STEAM Actually comming to FRC, and im not happy

[Cole Cyr]

Originally Posted by bkahl

Soooooooooo..... Safe to assume the answer is no?

The purpose is to generate meaningful discussion on the potential transition from STEM to STEAM

I could attack you with the same thing, whats the purpose of you Derailing conversation? (dont answer that as it would only derail this further)

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by Cole Cyr

The purpose is to generate meaningful discussion on the potential transition from STEM to STEAM

I could attack you with the same thing, whats the purpose of you Derailing conversation? (dont answer that as it would only derail this further)

Meaningful discussion
=\=

The importance of art does not lie in any association with STEM

------

and you can't derail a thread that had no "rails" to begin with.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by bkahl

Meaningful discussion
=\=


------

and you can't derail a thread that had no "rails" to begin with.

That's just like, your opinion man.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

That's just like, your opinion man.

Subjective!

[bkahl]

If we want a meaningful discussion, I'll pose a question.

Is Computer Aided Design (CAD) an Art?

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Cole Cyr

the distinction is in the task, the term beauty for instance.

The robot performed the task beautifully. the word speaks to its level of performance

the robot looked beautiful as its performing the task. speaks to the look of the robot but not the preformance

No. Beauty does not denote performance. The definition of beauty is

the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

Even saying something was done beautifully is subjective, not objective. And as you stated in your original post,

I believe there should be no place for this type of subjectivity in the almost entirely objective fields of Science Technology Engineering and Math.

If you want to objectively compliment a robots performance, you talk about the number of times it scored, the speed with which is manipulated the game object, or its consistency across matches. Those are all objective facts that can be determined, stated, and compared. Saying it completed the task beautifully implies a subjective opinion on the method of implementation, there is nothing at all objective about it.

[KosmicKhaos]

I think the broad use of the term "Art" is what makes people not like it to be included in STEM including myself. Art does not belong in the STEM acronym. "Art" is a far too broad term to include with the other subjects. I understand that parts of art can be used in STEM like design but I don't think its right to classify all of art with STEM.

Interesting perspective from another source-
"Art is often touted as a method of adding creativity to STEM—but keep in mind that engineers are rarely lacking for creativity and ingenuity. Just look at the world around you for proof."

Does art belong in STEM? No, but parts of it certainly do like design. However in my opinion those that do already fall under engineering. There is no reason to bring them together.

"en·gi·neer·ing
ˌenjəˈniriNG/
noun
the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures."

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by bkahl

If we want a meaningful discussion, I'll pose a question.

Is Computer Aided Design (CAD) an Art?

The human part of it sure can be.


OP:
FIRST had the imagery award long before they announced STEAM. I don't think it's "coming" to FRC, it's already here and it's been embedded for a very long time.

[tjf]

Building a good robot *is* an art, and some of the stuff people make for FIRST is definitely artsy. But to add art, being the arts, to the aspects that they try to preach, it enables FIRST to be a surrogate educator in every traditional class.

Is it such a bad thing? #musicgame2018

[mman1506]

If anything the switch from STEM to STEAM open up additional sponsorship opportunities. When a corporation donates to FIRST they can now say that they support both arts and technology in schools. Two birds one stone. It's obvious that arts are a big part of FIRST so why not?

[Cole Cyr]

Originally Posted by tjf

Building a good robot *is* an art, and some of the stuff people make for FIRST is definitely artsy. But to add art, being the arts, to the aspects that they try to preach, it enables FIRST to be a surrogate educator in every traditional class.

Is it such a bad thing? #musicgame2018

Music game... would you want any aspect of the game to be subjective and have an effect on the points system. you gain extra points if the judges deem your robot good looking... thats the path were on.

[Ogehsim]

Artists do more than just paint. Many of them create works of art that rely on construction and material properties that engineers are familiar with and use frequently. Think sculptures, think kinetic art. They use welders and power tools and are concerned with structural integrity and Newtonian physics.

Leonardo Davinci designed mechanical contraptions and did art. The skills can be very complimentary. Engineers express their ideas not just through math but by drawing sketches and conceptual illustrations. Engineers are creative and so are artists. Artists often look to question the world and pose those questions to society through their art. Engineers may not like that the questions are not straightforward and often do not have answers (and yes, a lot of art is really dumb, but a lot of engineering is really dumb too, let's face it) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose.

A diversity of viewpoints is critical to coming up with new and novel solutions. We should welcome the inclusion of these new viewpoints. And if "artists" learn a new appreciation for STEM through that process, how does that hurt us? It hurts us more if we act like superior, cliquish snobs, insisting on our own superiority.

Try listening to this episode of the Embedded.fm podcast: http://embedded.fm/episodes/142 It features Sarah Petkus who is a kinetic artist who also works with robots. It's really cool.

Why not encourage that sort of crossing of disciplines rather than denigrating it?

[RoboChair]

I like well designed things that serve a function. I like things that look good. You can have both in an aesthetically pleasing package and it's beautiful when done right. It just depends on how you choose to incorporate the two and balance them.



I made this cryptex. Was it a test of my abilities as an engineer and machinist? Absolutely! Was it a test of my ability to design an aesthetically pleasing product within the bounds of material selection and ability? You bet it was! It isn't perfect, but I learned a great deal from making it. If I make others they will be designed better and look nicer. Engineers that design ugly products won't be selling very many of them.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by KosmicKhaos

I think the broad use of the term "Art" is what makes people not like it to be included in STEM including myself. Art does not belong in the STEM acronym. "Art" is a far too broad term to include with the other subjects. I understand that parts of art can be used in STEM like design but I don't think its right to classify all of art with STEM.

Interesting perspective from another source-
"Art is often touted as a method of adding creativity to STEM—but keep in mind that engineers are rarely lacking for creativity and ingenuity. Just look at the world around you for proof."

Does art belong in STEM? No, but parts of it certainly do like design. However in my opinion those that do already fall under engineering. There is no reason to bring them together.

"en·gi·neer·ing
ˌenjəˈniriNG/
noun
the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures."

I certainly agree there's enough art encompassed in engineering for engineers' purposes, as this ought to be a tautology for any field. But using that as a reason to keep an A out of STE(A)M is clearly internally inconsistent: under that logic, the acronym should just be "E". I no more need to be reminded or compelled to have art in my engineering than I do math. While I won't pretend to know any objective purpose for the original STEM acronym, but it clearly isn't that.

[Cothron Theiss]

Originally Posted by Cole Cyr

the point being that Art compliments STEM

STEM blushes, and asks if Art would like to go out for a date.