A minor intellectual debate has broken out online.

In a letter published in Today (Why does arts school require good grades for admission?) on May 6, 2014, the letter writer -- a mother -- wanted to know why an arts school, School of The Arts (SOTA), is only taking in PSLE students who qualify for Express Stream.

Here is the gist of the letter by the parent:

The Direct School Admission exercise was introduced by the Ministry of Education to allow schools to choose pupils who excel in certain niche areas and admit them before the PSLE results are out.

In theory, this helps pupils because they are accepted based not only on academic results.

However, School of The Arts, which was set up to “nurture youths talented in the arts ... (and) groom the next generation of artists, creative professionals and individuals who are passionate for and committed to the arts”, is only accepting students who qualify for the Express stream based on the PSLE results.

Basically, the parent wants to know why can't SOTA just take in artistic and talented students without considering how good their school grades are.

The comments section of the article hosted a spirited debate, in which a former SOTA student, Ong Sim, eloquently defended the need for an arts school to set the academic bar high enough:

I am from the pioneer cohort of SOTA and I graduated in 2012. I'm currently reading law at SMU.

I entered SOTA through visual arts, and eventually specialised in design during my International Baccalaureate (IB) years.

My peers, both current and previous students, have clarified various aspects and premises made. And I must commend them for speaking up. I, too, would like to point out certain assumptions that may have misled the conversation.

1. SOTA does not aspire to produce artists per se.

It merely provides the option.

An arts education should never be mistaken for a technical course in the fine arts. The education SOTA provides is one that opens doors, that enables its graduates a spectrum of choice arguably beyond what the current mainstream education offers. You could do anything, be anything you aspire to be. Yes, we have graduates pursuing degrees in fine arts, we also have graduates pursuing more contemporary variants of those courses. That aside, we have graduates in Marine Biology, Forestry, TCM, Law, Psychology, Architecture, the list goes on. What separates us from others, I believe, is the ability to apply skills across disciplines. A SOTA graduate is able to learn something in perhaps, music, and apply those skills in math, appreciate the the dance movements and literature of an era, pick up tenacity in design class and apply that attitude in life.

Should an individual decide early on that pure arts was the way to go, he must still have a basic education at any rate to be able to support his arts career. What good is an artist who cannot convince others of his brilliance?

2. SOTA was set up in efforts to cultivate a strong arts community.

Such a community is much more than just artists themselves, there must be support for the arts, and not just moral support either. A vibrant culture requires connoisseurs from all walks of life who are capable of supporting the artists, be it financially or by being in a position to present opportunities.

This is a personal opinion but I think to have a school which aims to mass produce artists would be shortsighted in its larger goal of contributing to the nation's culture. Such an execution might create an exclusive community and breed a sense of elitism.

Having the SOTA alumni spread across various disciplines after we graduate plants our feet firmly into the ground: the arts cannot exist on a separate plane from reality.

Hence, if the requirement express stream has deemed excellence as a threshold into SOTA, perhaps we should do one of two things, or both:

Firstly, review our notion of excellence.

Secondly, review our notion of the arts. Is it about sitting in a studio and making art pieces, or rehearsing throughout the day in strive of a perfect pirouette? Or is it about being capable enough to engage the public, being provocative without being obtuse nor crude, discussing sensitive issues whilst skirting infringements, creating works that mean much more than simply opinions, works that make an impact?

Basically, the defence is: It's true you don't need a formal education to do art sometimes. But at the same time, you can do art without a formal education.

So a formal education should make your art better. Or at least, help justify arts' existence.

Top photo from here

Find Mothership.SG on Facebook and Twitter.