Where the Dems stand on Arts and Education . . . BUNKO!

While the talking heads have been busy debating which Democratic candidate might best respond to the "3 am phone call" and who best embodies "change" or "experience," I thought that it might be refreshing and somewhat interesting to bring arts education into the debate.

I read this interesting op-ed column at ArtInfo.com, which lays out some of the platforms presented by the Obama and Clinton campaigns on the importance of the arts and arts education. While it would be easy to dive into another tiring political back-and-forth between the candidates on this issue, I am much more interested (and so was this author) in how they justify the arts. Are the arts inherently valued as a goal in and of themselves, or do we need some sort of business justification or some other ends to argue for more arts funding?

ArtInfo.com: "Talk for Talk's Sake" by Allen Strouse

This past summer, I was lucky enough to meet and speak with renowned educator Philip Jackson, Professor Emeritus in Education and Psychology at the University of Chicago. I distinctly recall (and am unlikely to ever forget) his discussion of how important it was to teach art -- not because of what other skills it may enhance, or because of what other outcomes may result, but entirely because it is extremely valuable to learn art and experience the arts. He talked about the scores of existing studies that try to show how arts learning can transfer into other areas of learning (such as math and science), and Philip cried out "BUNKO!" Hence was born a mantra of sorts for a new generation of arts educators (or, at least a small group of museum educators desperate to invigorate their careers and professional goals with some new direction and passion).