[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by Sandvich

Actually, we kind of can.

Actually, we kind of can't.

There's already plenty of art, movies, etc out there that's already been made.

But we need more. See, Dean got art wrong. It's changing just as fast as technology is, if not faster. He's right that we constantly reiterate the classics - the Shakespeares, the da Vincis, etc. - but what is cool is how each of these old art works are being appropriated to different times. A production of Romeo and Juliet today will be a lot different than the one Shakespeare originally performed. The production from today is a reflection of today's culture, not Elizabethan England's. It's a completely different work, one that helps us understand the times we are living in.

Yet improving technology does more good for the rest of the world...

Quick, what's the biggest problem the world faces right now? I'll give you a hint, it's not really an engineering issue. Answer: it's that people can't understand each other. That's what basically every conflict boils down to. Sure, there are lots of ulterior motives to war, but for the common man, it really boils down to hating the "antagonizing" group so much that you'll fight to kill them. Never mind that when we get down to it, they're exactly the same as us, except they act a bit differently.

Art is continuously proving itself to be the best way to understand different cultures. It's every country's biggest export! What easier way is there to see what a society values than looking at how a society portrays itself? And once you understand how a society works, then you can work with it. At least there is no more misunderstanding there clouding people's judgement.

So if we didn't put government funding into art, we would still be a functioning society. If technology education stopped, however, we'd be in DEEP trouble come 15 or 20 years.

I'd like to point you towards early 20th century America. This was a society in which the industrial revolution ruled. Ford's innovations on the assembly line fundamentally changed America, and out of this technological upheaval came a quest for greater and greater efficiency at the cost of the working class. Despite images of prosperity from this time, in the 1920's the gap between the wealthy and the working class was greater than ever. Good thing the working man had Charlie Chaplin movies to go see, or else some historians believe America just couldn't have coped with its new emphasis on productivity. People need a coping mechanism, and art is consistently it.

I don't care if there's kids who don't know how to play a musical instrument or play a sport, but I do care if we have a generation of people who don't know how to use a multimeter, or don't know the difference between a Philips and a flathead screwdriver

People need art to function. We aren't robots, and even robots get worn down eventually. Lots of people need to come home after a long day and just chill while watching a movie, or listening to music, or watching the Big Game. It's a valuable stress reliever. Now imagine if all the people who create this type of content just disappeared. I don't know about you, but I think I've heard of a society like this before.

Now, I'm all for STEM. But I'm for STEAM even more. Do I think we live in a culture that gives the arts too much emphasis? Yes. But do I think that we should abolish the arts on account of STEM? Not on my life.