Abstract

This article explores the contrasting arguments for the place of the arts in education made by the two distinguished arts educators—the American Elliot Eisner and British dance and physical education theorist Graham McFee. Both scholars begin with the premise that the arts should be central to a liberal education and then diverge. McFee argues, from his success in seeing dance as part of the National Curriculum in the UK, that a conceptually precise and closely focused philosophical rationale is critical, whereas Eisner takes the opposite path—arguing for the inclusion of the arts because they embody the most profoundly central task of all education—the nuanced development of mind.