Which, I hear, is a very good place to start. Apparently, when you read you being with ABC, when you sing you begin with Do-Re-Mi. When considering creativity in education you could do worse than listen to Ken Robinson on the subject. For once size does matter and it's well worth listening and watching right through to the end (it doesn't hurt that the message is wrapped in such an entertaining package).
There's a serious message here about the fact that education tends to stifle creativity when it should be celebrating and nurturing it. Do we just want children who can do? Or do we want them to be able to do creatively in whatever subject or field?
It annoys me that art is seen as a soft subject and not as worthy as, say, mathematics when it has so much to offer (including a lot of links with mathematics). As a child I wanted to be an artist but my school had other ideas for me, especially as I was also good at things like mathematics. I could have been good at both but it seemed to be an either-or situation with teachers at the time. I was no creative genius but I could certainly have been more creative than I was. We should all take time to stop and think about what would happen to Leonardo da Vinci in today's education system. Would we still get the Mona Lisa as well as early ideas for the invention of the helicopter? Not to mention all the other topics to which he turned his attention. Were the observational skills so useful to his artistic production also useful in scrutinising the world around him? Were his mathematical skills in geometry and proportion also useful in his painting? Or did the one support and enhance the other?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment