model that will guide them through the fog. I am a firm believer that education should be more student centered. When I was at school, it seemed to be more about what the adults wanted, rather than us being able to explore what we’re curious about. Art is one of the few places in school where self-exploration and differences are encouraged. While as a teacher I likely won’t make a macro impact on the world, but I’ll definitely be able to make a large micro-impact.

While I’ve had some internship experience working with children, I’ve never partaken in a practicum before. There are many thoughts that are floating through my head. What will the teacher I work with ask me to do? Will I be with a partner? (What grade level will I teach at? Hopefully I will teach an older group, since my ultimate goal is to teach at the high school level.) Will the teacher there like me? How will I be evaluated? How much control will I have in this experience, and how much is it me doing what I’m told? How will I prove that I can be an effective teacher?

While any new experience comes with worry, this one in particular is very important to me. It is important that I do my best and learn as much as possible. I find myself to be a bit of a perfectionist, so when I make a mistake I get down on myself for it. However, I have to learn that just like drawing or painting, teaching is a skill that comes with practice. My goal is to remain curious about what I am teaching, why I’m teaching it, and how to build good relationships with those around me.

As an educator, I’m curious about what could be done to improve education and learning. When people say, “Our schools are failing” what does that mean exactly? Does it mean test scores are too low, attendance is poor, or the facilities aren’t up to standards? It is undeniable that politics is highly entrenched in the discourse of education. There are many people from several sides whom have their own set of ulterior motives. However, in order for education to succeed in today’s society, we need critical pedagogical thinkers.  

The demand for accountability of teachers has been very persistent. From the ‘No Child Left Behind’ act to standardized testing, lawmakers have aimed to ‘quantify’ learning and progress. The criticism I have is that education isn’t something that can be charted on a graph with numbers and statistics. How are standardized tests supposed to measure areas such as creativity, critical thinking, and curiosity? Many aspects of learning aren’t easily definable at a macro level.  In essence, it is more of an art than it is a science. 

This isn’t to say that education should be primarily based on emotions. It is quite to the contrary. To provide teaching that will best help students grow and develop, we need to think more philosophically about what education is and what we should aim to achieve. Essentially, education is about these key principles: (1) the two-way exchange of information, ideas, and skills (2) the critical analysis of thought, perception, and reasoning (3) The synthesis of concepts to generate new works and ideas (4) The application of concepts to both the world and the self. 

These principles may sound nonsensical to some, and as a result produce a curriculum that is rooted in pseudo-intellectual arrogance. So to put it more simply, students need to learn more than just little bits of information here and there (which they may quickly forget anyways). They need to learn how to think and act better.

Just because something is hard, does not necessarily mean it is important. For example, it may be difficult to remember the color hat Napoleon was wearing during the battle of Waterloo. But is that as important as being able to describe the political legacies Napoleon left on Europe? And sure, it might also be hard for students to do well if the teacher only uses one method of instruction. This is why “hard” and “challenging” does not inherently mean good and important. These are the key components of what is important for students to learn: (1) Should educate about the objective world (both physical and social) (2) Should be pragmatic of a student’s personal life (3) Should educate on a student’s curiosities.

Out of all of my philosophies of education, the most important one is the idea of student-centered learning. In many classrooms, students have the least say when it comes to their learning. This comes from the assumption that adults (teachers, administrators, lawmakers, parents) know best. However for education to work, students need to be able to make their own choices and follow what’s most curious to them.

Arts education has been notoriously scrutinized for it’s inability to justify itself within a k-12 school curriculum. These three articles provide different, yet similar justifications. Prior to reading them, I thought that the reasoning for art curriculum was generally agreed upon among all art advocates. However, these different perspectives shed light onto an unseemingly complex issue.

In “Art for our Sake: School Arts Classes Matter More Than Ever- But Not for the Reasons You Think,” I found that the views were similar to that of my own. I find that art education advocates tend to value the ‘emotional’ aspect of art creativity over any other part. The more methodical and logical side of art received more attention here. Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland show an example of how when people draw faces, we tend to put the eyes up too high. Being able to perceive the world for what it is, is imperative in the art making process. No matter how much you ‘feel’ connected to something or someone, the ability to produce quality work requires many technical understandings. In addition, the authors observed that time-management skills required to design, create, and finish projects developed healthier in students. These kinds of skills help students to grow into more diligent and intelligent individuals. In other subject areas, the emphasis is often placed on memorizing information and reproducing it verbatim on a test, which aligns with the lowest end of bloom’s taxonomy. The process of artmaking involves producing something that is truly unique, which aligns with the highest end of bloom’s taxonomy. Furthermore, Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland explained that the correlation of students in arts education earn higher act scores doesn’t necessarily mean that they are causally related. It’s unnecessary for art education to have to justify itself with test scores, since standardized testing doesn’t measure many of the important skills that art teachers. 

In, “Valuing the Arts on Their Own Terms?” Constance Bumgarner Gee argues that there is a difference between valuing, advocating, and justifying arts education. She describes the different ways that art educators have advocated for the arts in public schools. This includes the benefit of art on math and science after the launch of sputnik, and the benefit of art on social reconstructionism and social justice. When trying to ‘sell’ art education to policymakers, I agree that it’s not just about trying to show how good the arts are through advocating, but how necessary they are through justifying. After reading this text, I’ve realized that many advocacy is centered on trying to show the benefits of arts on something else, whether that be economic, scientific, social justice, or student obedience. Why can’t art be appreciated for what it is, rather than trying to show its ‘side-effects?’ The ‘advo-search’ studies the author mentions showcases how our own bias can affect how research can be skewed to favor our position. This can come off as proselytizing of relentlessly pushing narratives, which is the exact opposite of what art should aim to achieve. Arts education should be about bridging the gap between people of different viewpoints, not trying to become one-sided. In other words, when we advocate or justify arts education, it shouldn’t be about ‘us’ versus ‘them.’

In “Does Experiences in the Arts Boost Academic Achievement?,” the author hits the nail on exactly on my thoughts on the Arts effect on academic achievement. My favorite quote from the article is, “Have they ever thought about asking how reading and math courses contribute to higher performance in the arts?” This questions the idea that arts education is only meant to support other subject area, rather than supporting itself for its own right. Eisner illustrates how many studies across various years fail to provide a scientific basis for claims that the arts boost academic achievement. There are so many confounding variables which makes it increasingly difficult to pinpoint the effect of art on other subject areas. There’s a spectrum the author describes that starts with the art related benefits of art to the ancillary benefits. It makes sense that we should aim somewhere in the middle. It is important for students to develop art skills, as knowing how to use materials is important to art making. But at the same time, not many will go onto have art as a career. Therefore, it is important to teach as a tool for self expression and the understanding of abstract concepts. Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland would probably be placed somewhere closer on the art benefits on the spectrum because of their close observations of student art making. This could also place Constance Bumgarner Gee closer to the other end of the spectrum, because of her emphasis of arts ability to connect to the world.