Public v. Private

This chapter was particularly interesting to me because from preschool to 12th grade I attended a private school, but would always wonder how public school art education differed from my own experiences. My parents chose a private (Catholic) school because they wanted my sisters and I to have religious education focused on their faith. Although, they always allowed us to have say in where we wanted to attend. For example, I enjoyed my school and had friends that attended there, but my sisters sought other opportunities at the public school that my school didn't provide for them. My middle sister transferred to the public school at the beginning of her junior year of high school. She wanted to attend a larger school and her best friend went to the public school. My youngest sister transferred for her freshman year because of her interest in marching band and jazz band. The private school didn't have many opportunities in music. Looking back, I enjoyed the activities I participated in, but wondered if I would've had more opportunities in art classes if I had transferred as well. Looking at the vast amount of art classes the public schools offered made me envious compared to the four art classes my school provided. I wondered if I would've been introduced to new medias I'd never experienced before. My experience really resonates with this quote from the chapter, "A result of privatized education and the emphasis on school choice is that visual and performing arts curricula are being reduced and even eliminated as offerings for all students, and narrowed to "choice" options for a few." Unfortunately, my school didn't have the funds or means to support a lot of art and music education

After going to school for so many years in a private school, I've decided I don't want to teach in the privatized sector for education. I think there are less opportunities for the arts and those are the first classes to get cut. There is much more of a narrow and restricted path for curriculum in the arts as well. At my school an elementary art teacher was fired for showing paintings from art history with nudity in it to upper elementary students. I'm not sure if this would be the same in public schools, but it surprised me personally. Maybe the students were seen as too young to view artwork like that or maybe it was just deemed too inappropriate by parents? There was a more recent situation with artwork that was displayed in halls being taken down as well. A group of students created wonderful poster drawings of diversity chickens from all different backgrounds and explained how everyone was allowed to express themselves differently. A parent complained that these drawings were supporting LGBTQ+ groups and those ideas were going against the Catholic Church "teachings". The principal and administration took the drawings down which upset much of the student body and many faculty members. I was really disappointed and angered to hear this situation occur at the school I graduated from and how the administration responded. It goes against my personal views and teaching philosophy that students should be able to express themselves and feel respected and safe in their own learning environment.

If a student in my art class created a piece of artwork with controversial themes (either positive or negative) in it I would first talk to them one on one and ask them to tell me about their piece and why they created it or what inspired them. I would also ask if they wanted it to be displayed or not. Depending on school regulations and rules, I would talk to my principal and administration to see if they would support displaying the student's artwork. If they agreed and were in support, I would display it (with the student's permission). If they weren't in support or thought it was too inappropriate for display, I would talk to the student and try to explain to them why the school wasn't in support and try to show the student that expression is still very important in art. If the student really wanted to display their artwork somewhere publicly, I would try to help them find a place in the community that would be more in support.

A controversial artwork that angered many, yet was still displayed in the public eye at the Brooklyn Museum, was Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary. Displayed in 1999, the piece evoked many different emotions by viewers. Ofili's artwork depicts a black Virgin Mary adorned with nude, "pornographic" female body parts around it. Elephant dung is also used in the piece. Many people protested when they saw his piece and some even tried to cover it up with white paint. The mayor at the time threatened to reduce funding if it wasn't removed. However, I don't think Ofili created this piece just to upset people and be disrespectful. I think he was trying to get the viewer to think about how the Virgin Mary is typically portrayed in art history. Usually portrayed as a white, innocent female, Ofili wanted to push the boundaries by displaying her as differently than the traditional representation. He wanted to incorporate politics, religion, identity, and race into the portrait to alter the way we think.

(https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/global-culture/identity-body/identity-body-europe/a/chris-ofili-the-holy-virgin-mary)