A Justification For the Inclusion of the Arts in the Educational Curriculum Sheryle Bergmann Drewe With the educational curriculum suffering from overcrowding, along with the recent back to basics movement, the arts programs in many schools have suffered considerably. If the arts are to avoid the impending knife, a strong justification for their inclusion is required. In this paper, I will argue that the strongest justification for the inclusion of the arts in the educational curriculum lies in their potential to foster understanding on the part of the participants of artistic activity. I will further argue that the understanding attained through participation in the arts is a particular sort of understanding; a rich understanding. In proposing that understanding can be attained through participation in the arts, I will have to respond to the criticism that I am viewing participation in the arts as instrumentally as opposed to intrinsically valuable. I will suggest that, although art may be instrinsically valuable, the strongest justification for the inclusion of the arts lies in the potential of aesthetic activity to foster a rich understanding of the human experience. I will argue that it is a focus on the form of artistic expression which results in the potential for attaining a rich understanding. The possibility of attaining understanding presupposes that aesthetic activity has a certain degree of objectivity. I will examine the sort of objective reasoning involved in appreciating and creating works of art and will conclude that the reasoning involved in aesthetic activity has the potential for fostering a rich understanding on the part of the participants of such activity. INTRINSIC VERSUS INSTRUMENTAL?Aesthetic activity has often been justified based on the intrinsic value inherent in such activity. Proponents of the art for arts sake point of view suggest that participation in aesthetic activity is valuable in and of itself; that is, appreciating and creating art is valuable for its own sake. This may be the case but two points must be made in response to the art for arts sake position. First, if by art for arts sake we mean that appreciating and creating a work of art is pleasurable for its own sake, we must question this justification in an educational context. Justifying art for the pleasure it elicits could lead one down a slippery slope. What if students find encounters with comic books, or worse, pornography, to be pleasurable; do we thereby justify their inclusion in the educational curriculum? Rather than justifying the inclusion of the arts for their pleasure-giving potential, I would suggest that it would be more prudent to examine their potential for expanding students understanding. Ironically, Richmond (who is a strong advocate of the intrinsic value of art), suggests that art so distinguished is (uniquely) worthwhile educationally in as much as it provides inspiration for creativity and reveals for our understanding and appreciation imaginative and insightful images of reality in aesthetically significant visual form italics added.1 The second point I wish to make is related to the potential for expanding students understanding through art. I want to argue that there cannot truly be art for arts sake but rather, in Abbs words, art for meanings sake.2 By art for meanings sake, I am referring to the potential for students to derive meaning from encounters with art. I will explore this possibility in more detail in the next section. At this point, I propose that to the degree to which works of art express content, to that degree they are instrumentally, not simply intrinsically, valuable. This contention is not concurred with by Richmond who makes the distinction between those who argue for the study of an apolitical, aesthetically autonomous art and those who see art in education as an avenue for asserting certain socio-political concerns, for example, marxist or feminist, and various kinds of community action while denying lofty aesthetic ideals in favour of more popular and accessible art images.3 Richmonds description of those who argue for the study of an apolitical, aesthetically autonomous art requires further analysis. Is it possible to have apolitical, aesthetically autonomous art? Although all art may not be political, I would suggest that all art expresses some content. Richmond would agree with this notion, for in an earlier paper he states that content is necessary to art and to our pleasure in it in that artistic expression always expresses something, however abstract italics added.4 It is the expression of content in art, I would argue, that negates the possibility of aesthetically autonomous art. This content need not be a blatant political statement but it may be, depending on the things that matter to the artist. Richmond himself suggests that the educational value of art resides in the disciplines