Reply to comment

"I think education shouldn't serve as a means to indulge a student's like and dislikes"

This attitude towards the arts is precisely the problem we've been trying to articulate.  Why are the arts relegated again and again to the status of a luxury, an easily cuttable budget item?  Why is this whole, huge, diverse wing of human experience/way of knowing called "the arts" something an otherwise educated person is allowed to dismiss if they happen to "dislike" it without feeling at all ashamed of his or her ignorance?  Do the arts really play no role in helping students to become responsible and active members of society?  How is something that requires years of painstakingly acquired technical knowledge inherently likely to make one an active citizen rather than a proponent of and participant in a technocracy? 

Not that the world of arts education is or has always been some magical never-never-land.   Since we've taken up Dance, in this conversation, as a symbol for the apogee of either frivolity or personal fulfilment, I'll point out that classical ballet is an excellent example of a discipline that's been accused of being hidebound in part because it overemphasizes the technical aspect of the training process, at the expense of the whole (thinking, creative) artist.

So this isn't really about "the arts" versus "the society we live in."  As others have pointed out, creativity can't/shouldn't be thought of exclusively the province of people who call themselves artists.  This is about finding better educational models that can be applied to the sciences, humanities, and arts, models that promote difference, rather than labeling it error. 

I also want to, again, remind us that this never-never-land of creativity/art-making has a place for rigor in it.  And not just of the 100 more pliés variety, but the good kind.  A rigor that's synonymous with sustained, focused inquiry.  That kind of rigor is impossible to maintain if the arts are patronizingly assigned the designation of a "hobby" that mommy should be responsible for nurturing in the kids before they grow up and have to take on real responsibilities.  And our attitude towards the arts, the words we use talk about the arts matter.  Because it totally impacts the way funding flows.  And if it's impossible to support yourself working as an artist in this country (which it is), then artists can't just be artists.  They have to be, primarily, waiters or housepainters or personal trainers who get to spend a few hours a day on their art.  It's difficult to achieve any level of rigor this way.  And if a rigorous artistic practice isn't possible, the quality of the work suffers.  If the people making funding decisions only see this low quality work, they have no reason to believe that the arts are vital.  So they fund inadequately.  And the cycle continues.   Ditto with the "possibilities" of the internet, where you can self-publish to your heart's content... and never make a dime.