“we need music and art education because inside every single one of us are strings and reeds that vibrate and voices that sing…”

This got me thinking again about austerity. Even if austerity was justified as an economic policy, that still leaves questions about priorities, and the criteria for choosing and implementing these priorities, and the even more contentious issue of who gets a say in the decision making.

What gets me about this image circulating on Facebook is the astounding question behind that word if! As if there could be any doubt – music and art are the grammar of our emotions, the wings of the mind, the nutrients of the imagination, the tutors of the conscience and the proof and celebration of our humanity.

We need music and art education like we need a heart, a brain, emotion and thought; we need music and art education because we are human beings and these are two of the most developed gifts of and to our humanity; we need music and art education because inside every single one of us are strings and reeds that vibrate and voices that sing, the rhythms and cadences and melodies that make life dance, and weep, and love and leap; we need music and art education because there are pictures we dream and create out of the richly textured kaleidoscope of imagination, vision, longing and desiring that is the human hunger for meaning. 

The removal of music and art education from the classroom is not austerity, it is the removal of opportunity and resources for children and young people to discover the joy and discipline of beauty and harmony. Budget cuts may be necessary to balance the books, but the targeting of music and art education will condemn those same young lives to an austerity of the spirit, an impoverishment of imagination, a limitation of worldview and a constriction of the understanding that through music and art grows into wisdom, wonder, purpose and vocation.

A child learning to play the piano or guitar, a group of young people discovering the disciplined joy of choir and orchestra, guided by the conductor; a teenager with oil paint, brushes and canvas, or with clay and sculpting tool, mentored by a teacher who helps them to see, to really see; these are gifts we can provide for our children which make for a richer, expansive life in which the words 'maybe' and 'perhaps' and 'if only', are freed of their limiting power over the self that is each of these young lives.

Utilitarianism is, paradoxically a useful philosophy, a rule of thumb that fits many if not most substantial decisions we make. The greatest good of the greatest number. But the word also has that undertow of negativity when things are valued for their practical usefulness. Allied to economics it is fatal to those dimensions of human experience which have little market value, which are not crucial to our employability, and which we can live well enough without – until the inner ache of hunger reminds us of their absence. Music and art education are crucial strands of our cultural fabric. To reduce them to market barcodes, budget mathematics, and austerity targets is to apply the utilitarian criterion in its most negative and least valid form. 

If our school budgets cannot support adequate provision in music and art education that is an issue that ought to be placed way beyond the control and competence of budget number crunchers. Decisions made here affect the capacity of our culture to sustain and maintain a supply of creativity, discipline, confidence and ability sufficient to produce, enjoy and celebrate the intellectual, aesthetic, moral and cultural activities that are amongst our most human attributes.