I do art as a hobby. Photography and painting and drawing. Used to play the guitar and keep a journal and write poetry. I can even dance and like to sing but my voice ain’t that great. The only one I’m really good at though is visual Art.
You need a certain base line skill to do (any of) that stuff professionally, either you have it or you don’t.
It’s nice to think we don’t need Art schools but just like any other complex skill, in reality, we do. Self taught Artists do exist, but, are in the minority.
BTW- I do like representational Art, I prefer it in fact. I “hate” abstract Art but do recognize that connected to interior design it is actually a worthwhile skill/Art. But as stand alone Art I really do not like Abstract Art.
I think that is more a factor of what the public wants (or responds to) is what we get at then end of the process.
And I also think that STEM sorts are far more likely to call someone out on fuzzy thinking and BS than a lot of the social sciences types, who want to support the theory du jour.
I chair the humanities department in one of the highest-ranked public STEM schools in the country, so I feel like I have something to say about this. I believe, passionately, in having rigorous, high-quality STEM education available for everyone, and I completely believe that as a society we need a great many people who are deeply seeped in technical fields.
That said, a focus on STEM does leave gaps. I don’t really see them in “critical thinking”–I see them in context and communication. A good education in humanities means you are steeped in context–a focus, generally, on modes of thought, or history, or of literature or art, and a pretty good grasp of all the others because they are interwoven. That context shapes how you handle new ideas, new people, new situations. It gives you a greater sense of nuance and complexity.
This is closely related to how a humanities education makes you a better communicator. It’s not just about being able to list your salient points in organized, functional prose–though not a few STEM types could use more education in that. It’s about understanding what needs to be communicated–anticipating what information matters to your audience and what doesn’t, what unstated objections need to be overcome, what emotions you are dealing with and what emotions you want to inspire and how to do all that. Context is what helps with that–understanding how the world works, how people work. IME, there exists a STEM type person who tends to treat “understanding how people work” as a kind of innate skill that they are weirdly proud not to have: it’s the STEM version of “I’m bad at math, giggle-giggle”. Their is a lot of denial that these are skills one can learn.
Now, it’s entirely possible to have a humanities degree and not have these skills–I’ll fully cop to the truth that it’s more possible to almost totally bullshit your way through some humanities programs than through, say, EE. But that’s an issue with how STEM is assessed, not with the utility of the curriculum. And it’s possible to have a STEM degree and have picked up a great deal of context/understanding of people/communication skills through other channels. But a rigorous humanities education, pursued as seriously as the most serious STEM major ever covered their field, will result in a much more complete, robust sense of these things.
See C.P. Snow on the two cultures. But there are a lot more mathematicians interested in the arts than vice versa. And a mathematician who is not critical of his own work will not go very far. Critical thinking is crucial. The degree to which this carries over to other aspects of life varies quite a lot, however. All in all, I would guess that there is nothing to support either of the OP’s suggestions.
You do realize that life experience is a form of learning, right?
I grew up in a household that entertained lively debate. I think that’s where you with the face and I get our fiestiness from. I have never cowered from calling someone on their bullshit (at least when they’re delivering it directly to me), and I think it’s because my parents were always doing this to each other (typically in the context of religion, but sometimes politics).
But one can easily learn how to make fallacious arguments by learning at the feet of family members. My mother regularly makes appeals to authority, for instance, when she’s debating. My father regularly appeals to emotion.
One must be formally taught that these are not rational arguments, just as one must be taught to not rely on the gut when interpreting data. The human mind is not instinctively rational. If this were the case, there would be no religion, no superstition, and no wackjob conspiracy theories.
Hey now. A non-trivial part of the reason I went into science is because it’s socially and professionally acceptable to be a nitpicking argumentative blowhard*.
Otherwise, well said.
*Within reason. I do try to be productive and helpful in my arguments, e.g. “your conclusion doesn’t follow from this data, is there something I missed?” or “I’m not convinced but I would be if you showed me result X, here’s how you can do that experiment”. But a lot of scientists nitpick merely to show off and belittle.
It’s a good thing you aren’t running the world, then. I rather like being able to watch films and TV shows with well-formulated plots and well-written scripts. I like visual arts that occasionally harken back to classical themes and styles. And when it comes to music, I don’t want to keep listening to the same sampled music and beats only with new lyrics thrown on top. I want to listen to artists with the chops to do their own original compositions.
When people are formally educated, you churn out master craftsman and artisans. Without formal education, you get a bunch of hacks.
One could easily argue (and many do) that you don’t need to go to school to learn STEM. With the right textbooks, anyone can learn how to code, design experiments, or test hypothesis. But what you will end up getting is a bunch of crackpots and wackjobs completely overshadowing the folks who actually know what they are doing.
STEM doesn’t require innate talent. Neither do the arts.
I went into science because I have a laser-like focus when it comes to numbers and I like to get my hands dirty. I chose environmental science because it has a whole lot of numbers to play around with and a lot of dirt to play in. Arguing with people was the last thing I wanted to do.
But now it seems that’s all I do. I am my agency’s nerdy attack dog. And I LOVE it. From my computer keyboard, I can tear into other scientists’ analyses without them knowing the criticism came from me. So I get to be a blowhard without facing the social consequences. Yay.
Here are some of my paintings: 1 2
Here is another piece of Art: 3
Photography: 4 5
If I gave you a digital camera or a paintbrush, 6 months of Art Lessons, and $1000 as a prize, probably only 1 in 100 people could produce what I produced in that situation. Because my Art has not only (some) skill but also content. You can’t teach someone to create an Idea.
Just like, I’ll probably never be able to picture how to repair an engine in my head. I need a diagram. I can’t do long division in my head. Some things are innate, I believe.
Anyone can learn to draw, a little. Anyone can learn algebra or basic science. But to excel you need some talent…
Have you ever heard of someone having a degree entitled “Anthropology and environmental planning”? It sounds kind of suspicious to me but it is one of only two anthropology emphasis at the online school I go to (SNHU). BTW… it is anthropology applied to modern/current environmental issues… not archaeology.
No. But I have heard of the area “human ecology”, and I believe it explores similar concepts. I’m sure it’s a valid area of interest, but I don’t know anything about it other than that it is a thing.
A failed attempt at a joke, I’m sure, but no. My degree is in “Liberal Studies.” Basically a major in Anthropology with a dual minor in Sociology and European History. It’s the perfect degree for what I wanted to do as a career, which is teach. And I have credentials in Social Studies, English, Life Sciences and Earth Sciences, and coach a championship debate team. Hardly a ringing denunciation of a Social Sciences degree.
You don’t need to excel in something to be proficient. I will never win a Nobel Prize. I will never get my own television special. I will never publish my own text book. But that doesn’t mean I will never be a good scientist, doing useful work.
Similarly, we don’t necessarily need all artists to be able to “excel”. There is plenty of work out there for the adequate artist. You’re a photographer who believes he has exceptional talent, right? Well, would you be offended if someone offered you only a few dollars to shoot their wedding? Because most excellent photographers would. Yet most people don’t really want to pay a lot of money. So they settle for “adequate”. And they are fine with “adequate”.
I have a problem with the word “talent”. It has a lot of baggage. We tell kids they have to have talent to enter a profession, and guess what? They determine they aren’t talented enough and bail out before they even try. But frequently people actually don’t know that they have competency in an area until they are formally exposed to it. And on the other hand, a lot of so-called talented find out they aren’t so talented when they are subjected to professional scrutiny.
I certainly wasn’t born with a knack for numbers. No one could have looked at me struggling with my times tables as a youngster and guessed that one day I would be crunching numbers for a living. Because I wasn’t “talented”. It is a good thing I didn’t wait for someone to call me “talented” before deciding I wanted to be a scientist. I might be doing something totally different with myself if I had.
I work with many “adequate” engineers and scientists. If they have special talents, they aren’t readily apparent. They are not inventing new gadgets or discovering cures for cancer. But they are financially well-compensated and living very comfortable, productive lives.
I have to imagine that artistic professions are no different. They’ve got their brilliant wunderkinds, but they are largely comprised of skilled practitioners. People good at what they do not because they’ve been endowed with special genetic gifts, but because they work their asses off.
