Should the sciences replace the arts? Why are the arts important?

[aras]

I saw a similar question and it got me thinking.

Sciences have cured diseases and saved millions of lives, built cars and planes, fridges and ovens, houses, etc.

Arts have not built cars but made them look pretty. They have made multi-million dollar movies. I can also think of paintings and sculptures. They have not made computers but made them look pretty.

Someone who has lost a loved one to a yet incurable disease, might wonder what would happen if 10% of the artists/actors and 10% of the budget for the arts/movie industry was spent on curing such diseases.

I can imagine a cancer researcher on his death bed thinking he lived a life that was satisfactory as he spent much time trying to cure an illness. But what would Tom Hanks or Seinfeld say? Unless Seinfeld says that by bringing laughter he has contributed to people's mental health (and we're back to science again), how is he going to justify his endeavors to himself?

By the way, I have nothing against these actors. I was trying to use famous people since it is too easy to assume that a no name artist has made no significant contribution to people's well being.

I have a science background and I'm a creative/artistic person too so I am looking for a satisfactory answer for myself, to be honest. My formal training is in sciences which explains my bias in favor of them.

[jcoltage]

b/c all the girls do Art studies ... (sorry ladies but its true .. wish you would come on over to the business studies;))

[goob3r]

Art enriches our lives through expression of the intangible. Science doesn't.

[ullyeus]

Who deems what is important enough to not regret on their deathbed?

[aras]

Who deems what is important enough to not regret on their deathbed?

That's a good question. I'm just assuming that people want to make positive contributions to their fellow human beings. Forget the death bed thing...I was just trying to make a point. I'm just saying that drawing pictures of trees does not seem as important as saving someone's life.

[cheeseshredder]

So what about business? Spend all your time working to make someone else rich.

[aras]

So what about business? Spend all your time working to make someone else rich.


Damn I did not think about business. I don't know how that fits in there. My argument about the arts was more clear-cut but I suppose we do need some type of business.

[cheeseshredder]

Damn I did not think about business. I don't know how that fits in there. My argument about the arts was more clear-cut but I suppose we do need some type of business.

What is your argument exactly. The arts are a major component of society/life.

Edit: What is mean is that without Arts, there would be no point to life. Everything has its role and you could even say that both disciplines depend on each other.

[Bazooka Joe]

It's all related. Science exists because of business, business succeeds because of art.

Would we have so many doctors if it paid minimum wage? Will people buy a brick or an ipod?

[scottmcl]

yeah....pfttt who needs teachers,professors, lawyers, anthropologists etc...

idiot.

[Supra_KL]

yeah....pfttt who needs teachers,professors, lawyers, anthropologists etc...

idiot.

I think he meant visual art, music, literature and etc. Not social sciences (psychology, law, poli sci and etc.)

Kinda do agree with the OP. Seems odd that society places the movie/music/sports industry higher than any branch of physical science, math or social science. :confused:

[UrbanPoet]

without art there will be no science.
Philosophy is an "art" and you could easily say that philosophy created science.

You could easily argue that art created science.... Science @ one point was called "Natural philosophy".

The idea of "over analyzing life" the heavens, the earths, the mind, our thoughts, and the meaning of life inspired society to think about science too.

The "Scientific method" was derived from the exact same principals explored in philosophy by the ancient Greeks. They took it to another level

[DeimosBeros]

I've caught myself thinking the same thing on more than one occasion. We see alot of sci-fi interpretations of the future that picture our civilization taking advanced leaps in technology and quality of life. And I think, "Hey, why shouldn't I and everybody else go into engineering and the like so that we can move faster into that futuristic star trek/star wars universe, yeah that would be cool."

I believe in alot of places of the world, most countries encourage their young people into practical fields that they hope will help push their cultures and society forward. These places turn out doctors, engineers of all makes and sizes, teachers, rocket scientists, etc.
North america on the other hand is more liberal in its thinking and somewhere along the way creates these fields of study that I think are a complete waste of time in this day and age. It's not that the liberal arts aren't enriching to the soul as opposed to the hollowness of technology and industry, it's just that it ain't helping the world on the whole.
I'm an artist myself, I was born with enough dexterity and imagination to produce pretty pictures but I don't see it getting me to a level where I can claim financial freedom, though I do feel happier when I indulge in sketching.

Let's be realistic though.
Will the arts ever solve our garbage crisis?
Will it cure cancer?
Will it create more food to sustain an ever growing human population?
Will it find an infinite source of clean, renewable energy?

I might be narrow minded in this regard, but I just don't see the liberal arts doing any of this.

[cnbc]

Because science students wish to take bird courses to boost their GPA. Where do they find such courses? Faculty of Arts.

[milhaus]

Watch Equilibirum.

[scottmcl]

Watch Equilibirum.

ACHIEVED!!!

https://www.speranzaonline.com/ProdImages/equilibrium.jpg
https://www.speranzaonline.com/store/prodView.asp?idproduct=2440





*Humour*

[Blunt]

I have a science background and I'm a creative/artistic person too so I am looking for a satisfactory answer for myself, to be honest. My formal training is in sciences which explains my bias in favor of them.

I call BS on that you're a creative/artistic person, if you were you would know how ridiculous your post is. Imagine your life without art, oh wait.... you can't.
You live in a very grey world if you cannot see what art brings to life.

[Talamasca]

A world without art wouldn't be a world worth living in.

[Insane_Pikachu]

What about graphic arts? Language was built from art. Ever since the prehistoric times, they use visual communications and it was later developed over periods of time.

During the Mesopotamian times, the earliest form of writing was developed through pictographic drawings of objects and this later influence the stages of writing.

Also, when it comes to science and medicine, it wouldn't be possible without Leonardo Da Vinci contribution through his drawings of Anatomy, Engineering, and inventions. It may seem to be useless right now, but imagine what they thought of art back then. Would we be where we are right now?

Theres a reason why these types of studies exist, they are all related and intertwined with eachother. And besides, if everyone studies medicine and try to cure cancer or whatever diseases are out there, what about other problems in the world right now? War? Starvation? Natural Disasters? We live in a messed up world, controlled by very bad people. This is life.

[YYZFA]

The question is preposterous. The arts and science are both invaluable. They both have made our society what it is. Science has greatly benefitted our society, but science has no morals, no judgements. It is science that has cured diseases, made drought resistant crops to feed the masses, developed medicines and mass communications to make our lives easier. Scientific developments have also caused pollution, the nuclear bomb, tools of warfare and other horrific inventions.

The OP unfairly trivializes "the arts". How does he define "the arts"? Anything that isn't science? Let's assume he envisions a "utopia" dedicated almost solely to scientific development, and let's assume that all science is used for the betterment of mankind, with no other harmful affects (an impossibility, but imagine). We all live free of genetic defects and disease. All of life's necessities are taken care of (food, shelter). There is no more hardship. Our lifespan is 200 years. What the hell are we supposed to do with ourselves? There is no art. No entertainment. No diversions. No literature. No culture. No thanks!

What would be the point of life? All we'd be doing is breathing. That's not living. By the way, what does the OP think inspires most scientific ideas and developments? Would we have scientific advances without the dreams and aspirations that only "the arts" can provide?

Again, I reiterate, the supposition is ridiculous.

[scottmcl]

yeah, and what about the trades...should we do away with them?

I mean when was the last time you saw a welder or brick layer cure a disease, or feed the hungry:D

Fallacy of false analogy...what???

[scottmcl]

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1343/cancerhh5.png

[jcoltage]

someone need to serve my fries?

[Dustbunny]

You're trying to compare apples and oranges IMO. Can you imagine if people were forced into something like science when it's not their aptitude or interest? We are humans, each with our own abilities and strengths and I know for sure being in science would put me in a coma. I also only want those who actually are interested working in it. It takes all types to support the society. To say some have more value is false. I am sure there are a lot of arguements for not relying to heavily on science. Meanwhile trying to rate one a higher value than the other is probably short sighted and too narrow.

Meanwhile, what is valued through history? What has set some societies apart? It's their art. It's the art that is sought after, displayed, and that people commonly look at over and over and over again, century after century. It is highly valued. The emotion, the thoughts, the appreciation seems to span all time and it's there to record history, entertain people (including the scientists and the ill), and to enhance everyone's lives.

Ask someone who has the choice if they would chose to live longer if it meant being in a world devoid of artists (no nice colours on sites, just text in no cohesive form in written materials, no singers, no music, no movies, no games, no architecture... basically nothing visual or audible for entertainment or to make the dull a little less so). Pretty dull world IMO.

[brute33]

What is your argument exactly. The arts are a major component of society/life.

Edit: What is mean is that without Arts, there would be no point to life. Everything has its role and you could even say that both disciplines depend on each other.

i disagree. ten thousand years ago (before machines or metal was invented), people did not have art. They went out and hunted for food and made babies. They had a purpose in life.

[YYZFA]

i disagree. ten thousand years ago (before machines or metal was invented), people did not have art. They went out and hunted for food and made babies. They had a purpose in life.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Haven't you watched "10,000 BC?" I'm kidding!

But, human art is timeless. Here's a link from the Metropolitan Museum of Art that shows art from approximately 30,000 years ago.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/chav/hd_chav.htm

Here are more examples from around the world as well:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/intro/atr/01sm.htm


Anyway, back to the original topic; it's foolish to hypothesize that "the arts" have not and do not play a vital role in human society. As far as I know, human beings are the only known animals that actually engage in "the arts", and that is one of the things that separates us from all other creatures.

[ClubberLang]

i disagree. ten thousand years ago (before machines or metal was invented), people did not have art. They went out and hunted for food and made babies. They had a purpose in life.

incredibly incorrect.

[branat]

yeah, my life is much better with such priceless arts and artists that starve dogs etc

[randomdef]

i disagree. ten thousand years ago (before machines or metal was invented), people did not have art. They went out and hunted for food and made babies. They had a purpose in life.

you are very wrong. art is not paint. art can be a story or a dance or a free form pottery. art can be the art of making babies or the art of hunting.

can you imagine living in a white, sterile lab your entire life? thats life without art. thats really not a purpose or a reason to live, thats just being.

[st7860]

this is art
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7152/artya4.jpg

[brute33]

you are very wrong. art is not paint. art can be a story or a dance or a free form pottery. art can be the art of making babies or the art of hunting.

can you imagine living in a white, sterile lab your entire life? thats life without art. thats really not a purpose or a reason to live, thats just being.

fair enough. point well taken:cheesygri

[sPiKyAZN]

It's a pretty interesting question he's got. In my opinion I think we need to strike a balance between both. Without art of some form of expression I think we would all go insane.

I actually used to ask this question a lot, way back in elementary school. Back then we were forced to take music class, which I, along with everyone else in my class hated. Now that I look back, I still hate it. I have completely forgotten how to play the viola and the clarinet. What good has it done me? Am I going to regret not being able to play a classical instrument later on in my life?

I am totally against making music mandatory. You can argue that we need to learn math and English to survive in this world, but why should kids be forced to take music class? Even French class was more practical since I was able to travel to Quebec a few times and actually order in a restaurant.

I'm not saying we shouldn't offer music classes, I just think it should be by choice. Think of all the many other important things kids could learn with the time they waste in music class. Sorry I know its a bit OT but its something thats always been on my mind.

[YYZFA]

It's a pretty interesting question he's got. In my opinion I think we need to strike a balance between both. Without art of some form of expression I think we would all go insane.

I actually used to ask this question a lot, way back in elementary school. Back then we were forced to take music class, which I, along with everyone else in my class hated. Now that I look back, I still hate it. I have completely forgotten how to play the viola and the clarinet. What good has it done me? Am I going to regret not being able to play a classical instrument later on in my life?

I am totally against making music mandatory. You can argue that we need to learn math and English to survive in this world, but why should kids be forced to take music class? Even French class was more practical since I was able to travel to Quebec a few times and actually order in a restaurant.

I'm not saying we shouldn't offer music classes, I just think it should be by choice. Think of all the many other important things kids could learn with the time they waste in music class. Sorry I know its a bit OT but its something thats always been on my mind.

I couldn't disagree with you more! You weren't wasting your time in music class anymore than I was wasting my time in calculus. I don't remember a damn thing about calculus, but I was still exposed to it. Children need to be exposed to a well-rounded education: art, science, language, physical education, music, creative writing, etc. It's only when they get older should they be allowed to start choosing some courses. Of course, in order to graduate high school and college/university, you still have to have a minimum of courses taken in different fields. This allows you to have a well-rounded education. I knew some students who were complete whizzes at math and science. They were fantastic at it. They viewed English, French, music, etc. as "bird courses". They had no respect for these things, and viewed the students who enjoyed them as intellectual inferiors. These same people had virtually no social skills. They could not blend in with people who are not like-minded. Unfortunately for them, we live in a society of people from all different backgrounds and interests.

I'm not very good at math or art. I never will be, but at least I appreciate and respect those that are. I can recognize that they both have a vital importance in our lives. At least I have an open mind to things I don't fully understand.

[branat]

this is art
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7152/artya4.jpg

so are these "Damien Hirst is perhaps the show's best-known artist. His work depicting a pair of cows sliced and suspended in a tank of formaldehyde caused a stir at a London gallery three years ago."

and this

http://epublishingcorp.com/articlesraichel/Art-News/shark.gif

and this

http://norrlandsoperan.webb212.it-norr.com/default.asp?id=3848

[nickia]

I saw a similar question and it got me thinking.

Sciences have cured diseases and saved millions of lives, built cars and planes, fridges and ovens, houses, etc.

Arts have not built cars but made them look pretty. They have made multi-million dollar movies. I can also think of paintings and sculptures. They have not made computers but made them look pretty.

Someone who has lost a loved one to a yet incurable disease, might wonder what would happen if 10% of the artists/actors and 10% of the budget for the arts/movie industry was spent on curing such diseases.

I can imagine a cancer researcher on his death bed thinking he lived a life that was satisfactory as he spent much time trying to cure an illness. But what would Tom Hanks or Seinfeld say? Unless Seinfeld says that by bringing laughter he has contributed to people's mental health (and we're back to science again), how is he going to justify his endeavors to himself?

By the way, I have nothing against these actors. I was trying to use famous people since it is too easy to assume that a no name artist has made no significant contribution to people's well being.

I have a science background and I'm a creative/artistic person too so I am looking for a satisfactory answer for myself, to be honest. My formal training is in sciences which explains my bias in favor of them.

Human aren't machines. We have emotions, and emotions are activated by arts.:)

[ullyeus]

A more valid question might be "Should the sciences suffer in funding for the sake or art?" or "Should Art be publically funded?" or "Should art be mandatory as is Math, Science, etc"

[nickia]

I've caught myself thinking the same thing on more than one occasion. We see alot of sci-fi interpretations of the future that picture our civilization taking advanced leaps in technology and quality of life. And I think, "Hey, why shouldn't I and everybody else go into engineering and the like so that we can move faster into that futuristic star trek/star wars universe, yeah that would be cool."

I believe in alot of places of the world, most countries encourage their young people into practical fields that they hope will help push their cultures and society forward. These places turn out doctors, engineers of all makes and sizes, teachers, rocket scientists, etc.
North america on the other hand is more liberal in its thinking and somewhere along the way creates these fields of study that I think are a complete waste of time in this day and age. It's not that the liberal arts aren't enriching to the soul as opposed to the hollowness of technology and industry, it's just that it ain't helping the world on the whole.
I'm an artist myself, I was born with enough dexterity and imagination to produce pretty pictures but I don't see it getting me to a level where I can claim financial freedom, though I do feel happier when I indulge in sketching.

Let's be realistic though.
Will the arts ever solve our garbage crisis?
Will it cure cancer?
Will it create more food to sustain an ever growing human population?
Will it find an infinite source of clean, renewable energy?

I might be narrow minded in this regard, but I just don't see the liberal arts doing any of this.

The human civilization advances because of the combinations of Arts and Sciences. According to Aristotle, scientific knowledge helps us to figure out what the world is like; wisdom (arts) consists of the ability to contemplate the totality of experience from a place of knowledge.

[YYZFA]

A more valid question might be "Should the sciences suffer in funding for the sake or art?" or "Should Art be publically funded?"

I don't think the first question is all that valid. Why do science and art have to be complete solitudes, opposites?

Your second example question seems more valid to me. I would argue that for the preservation and promotion of our culture and history, that yes, some forms of art should be publicly funded. Others would argue against that, but at least we'd have an intelligent question that we could begin to discuss.

[nickia]

I am totally against making music mandatory. You can argue that we need to learn math and English to survive in this world, but why should kids be forced to take music class? Even French class was more practical since I was able to travel to Quebec a few times and actually order in a restaurant.

I'm not saying we shouldn't offer music classes, I just think it should be by choice. Think of all the many other important things kids could learn with the time they waste in music class. Sorry I know its a bit OT but its something thats always been on my mind.

The best kind of person is someone who is multi-dimensional - unless you want to live in the world like the novel The Giver.

If one is more artistically inclined than others, then he will appreciate arts. Everyone is different. That's why basic arts education are mandatory to young children. This gives them a chance to explore the arts world and see if it suits them or not. It also makes them more complete.

The same thing can be said to teaching science courses to young children. Not everyone wants to become a scientist, but knowing basic scientific knowledge makes him more versatile, and also gives him a chance to have a taste of what science is like.


It's very important to educate our next generation with practical skills and intangible virtues.


Your vision of the "perfect" education system is similar to what the Chinese had done for the past 50 years. They constantly pumped out "practical engineers" but failed to realize that arts education is as important, if not more than sciences. End result? A nation that is full of brilliant people but without much creativity. The Chinese government seem to realized this and has started reforming its education system with the motto of educating our next generation with "Morals, Intelligence (Practical Science), Arts".

[UrbanPoet]

did anyone think about how the "Art" that they studied in antiquity is what slowly led to the scientific method?

Philosophy is the subject that sparked academia, NOT science.
If anyone has ever read anything in regards to the history of science, its without a doubt that science was spawned from what we now know as "The arts and humanities".

I cant believe so many people in this thread overlooked that. Without arts there would be no science. This is the thing that many people forget about in this modern age. Many would say that this modern age is the "dark age" of academia.

This is why universities make it mandatory that you take arts & humanities electives even though your in a professional program. Its the idea that "Art" and the academic tradition is what sparks innovation and inspires people to think beyond just numbers\science.

Some of the greatest scientist were prolific artist or had great interest in the 'arts'
eg. Leonardo da vinci. He is most notable as being not only a great artist, but a scientist.
Albert Einstien. A great physicist, but also documented as being a big fan of mozart and music.

[gordholio]

Without music and other forms of art, we'd be a pretty mechanical and boring sort of society. It's that way enough with business people as it is. Music brings up my mood when I'm feeling down - can't say that about math or science.

[nickia]

The question is preposterous. The arts and science are both invaluable. They both have made our society what it is. Science has greatly benefitted our society, but science has no morals, no judgements. It is science that has cured diseases, made drought resistant crops to feed the masses, developed medicines and mass communications to make our lives easier. Scientific developments have also caused pollution, the nuclear bomb, tools of warfare and other horrific inventions.

The OP unfairly trivializes "the arts". How does he define "the arts"? Anything that isn't science? Let's assume he envisions a "utopia" dedicated almost solely to scientific development, and let's assume that all science is used for the betterment of mankind, with no other harmful affects (an impossibility, but imagine). We all live free of genetic defects and disease. All of life's necessities are taken care of (food, shelter). There is no more hardship. Our lifespan is 200 years. What the hell are we supposed to do with ourselves? There is no art. No entertainment. No diversions. No literature. No culture. No thanks!

What would be the point of life? All we'd be doing is breathing. That's not living. By the way, what does the OP think inspires most scientific ideas and developments? Would we have scientific advances without the dreams and aspirations that only "the arts" can provide?

Again, I reiterate, the supposition is ridiculous.

Exactly, imagine the world without TV, music, movies, stage arts, dances, jokes, pictures, etc. What do you do all day after work/school then? Open up your medicine book and do that as your leisure activity?:lol:

[2k4accord]

Exactly, imagine the world without TV, music, movies, stage arts, dances, jokes, pictures, etc. What do you do all day after work/school then? Open up your medicine book and do that as your leisure activity?:lol:

It would be one F***ING BORING world. I would not want to live in a boring world.
I am sure the suicide rate will be sky high and eventually, there will be no more human on earth.

[thendless]

Imagine a world without music :|

If anything, no art in the world would only hurt society and cause it to devolve. All things in this world have their place and everything is interconnected. Science needs art and art needs science. If we are to evolve as a society all aspects of humanity must be working together in unison.

[Canada_7]

Like a few that have brought it up, can you imagine how boring our lives would be if there wasn't music (or whatever type of entertainment you prefer)?

[Talamasca]

I'm not saying we shouldn't offer music classes, I just think it should be by choice. Think of all the many other important things kids could learn with the time they waste in music class.

Like what? In the early years of school, everyone learns language arts (English & French in Canada), history, geography, math, science, tech (workshop), family studies, physical education, visual arts, and music. What would take the place of music? What other subject to learn is there? Every advanced course you take later in high school, college, and university is derived from one or more of these fundamental courses.

I took music like everyone else. Can I read a music sheet or play an instrument? Nope. But some students out there love it and go on to become musicians. By learning a little bit of everything in the early years, it helps you decide what you end up doing with your life. I also hated visual arts as I couldn't draw, sculpt, or paint well if my life depended on it. But I ended up taking art history in university, developed a great appreciation for art, and have subsequently been to most of the famous art museums in the world and absolutely treasured each experience.

And hey, a lot of RFDers are into photography - that's art!

[nickia]

And hey, a lot of RFDers are into p0rnography - that's art!

Sorry:lol:

[Peckerwood]

Without the arts we could revert to wearing the same clothing and expressing ourselves in meaningful centralized statist ways.

Communism FTW...the colour Grey rules.

:)

[sPiKyAZN]

Like what? In the early years of school, everyone learns language arts (English & French in Canada), history, geography, math, science, tech (workshop), family studies, physical education, visual arts, and music. What would take the place of music? What other subject to learn is there? Every advanced course you take later in high school, college, and university is derived from one or more of these fundamental courses.

I took music like everyone else. Can I read a music sheet or play an instrument? Nope. But some students out there love it and go on to become musicians. By learning a little bit of everything in the early years, it helps you decide what you end up doing with your life. I also hated visual arts as I couldn't draw, sculpt, or paint well if my life depended on it. But I ended up taking art history in university, developed a great appreciation for art, and have subsequently been to most of the famous art museums in the world and absolutely treasured each experience.

And hey, a lot of RFDers are into photography - that's art!

This is the thing. I'm not against art at all. Don't think I am some super practical mathematician. The point I want to put across is that art shouldn't be forced upon people. You hated visual art when you had to take it, but later on when you chose to take art history you enjoyed it.

So what I am saying is that courses like music should be optional, not mandatory. I stick by the fact that I have not gained anything out of taking music class. I have over 4000 songs on my hard drive and I enjoy music from practically every genre. Did I need to spend hours learning to play "Mary had a little lamb" in order to enjoy my collection now?

Art-related courses are definately important, however, they should be kept optional. You can't force someone to be creative. Art is supposed to be something southing and mind-opening; not something you dread.

[gilboman]

This is the thing. I'm not against art at all. Don't think I am some super practical mathematician. The point I want to put across is that art shouldn't be forced upon people. You hated visual art when you had to take it, but later on when you chose to take art history you enjoyed it.

So what I am saying is that courses like music should be optional, not mandatory. I stick by the fact that I have not gained anything out of taking music class. I have over 4000 songs on my hard drive and I enjoy music from practically every genre. Did I need to spend hours learning to play "Mary had a little lamb" in order to enjoy my collection now?

Art-related courses are definately important, however, they should be kept optional. You can't force someone to be creative. Art is supposed to be something southing and mind-opening; not something you dread.

why are we forcing people to take english or math or sciences if they dread it as well? we need students to be exposed to a variety of areas so that they can discover what they actually like.

you make it sound like you are forced to major in musical studies or something, its a couple of measly courses at most. everybody should have a basic understanding of arts, just like math and sciences.

[sPiKyAZN]

why are we forcing people to take english or math or sciences if they dread it as well? we need students to be exposed to a variety of areas so that they can discover what they actually like.

you make it sound like you are forced to major in musical studies or something, its a couple of measly courses at most. everybody should have a basic understanding of arts, just like math and sciences.

Because I think English and math are more essential. Those early math and English courses really were the building blocks to what I am learning today. You need English to communicate, but I really don't think I need to know the difference between a whole note and an eighth note to survive.

I spent six years learning music in school. I know in the long run it's not much, but I just feel like I could've spent the time better. I just don't see how it offered anything important to my life other than the assurance that I do not want to become a classical musician.

Like I said kids should be offered a choice, after my first year in music class I knew it wasn't right for me. If I spent more time doing math homework instead of filling practice logs, I would have probably been in better shape for the stuff I'm learning today.

Anyways its just a personal rant. The truth is arts are just as important as sciences. Most of us would kill ourselves if it weren't for the arts and we would be nowhere without science.

[revelation]

Because I think

That pretty much summed up your points, to be honest :)

[YYZFA]

Kids can't choose anything responsibly. When I was a kid, if given the choice, I'd have chosen not to go to school at all. That would have been a bad choice for me.

I guarantee most kids would choose music over math or science, if they had a choice. Many of them might not have enjoyed music, but it wasn't as stressful as math and science was to most. Doing some things we don't necessarily enjoy or appreciate is also a learning experience.

You don't think reading sheet music and adapting to different tempos and volumes, while following a conductor who is orchestrating the whole thing forces your mind to multitask and think in a mathematical way? You don't think playing your part accurately in a composition exercises the mind in a purely analytical way, and forces you to think outside of the box, like you have to do in more "noble" causes like science and math? Seriously, many people who think they're naturally predisposed to the "vital" subjects of science tend to be more close minded and anti-social. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, science is important, but it doesn't teach morals, values or humanity like "the arts" do.

[nickia]

This is the thing. I'm not against art at all. Don't think I am some super practical mathematician. The point I want to put across is that art shouldn't be forced upon people. You hated visual art when you had to take it, but later on when you chose to take art history you enjoyed it.

So what I am saying is that courses like music should be optional, not mandatory. I stick by the fact that I have not gained anything out of taking music class. I have over 4000 songs on my hard drive and I enjoy music from practically every genre. Did I need to spend hours learning to play "Mary had a little lamb" in order to enjoy my collection now?

Art-related courses are definately important, however, they should be kept optional. You can't force someone to be creative. Art is supposed to be something southing and mind-opening; not something you dread.

Honestly, If I wasn't "forced" to enroll in the strings program in Grade 7, I wouldn't be playing violin now. Not everyone is a naturally-gifted like Mozart who demanded to play instruments when he was an infant. I kind of wanted a violin when I was a kid because it looked cool to me. But it was just a random spurt and didn't lead to anywhere. When I was exposed to the classical music, the feeling creating the music by playing with others in an orchestra and be a part of the harmony was sensational. If I wasn't exposed to the musical world, I think I'd be missing a lot in my life.

Again, different people feel differently toward arts. Some of my friends are masters of their instruments, but they don't seem to enjoy them as much as I do even though I'm not as good.

[nickia]

Kids can't choose anything responsibly. When I was a kid, if given the choice, I'd have chosen not to go to school at all. That would have been a bad choice for me.

I guarantee most kids would choose music over math or science, if they had a choice. Many of them might not have enjoyed music, but it wasn't as stressful as math and science was to most. Doing some things we don't necessarily enjoy or appreciate is also a learning experience.

You don't think reading sheet music and adapting to different tempos and volumes, while following a conductor who is orchestrating the whole thing forces your mind to multitask and think in a mathematical way? You don't think playing your part accurately in a composition exercises the mind in a purely analytical way, and forces you to think outside of the box, like you have to do in more "noble" causes like science and math? Seriously, many people who think they're naturally predisposed to the "vital" subjects of science tend to be more close minded and anti-social. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, science is important, but it doesn't teach morals, values or humanity like "the arts" do.

Exactly. When you look at the compositions of those greats, the interval between notes can be expressed in purely mathematic form.

Everything is interconnected. :arrowl:

[Blunt]

This is the thing. I'm not against art at all. Don't think I am some super practical mathematician. The point I want to put across is that art shouldn't be forced upon people. You hated visual art when you had to take it, but later on when you chose to take art history you enjoyed it.

So what I am saying is that courses like music should be optional, not mandatory. I stick by the fact that I have not gained anything out of taking music class. I have over 4000 songs on my hard drive and I enjoy music from practically every genre. Did I need to spend hours learning to play "Mary had a little lamb" in order to enjoy my collection now?

Art-related courses are definately important, however, they should be kept optional. You can't force someone to be creative. Art is supposed to be something southing and mind-opening; not something you dread.


You are more stupid than I though.
Definately science and math can't help YOU in everything.

[sPiKyAZN]

You are more stupid than I though.
Definately science and math can't help YOU in everything.

Thanks for the personal attack.

I'm not trying to force my view on people or anything like that. Like I mentioned in a post above its just a question that's been in the back of my mind, that's all. What the others have posted is exactly what I've been looking for; answers to my questions.

I understand where you guys are coming from YYZFA and nickia. Unfortunately, I think I was never good enough to realize any of these benefits. I wasn't able to play an instrument well and it just frustrated me and closed my mind toward playing a classical instrument. But I guess what you guys are saying is true. There's a little bit of everything in everything right?

[TapemanPL]

You are more stupid than I though.
Definately science and math can't help YOU in everything.

it's quite ironic how you are calling someone stupid, yet you made some pretty simple spelling and grammatical errors in your sentences

should have been:
You are more stupid than I though. Science and math definitely can't help you in everything.

I'm not saying I'm exceptionally well at writing, but these rules should to be second nature to anyone who went to elementary school.

[heat]

Because science students wish to take bird courses to boost their GPA. Where do they find such courses? Faculty of Arts.

:lol:

[Alvito]

Art is necessary. Without art you would not have science.

[toalan]

I am an engineer and I consider myself an artist.

My canvas is Printed circuit board, my paints are chips and my brush is my computer. I create and give life to my ideas.

Above all it is creativity that is the the common thread between myself and a poet.

If I could actually draw I would have loved to become an artist, if my grammar was decent I would have loved to be a writer, if I could play an instrument I would have loved to be a musician. I am none of those things but I still find that I can express myself through the electronics I design.

Einstien did not come up with relativity because the math lead him there, relativity came from his own imagination without any motivation from the outside world. He once said that creativity was more important than knowledge or intellegence.

Art and engineering to me are the same, a good engineer needs to be as creative as a good artist, it is just that we work with a different canvas.

[EchoAngel911]

there were many good points made in this long thread

-watch the Equilibrium movie (no emotions, no art)
--looks like a dull society
-"A world without art is a world without culture, without heart, without passion, without creativity"

I do a lot of engineering duties but i love music (keeps me going all day) and play multiple instruments

[khtm]

It's all related. Science exists because of business, business succeeds because of art.

Would we have so many doctors if it paid minimum wage? Will people buy a brick or an ipod?
Hahahahahahahahahahahah
Yeah, if it wasn't for people trying to make a buck, nobody would do any research. :-0
Moron.

[chrza]

Hahahahahahahahahahahah
Yeah, if it wasn't for people trying to make a buck, nobody would do any research. :-0
Moron.

So you don't think doctors aren't driven by monetary incentives?

[killoverme]

Kids can't choose anything responsibly. When I was a kid, if given the choice, I'd have chosen not to go to school at all. That would have been a bad choice for me.

I guarantee most kids would choose music over math or science, if they had a choice. Many of them might not have enjoyed music, but it wasn't as stressful as math and science was to most. Doing some things we don't necessarily enjoy or appreciate is also a learning experience.

You don't think reading sheet music and adapting to different tempos and volumes, while following a conductor who is orchestrating the whole thing forces your mind to multitask and think in a mathematical way? You don't think playing your part accurately in a composition exercises the mind in a purely analytical way, and forces you to think outside of the box, like you have to do in more "noble" causes like science and math? Seriously, many people who think they're naturally predisposed to the "vital" subjects of science tend to be more close minded and anti-social. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, science is important, but it doesn't teach morals, values or humanity like "the arts" do.

Kid's don't like a lot of things, and much of that is because it is unknown to them. Schools by making it mandatory, provide them with opportunities to test and see if they like it or not. I'm sure some will hate it and such, but thats why its in the lower grades where marks don't truely matter (in my opinion). By just giving the opportunity to experience many things, your mind is also thinking and reasoning. Using an instrument can teach a lot about science as well.

There are many discussions about the Art and Science, I'm sure if you searched you will find details about their connectiveness and how one builds on the other. Without art, its art to express science and some (perhaps all) art also comes from science