STEM vs. STEAM

[ArthurA]

Many people here have been making the point that we need to include the art acronym as some FRC Robots are 'works of art' and how not including art devalues creative effort put in to on FRC robots.

I think everybody agrees that a great deal of creativity goes into FRC robots. However does this mean that Art has to be a core component of the STEM acronym? I really don't see a reason for this, as why should art have a monopoly on creativity??? For many (most?) people, the word art means much more than applied creativity, and for that reason it dilutes the message, especially as many components of the field of art are completely separated from many components of STEM, in a way that the various subjects part of the STEM superfield are much more closely related. Additionally, the challenges faced by STEM fields are similar, whereas the challenges faced by art fields are not similar to those faced by STEM fields.

Sure, there is overlap between architectural and industrial design fields (to pick a random example), however there is also a great deal of overlap between STEM and many other fields (that are not just peripheral but vital to the advancement of STEM), yet we do not choose to include them in the STEM acronym. For example, I would argue that STEM advancements are driven by skills in the humanities - for example many of the most prominent figures in STEM fields are not just great engineers, but also great entrepreneurs or businesspeople.

[MrForbes]

What is art?

and how can we have this discussion, without a cultural reference?

yes, my dad got a Masters degree in Art History, later in life

My LeMons Rally car:

[Siri]

I think the below (both versions) is true, but can't we make a similar case for mathematics? A la:

Originally Posted by ArthurA

I think everybody agrees that a great deal of creativity mathematics goes into FRC robots. However does this mean that Art Math has to be a core component of the STEM acronym? I really don't see a reason for this, as why should art have a monopoly on creativity??? why should mathematics have a monopoly on quantitative analysis? For many (most?) people, the word art math means much more than applied creativity engineering/science quantification, and for that reason it dilutes the message, especially as many components of the field of art math are completely separated from many components of STEM, in a way that the various subjects part of the STEM superfield are much more closely related. Additionally, the challenges faced by STEM fields are similar, whereas the challenges faced by art math fields are not similar to those faced by STEM fields.

If you're reading this wondering what math would be outside SET, back up and think about all of the different fields of mathematics versus what SET really uses day to day. Yes, we can pick specific examples for any area someone names, much the way we have been with artistic fields. But there's no denying there's a huge spectrum of useful mathematics outside of what springs to mind with "engineering" or "science" or "technology"--that's why it's called "math". This is true for all of them. If I say "engineering and zoology" or "science and mathematical topology", laypeople won't jump to a natural understanding other than the STEM acronym itself. On the other hand I'm sure if you talked to someone of a related background, they could easily explain both overlaps--just as we've been doing herein. I think much of this dissonance is that we're using all the terms to connote a specificity they don't actually mean, which is in part rooted in our a priori understanding of "STEM" itself.

I don't think there's a fair way to quantify these overlaps, and I'm not even really arguing that the overlap with art is as large as SET or STEM. But it's worth asking why we're drawing the floor where we are. I draw it here myself as well. But I have to ask myself how much of "A is the odd one out" is simply from the inertia of us understanding S, T, E, and M as STEM, even though their overlaps are not complete either?

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

What is art?

and how can we have this discussion, without a cultural reference?

yes, my dad got a Masters degree in Art History, later in life

My LeMons Rally car:

You're 24 Hrs. of Lemons'ing an Edsel? Yeah they have an ugly front end, but at least around here that would be a no-no given their rarity. Cool car all right, but IMHO that belongs in a shop being restored, not in a race of junkers.

(That said, more power to you).

----

Back on topic, here's how I see it: Art and Stem intermingle a lot. Some examples:

-A lot of aesthetic trends have been found to have a fundamentially mathmatical basis. Fractals, golden rectangles/spirals, and Fibonacci/Lucas sequences come to mind.

-While aesthetics are often absent in groundbreaking prototypes of new technology, it's an elegant presentation that often gets the technology into adoption (and the history books). Apple is a great example; Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive didn't invent much in the way of new technology; instead they integrated existing technology in user-friendly and eye-pleasing ways. Without the iPod mp3 wouldn't have taken off. Without the iPhone we likely wouldn't have smartphones (at least in the way we do now).

-On that same note, a well engineered product is doomed to fail in the market without good marketing. This includes advertising. Good advertising is both an art and a science, so once again they mix.

-In practice, I find that engineering can often be just as much an art as it is a science. Example: programming. One can slap some code together and make it work, that's the science side. Making it easy to understand and modify, now that is more of an art IMHO. Engineering without the art aspect is generally kludges, which sometimes is a necessity, yes, but often isn't the best way to go about making a quality product.

-Finally, I'll mention Will.I.Am as an example. He uses all sorts of technology to make the music that made him (and the Black Eyed Peas) famous. This is true for many artists; without good, artist-friendly technology their vision will never see the light of day. Likewise, without artists to use such technology the engineers and designers who make such have no customer base. There'd be no Photoshop, Wacom tablets, or Macs.

In many ways STEM and Art support each other. There are plenty of other examples (like the robots made by 254 and the like), but that's beside the point. By adding an A we don't have to make everything "artistic", be we can (and should) appreciate and celebrate the symbiotic relationship between STEM and art.

[MrForbes]

LeMons Rally. Not 24 Hours of LeMons. Big difference.

and you're welcome to buy it and restore it...but that would be a foolish thing to do, with a 1959 Ranger Sedan. They're very common as Edsels go, and have little intrinsic value. And very expensive to fix up. But the fun factor....yeah, they're fun to play with! Brings a smile to many who see it.

And according to an art teacher I encountered somewhere in California, the car is Art.