“Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!” vowed Robert Goodloe Harper, a member of Congress from South Carolina, raising his glass at a dinner in Philadelphia. The year was 1798 and his fellow South Carolinian Charles Cotesworth Pinckney had just returned from France, having suffered the indignity of being told that he had to pay a bribe if he wanted to meet with the French foreign minister. He angrily refused and the resulting affair had brought the young United States and its former ally to the brink of war.
These days, arts backers find themselves uttering a similar phrase, yet with more resignation than defiance. Millions for sports, they often intone despondently, not one cent for the arts. From school districts to cities, whether one talks about entire venues or simply the accoutrements within them like scoreboards, when compared to sports the arts consistently seem to be expendable.
By no means is this to disparage sports, which are valuable both in education and in the social fabric. But so too are the arts, and in education especially. Radical as it sounds—particularly in Texas in October—the arts belong in schools just as much as does football.
A friend of mine who’s a passionate and dedicated supporter of the arts here in Waco often observes that our tendency to think of the arts as an afterthought is simply a symptom of the broader culture in which we live.
Yet that doesn’t make it any less frustrating when, for instance, public school spending on athletics completely overshadows arts programs. Those who teach art come to feel as though they have little official support for what they do.
Some time ago, D Magazine’s daily blog reprinted an open letter that a long-time elementary school art teacher in the Dallas Independent School District had written to DISD Superintendent Mike Miles. It seems that Miles’ plan to link teacher pay in part to student performance on tests was causing her to have to spend more time on quantifiable things like art history than on her class actually doing art.
While it’s hard to condemn any arrangement that winds up with young kids learning art history, her remarks mirror the frustration I’ve heard from other art teachers who feel like what they do simply isn’t valued. “My students did not come into my classroom to play or goof off,” she insists. “They worked hard and produced beautiful, intelligent and thought provoking work.” And she gets it quite right when she notes that “art is all about listening, watching, observing, following instructions, discovery and doing, doing, doing,” particularly at the age of her students. I’ll bet that more young kids come to love the arts through hands-on experience than through multiple-choice exams on art history. Those can come later.
There are a few happy stories out there. For example, of all places, the Detroit Public School system recently announced that because of some substantial outside help, it would be offering music and art instruction at every elementary and middle school this year. There will also be after-school enrichment programs in music, dance, and the visual arts. Good for them. It’s worth repeating, however, that this Detroit program, while certainly praise worthy, is made possible by mostly outside funding. It’s an exception.
As my friend says, downplaying the importance of the fine arts—which happens in civic life just as much as in public schools—reflects a cultural attitude. It’s true that attitudes can change, but teaching children through our actions that the arts aren’t important is a good way to make sure those attitudes become permanent.
A version of this piece originally appeared in the Waco Tribune-Herald on October 10, 2013
