March 2009

Thom Mariner
Co-publisher, Express Cincinnati & EXP/arts

First, a disclaimer: I am a sports fan. I was active in sports through high school and still follow them closely today. I am also a professional musician and am passionate about the arts. I have friends who are crazy about sports and other friends who love the arts, but I know very few people who share my bilateral affliction.

Having one foot firmly planted in each camp, my question is this: Why do sports flourish in American culture, but the arts always seem to be on life support?
Cincinnati Bengals fans stand in line to buy season tickets for teams that consistently disappoint. The Cincinnati Symphony, one of the best orchestras anywhere, struggles to attract a diminishing audience. There must be something those in the arts could learn from their sports colleagues.

I have some ideas about this: 1) The interests and passions of adults are shaped by what they do and enjoy growing up. 2) Most every child plays sports to some degree, and professional sports are wildly successful as a result. 3) Fewer children actively “do” art, music, dance, etc., and the arts struggle to attract an adult audience.
People go to baseball games knowing the players, their roles, statistics and what’s at stake in that particular match-up. By contrast, how many times have I been at a symphony concert and overheard someone ask, “So what are they playing tonight, anyway?”

What percentage of audience members at a classical music concert possess more than a surface knowledge of what accounts for a great composition or performance? Without practical knowledge or concrete experience in the arts, people lack the context or vocabulary for grasping the nuances and depth of what they hear or see. As a result, they tend to react viscerally, instinctively.

We have all heard this before: “That’s not art. My kid could do that.” If a symphony, sculpture or play does not appeal immediately, many will dismiss it, and not likely give it a second chance.

Growing up, many of us play some kind of sport. We share that experience of “doing” with others. We watch others play and hear adults talk about games, players, and statistics. As a result, adults possess a vocabulary and frame of reference for appreciating sports.
For some reason, our approach in exposing children to the arts is different. Somewhere along the way the arts became more about studying and revisiting history and less about personal expression and inspiration. Maybe we should concentrate more on helping kids express their emotions artistically and less as to why they should appreciate Rembrandt. The latter will come naturally in time if the seed of passion is planted early on and continually nurtured.
I remember wondering as a tweener piano student why I should care about these old guys Beethoven and Brahms. What did they have to do with my life? I quit after three years to play football. It was only at my parents’ insistence to “do something in music” that I tried out for the choir, found out that I was pretty good at singing, and changed the course of my life. Thanks to my folks for recognizing my true talent and caring enough to give me an ultimatum. But why did it have to come to that? Why wasn’t music more compelling to me as an activity? I certainly had the aptitude for it, and I liked my teacher. Why did I want to quit?

I can’t begin to count the number of people over the years who have told me how they regretted giving up music or drawing or dance as a child and wish their parents had made them continue. Why should it be so hard for parents? Why are we not better at making the arts more appealing to kids? Is it really the fault of pop culture or the digital

age, as many claim, or is it partially because of the manner in which we teach the arts?

On a 1991 Sister City exchange trip to Kharkiv, Ukraine, our Cincinnati contingent toured a magnet-type school for dance. There were hundreds of children. We asked whether all the students were being trained for a career in dance and were told, “Of course not, but someone has to attend the performances!” While I’m not suggesting that this should be our educational model, it does make one wonder about the possibilities.

In spite of compelling data supporting the value of an arts education in creating better students and better citizens (www.newhorizons.org/strategies/arts/locklear.htm), very little has changed positively in terms of our official educational priorities. There are no achievement tests or standards for arts education. As a result, these activities are the first to be put aside in favor of test preparation for the “No Child Left Behind” initiative.

In the award-winning suburban public elementary school that my step-children attended, and at many others in the area, students are instructed in music for only one period per week. What are the chances for true connection or inspiration?

There are educational success stories, such as the implementation of Orff Schulwerk and the Kodaly Method (www.aosa.org/orff.html, www.oake.org/), but these are grass roots efforts dependent on the passion and initiative of individual teachers. Consequently, the success of a program is almost completely dependent on the magnetism of an individual. When personnel changes, so does the program – and often dramatically. What we need are systematic commitments to arts education.

It’s all a matter of what we, as citizens, want schools to emphasize. Why do we, as parents and grandparents, permit art and theater and music and dance to be optional? Why are the arts often considered to be “for someone else,” as a teacher friend of mine put it?
Not only must we engage kids early on, we must do a better job of sustaining their interest through the malaise of adolescence. We have to find ways to make the arts cool, current and part of mainstream culture without dumbing things down. If kids are actively creating art and making their own statements, it will be cool. Think of the possibilities for online interactivity and sharing their own art and music instead of what someone else has made. If they are merely studying what people did in the old days, the arts will continue their long decline.

If the arts are to compete for an audience in this complex world we must capture the imaginations of more children at a very young age and engage them in vital and relevant creative activities. Remember the old Chinese proverb:
Tell me, I’ll forget. Show me, I’ll remember. Involve me, I’ll understand.
Politicians and educational leaders will not pursue this path on our behalf. We, who love the arts, must take the lead. We know what is at stake. Only we can envision the possibilities. We have to show the way.