Art In Schools: More is Not Always Better
I recently read a wonderful Opinion piece written by Temple Grandin about neurodivergent and visual thinkers in the United States education system. In the piece, Grandin appropriately points out how schools fail students who do not fit into a very rigid achievement paradigm - because the structure of schools is often based on a very linear, verbal pathway - meaning that there is little room or importance placed on those that think through shapes and objects versus those that think in words and sentences. Grandin also points out another significant thing that I very much agree with: that visual thinkers are some of the greatest innovators, engineers, and communicators that we have - but that we are failing them through a lack of education support.
While I completely agree with Ms. Grandin, I do want to point out something that always seems to be missing when discussing visual learning: how visual thinking and the arts are taught. It is commonplace to hear advocates, like Grandin, or nonprofits, or even government agents speaking to the need for “more arts education” - and of course, we need “more.” But more is not always better. We should be focusing on quality arts education, not just more arts education.
Making art in a way that reaffirms a linear style of thinking does nothing to promote innovation or creativity. Assigning children a color-by-number painting or a clay coil mug is not the same as addressing their desire for creation and teaching them the techniques to accomplish their own defined problem. We are not teaching them to play, to embrace freedom, or to do something different. We so often teach artists in the same way that we teach writing or math: “Here is the problem, here is the answer - repeat those steps, and you will have your product.”
Simply speaking, we teach visual thinkers how to make something technically without teaching them how to think creatively. In this way, the arts as they are taught in many schools are no different for visual thinkers than a science lab - with a preconceived experiment that you put to motion. Teaching art as a technique-first subject completely distorts the immense thinking and learning that is involved with art-making.
For decades (almost a century!) Constructivist learning theory - wherein students and teachers learn through experience and discourse - has been demonstrated and discussed as an effective means to educate students into understanding and thinking. While this is gaining traction in some educational spheres, there is always an assumption that the arts, by their nature, are demonstrating learning that is consistent with this pedagogy. But, in my experience, the bulk of arts education is not operating in such terms - from elementary school into college. The arts are just as linear as every other subject area.
Nearly every student I meet who is passionate, driven, and focused on the arts speaks to the nature of their educational experiences with little sense of dynamism or creativity. Most schools (even renowned institutions of art learning) teach the arts through technique first and thinking second. There are endless arts curricula that generally begin with benign life drawing and color theory and only move on slowly towards self-expression and problem-solving - which are the most important aspects of arts education. Again, this is technique driving thinking rather than thinking driving technique.
The tentacles of this established order expand widely and continuously. For example, because of our experience and exposure to the arts in this linear manner, most people (even artists) are left with an understanding of art that is limited to an evaluation of its technical prowess - that artworks should be beautifully cut diamonds, polished and exquisite. We may listen to computer-generated music with a single beat over and over, but when it comes to a sculpture, if it’s not David, it’s not good.
Many art schools still require “observational drawings” in their applications - even in an age when photographs can perfectly capture imagery, and AI can render entire scenes in seconds. Forcing students to think of art as only mark-making recapitulates an established linear system of thinking and learning. This is not to say, once again, that artists should not continue to make incredible art out of technically oriented practices, but to have this “skill” as a requirement is simply limiting the possibilities of artists.
All of this is not to say that the educational system is completely at fault for the inability of people to think abstractly, but it is certainly not oriented to help those who need and want creative expression. And so when we think of supporting neurodivergent and visual thinkers, we must not limit ourselves to the “why” but also embrace the “how.” The reason to alter our approach should not just be to have more of something but to have more of something good, welcoming, and open to exploration and creativity for all.
