Is a bias showing?

[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.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

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.


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.

Henry Ford may have pioneered the modern assembly line, but he also invented the forty hour 5 day work week and doubled the average wage at the time for assembly line workers. (link) Furthermore, I think you could make a pretty good argument that the assembly line has enabled the way the middle class lives today, but that is probably a topic for another thread.

I get that art is reinvented and reinterpreted all the time, I seem to be in the minority that really enjoyed Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet and I like West Side Story too. While I appreciate those, I really can't see it as equivalent to the massive jumps made by technology. The industrial and airplane turbines of today are engines that spin a shaft, just like James Watts' walking beam steam engines of the 1700s. While the modern engine is a descendent of those early engines, they are not created equal. While the steam engine was revolutionary in it's day, 1770s technology just doesn't cut it today. We don't teach people how to design walking beam steam engines, they just aren't relevant. (which doesn't mean they aren't cool! )

SNL has a light-hearted view of it

[mathking]

Alas, another one of these threads. Oh well.

First off, I would like to make a plea for all of the engineering and science majors out here not to try playing the "other majors are easy" card. I had a former student remark to me once about how freaked out his engineering classmates were in a class when told they had to write a 10 page position paper and the professor told them that part of the grade would be style and readability. Different majors have different difficulties. Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because you can do something or know something that someone else can't do or doesn't know that you are smarter or worked harder than that person.

By the same token, don't think that just because you work in a tech field that your work is intrinsically more worthwhile or more important than another person's work. Remember, a LOT of the problems we are counting on technology to solve were caused by technology.

[penguinfrk]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I get that art is reinvented and reinterpreted all the time, I seem to be in the minority that really enjoyed Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet and I like West Side Story too. While I appreciate those, I really can't see it as equivalent to the massive jumps made by technology. The industrial and airplane turbines of today are engines that spin a shaft, just like James Watts' walking beam steam engines of the 1700s. While the modern engine is a descendent of those early engines, they are not created equal. While the steam engine was revolutionary in it's day, 1770s technology just doesn't cut it today. We don't teach people how to design walking beam steam engines, they just aren't relevant. (which doesn't mean they aren't cool! )

I think using advancement or progress interchangeably with or as a comparison to novelty is a dangerous thing to do. Maybe art isn't advancing as fast as technology or science, but it doesn't mean that West Side Story isn't a novel and refreshing reinvention of Romeo and Juliet. Maybe we're watching the same sports, but each game is different; imagine how boring it'd be if we watched the same Super Bowl game reruns or Charlie Chaplin movies over and over.

So much non-engineering goes into making good teams successful, be it marketing, animation, photography/videography, music production, web design... hell, we were even looking for good knitters to help us knit weights into fabric for this year's robot. As far as our team goes, Robotics Club is a huge misnomer, and if we couldn't communicate that, about two-thirds of our members and half our sponsors wouldn't be with us.

[Mr. Van]

"...medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for..."

- Dead Poet's Society

Pursue your passion whatever that may be and do not fault another for pursuing theirs.

- Mr. Van

[Sandvich]

OK, I think I said some things that didn't come across well. I just think that we currently have more emphasis in schools and culture on art than on technology, and I would like to rectify that. I don't think that art is unnecessary or anything like that, and I don't want to bash artistic people.

Originally Posted by mrnoble

Quote: "Are there private technology schools? No."
Actually, there are, and public ones too. My own kids attend the Denver School of Science and Technology. It happens to be a couple blocks away from the Denver School of the Arts, and they are the #1 and #2 schools in the city in test scores, graduation rate, and kids ready for college.

OK, point made, though I still think overall there is more extracurricular opportunity for artistry than for STEM.

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

Actually, we kind of can't.

Sorry for phrasing that wrong. Again, I am not for the elimination of art. But it doesn't need the emphasis that it gets, at least not when you consider the respective loss to STEM education. By "living without art" I meant that even if art was suddenly no longer taught in schools, we'd be ok.

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

If anything, art like that enforces false notions about society. I think most people don't really change deep down because of movies or books. On the other hand, I do think there are plenty of cool movies and books out there. Some of it is really inspiring to me (not West Side Story, though). But even those need technology to be distributed--mechanical and electrical engineers to build the equipment, mining and materials engineers to provide the raw materials, sound technicians and cinematographers, etc. Those jobs are in demand. I know far more unemployed writers and actors than unemployed scientists and engineers.

So even art needs a lot of technology, and people with STEM backgrounds play a crucial role in producing and distributing art.

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

Yes, I agree. But I don't think that emphasis art is really going to solve much of that, that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

Again, this doesn't quite cut it for me. I'm just a skeptical person, so maybe we're at an impasse.

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

Before Chaplin, somebody had to invent motion pictures. It took the work of Edison, Dickson, Lumiere and others to get there.

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

I don't want the people who make art to disappear... I just want it to lose its status as a culturally coddled field that people seem to subconsciously think is better. People generally think of artistry as something beautiful and spiritual, which it can be, but how many people have anything but a cynical view of boring old science? Not enough.

Our culture thinks more highly of artists than STEM people. I don't like this. I want kids to think about STEM a lot. I want it to be mainstream, and I don't think it's quite there yet. And as much as I liked the Black Company books and The Beast (1988) and Firefly and so many other things, I think that we don't really we need the sheer volume of art that we have.

The way I think of it is this: if you're really inspired to be a painter or a writer, then great!! Go ahead and do what you want. But otherwise, consider STEM as a serious alternative. Right now, it's not like that. For this I blame the outdated dogma of making STEM education so formal. Students dismiss engineering as all math, which isn't true. FIRST is helping to rectify that, fortunately. The best part about FRC is the combination of hands-on experience, and relatively advanced technology which puts its alumni on the cutting edge.

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

Now, I'm all for STEM. But I'm for STEAM even more.

But, if we're going to add art, I don't see why not add B, because business is crucial to a functioning, stable economy. So STEBAM. In fact, doctors and lawyers are also vital, as they provide important services in the service sector. So why not make it STESBAM for the service sector.

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

I agree 100%.

[Michael Sperber]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

I completely agree...
Can't we argue that science and engineering are constantly reinventing and building upon the "classics" of Einstien, simple machines, etc.?