Brilliance

I posted this link on my Facebook page a few days ago, but I loved this article so much that I decided I would write about it here as well. I'm the product of a family that didn't completely understand my art. Not to say they weren't supportive (um, okay, my mom was supportive), but they worried that I wasn't making the right decision with my future plans. Sometimes they were verbal (my dad) and sometimes they weren't, but I always knew that there was a small amount of fear every time I reported my printmaking or sculpture grades.

I'd like to claim that I always knew what I was doing – that I was confident in my talent enough to never listen to those soft whispers of doubt. I'd be a big, fat liar. I always knew that I wanted to be a designer and I "thought" that I would be okay, but I could never be sure. I guess we never can be 100% positive in our career path, but I have to admit that I was a tad jealous of my friends that majored in elementary education, knowing that they would be cleaning snotty noses and writing lesson plans before I could say "boo."

Now that it's 2011, there is something scary about the mentality of our nation regarding the Arts. This feeling that our youth's ability to compete in a global perspective is directly tied to their advancement through math and science is complete bunk. I'm not capable of articulating my thoughts regarding this disconnect as well as Michael Roth has. Mr. Roth is the president of Wesleyan University, which, as a good Methodist, makes me smile. He is an excellent writer and I couldn't say this better myself. I encourage you to read the entire article here. In the mean time, I will simply give you some of the highlights.

In recent years university leaders in Asia, the Mideast and even Europe have sought to organize curricula more like those of our liberal art schools. How, they want to know, can we combine rigorous expectations of learning with the development of critical thinking and creativity that are the hallmarks of the best American colleges?

But in our own land we are running away from the promise of liberal education. We are frightened by economic competition, and many seem to have lost confidence in our ability to draw from the resources of a broadly based education. Instead, they hope that technical training or professional expertise on their own will somehow invigorate our culture and society.

Many seem to think that by narrowing our focus to just science and engineering, we will become more competitive. This is a serious mistake.

Our leaders in government, industry and academia should realize that they don't have to make a choice between the sciences and the rest of the liberal arts. Indeed, the sciences are a vital part of the liberal arts.

The key to our success in the future will be an integrative education that doesn't isolate the sciences from other parts of the curriculum, and that doesn't shield the so-called creative and interpretive fields from a vigorous understanding of the problems addressed by scientists.

We should look at education not as a specific training program for a limited range of mental muscles but as a process through which one will generate some of the most important features in one's life. It makes no sense to train people as narrowly as possible in a world going through cataclysmic changes, for you are building specific strengths that leave you merely muscle-bound, not stronger and more flexible.

We should think of education as a kind of intellectual cross-training that leads to many more things than at any one moment you could possibly know would be useful. The most powerful education generates further curiosity, new needs, experiences to meet those needs, more curiosity and so on.

Education isn't just an object that you use to get started in a career; education is a catalytic resource that continues to energize and shape your life. Education enhances your ability to develop new skills and capacities for connectivity that allow you to solve problems and seize opportunities.

See what I mean? Brilliant.