Arts: More Important than We Are Lead to Believe
In the article "Counterpoint: Funding for the Arts Is a Lower Educational Priority.”, the authors, S.M. Goldmark and Tamara Campbell, argue that the arts are not vital to education and should be treated as such. Throughout the article, Goldmark and Campbell make multiple arguments on why art programs should not be a priority in schools anymore. The article mainly targets teachers and administrators in schools across the United States. Although the article itself may display individual persuasive strengths, it more often displays weaknesses; this causes the article to be considerably less credible. Goldmark and Campbell’s use of personal opinion for their arguments throughout the article make it seem less credible and relatable to the reader. Their single-minded points are much less convincing because they do not consider alternative views, and cause the reader to not fully believe what they are trying to say. Furthermore, they attack and discredit the opposite viewpoint by making it look bad, causing the reader to potentially become skeptical of the legitimacy of the argument. Goldmark and Campbell also make many points that are unrealistic; most of what they state does not make sense logically. Thus, Goldmark and Campbell are not able to provide a valid argument throughout their article.
In the very beginning of this article, Goldmark and Campbell ask the question “Is there an area of education that does not deserve funding more than the arts?” This question already shows their biased opinion against the arts, causing the reader to immediately make an emotional judgment about the article and become biased themselves toward the rest of the article. Once the material in the article is questioned by the reader, it directly causes the remainder of the information to seem less valid. By stating that “The awareness of the arts in making the choice iterates decision making,” the opinion is further discredited because it has no factual information to support it, nor does it have any relevance to what was previously stated in that paragraph. The article also mentions that the arts should be a considered a second priority to reading, math and writing. Although some may agree with this, there is no factual information or statistics provided throughout the article to prove that arts are not as important as other core subjects; for an article to be credible, “Facts offered as evidence should be accurate, complete and taken from reputable sources,” says Katherine T. McWhorter pg 518. After a while, even the title of the article--Funding for the Arts Is a Lower Educational Priority--begins to sound more like an opinion than factual information. By the constant voicing of opinion, the intended audience begins to question the validity of the information in the article. Through the course of the article, the constant show of only one opinion on funding for the arts and use of minimal facts invalidates their entire argument.
Another weakness of Goldmark and Campbell’s article is the fact that the opposing viewpoint is discredited and is attempted to make look corrupt. The article attempts to blame the drop out rate of students on the school system’s focus on the arts, trying to convince the reader that the reason why students are doing poorly in schools is because they are spending too much time in art classes. It does not provide any statistical information on why the students are doing poorly and only mentions that thirty percent of students fail out of school. By putting the statistic of how many students fail and blaming that statistic on art, it creates the impression that thirty percent of students are failing because of their participation in art. Goldmark and Campbell also make the opposing viewpoint look corrupt by saying “America is obese - more funds for physical education! America cannot read - more funds for language teachers! America cannot add - more funds for math teachers! America cannot sing, dance or draw - finally more funds for teaching the arts!” They almost appear as if they are making fun of how programs are funded in the United States. This could negatively affect the reader's opinion about the article and potentially offend them, especially if the reader works in the arts division of a school system. Goldmark and Campbell are conscious of the way they are portraying the arts and how it may potentially displease or offend the person reading the article; they purposefully “engage the reader’s emotions” in a way that spurs those who agree into action and mocks those who disagree (McWhorter 530). Goldmark and Campbell’s ending statement, “While no one questions the innate value of being able to paint a pleasing picture, play an instrument or sing, it is also true that being unable to read, write or do math is more likely to lead to a low-skilled labor, unemployment and consequently poverty,” declares that if children are involved in the arts it will cause them to do poorly in reading, math, and writing, thus causing them to be unsuccessful in their search for a job and fall into poverty. This statement paints the arts in a bad light by creating the illusion that the sole reason why children do poorly in school, or why they become unsuccessful as adults, is because they are involved in the arts. They make no effort to investigate the various life choices students make or misfortune that they may face that cause them to have poor jobs, They blame it on the arts and try to make it seem like the arts are responsible for distracting children from a good education. They continue to spout various opinions of why they believe the art programs are a waste of time and why it is going to negatively affect students' lives without providing any facts that support these opinions.
This is another problem with this article: no matter what point the authors make, they cannot truly support their arguments. According to McWhorter, a writer must “acknowledge or accommodate points that cannot be refuted,” especially by the opposing viewpoint, and Goldmark and Campbell fail to do so completely.(McWhorter 519) Because of the other aforementioned weaknesses, the reader does not find the information credible; it causes the reader to question what is stated in the article. If questioned, the authors would most likely be unable to come up with a valid factual argument to support their opinions. Goldmark and Campbell state outright that if a student spends time on the arts, he or she is “more likely to lead a low-skilled labor” career and end up in poverty. Nowhere in this article do Goldmark and Campbell give any sort of evidence of this statement's validity. They throw random bits of made-up information into the article, hoping to make the audience think that there is no point in having children participate in the arts. Without providing factual proof, it is easy for the reader to mentally refute their points. It is easy enough to find statistical information online to prove that the exact opposite is true. Goldmark and Campbell also state that schools need to gauge the value that is placed in the arts programs. They do not provide any sort of information that argues why the arts need to be less prevalent in the school; they just state that the schools are letting the students measure the value of art by their participation in it. This in itself is an argument against their own point, as the arts are obviously important to the students. Because Goldmark and Campbell cannot provide any factual information for their statements, it is pointless to look for any kind of merit in their article.
In conclusion, the article “Funding for the Arts is a Lower Educational Priority” shows many flaws in logic in its argument against funding for the arts. Because of Goldmark and Campbell's use of personal opinion, it is difficult for the reader to truly believe and understand the points that Goldmark and Campbell are trying to make. In constantly trying to discredit the opposing viewpoint, they reduce the validity of their own argument, causing the reader to be much more skeptical of their argument. Lastly, Goldmark and Campbell do not make points that are one-hundred percent factual. They are only able to provide pieces of information with no statistical or factual backing, making it easy for the reader to form a negative opinion of the article. Because of the authors' poor argument and information that is not credible, their article becomes unreliable and obviously only tries to make the arts programs seem useless rather than make any real persuasive argument. This article is filled with many weaknesses, making it untrustworthy and an unreliable as an academic source.
In the very beginning of this article, Goldmark and Campbell ask the question “Is there an area of education that does not deserve funding more than the arts?” This question already shows their biased opinion against the arts, causing the reader to immediately make an emotional judgment about the article and become biased themselves toward the rest of the article. Once the material in the article is questioned by the reader, it directly causes the remainder of the information to seem less valid. By stating that “The awareness of the arts in making the choice iterates decision making,” the opinion is further discredited because it has no factual information to support it, nor does it have any relevance to what was previously stated in that paragraph. The article also mentions that the arts should be a considered a second priority to reading, math and writing. Although some may agree with this, there is no factual information or statistics provided throughout the article to prove that arts are not as important as other core subjects; for an article to be credible, “Facts offered as evidence should be accurate, complete and taken from reputable sources,” says Katherine T. McWhorter pg 518. After a while, even the title of the article--Funding for the Arts Is a Lower Educational Priority--begins to sound more like an opinion than factual information. By the constant voicing of opinion, the intended audience begins to question the validity of the information in the article. Through the course of the article, the constant show of only one opinion on funding for the arts and use of minimal facts invalidates their entire argument.
Another weakness of Goldmark and Campbell’s article is the fact that the opposing viewpoint is discredited and is attempted to make look corrupt. The article attempts to blame the drop out rate of students on the school system’s focus on the arts, trying to convince the reader that the reason why students are doing poorly in schools is because they are spending too much time in art classes. It does not provide any statistical information on why the students are doing poorly and only mentions that thirty percent of students fail out of school. By putting the statistic of how many students fail and blaming that statistic on art, it creates the impression that thirty percent of students are failing because of their participation in art. Goldmark and Campbell also make the opposing viewpoint look corrupt by saying “America is obese - more funds for physical education! America cannot read - more funds for language teachers! America cannot add - more funds for math teachers! America cannot sing, dance or draw - finally more funds for teaching the arts!” They almost appear as if they are making fun of how programs are funded in the United States. This could negatively affect the reader's opinion about the article and potentially offend them, especially if the reader works in the arts division of a school system. Goldmark and Campbell are conscious of the way they are portraying the arts and how it may potentially displease or offend the person reading the article; they purposefully “engage the reader’s emotions” in a way that spurs those who agree into action and mocks those who disagree (McWhorter 530). Goldmark and Campbell’s ending statement, “While no one questions the innate value of being able to paint a pleasing picture, play an instrument or sing, it is also true that being unable to read, write or do math is more likely to lead to a low-skilled labor, unemployment and consequently poverty,” declares that if children are involved in the arts it will cause them to do poorly in reading, math, and writing, thus causing them to be unsuccessful in their search for a job and fall into poverty. This statement paints the arts in a bad light by creating the illusion that the sole reason why children do poorly in school, or why they become unsuccessful as adults, is because they are involved in the arts. They make no effort to investigate the various life choices students make or misfortune that they may face that cause them to have poor jobs, They blame it on the arts and try to make it seem like the arts are responsible for distracting children from a good education. They continue to spout various opinions of why they believe the art programs are a waste of time and why it is going to negatively affect students' lives without providing any facts that support these opinions.
This is another problem with this article: no matter what point the authors make, they cannot truly support their arguments. According to McWhorter, a writer must “acknowledge or accommodate points that cannot be refuted,” especially by the opposing viewpoint, and Goldmark and Campbell fail to do so completely.(McWhorter 519) Because of the other aforementioned weaknesses, the reader does not find the information credible; it causes the reader to question what is stated in the article. If questioned, the authors would most likely be unable to come up with a valid factual argument to support their opinions. Goldmark and Campbell state outright that if a student spends time on the arts, he or she is “more likely to lead a low-skilled labor” career and end up in poverty. Nowhere in this article do Goldmark and Campbell give any sort of evidence of this statement's validity. They throw random bits of made-up information into the article, hoping to make the audience think that there is no point in having children participate in the arts. Without providing factual proof, it is easy for the reader to mentally refute their points. It is easy enough to find statistical information online to prove that the exact opposite is true. Goldmark and Campbell also state that schools need to gauge the value that is placed in the arts programs. They do not provide any sort of information that argues why the arts need to be less prevalent in the school; they just state that the schools are letting the students measure the value of art by their participation in it. This in itself is an argument against their own point, as the arts are obviously important to the students. Because Goldmark and Campbell cannot provide any factual information for their statements, it is pointless to look for any kind of merit in their article.
In conclusion, the article “Funding for the Arts is a Lower Educational Priority” shows many flaws in logic in its argument against funding for the arts. Because of Goldmark and Campbell's use of personal opinion, it is difficult for the reader to truly believe and understand the points that Goldmark and Campbell are trying to make. In constantly trying to discredit the opposing viewpoint, they reduce the validity of their own argument, causing the reader to be much more skeptical of their argument. Lastly, Goldmark and Campbell do not make points that are one-hundred percent factual. They are only able to provide pieces of information with no statistical or factual backing, making it easy for the reader to form a negative opinion of the article. Because of the authors' poor argument and information that is not credible, their article becomes unreliable and obviously only tries to make the arts programs seem useless rather than make any real persuasive argument. This article is filled with many weaknesses, making it untrustworthy and an unreliable as an academic source.
Work Cited
Goldmark, S. M. and Campbell, Tamara "Funding for the Arts Is a Lower Educational Priority." Points of View Reference Center. 2011. Web.
McWhorter, Kathleen T. Successful College Writing: Skills, Strategies, Learning Styles. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2012. Print.