In testing Siegel's claim that critical thinking is paramount in education, we soon began discussing whether or not one can or should think critically about the arts--one point I was trying to make in class, though possibly couldn't clarify, was the idea that while critical thinking is perhaps necessary for the pursuit of knowledge in some fields, it is quite possible to aesthetically enjoy music without thinking critically.
With that being said, the arts certainly contain the capability and room for the critical thinker. It is quite possible to enjoy art without this aspect, yet I don't think this is relevant to Siegel's claim: as long as the capability within art for the critical thinker exists, then I think we can accept Siegel's claim comfortably, without having to endanger subjects like music, or any of the arts.
I believe the subjective nature of the arts and music does lend to its difficulty in teaching students to examine its various forms applying critical thinking and reasoning. I agree with the point that Andrea made in class however, when she said that the more information you have regarding a particular artist or a piece of art or music, the more ascetic knowledge and insight you have regarding the artist's point of view and the background of the piece the more appreciation it is possible to have. Unfortunately, the lack of necessity to analyze works of art or music in this way as you mention makes for these courses to be the first cut out of the curriculum.
ReplyDeleteRather the APPARENT lack of necessity to do so. We have good research that shows a very close connection between the arts (broadly conceived) and all other forms of learning. Music, for example, integrates experience and calms the learner. We really need both to experience the arts and to think about them if we are to become educated.
ReplyDeleteMarianne: It seems to me that your comment raises an interesting question. What exactly makes certain analysis "necessary?" It seems to me that arts education is of equal importance to education in math, science, history, and philosophy, and I do not think we can arrive at that conclusion by relying on data that suggests that arts education increases the efficacy of education in other areas. I propose that arts education would remain essential even if this were not the case. I do not think this is at all inconsistent with Siegel's (or Dom's) view, but I do think that the question of necessity is an interesting and important one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Deven that arts education is important in itself (though if we must rely on the fact that its cognitive integration properties improve learning in other subjects to convince others, I see no shame in that). But if we are talking about pure aesthetic appreciation, as distinct from thinking critically about the arts, then we at least need to revise Siegel's thesis about critical thinking as the backbone of all education.
ReplyDelete