Actually, in general I am absolutely sure and convinced that the Prussian result-oriented system is not the perfect education model for teaching performing arts. The funny thing about this whole thing that teachers know this very well, but as soon as you get to the board of the school and the students and their results become numbers in statistics, sh*t hits the fan and art education is being pushed into marketing terms and norms, and in the end the ones who damage the most are the students. Being considered as a single number in the statistics puts pressure on the student, which is not a bad thing, but the more sensitive ones just barely able or completely unable to deal with the stress this result-based system brings. That's why you can see many crying dancers, musicians (especially singers) on the corridors around the time of exams and personal evaluation.
But the core of the problem is what society demands us to do: be fast, produce good results and make a lot of money. If we are talking about arts these demands will only bring misfortune and make artists miserable. Why? I think it's obvious, but here's the thing:
- You need to take the time for doing well something. Sometimes it happens in a split of a second, but many of us need time, and rushing us will only make us frustrated and anxious which leads to even slower process.
- Producing good results is a contradiction in itself, since the term "good" is a relative; a result's goodness very much depends on the situation in question.
- If you think you can make a lot of money with arts, you have definitly chosen for the wrong carreer. Nowadays you can make a lot of money by making people miserable or benefit from miserable people (for example a lawyer, an undertaker, a doctor or a financial expert will always have a good salary, because there will be always lawsuits for lawyers, dead to bury, sick people to cure and poor people). Every profession connected to arts will always cost more work than you actually get paid for, and also you make people happy and you entertain them (hopefully).
Another twist in this system comes from this: not only singers, instrumentalists are working on their technique during their training, and then get an evaluation on their performing skills. I mean, how sick is that? Yes, work on that scale and that excercise, but actually we won't care about that on your exam! Ehh??? As soon as I managed to understand that the exam committee won't ever pay any attention to my technique but my performance skills and I began to work on rather enjoying making music than worry about the deficiencies of my technique, my grades and evaluation became (step by step) better and better. And here's another twist: your audience doesn't care about your technique, neither are they interested in a perfect technique.
Sooo... basically we are running in circles when it comes to music education. I wonder why is that... Why can't we try to find a proper solution for the situation in question instead of sticking to solution patterns? Because that's what marketing does: using patterns, which works everywhere perfectly fine except arts, and here I'm not talking about organizing an event, I'm talking about achieving results in the personal development of a performer and/or an artist.
Why are we so obsessed with pushing arts in marketing terms and try to evaluate its relsults based on numbers while we know it doesn't work that way? It's like being a complete retard: I know this rounded shaped object won't fit in this tiny square shaped hole but I will still do my best to fit it even if I know that the round shaped object would fit in a round shaped hole, and I have to find a tiny cube for this tiny square shaped hole. Simply madness... Arts don't work like this...
No comments:
Post a Comment