6 ms·

"I voluntarily teach math at a school here in MN, so i get some insight into what's going on at the schools and the fact is, while the politicians and corporati

by gnosis 14y ago

"I voluntarily teach math at a school here in MN, so i get some insight into what's going on at the schools and the fact is, while the politicians and corporations are sounding off about STEM, at schools people are still talking more about funding "the arts"." From what I understand, if you are a math teacher you virtually have a guaranteed job at many, many highschools across the nation. If you're an art teacher, good f'ing luck. The cold, hard fact is that art, music, dance, and theater are not considered serious occupations by the overwhelming majority of people in the US (despite their worship of celebrity artists, musicians, and actors). If it's their kid, they want the kid to be a doctor, lawyer, or (more recently) dotcom billionaire. Art/music/dance/drama class just does not fit in to this very narrow-minded view of the world, where profit and fame are king. Some kids are so driven that they might take an art class (usually their first semi-serious one is in high school.. and by then, how many math classes have they had?) or even study it at university. But if they do study it at university, it's either as one of many electives or (if as a major) against their parents' objections -- because most parents know how hard it is to "succeed" in this society as an artist, musician, dancer, writer, or actor. If you are an engineer or programmer, nevermind doctor or lawyer, you're going to usually be taken much more seriously and get more respect from most people than any kind of non-celebrity artist. And funding in the schools generally reflects these sad but all too common views. Unfortunately, scientists and teachers are often in the same boat as far as lack of respect as artists are. But even there, the amount of funding given to educating more scientists and teachers is far greater than that devoted to educating various artists. The dollar is king in America, and the overwhelming majority of artists are near the bottom rung of the money ladder in this country. Odds are you'll make far more money working at McDonalds than you ever will as any kind of artist. And, a bit of philanthropy notwithstanding, the rest of society reflects this monetary bias.

qzxt 14y ago
If you're talking about the economic prognosis of art, I'd like to direct you to the world of high-end sports cars. There are many people who can afford to buy and maintain them in this world. Not all of them do. Just like many people can afford to buy works of art, but not all of them do. Why? Because one doesn't really need a sports car, just like one doesn't really need an art piece. The author's essay isn't one of the lament of the hard times of an artist. It is a lament of the diminishing of creativity because his definition of creativity is rooted in a traditionalist idea of creativity as resting solely in the lap of artists. Before the PC revolution no one would want their kids to be programmers. "Programmers were smelly fat white kids". Now it's a hot commodity. Welcome to the markets. Mathematicians were "useless theorists" till a couple of decades ago (as a matter of fact many people still think this). Until industrialization, scientists were a bunch of "rich white guys, not in tune to the needs of the common man". And more importantly, up until recently, engineers were little math nerds, easy bait for the MBA alpha dudes. You're confusing economic safety with societal respect. If you're talking about the economic aspect, as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet. Poems wouldn't keep a roof over my head and hell, at the time, neither would code. Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits. If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market. But economics isn't the author's thesis.
- gnosis 14y ago
  "as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid. "If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market." I'm not. Not until they can make a better living at it than most other professions. The sad fact is that not only is making art looked down on in this society (as "emo", or "gay", or as not serious or worthwhile), but most people are not interested in expressing themselves artistically (partially as a result of the education system, and partially because of social attitudes towards artists and art). Maybe as kids, a minority of Americans enjoyed an art class here and there, but they probably never dreamed of creating art for a living -- even if it somehow could earn them a decent wage (which it can't now.. not even remotely). So I don't think even economic parity with other respected professions would suddenly flood the market with artists. Not until societal attitudes and the education system changes pretty radically. Until then, people will still want to go in to a more respectable and "achievable" career path. Sure, if there's suddenly a swarm of artist billionaires like there has been of dotcom billionaires, then many money-hungry people will swarm in to the art field (as they have in to the startup industry). But I for one am not holding my breath.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - kenjackson 14y ago
    "as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid. I think now kids say, "I want to be a rapper". If you define art as "that thing that is emo" then you've created a tautology about art. But if you look at art as things like: rap, creating electronica music, writing screenplays, etc... I think you'll see that society as really embraced art. It's just not called art anymore. It's the same fate as AI.
  - nonboy 14y ago
    Is designing a building art? What about a website? How about directing an advertisement or designing the title sequence for a television series? Is researching information for a historical documentary an artistic or scientific vocation? Is such a harsh delineation even suitable? Level design for a game? Texture design? Concept art? Designing the circuitry for a synthesizer? Many people are creating art for a living, though you may not see it as such. In fact, the authentic problem could be identified as society's very narrow definition of what "art" is. Artistic vocations are all over the place, and the prerequisites for entering such a career are just as, if not arguably more demanding than those for "technical" careers such as software engineering. There's also frequently overlap between technical and artistic vocations and they exist side-by-side for many businesses so I disagree with the notion that people can't make money selling art (including the one belonging to the parent poster).
goldfeld 14y ago
Perhaps it's more of an issue of simple market dynamics of demand and availability than you care to paint it? Every other kid wants to do a liberal arts major, but how many want to do math? How many americans, in fact, because most I see are driven immigrant individuals taking up this baton so many americans drop in favor of studying philosophy. Both are equally important, yet not equally coveted. And that results in how many teachers we end up with, generation after generation, with a fresh degree in whatever he chose and now needing a teaching position.
- rdouble 14y ago
  Nobody in America drops a math major to study philosophy. A more likely scenario is someone who can't handle the coursework to get a business degree so they end up majoring in communications.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - crgt 14y ago
    Citation? I'm a data point of one, but...I did it..
- gnosis 14y ago
  "Every other kid wants to do a liberal arts major, but how many want to do math?" Liberal arts major as such is quite different from an art major. Many kids do want to maybe be an English or History major and then teach. Far, far fewer want to be an art major and try to survive as an artist (or even an art teacher). As far as math goes, maybe not all that many kids want to be mathematicians, but plenty do take a fair bit of math on their way to becoming engineers, programmers, doctors, and scientists. They all certainly take far more math courses than art courses. Of course, few artists take many math courses, but there are far fewer art students than there are students of professions that rely on math and need a decent education in math to graduate. "so many americans drop in favor of studying philosophy" Oh please. There are probably fewer philosophy majors in the US who actually want to do philosophy after school than art majors (of which there are very few). There'd be even fewer overall if philosophy wasn't the number one major of students accepted in to law school. Most philosophy majors just use that major as a means to get in to law school.
tracker1 14y ago
Well, maybe, just maybe, there are more people who want to be art teachers, than there are math teachers.. and in that, the positions are relatively hard to fill.. There are also more jobs at Walmart than in Education. The financial disparity of "art" is that there is only so much room for people to excel and you have to be very good... only the top 1% will ever gain any recognition... There are plenty of schools out there dedicated to the arts... there are also schools dedicated to science. From the financial perspective, nothing is stopping anyone from picking up a pencil and paper and drawing, or dancing to music. YouTube etc has given rise to quite a few self-starters. The same goes for computers... Except with computers the financial barrier to entry is a little higher. Just the same, there's a number of articles, books, blogs, etc that will help you learn if you take the initiative. Not having something in a classroom never stopped someone with initiative from learning something. Have some.

by gnosis 14y ago

qzxt 14y ago

If you're talking about the economic prognosis of art, I'd like to direct you to the world of high-end sports cars. There are many people who can afford to buy and maintain them in this world. Not all of them do. Just like many people can afford to buy works of art, but not all of them do. Why? Because one doesn't really need a sports car, just like one doesn't really need an art piece. The author's essay isn't one of the lament of the hard times of an artist. It is a lament of the diminishing of creativity because his definition of creativity is rooted in a traditionalist idea of creativity as resting solely in the lap of artists. Before the PC revolution no one would want their kids to be programmers. "Programmers were smelly fat white kids". Now it's a hot commodity. Welcome to the markets. Mathematicians were "useless theorists" till a couple of decades ago (as a matter of fact many people still think this). Until industrialization, scientists were a bunch of "rich white guys, not in tune to the needs of the common man". And more importantly, up until recently, engineers were little math nerds, easy bait for the MBA alpha dudes. You're confusing economic safety with societal respect. If you're talking about the economic aspect, as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet. Poems wouldn't keep a roof over my head and hell, at the time, neither would code. Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits. If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market. But economics isn't the author's thesis.

gnosis 14y ago
"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid. "If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market." I'm not. Not until they can make a better living at it than most other professions. The sad fact is that not only is making art looked down on in this society (as "emo", or "gay", or as not serious or worthwhile), but most people are not interested in expressing themselves artistically (partially as a result of the education system, and partially because of social attitudes towards artists and art). Maybe as kids, a minority of Americans enjoyed an art class here and there, but they probably never dreamed of creating art for a living -- even if it somehow could earn them a decent wage (which it can't now.. not even remotely). So I don't think even economic parity with other respected professions would suddenly flood the market with artists. Not until societal attitudes and the education system changes pretty radically. Until then, people will still want to go in to a more respectable and "achievable" career path. Sure, if there's suddenly a swarm of artist billionaires like there has been of dotcom billionaires, then many money-hungry people will swarm in to the art field (as they have in to the startup industry). But I for one am not holding my breath.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- kenjackson 14y ago
  "as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid. I think now kids say, "I want to be a rapper". If you define art as "that thing that is emo" then you've created a tautology about art. But if you look at art as things like: rap, creating electronica music, writing screenplays, etc... I think you'll see that society as really embraced art. It's just not called art anymore. It's the same fate as AI.
- nonboy 14y ago
  Is designing a building art? What about a website? How about directing an advertisement or designing the title sequence for a television series? Is researching information for a historical documentary an artistic or scientific vocation? Is such a harsh delineation even suitable? Level design for a game? Texture design? Concept art? Designing the circuitry for a synthesizer? Many people are creating art for a living, though you may not see it as such. In fact, the authentic problem could be identified as society's very narrow definition of what "art" is. Artistic vocations are all over the place, and the prerequisites for entering such a career are just as, if not arguably more demanding than those for "technical" careers such as software engineering. There's also frequently overlap between technical and artistic vocations and they exist side-by-side for many businesses so I disagree with the notion that people can't make money selling art (including the one belonging to the parent poster).

goldfeld 14y ago

Perhaps it's more of an issue of simple market dynamics of demand and availability than you care to paint it? Every other kid wants to do a liberal arts major, but how many want to do math? How many americans, in fact, because most I see are driven immigrant individuals taking up this baton so many americans drop in favor of studying philosophy. Both are equally important, yet not equally coveted. And that results in how many teachers we end up with, generation after generation, with a fresh degree in whatever he chose and now needing a teaching position.

rdouble 14y ago
Nobody in America drops a math major to study philosophy. A more likely scenario is someone who can't handle the coursework to get a business degree so they end up majoring in communications.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- crgt 14y ago
  Citation? I'm a data point of one, but...I did it..
gnosis 14y ago
"Every other kid wants to do a liberal arts major, but how many want to do math?" Liberal arts major as such is quite different from an art major. Many kids do want to maybe be an English or History major and then teach. Far, far fewer want to be an art major and try to survive as an artist (or even an art teacher). As far as math goes, maybe not all that many kids want to be mathematicians, but plenty do take a fair bit of math on their way to becoming engineers, programmers, doctors, and scientists. They all certainly take far more math courses than art courses. Of course, few artists take many math courses, but there are far fewer art students than there are students of professions that rely on math and need a decent education in math to graduate. "so many americans drop in favor of studying philosophy" Oh please. There are probably fewer philosophy majors in the US who actually want to do philosophy after school than art majors (of which there are very few). There'd be even fewer overall if philosophy wasn't the number one major of students accepted in to law school. Most philosophy majors just use that major as a means to get in to law school.

tracker1 14y ago

Well, maybe, just maybe, there are more people who want to be art teachers, than there are math teachers.. and in that, the positions are relatively hard to fill.. There are also more jobs at Walmart than in Education. The financial disparity of "art" is that there is only so much room for people to excel and you have to be very good... only the top 1% will ever gain any recognition... There are plenty of schools out there dedicated to the arts... there are also schools dedicated to science. From the financial perspective, nothing is stopping anyone from picking up a pencil and paper and drawing, or dancing to music. YouTube etc has given rise to quite a few self-starters. The same goes for computers... Except with computers the financial barrier to entry is a little higher. Just the same, there's a number of articles, books, blogs, etc that will help you learn if you take the initiative. Not having something in a classroom never stopped someone with initiative from learning something. Have some.