It is pointless making children who lack artistic talent learn painting and drawing in Art classes at school. Instead, they should concentrate on other creative and practical subjects which they may have more aptitude. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some would assume that giving an art class in formal education to the children who do not have sufficient artistic skills is a useless decision. They argue that it will be better if the children pay more attention to the other attitudes that children might have. While this is acceptable to some extent, I would also agree that such a way provides an extensive chance for children to develop their talents.
Needless to say, forcing children mastering certain skill like drawing and painting that they are basically not talented and interested is such a vain effort. It is because those arts require a natural skill that children have had since they were born and those who lack that skills may not get anything. For instance, in my personal experience, when I was in primary school my family insist me to be a singer, but it is useless as I do not have an aptitude for singing. Despite this, many parents would still stand on the argument that talent can be created as long as the children can compromise.
In reverse, children are necessarily directed to their own passion and talent to expand their aptitude properly. Basically, the talent that children have is really valuable if the parent concern on it. For instance, Rose Mini, a well-known psychologist in Indonesia said that the majority of successful children in their early age, because their parents lead their young generation to the natural talent that children have. Therefore, there is no doubt that the children's skill can be a valuable possession as long as their parents are aware of developing it.
To sum up, it is true that making children study a certain artistic subject that they are basically lack of that is a pointless consideration, thus, the parents necessarily concern on the skills that children may have.