|
When one considers art, one typically thinks of what a particular piece of art evokes within them � or at least they should be encouraged to think in such a way. Art takes many forms: music, painting, sculpture, literature. Literature!? Wait a moment; art is subjective is it not? The listener, viewer, reader, etc. is left freedom to interpret a personal meaning, unique to them. The implied meaning of a song or painting varies greatly depending on who you ask; why is literature not that way? If literature is an art form, then why are students forced to accept an alleged concrete theme, tone, or mood of every literary work they are subjected to throughout the course of their education? Perhaps this method encourages creativity, independent thought, or evaluation skills. If this was the case then creativity and independent thought would be quite evident in students, now wouldn�t it? Evaluation skills would most likely be substantially higher, right? Perhaps it doesn�t then. Maybe students aren�t being taught to develop the critical thinking skills that are necessary to survival in the real world that so many teachers speak of. Evaluate this. It seems as though students are taught to repress any fleeting glimmer of mental independence and quietly submit to popular views that are determined by state and local governments. Any less-than-desirable thoughts are promptly suppressed with the deadly subtlety of a less-than-desirable grade. Perhaps students are taught that, if they are to survive their education, they are to bend to the morass of the system. Perhaps I�m overlooking things. Perhaps I�m being shortsighted. What if the education system is meant to frustrate to the point where one desperately seeks mental liberation. If that�s the case then the folks that cook up �the system� need to make it a bit more frustrating to increase its effectiveness. Perhaps this entire article is total conjecture, given away by its characteristic usage of the word �perhaps�, but at least it�s something to think about. |
|
