Reply to comment

Thank you everyone for responding – sorry I could not participate sooner – just got back to school and my computer!

I agree with what is being said about the gaps in Robinson’s argument when it come to the practice of the theory. I also appreciate the concern that if we were all encouraged to be artists, where would potentially be no one to do the jobs that require long study and practice (eg doctor/ nurses).  I think that epeck’s question of whose responsibility is it to creatively educate children is at the heart of the debate: I interpret Robinson’s argument as approaching this problem by in turn asking what is it about maths or sciences that is more appropriate to be taught in school? Finnwig argues that school does encourage bodily-education – and while I do maintain my vivid memories of middle school gym, even my gym teachers approached it as a place fro some the excel and other s to just kinda get though – it was the class that was ok to skip if you were sick. It is there – but no one ever told me that learning to play soccer would help me learn social skills, and even special understanding that would help me in high school geometry.

I am a bit of a hippie – but I honestly do not believe that everyone has some inner-artist that they secretly want to become. I don’t think that encouraging the arts would necessarily produce a significantly higher number of professional artists, rather more creatively-minded people in every field. The same way that a basis in physics in important in dancing, dance experience can inform medicine (and so on).