I don't know how many times I have heard this from teachers in other disciplines, other than in the arts. Most teachers think that teaching art is easy, as easy as a walk in the park. It implies that art teachers are lazy, stupid slobs who teach art because they couldn't make it or didn't become famous artists. It might be true for a handful of misguided individuals. I can bet they didn't remain an art teacher and did something else for money. To follow this bit of logic, it would also imply that science teachers are failures because they teach science rather becoming employed physicists or engineers.
Do you think it is easy to become a well-paid artist? If you think so, you are deluding yourself. There are only a handful of lucky people who made money from art in Australia. So if it is not easy to earn money from art, it must also follow that to teach art, one must be exceptionally good at it to turn out wealthy artists. Artists like surgeons study for a long time, often all their lives. But unlike cosmetic surgeons for example, they are not paid very well. A really good cosmetic surgeon earns millions while comparably, a public sculptor like Kapoor, on the same rung of achievement, might only earn thousands (it might be in the hundreds of thousands but you get my drift). Fame is another matter entirely. High profile movie celebrities are paid very well for their art and hence, have the money to pay their cosmetic surgeons. The reason for this is as plain as the nose on your face or how it is placed on it. To make matters worse, teachers in general are ill-paid, overworked and pressured to be everything at once to every person in the school infrastructure. They are blamed when things go wrong all the time. The visual art teacher is the most vilified of all, second only to dance teachers. Every one knows that art is at the bottom of the rung in the subject hierarchy taught in schools. It also follows that visual art teachers do not teach because of the money but because of the love of art.
So, why do I want to be an art teacher then? Come to think of it, why do teachers in other disciplines want to teach art so much? They are lying if they say it is because it is easy. They do because every kid wants to be in the art classroom. Let's say you are a substitute teacher who normally teaches math but taught art for a day and thought, 'Wow that was easy to teach.' Why do you think the kids are so willing to be taught, well behaved and the material is organised, anyone with a brain can follow it?
Who do you think organised the material? Who trained the pupils so that they actually ask and answer questions in long sentences and heaven forbid they actually argue with you? The experienced art teacher did all these, that's who. You are there for one day and had a great time because of all those other days of superb organization, varied and engaging ways to engage students applied by the absent art teacher. In fact you are so amazed your 'problem smart alecs' students turned into angels in the art class.
I am not saying this is always the case but for most teachers who look down upon 'useless' art teachers, there is only one thing I can say to you, please think again before you say, 'It is ONLY an art class- no big deal'. If you are an English teacher, art teachers can be your friends in terms of literacy. We help students become articulate in expressing opinions, develop a wider vocabulary (gained through art appreciation and criticism) and also students become more confident in writing and referencing during art history and theory lessons.
If you are a maths teacher, you would have been amazed how much pupils know about Platonic solids, fraction, trigonometry, decimals and geometry. All of these are required in knowing about proportion in classical, sculpture and applied art and technology. If you are a Chemistry teacher, artists also need rudimentary knowledge in material suspensions, chemical handling, safety in the studio especially now that contemporary art embraced every conceivable material. Conservators need the knowledge of your field but it also needs sensitivity and artistic feeling to do this job well, if at all. History straddles most of art history, so there's no need to denigrate art teachers just because you think your subject is more useful or important. In other words, teaching art, non-representational art in particular is not a walk in the park. It is like walking up hill with on one leg without any crutches. If I was teaching landscape, sure it might be a little easier with a projector but why bother? Why not just take a photo?
Of course teaching mediocre art is easy but being a good art teacher requires more than knowledge of subject area, on which you seem to put so much importance. I can teach any subject imaginable for a day- even Maths (despite not knowing the methods or unqualified to teach at secondary level), but if a principal will let me, I can. It is not easy and unsustainable in the long-term and if one knows the subject well. You might be able to teach art for a day and call it easy but you will have destroyed the students' inquiring mind, stifled growing imagination and killed a hunger for art. Yes, teaching art is walk in the park if you want to turn out obscure artists by a mediocre teacher.
No comments:
Post a Comment