My thoughts on STEAM/Arts Integration

It's time for the monthly Art Ed Blogger's Network post, when a whole bunch of us art ed bloggers all post on the same day on the same topic that we think will interest all our readers.  This month's theme is a hot topic these days: STEAM/Arts Integration.  I've posted my thoughts about STEAM twice before here on the blog.  If you've never read them before and have a moment, please hop on over to read those posts, because they will enhance what I'm saying today.  You can find them HERE (from May 9, 2017), and HERE (from Feb 1, 2016). 

March's edition of School Arts Magazine is the STEAM-themed issue, timed with the NAEA convention with the NAEA convention theme of Art + Design = STEAM.  For the first time ever, I've become a published author in this issue of School Arts!  You can find my article,The Art and Science of Trihexaflexagons, beginning on page 26. (*If you do look at my article, note that it is listed as elementary, but is really more well-suited to middle level students.  Also, it is really more of a math-integrated project than science; I didn't write the title!) 

If the article intrigues you and you want to know more about trihexaflexagons, you'll find posts about them on my blog HERE from March 2011, HERE from December 2011,and HERE from August 2015, where I talk about the project as it relates to the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

If you read my prior post from May 9, 2017, you'd know there's a strange irony to my being published in the STEAM issue, since in that post I said, regarding STEAM, "I'm here to flat-out tell you, I am so sick and tired of hearing about it."  Yup, I said that.

The fact is, for the 4 decades I've spent teaching art to kids, I've used math and science countless times, and not just making flexagons.   Every time I've guided students how to measure with a ruler or how to draw a geometric shape, every time I've discussed symmetry or taught perspective, and so on, my lesson has incorporated mathematical terminology, math skills.  Every time my students have explored color mixing or used a resist technique, every time they've learned about light and shadow, every time we've mixed plaster of Paris and felt it grow warm and then cold before hardening, every time we've discussed what glues are best to use for porous and non-porous materials, and so on, my lesson has incorporated science.  When a paintbrush, loaded with white paint, was accidentally dipped into blue paint (photo below), we may briefly try to comprehend the science of what is happening, but ultimately, I'm still teaching art.

So WHY, after decades without the label, do I now have to label any lesson that incorporates science or math as a STEAM lesson to prove that I am engaging students in science or math while in art class??  Quite honestly, I think it's ludicrous.  Every time a math teacher or science teacher has a student draw/color a graph or a diagram, do you think they make sure to label it so everyone knows they are incorporating art into their lesson?  Do they refer to it as a STEAM lesson?  No.  I don't think so.

Same thing goes for the elementary classroom teacher that has their students build a model or design a poster.  Do they have an acronym they use to prove to everyone that they are 'teaching' art in their social studies or science or math lesson?  Of course not.  Because they are NOT actually TEACHING art.  They are simply incorporating some art materials and methodology into their academic lesson, which is their primary focus.  The truth is, I do not want them to teach art.  Because that is not their area of expertise, is not what they were trained to teach.  That's MY job, what I spent my career learning to do, and hopefully do well.

And when I teach someone to use a ruler to measure lines to cut a paper loom for weaving, or how to fold a 6-pointed paper snowflake using a protractor, I may be incorporating a specific math-related skill into my art lesson, but I am NOT actually teaching math.  I'm still teaching art; my goal is the art product created using the tools and materials, which might include a ruler or a compass or a protractor.  When I have students write an artist's statement on a piece they've made, I am NOT teaching writing.  I'm using writing as a vehicle to enhance the art curriculum.  I am not trained as a writing teacher, a math teacher, a science teacher, or a social studies teacher.  I may have some knowledge in those various disciplines, but my area of expertise is visual art.

I'm lucky; I'm retired, and I work with students in an independent business, so I don't have to answer to anyone but the parents of the students I teach, who pay for them to attend.  And I can tell you, they want their children to have lots of hands-on art-making time in my program, and are not concerned about acronyms to label the projects we do.  

Am I making sense?  Feel free to disagree!  I know STEAM is the hot topic these days, but I just can't get excited about the terminology.  Thanks for visiting - use the links below to visit some other bloggers' posts on this same topic.  I expect their posts will probably be VERY different than mine. 
This month, The Art Ed Blogger's Network is writing about STEAM/Art Integration. Join us on the first Tuesday each month for new projects, ideas, and inspiration.

Participating Art Teacher Blogs:

• Art Class Curator
• Art Ed Guru
• Art is Basic
• Art Room Blog
• Art with Mr. E
• Arte a Scoula
• Artful Artsy Amy
• Brava Art Press
• Capitol of Creativity
• Create Art with ME
• MiniMatisse
• Mr. Calvert's Art Room Happenings
• Mrs. Boudreaux's Amazing Art Room
• Mrs. T's Art Room
• Party in the Art Room
• shine brite zamorano
• Tales from the Traveling Art Teacher
• There's a Dragon in my Art Room

For Art's Sake!!

It seems like everywhere I turn these days, in my art education literature, and online groups, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is about STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math), Design Integration, Maker Spaces, Media Arts, and so on.  And I'm here to flat-out tell you, I am so sick and tired of hearing about it. 

It makes me wonder why we art educators chose the career we are in.  Did we become art educators to train kids for careers in design? (Not that there's anything wrong with that).  Or did we become art educators to help children explore their creativity, to express themselves through the wonder of that creation?  And, if we consider ourselves artists (which I think most of us do, in one way or another), what, if any, is the relationship of our personal art and STEAM? 

I know for me, making art is a part of who I am, whether it is manipulating with 3-dimensional materials, or painting with a loaded brush, doodling elaborate designs with Flair pens, or even photographing nature.  The art I most care about making is simply "for art's sake".  Sure, I might design and create an article of clothing, or decorate a pair of shoes or purse.  Yes, I might create a whimsical trophy for  an event, and yes, I might enjoy doing these things, but ultimately, the art I care most about creating is that which I create simply because THAT'S WHAT I DO.  I am an artist, and I express myself visually, like a musician uses music for their expression.  My art is simply meant to be seen, to hopefully evoke something in a viewer.  It is not about STEAM. 

And as an educator, I most care about imparting my young students with that love of creating;  I want them to feel joy every time they dip a brush into creamy wet paint, enthusiasm when they put their hands into a bucket of papier-mache goo, surprise when they pull a vibrant print out of a tub of shaving cream, magic when they pull paint over a drawing done with white crayon and the image becomes visible.  I don't want them to feel that every time they make something in art, it automatically has to teach them a science or math or history lesson (Not that there's anything wrong with that).  I don't want them to feel that every piece of art they create has to serve some sort of design purpose beyond simply BEING ART.  Honestly?  I don't think I was originally hired with the intent that I was preparing kids for a design career.  I think the arts are included in a well-rounded education because they address the needs of the soul.  The arts make us human. 

 Let's face it, most of the artists we teach kids about in class did not create art for any reason other than something in their soul said that it was what they 'had' to do.  We know that Van Gogh painted because of a deep need inside, despite the hardships he endured because of this need.  Think of the lives of other artists we learn about.  How many of them were making art to serve any other purpose beyond that of creating beauty or provoking thought?  I mean, why else would my family and I build these ridiculous sand sculptures year after year, laboring in the hot sun, knowing that by the next day, the tide will wash it away?

Even now, why do so many people flock to art museums?   Often, to view a certain exhibition in a museum, you need to buy tickets in advance, that are timed, to handle the crowds.  We don't stand on line to see a Matisse cutout or a Chihuly glass sculpture or a because of how it will enhance a new technological discovery.  We choose to view the artwork for how it makes us FEEL.  People go to concerts to hear music, or to watch dancers simply to see them move, because, again, of how it makes them FEEL.  The most  important purpose of the arts, in my opinion, is not what it  does technologically, but how it makes us feel.  Why else, many years ago, did my family and I, and thousands of other people, stroll through Central Park in single-digit temperatures and an icy wind, to see Christo's "Gates" - billowing curtains of golden-orange fabric?   It evoked joy, on some level I can't even explain.  That's what the arts do.  (I wish I could find my photos of it; it was a "pre-digitial" event.  But since I can't, here's a photo from a Chihuly exhibit in Boston a few years ago, where people stood on line for HOURS to get in, simply to view art!) 

So, excuse me, when you talk about Design education and Maker Spaces and all the other buzz words of the moment, if you see me zoning out.  My students and I will be happily exploring the tactile world of making art with hands-on materials, just because, simply, we are artists, and that's what brings us joy.  And now, I will close this post with a photo of a moose on a roof. 

STEM? STEAM? Where does ART fit in?

A rare blog post without pictures?  Well - that sounds like a bad idea, so, since in my post title I mentioned STEM and STEAM, here's a pic of a stem, and one of some steam (well actually fog, but it will have to do).

 But now I'm going to get on to what this post is REALLY about, and it will not include any more photos until the end.  Instead, I am going to discuss something that might turn out to be a controversial topic.  Well, it won't be the first time, will it?

I want to begin this blog post with a link to a Commentary column that was in the local newspaper (the Glens Falls Post Star) a couple of days ago.  The columnist is Will Doolittle, and he put into words something that I've thought about but never dared vocalize or share.  Until now.  Here.  Today.

The article is titled "Art is an unmatched subject".   The author is very supportive of art education.  I happen to know that the columnist's daughters are both college students, and while I have no idea what they are studying in college, it might well be art in some form for at least one of them.  I recall seeing their artwork in a prestigious juried high school art show, so I know that art was a large part of their high school life, and that they were very original and capable young artists.  So he, as a parent, certainly recognizes the value that art education has held for his own children.  And I thank him for that.

Anyhow - the article mentions a visit to our lovely little local art museum, the Hyde Collection, made by NY Congresswoman Elise Stefanik.  She and the museum director "made a point to endorse art as a subject for study in high school and college".  But, the article goes on to say, "They couldn't support art on its own, however.  To get art top billing, they've had to hook it to a curriculum superstar... STEM."  (Which of course then becomes STEAM, as he goes on to say.)

Doolittle defends the teaching of art as a stand-alone discipline, rather than a part of this STEM initiative.  He says "Art ...should be the foundation of public education.  Studio art and music should be compulsory subjects along with reading and math, from kindergarten through high school graduation."  What a powerful statement!  He further says "It's too bad that art's advocates feel they have to hitch it to math and technology to promote its importance.  Art came first.  Art is more universal and more useful."  And that, my friends, is the heart of the matter that I've thought but been too timid to admit out loud. 


I could quote the whole article here, but I will share Mr. Doolittle's closing lines: "Art doesn't need to get shoehorned in with the latest academic fad.  Art stands alone, and our students' time cannot be used better than in the study and practice of it."  To this I say, Hurrah, hurrah!!  I should note that he also makes some points about math and such that I don't necessarily agree with completely.  But I do like his statement that "we have gone overboard in our embrace of ...STEM".  Though not necessarily for the reasons he states.

I have been cautious in my endorsement of the concept of STEM and even of STEAM, even as I have sat at state art education association board meetings and listened to STEAM initiatives and so on.  But some of my reasoning is a touch different than his.  Don't get me wrong - I am not anti science and math.  As a matter of fact, I was, along with being an artsy kid, also a kid who excelled in math and loved science.  If my portfolio hadn't gotten me accepted into my chosen college program, I was prepared to instead choose a science-oriented education and career path.  Science is what makes the world tick, and with discoveries being made every day, and still to be made, to me science seems like the most creative of the "academic" disciplines.

But I am concerned about what is left out of STEM besides the arts. The humanities are ignored completely.   How about literature and poetry?  How about social studies/history classes?  Multicultural awareness?

Economics?  Global Studies?  Ancient civilizations?  (I could go on.)  These seem to be getting tossed to the side.  How can we expect today's kids to make our world a better place if we take away the importance of learning about our world works, and what has happened in it in the past that has made it the way it is?  Or if we take away the enjoyment of reading for pleasure?

I am worried that the intense focus on technology/engineering/math, whether through STEM or STEAM, is sucking the humanity out of education.  We need our children to become all sorts of adults, not just engineers and designers, and STEM is only a tiny part of what they need.  We need education to build compassionate adults.

While I agree that it is important to mention the critical roll that art and design play in science/engineering/technology/math, the arts are so much more than simply design.  We are not all interested/involved in art to be designers.  We teach and learn art for so many more reasons - to learn ways to express our humanity - to learn critical thinking and independent decision making - to make social statements - to simply make us happy! Again, to build engaging, compassionate adults, with a joy of the beauty of our world  The arts are the soul of education.  Do they have to be tied to STEM to have value?  Is the focus of education on STEM or even STEAM even a good thing?  What do you think?

I think I've made my point.  I'll close with a few of my old photos, randomly selected to hopefully remind us that sometimes art (and photography can be art, of course) need exist for nothing more than to bring peace and joy.  And isn't that sometimes enough?