A glance at teaching art in schools that are suffering from financial difficulty always bring light question that several times provoked discussions, that is, whether they have to invest their budget for music or visual art. Some people contend that if the school has only limitted choice for their art education, it should rather be invested for music class than painting or othe kinds of visual art class. However, I suggest that the choice should be visual art, in terms of cost saving and time efficiency. In the ensuing paragraph, I will try to shed some light on this point of view by providing amples examples and conpicuous reasons.
The exquisite point to be mentioned firstly is that it is cheaper to teach visual art than teaching music. There is a research that proves this standpoint. The federal governmet of art education US investigated two groups of public schools on the total amount of money they spend for art education. The result showed that the group of schools where they decided to use their money for music class spent around 20, 000 dollars per year more than the group of schools who ran visaul art programs. This was due to the fact that musical instruments are expensive than buying tools needed for drawing or painting, and also shcools had to hire a music speciallist to sustain the condition of instruments, which cost them extra money.
Another point to be mentioned is that the education on music takes more time than teaching visual art. For example, it takes from minimum of several months to years to become able to play Clarinet properly. Nevertheless, all students have ability to observe an apple and are capable of draw things on paper at a girst look, with few lines of instruction. This demonstrates that shcools who try to give musical classes to kids or students should start their course from lower grades, and it' s not appropriate for shcools where they are struggling with economic issues.
Although the foregoing points cross the mind at a first sight, it does not mean that they are the only one. Actually, there is another subtle perspective which must be borne in mind. It should be noted that getting engaged in visual art classes releases stress much effectively than the music classes do. For example, I had both music class and painting class when I was in middle school. And music class was especially stressful for me because I was not good at singing nor at playing piano. Instead, all I was waiting for the whole week was the painting class, because the teacher let students draw whatever they want and that clearly helped me to relieve my worrysome thoughts.
Due to the above mentioned ground, I firmly believe that schools where they are troubleshooting with financial problems should choose to give visual art classes than music classes, and economically acceessible tools and the benefit in time saving are two prime and momentous reasons.
A glance at teaching
art
in
schools
that are suffering from financial difficulty always bring light question that several
times
provoked discussions,
that is
, whether they
have to
invest their budget for
music
or visual
art
.
Some
people
contend that if the
school
has
only
limitted
choice for their
art
education
, it should
rather
be invested
for
music
class
than
painting
or
othe
kinds of visual
art
class
.
However
, I suggest that the choice should be visual
art
, in terms of cost saving and
time
efficiency. In the ensuing paragraph, I will try to shed
some
light on this
point
of view by providing
amples
examples and
conpicuous
reasons.
The exquisite
point
to
be mentioned
firstly
is that it is cheaper to teach visual
art
than teaching
music
. There is
a research
that proves this standpoint. The federal
governmet
of
art
education
US investigated two groups of public
schools
on the total amount of money they spend for
art
education
. The result
showed
that the group of
schools
where they decided to
use
their money for
music
class
spent around 20, 000 dollars per year more than the group of
schools
who ran
visaul
art
programs. This was due to the fact that musical instruments are
expensive
than buying tools needed for drawing or
painting
, and
also
shcools
had to hire a
music
speciallist
to sustain the condition of instruments, which cost them extra money.
Another
point
to
be mentioned
is that the
education
on
music
takes more
time
than teaching visual
art
.
For example
, it takes from minimum of several months to years to become able to play Clarinet
properly
.
Nevertheless
, all students have ability to observe an apple and are capable of draw things on paper at a
girst
look, with few lines of instruction. This demonstrates that
shcools
who try to give musical
classes
to kids or students should
start
their course from lower grades, and
it&
#039; s not appropriate for
shcools
where they are struggling with economic issues.
Although the foregoing
points
cross the mind at a
first
sight, it does not mean that they are the
only
one. Actually, there is another subtle perspective which
must
be borne
in mind. It should
be noted
that getting engaged in visual
art
classes
releases
stress
much
effectively
than the
music
classes
do.
For example
, I had both
music
class
and
painting
class
when I was in middle
school
. And
music
class
was
especially
stressful for me
because
I was not
good
at singing nor at playing piano.
Instead
, all I was waiting for the whole week was the
painting
class
,
because
the teacher
let
students draw whatever they want and that
clearly
helped
me to relieve my
worrysome
thoughts.
Due to the above mentioned ground, I
firmly
believe that
schools
where they are troubleshooting with financial problems should choose to give visual
art
classes
than
music
classes
, and
economically
acceessible
tools and the benefit in
time
saving are two prime and momentous reasons.