TEACHING AN ART FORM-THE IMPLICATIONS -

BY DAVID LIEBMAN
For some of the readers discussing this topic may seem unnecessary,
since in reality teaching an art form and jazz in particular is a fact of
modern academic life. But I still think that in some people's minds there is
doubt as to how creativity, as demonstrated in a viable art form can be
taught. When I give clinics, I tell the students that back in "ancient"
times (not that long ago!!), most musicians wouldn't or couldn't impart
specifics. This is obviously very different from now when almost every major
jazz performer does master classes at least on occasion. I remember a few
years ago at East Stroudsburg University near my home in Pennsylvania, the
great Freddie Hubbard answering questions to a group of non-musicians for a
pre-performance lecture. I know that wasn't something he was used to do
doing, but he pulled it off wonderfully with complete humility.
So if teaching jazz is a matter of fact now, what do I mean by
"implications"? I think that a typical student attending a jazz school or
taking private lessons with a master might not be totally cognizant of it,
but (s)he may be looking for something that is not there-sort of like the
keys to the kingdom. Loving the music, being inspired by it and wanting to
play is exciting and the nature of youth is to want to get it immediately.
Sometimes expectations exceed reality and a feeling of disappointment may
result. This is natural and probably unavoidable, but it is up to teachers
and institutions to be honest and up front with the appropriate intentions.
With the amount of teaching materials now available, the exponential growth
of the jazz education business as a major industry (witness the increased
attendance at the IAJE conventions attended by thousands) and the growing
number of musicians who need to teach in order to survive, it's easy for
these subtle matters to become confused.
Is teaching jazz or any art form the same as for math, medicine or
business administration? I would like to think that imparting knowledge
about a creative field involves some unique differences. Surely we lay out
the equivalent of facts and figures to be memorized and regurgitated, but
because of the special nature of the artistic process, the material itself
is secondary to the process of instigating a student's creativity. We, the
teachers, are actually imparting our experience about the WAY to find
oneself, more than the information itself. After all it is the balance
between knowing and using technique in conjunction with bringing forth one's
inner voice that results in a creative act of lasting worth. And if an
artist has something of value to impart and has spent the very arduous time
finding a unique and individual mode of communicating these feelings, this
adds depth to the statement. (Of course there are great artists who do not
fit into this scenario, but then it is as always, a matter of taste.)
The French use the word "enseigner" for teaching. I love the French
language for how it refers to the activity taking place. "Ensiegner"
suggests that the mission is to "give signs, signals, points of reference-to
show and transmit" so that the student understands and assimilates. The
proficient teacher is revealing to the student his or her own way of having
discovered and developed their art. This method of teaching, accomplished by
metaphor, myth telling and allusion should be focused on conveying "clues"
about the process and possibilities. A teacher can help a student avoid too
many blind alleys, realizing that so-called dead ends can be the best form
of instruction. What I am describing here is essentially the time tested
apprenticeship system, which was how most jazz musicians up to the present
era learned the art, as did artists of all persuasions for centuries. The
advent of formal institutions along with the pace of modern life doesn't
leave much room for a master-apprentice relationship in our times.
Acknowledging that teaching an art form is primarily about process
places a specific type of responsibility on the instructor, quite different
than mere recitation of information. It implies an almost psychological-like
awareness of the emotions being engendered in the pupils as well as
sensitivity to the everyday realities of a student's inner life-for example
being a certain age in our culture, peer competition, approval, etc. This is
the challenge of being a teacher and in essence, the messenger of a deep
tradition. I think that by accomplishing this, a teacher has served more
than just the art itself, but humanity as a whole, by bettering the soul of
one individual. Most important for the teacher to remember as it is said in
the ancient Latin adage: "Above all, do not harm!"
(Thanks to saxophonist and educator Francois Janneau from the Conservatoire
de Paris for input on this topic.)