The Necessity of Aesthetic Education: The Place of the Arts on the Curriculum by Laura D’Olimpio, London: Bloomsbury, 2024

Education in the arts is uniquely positioned to prepare for a flourishing life, and as such should be a core element of compulsory schooling. So argues Laura D’Olimpio in her 2024 monograph The Necessity of Aesthetic Education: The Place of the Arts on the Curriculum (Bloomsbury). Part of the publisher’s Philosophy of Education series, the text is both a philosophical contribution to the consideration of arts education and a contribution to the methods of philosophy and philosophical approaches to curricular reform. This slim book does considerable work and D’Olimpio’s claim to a manifesto is reinforced by her writing style. Open and clear, the reader is prioritised. The Necessity of Aesthetic Education takes seriously education and educators, the arts and arts education, and most of all the student as worthy of a good life now while preparing practically and imaginatively to flourish in the future as well. As such, it is an important read for all who claim holistic education as a priority. D’Olimpio’s case is that there are certain aesthetic experiences central to a flourishing life that the arts afford, thus aesthetic education should be mandatory across every level of compulsory schooling. This is not a case of forcing aesthetic experiences on students, if that were even possible, but rather showing them that such experiences are an option, that among the reactions one might have to a pink-skyed sunset or the finale of a musical performance are wonder and awe, and that these experiences can be deepened and expanded through education. Finding these experiences in varied artistic phenomena might mean a young person having, and recognising, aesthetic experiences more often outside of formal education and contribute to their living a flourishing life. D’Olimpio’s central points are that aesthetic experience is necessary for a flourishing life and young people should be inducted into it. Why the arts? Why in education? There are multiple ways that the arts can contribute to education towards a flourishing life, but what can only the arts do? What is their unique contribution? Why explicitly include aesthetic education on the curriculum, and make it compulsory? Across the world, curricula are crowded, teachers are in short supply and education is rarely a top site of fiscal investment. It can be and regularly is argued that other experiences achieve the same outcomes that aesthetic education is typically valued for. Students can be exposed to beauty in a literature class, work cooperatively in mathematics, and experience wonder in a laboratory. If these boxes can be ticked in pre-established curricular priorities then there is no need to source and fund arts departments. The counter-argument is already here. In these classes, appreciation, connectivity and wonder are great if they happen but are not the aim or the intention. As a mathematics teacher, I remember keenly the times a student has sat back in awe or appreciation of the elegance of a mathematical proof, but aesthetic experience is not the point of the exercise. School should be a place where sometimes aesthetic experience is the point, and the arts classrooms are this place and space. Why now? The place of the arts on the curriculum is under direct attack, experiencing funding cuts over several levels, as well as indirect erosion. D’Olimpio draws upon examples from the U.S., U.K. and Australian contexts to show the narrowing forces at play restricting the access and experience of school students to even the option of education in arts subjects. These jurisdictions focus funding of teacher professional development on the subjects that count in school league tables and university applications, which creates a cascade effect where less training …