The Draft Curriculum Document

Having, I hope, clarified the issues, let us turn to the Draft, and related questions more specific to New Zealand.

While I have offered some constructive criticisms of the Draft, these do not relate to the generic issue. On the contrary, in my view the authors are to be warmly commended for explicitly emphasising the distinctness of each art form which should be educated in its own right. It seems to me that the document is scrupulous in this respect. For example, on p.9 it is clearly stated that the arts do not form a universal language, and that understanding within one discipline is not transferable to another. On p.75, while commending the additional possibility of combined arts, it is stated explicitly and correctly that nevertheless each art form remains discrete.

Combined arts

In this respect, I should like to correct a misleading impression given in an interview with me which appeared in the New Zealand Educational Review, in which it was stated that I believe: 'that the arts should co-operate on occasion, such as in multimedia art or live performances. But those occasions should be the exception rather than the norm.'

In fact, although this is an understandable misconstruction, I did not say that, and I do not hold that view. I recall a similar, but more extreme, misunderstanding in Brasil, when one of my former Ph.D. students, now the leading figure in drama in education in her country, wrote to say that multi-media arts are very popular, but it was assumed that my views implied an opposition to such activities. This is untrue, for I am certainly not in the least opposed to combined, multi-media arts, and neither do I believe that they should necessarily be the exception. My point, which is also made in the Draft, is that where there are such activities, nevertheless they are combinations of distinct disciplines. That is not in the least to deny the potential validity and value of multi-media work, or to imply that it should be the exception. As I hope I made abundantly clear, the important point is that there can be no general rule here: the value of a multi-media performance, or combined arts activity, will always relate to a particular case. It will depend ultimately upon the informed, imaginative judgement of teachers as to whether combining the relevant art forms is likely to produce a worthwhile result. This implies nothing about how many such performances there can fruitfully be. There may be very many of them, and they may be excellent. I have seen many such excitingly imaginative events, both within schools and by professional artists.

The point can be clarified by considering examples from outside the arts. Some subjects necessarily involve others. Mathematics is inseparable from at least many sciences, perhaps especially physics. Nevertheless mathematics is also a separate discipline. History cannot be learned in isolation from geography. The clearest example from my experience derives from my undergraduate days. Some of my colleagues came up to study geography but, to their dismay, discovered that at Cambridge geography involved mathematics to a higher level than they had reached. They could not have improved their mathematics sufficiently only within the study of geography, but only by further work in mathematics itself..

Cultural relativity

What constitute distinct art forms in Western cultures may not do so in other cultures. For example, during my recent visit I was told that in traditional Maori culture there is no separation of dance and drama: they are a unity to express and transmit through the generations the legends, stories, history etc. which largely and profoundly constitute Maori cultural, and thus individual, identity and value.

I was also told that in some Pacific islands there could be no intelligible separation of music, dance and drama, since music and rhythms are always integral to the dance/drama performances and rituals which express cultural value and identity. A society could easily be imagined in which visual arts were also inseparable.

This suggests the need for considerable caution about applying conceptions from one culture to those of other cultures. I have written more extensively on this fascinating issue elsewhere, but, to give a brief example, some years ago I was taken deep into the bush in Australia to see what was called the "art gallery" of aboriginal cave paintings. They were of great interest. But I seriously question whether these fascinating cave paintings can legitimately be called "art", and the cave a "gallery". They are so old that we do not know what was their significance in the society of that time, and therefore it may be highly misleading to impose on them the category of "art" in our sense.

Similarly, some cultures do not, or did not, have a concept of drama in our sense of the term. The point was brought out, you may remember, in a New Zealand context, in the film The Piano, and I could give other examples.

The difficulty of translation is the clearest expression of the issue. It is recognised by my friend Drid Williams, in the USA in the title of the Journal for the Anthropological Study of Human Movement, which she edits. It is almost exclusively concerned with dance, but the very nature of her anthropological work, the study of cultural differences, reveals that what we might at first be inclined to call "dance" in another culture may be an activity of such different significance that this term may be highly misleading. Hence she uses the term "movement" in an attempt to be uncontroversially neutral. You may notice that I express the point cautiously. It is notoriously difficult in such cases to find a neutral term. In this case, for instance, to refer to an exquisite dance performance as "movement" might be regarded as insulting! However, the example brings out my point.

Many years go I visited an exhibition of Inuit art in Toronto. At the entrance was a notice: "In the Inuit language there are 23 words for snow, but not one for art". Traditionally, the Inuits had no concept of art: carvings etc were solely for ritual significance. Indeed, it is arguable that before the Renaissance there was no concept of art in at least parts of Europe: if one were to have asked a pre- or early Renaissance painter whether what he was doing was an expression of religion, or art, he would have been unable to understand the question, since there was no separable concept of art. "Art" just was an expression of religious belief.

I am grateful to 'Okusitino Mahina, of Auckland University, but originally, if I remember correctly, from Tonga, for giving me an excellent example, during a conversation during my recent visit. Apparently there is in his language no adequate term for what we call art or the arts. They would use the word " faiva", which translates into English as something like "What is done in time and space". ( I apologise if I have misconstrued what he said. Obviously I defer to those with greater and deeper knowledge of these cultures, which I should be fascinated to visit. But the point is clear enough.)

To repeat, my point here is that what I have said about the discrete character of the art forms may not apply to other cultures.

Slightly obliquely, as a visit to Italy reveals, even for a contemporary European to appreciate adequately Renaissance art - Giotto etc.- demands a great effort of sensitive imagination in the attempt to enter to some extent their world, their understandings. Imagination is required not only to create, but also to appreciate, art.

These examples underline the necessity for open-minded humility, and sensitivity, to understand the arts, not only of other cultures, but even of different socio-historical contexts of one's own culture. The difficulty can hardly be overemphasised, because one is inevitably confronting the arts of other cultures with the vision conferred by one's own. There is much more I should like to say about this fascinating question of understanding other cultures, but it is too much of a diversion ( I have written on it elsewhere.) The point is condensed in D.H. Lawrence's remark: " I am not free, any more than a rooted tree is free." One's understanding is rooted in a culture: one cannot adopt a supposedly "ideally neutral" position from which to appreciate others. Nevertheless, one can, with sensitivity, humility and imagination, move towards that appreciation.

The point about the deep impregnation of cultural values is also made in the anecdote of the American visitor to Cambridge who, impressed by the quality of the lawns, asked a gardener in one College how it was achieved. The gardener replied: "Oh, it is quite easy, sir. You just sow the seeds, then when the grass grows, you water, mow and roll it for three or four hundred years."

Similarities

Two criticisms of the Draft seem to be based on a confusion. It was said that surely the very fact of producing a single policy document for all the arts implies an assumption of the generic notion. But this is not so. A policy document may apply to the whole curriculum without implying that all subjects are species of the same genus, or form a unity. There are many such examples. There is no contradiction in including all the arts in one document, while insisting on their vital separate identity.

A more plausible criticism is that, in the Draft, the same, or similar, categories are applied across the range of the arts. But again that does not imply a covert concession to generic arts. It is important to remember the foregoing clarification of the concept. To deny that the arts constitute a generic unity is not in the least to deny that there are similarities, even important similarities, among the arts. It is to deny that there is some essential characteristic or set of characteristics which would allow us to regard them as a unity; it is to deny the senseless notion of a general artistic ability which can be developed through any one art form; it is to deny that one art form could be substituted for another.

Nevertheless, it may be useful to propose a policy which is based to some extent on similarities. Imagination is necessary in all the arts, but it is by no means limited to the arts: it ought to be promoted in all subjects. And the criteria for imagination are different in different art forms.

Choice of art form

Let me respond to another surprising criticism as follows: that students have at some stage to choose to continue with only one art form implies nothing about a supposed general artistic understanding. Such choices are inevitable: at school I had to choose one out of several possible languages because we could not possible have continued to study all of them. But it would be absurd to say that this implies a general linguistic understanding.

I highly commend the Draft's emphasis that ideally all children should have the opportunity to experience all the art forms, so that, when a decision has to be made, it will be an informed choice. You cannot sensibly choose to pursue an activity of which you have no experience.

Practical problems

Problems of implementation are, of course, outside my scope, but with some diffidence, I shall offer some reflections. It has been said that the Draft may be impossible to implement because of lack of sufficient numbers of appropriately qualified teachers. A school in a remote area is unlikely to have specialists in each of the arts forms. That is, of course, true, and I do not in the least minimise the difficulty. But, to some extent, many schools, especially Primary, have coped with this problem for years. Most commonly, for example, a teacher of general subjects also takes the music or physical education, exchanging classes for the lesson. Where there is no such teacher, it may be possible to co-operate with other schools to share expertise. Moreover, as far as possible, some teachers may wish, or volunteer, for professional development courses in subjects which are lacking. Immediate remedies will be impossible in many cases, but progressively progress can be made towards the full implementation of the arts curriculum proposal. It will, of course, require strong commitment by the Government.

Even if it should be impossible to implement fully, in my view it is abundantly worth while to set out an ideal of provision of experience of every art form for every child. That ideal should be pursued with vigorous initiative. We owe it to our children and students to try to ensure that the rich human values of the arts are central to education.

Dr David Best

Professor of Philosophy, University of Wales, Swansea, Wales, UK

Senior Academic Fellow and Hon. Professor, De Montfort University, Leicester