Lisa Pasch "Art as a teaching tool"

In our public schools, the fine arts programs are being reconsidered and often cut due to budget restrictions and lack of justification of curriculum. As a future music educator, I always root for the fine arts programs, not just because I would like to have a job when I graduate, but also because I really believe in the teaching power of art in all its forms.

The purpose of teaching in any capacity is to develop your students cognitively. Information processing, retention, brain development, and memory are all things we should be working on developing in our students. But isn’t it also important to consider a student’s creative capacities, emotional communication skills, psychomotor and social skills? I believe the fine arts cover all of these in some form or another. Particularly in musical ensembles, students are provided with a place in which the student can develop leadership skills through section leading, attention development with times of focus and keeping with the rhythm of a piece, physical coordination of dance while singing or playing an instrument, creative expression through the performance of a piece, historical and cultural knowledge from the different genres of music that can be performed, and a setting in which groups of peers can work together in a positive and supportive environment developing social skills and learning of social cues. All of those things are important too, right? If I as a music teacher can fit all of these things into my classroom on a daily basis, doesn’t that make the synthesis of knowledge and skill easier for the student if they can grasp it in more than one medium? Sure you can teach these things in a History class, but only if the teacher is creative enough to find a way to get the students moving, working, listening, talking to each other in an organized manner, and still having enough time for formal and informal assessments of a student learning and communicating their development at the same time. I find that because these learning opportunities are already engrained in the traditional music classroom format, it is less of a challenge for teachers of other subjects who also have students in the music classroom. I also think it’s important for students to be able to gain these skills in a variety of mediums, not just in a “sit and listen to the teacher” kind of class that we see most commonly in the public schools of today.

The question I am most often asked as a future educator is “Do you teach music, students, or students through music.” I have chosen to focus on being a teacher of students through music. Yes, scales, music theory, music history, singing correct pitches, and playing with correct rhythms are all important. But the things you can learn through experiencing music, not just honking out notes on your clarinet, are far more valuable than being a good performer of music. I hope that when I graduate, people still find value in fine arts classes in the public schools. Not just for my financial stability but also because I would like to see the future of our country have the opportunities to grow in many different capacities and be able to pass on the cultural and expressional value of the arts.

Lisa Pasch "Tolstoy's Popularity"

One of the more popular paper topics of the class dealt with Tolstoy’s theory of art as communication. He says defines his theory as such: “Through the use of such devices as color, sound, and movement, art communicates to its audience a feeling or emotion that the artist has previously experienced.” As I have already stated in my paper topic to the class, I believe that this theory is valid but does not cover every single piece of art that has ever existed because it makes a lot of assumptions about the artist’s personal goals in his or her artwork.

This post is not meant to be a continuation of my paper topic, but to consider why Tolstoy’s theory resonates with so many people in the class and around the world. I don’t assume every single person in the class is an artist, and I don’t claim to be one myself, but we can all relate to the desire to communicate emotion. As human beings, everything we do is lined with emotions. The way we experience things, the way we view things, the way we communicate with other human beings…we can associate an emotion with all of those things. For example, when first meeting someone you remember what someone wears or how they acted towards you and what you thought about it. Was it a cute outfit? Was their shirt dirty and unkempt? Did their shoes match their belt? Did fidget when they stood to talk to you? Were they texting while you were introducing yourself? Did you like their necklace? Through noticing these things, we can feel comfortable or uncomfortable, happy, irritated, pleased, and so on all from the smallest of characteristics, and our opinions of them from that first impression are tainted with whatever emotion we were feeling at that time, whether it be related to their appearance or not. So I think that because we all have emotions, even in the smallest of circumstances, it is our natural desire to share those emotions with others and relate with others in some way.

That’s where Tolstoy comes into play. We all have these emotions, and we all want to communicate, so it’s natural to assume that an artist is making art for the purpose of that communication. As much as we feel from seeing a piece of art, so we assume that artist was also feeling or experiencing at a similar or more pronounced level. With ancient art, we can only guess what the purpose of some art work was. With modern art, we can speak with the artist, gain understanding, read their writings on whatever they were creating, hear from someone else who had spoken with them about the piece, and more. We can develop a better understanding, but as for art before the time of written communication, can we really say that all of the things we consider to be art work of the time to be a vehicle for communication for the artist? I don’t think that it’s fair to say that every artist creates art for the same reason, even if that reason is understandable and relatable from an onlookers point of view. I can see why Tolstoy is so popular among students, but I don’t know if it’s incredibly fair to say it applies for all. I think a combination of Tolstoy’s theories with those of others may provide us with a more complete understanding of the purpose and meaning of artwork.

Allie Stough The Nature of Art

Though the principles of taste be universal, and nearly, if not entirely the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgement on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty.

Anyone can look at a piece of artwork and think about it, but few can actually critique it or judge it based on their view of beauty and knowledge of art.

Allie Stough Sacred and Profane Beauty

In the dance, man discovers the rhythm of the motion that surrounds him. He discovers the rhythm and invents a response, but it is a response that has its own forms, that is stylized and ordered. He places his own movements and those of the creatures which surround him into an ordered whole.

When dancing man finds the rhythm. He responds to it, but it is a response that is unique and ordered. He put his movements along with others into an ordered form.

Allie Stough Sacred and Profane Beauty

P. 89 Sacred and Profane Beauty

The actor does not play the role of a man, but the role of a role. Art is not imitation, but reduction of everything to a single principle. Dramatic art is ritual.

The actor just plays the part. Art does not reproduce, but a symbol of one idea. Drama is a form of ritual.

Allie Stough Sacred and Profane Beauty

P. 102 Sacred and Profane Beauty

For it is one of the most noble forms of the great human art of comprehension, of placing one's self "inside another." To find all men in yourself, that is the secret of forgiveness and of love.

To be able to forgive, you must find a little bit of something of them in yourself.

Allie Stough Nature and Beauty

P. 59 The Nature of Art

Nature proved beautiful when it wore the appearance of art; and art can only be termed beautiful; where we are conscious of its being art, while yet it has the appearance of nature.

When art has nature in it, it is beautiful; art is the only thing that can be called beautiful; we are aware of it being art but it looks like nature.