Art and Educational Inflation

Leonardo, Vol. 13, pp. 229-233 Pergamon Press 1980. Printed in Great Britain ART AND EDUCATIONAL INFLATION* Jacques Barzun ** I. Glad as I am to be with you, and flattered by your invitation, what I feel even more keenly is the rashness of my acceptance. The cause of this feeling is the present chaotic state ofopinion about art and art education in this country. Everywhere, thoughtful, earnest people concerned with the issues seem irreconcilable partisans, even though the issues are anything but clearly drawn. Like most other divisions of instruction, the teaching of art in the public schools shows nothing approaching sameness in method or substance. It varies from excellent to makebelieve , from superb to absurd. The demand for it varies likewise from zero to intense. What is worse, in a time of scarce money, the arts can be readily shown as frills easy to cut off; and again, the movement called Back to Basics is seen by some as a threat to courses in the arts, while others, like the Council for Basic Education of which I am a director, list art among the basics. La;tly, there is not-there has never been-agreement upon the reasons for giving the arts room in the curriculum. Is it for selfexpression , appreciation, a future career? Or is it for the arts' intellectual contents, historical importance, or manifest role in a high civilization? Amid this Babel, I cannot hope to say anything that will please you all; I may in fact displease you all, for I am going to say more than one thing, and each remark may alientate in turn some part of this audience, until I find myselfin need ofa bodyguard. However it turns out, you may be sure of two facts. One is that I think the arts should be taught in the schools. The second is that my purpose is not to teach you your own business, but possibly-just possibly-lift a burden from your minds, a load of anxiety and ofimaginary duties, created precisely by the causes of the present confusion. II. Let us at once face the difficult position of the arts in any general school, that is, a school not exclusively devoted to one art-music school, drama school, or art school. That difficult position is inherent and due to three things-the use of time, the uneven distribution oftalent and the absence of standards other than professional: Take these together concretely: in a specialized school, most students are gifted, they are keen to learn, want to spend long stretches of time practicing, and the teacher is free to judge progress in the light of future professional competence. In a general school, right up through college, none ofthese conditions survives integration with the rest of the curriculum. The gifted are held down to a few scattered hours and vague requirements, and the ungifted see no reason for the useless, highbrow stuff they are asked to study. Why then did the arts ever come into the general 229 schools? One reason-the best reason-is that in every generation boys and girls are born with artistic talent and some with a drive toward developing it. Except at school-a public school-most of these children would never get a chance to discover the gift or fulfill their desire. Moreover, if gifted, they should be taught while their minds, muscles, and senses are still plastic. Nothing makes up for the lack of early training of the eye, ear, throat, and fingers. But in recent times other reasons have been added. The belief has grown that everybody regardless of talent should become acquainted with art. With the decline of traditional religion-as I have shown elsewhere-the cult ofart has taken its place in the heart and mind ofwestern man. Art is now held to be mankind's highest form of spiritual expression. The devotees ofhigh art say they find through it a unique harmonizing of the emotions; the devotees of popular art visibly find in it a means of social communion. Several further arguments reinforce this unprecedented valuation of art. Some are discussed in the widely read report called Coming to Our Senses, which I...