As a major advocate for the arts, I've always taken issue with the idea that the arts are any less of an intelligence form than science or mathematics. It has long been a socially constructed idea that having talent in the arts holds less importance than having talent in fields such as medicine, law, literature, etc. It is for this reason that a lot of public schools are able to get away with little to no funding for their arts education programs.
When school budget cuts come along, the first classes to go are often the art classes. We see a lot more funding going toward, say, the athletics department than toward the arts programs. While I'm not trying to invalidate the importance of athletics (I played tennis throughout high school and was one of the captains my senior year, an experience I both enjoyed and valued), there is an unfortunate lack of support for the arts that needs to be brought to light.
One contributing factor toward the lack of support comes from a lack of understanding about what the arts entail. The most important aspect of the arts is expression. It is an outlet for expression unlike any other. What a lot of people overlook about the arts is due to perspective. Consider this: arts are a language. If you look at a piece of music-- the structure, the motifs, the character -- it all provides a story, a message. It is a form of communication. Same goes for a dance piece, with words in the form of choreography. Or a painting-- a picture's worth a thousand words.
Countless times, the arts are overlooked, and everything they are capable of goes unseen. To many, classes that hone art skills are seen as "extra," something easily rid of. What isn't taken into account is the influence that art classes hold. These classes teach unique skills, whether it's communication, collaboration, dedication, confidence (as well as modesty) and creativity, among countless others. While it wouldn't be fair to say that every single student would gain a life altering experience from an art class, in the same respect it wouldn't be fair to assume that of every student in trigonometry, either. The issue is in the combination of both lack of opportunity and lack of support in a social context.
I grew up in a small town with a small high school. We were a prime example of biased monetary distribution. While I didn't have much experience within the studio art classes (such as drawing, ceramics, photography, etc) I did have a lot of experience with the performing arts. Our performing arts programs were minimal, underfunded and understaffed. With little support also came little supervision, which resulted in some teachers not dedicating as much time or effort as they could. For example, the last play I was involved in during my senior year, I admittedly had a good time. However, we had minimal direction, and the cast only made the most of the situation by being good, lighthearted people and working together. There were underclassmen in the ensemble, though, who weren't as close to the older cast, and were introduced to high school theatre in a failing system. What was frustrating was that because there was such limited opportunity for the arts, an experience like this could have easily deterred someone with the potential to be great from doing theatre at all, thus not allowing them enough experience and exposure to find themselves within it and pursue it. There is such a huge margin for lost talent because of programs set up like this, which is honestly heartbreaking. That being said, the school I went to I think did the best that they could with the given circumstances. It is, however, just another unfortunate example of how improper funding and support can influence the experience a school can provide. What's worse is that even then, there are schools in much worse situations.
There is a stigma of the arts that hinders its ability to thrive in a public school setting. There are students and adults alike that don't support it (I can't tell you how many times I've heard "OK, but what are you going to do when that doesn't work out" when I tell people I'm majoring in music and theatre). People see it as neither a legitimate intelligence nor a legitimate career path. But at what cost? The idea that intelligence comes in more forms than traditional academics has been a widely publicized concept since Howard Gardner's "Theory of Multiple Intelligences" in 1983. Yet there are students whose intellect is still undermined in the wake of socially constructed intelligence hierarchies, and with systems that allow little to no exposure to the arts, some of these kids might have hidden intelligences that they may never discover. The detriment that this can have on a student who isn't able to find an "acceptable" worth is devastating. To quote Andrew Garfield in a DP/30 interview for Never Let Me Go,
"I hated school [...] I thought there was something wrong with me for hating school, for not being able to deal with school. At the time it was ingrained in me that school was: if you're not successful in school you're not going to be successful in life. And the hierarchy with the subjects at school, like the arts, are given no credence. And if they are, it's false credence. So, I look back on it and I'm angry. I'm angry about it because, you know, there might be a brilliant ballerina somewhere in school who's being forced to do maths, and she sees it as difficult. But if she's just allowed to express whatever gifts she has to offer then she would be happy and then she could make hundreds of thousands of other people joyous for a couple of hours per night."
The negative effect of this constant invalidation could be ruinous to so many young individuals trying to find what they were meant to do, find what they enjoy and what they excel at. So, please, I urge you to reconsider what you think about the current state of the arts programs at your local schools. Learn the importance. Defend them for all that they're worth. Be supportive and always, always keep an open mind.
