So in art class, you merely provide the tools for someone to access their own artistic ability, to produce art. 'Success', in this context, is facilitating individual expression. Is it any good? Have you taught them to be 'good artists'? All value judgements are totally subjective (including your evaluation of the strength of this argument) so that question must be irrelevant. You can't even prove that there are any good artists in existence, let alone whether education can produce them!
Art is partly a natural talent, and partly a gift that can be enhanced through education and training. Even the great painters studied under masters. Those who cannot draw a stick figure are unlikely to make any major contributions to the art world, but some people can learn how to use their skills more effectively.
Yes, I think that art can be taught. Granted, some people are naturally better at it than others, but I think with a lot of work and practice, anyone can become a good artist. It all has to do with the time and effort a person puts into becoming an artist.
Yes, I believe art can be taught to a certain extent. There are some people who are just natural born artists, but other people who want to learn art can certainly be taught it, I believe. I don't think you can force art on people, but those are open to it can learn from it.
I believe that the teaching of art can be compared to the teaching of language. When a person learns a language, he learns structures and techniques for expressing the messages inside him which he wants to share with others. Learning doesn't teach him the messages themselves, nor does it give him the desire to communicate the messages. Rather, it simply teaches him HOW to communicate his messages in ways that others can understand. Once he knows the basics of language, he is free to use them in different, unique ways to communicate his individuality, if he so desires. I believe that everyone has a message inside that he or she can share.
According to Howard Gardner everyone has different types of intelligence that we use throughout our lives. Some have exceptionally high intelligence in the area of math while another individual may be better at art. But despite these areas of focus and passion the person who is good at math can learn how to be an artist. What cannot be taught is the passion and dedication that is involved to truly make a great artist.
And that just isn't possible in art, where there are no objective criteria. There is a right way to teach French, for example, because French grammar is either right, or wrong, with very little ambiguity. But who is to say that a piece of art is good or bad? It's impossible. Some fine artworks disregard perspective, laws of composition, colour etc. Think of the difference between a De Kooning and a Manet. So name one rule you could teach a student, one single tenet that they could abide by in their practice that is indisputably true. There just isn't one. And that is why art cannot be taught.
Art can be made with two things. Imagination and Vulnerability. Not everyone in the world has the ability to use their imagination to build or create something, and also not everyone can be vulnerable enough to give a part of themselves for society to see. However, we can all learn a craft. The craft is the thing that leads to the creation of the art, acting, singing, dancing, painting, poetry. We can all learn the technicalities of these crafts, but this is not always considered as art.
Example: A student can be forced to go to art class and learn about painting, however he wants to be a scientist. He does not classify himself as an artist, rather he is just learning to pass the class. Therefore, true art can not be taught. It has to be discovered. The craft, however, can be taught.
Art cannot be taught, it is a talent that artistic people are born with. I could always be taught every subject in school, understand it well, and get and A in the class. When it came to art, I had little to no artistic ability and no matter how many classes I took it did not improve.