The Arts has less value than other professions?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I come off as a bit stubborn in real life, and I’ve been harassing my arts educated friends with the idea that their degree is worth less than my engineering degree for some time. It’s mostly just banter but there is some truth to it. To clarify, by arts I mostly mean music and ‘painting’/modern art/‘i made something with clay’ kind of arts students. I know that they spend much less time actually learning anything, and more time simply practicing the little they learn based on their own creativity. One friend, for example, does graphics design and has maybe 4-5hours of lecturing time each week, going to uni twice a week and spending the rest of the time being generally unproductive.

I argue that, by merit of people in finance/engineering/law/medicine spending so much at university doing coursework/projects/attending lectures/reading up on various books, and having to spend so much time in their professional lives simply keeping up with the most recent developments in their respective fields, it’s just ludicrous to think that the works of someone who gets drunk/high so many days a week and spends the rest half working is of equal value to me for example, who would on average HAVE TO spend 30+ hours a week attending lectures and doing coursework, plus an extra 10-30 hours dependent on the mark and desired skill set bar the exam period.

I argue that a degree may not be a guarantor of skill, but it’s probable that someone who has spent so much more time honing their skills is more capable. I also suggest that it’s not just about the technical skill set, but given that many engineers go into finance for example, it’s just as much about the way you approach problems and your learning methods, which arts students aren’t equipped with. To further the case, I cite the fact that engineers have the highest dropout rate in university ( news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/547460.stm ), perhaps in large part because it requires such a broad skill set in order to successfully complete the course (medicine, also difficult, has low rates, but I’ll attribute that to the ‘memorize and return’ nature of the course, though budgets and overall appeal probably play their part too).

I know the American joke of ‘liberal arts…want fries with that’, but is it all just rhetoric and if so how, or is it reasonable?

2

I agree that an arts degree is worth less as a profession but only because the education system was set-up to benefit business. Art by itself I consider to be one of the most important professions/subjects. They may not go to lectures but that does not mean they don’t do anything. Art as a side subject is beneficial too, for example learning a musical instrument is said to increase your ability in other areas.

3

Why? Are the other arts not “Art”? Music, dance, writing aren’t art? And what about the greatest (new) art form, the cinema which combines them all (ex. sand art)? And there is still massive amounts of money to be make for the upper 1% in all of the arts. Same for sports. The problem is a desire for support for those with less than superior talent. The same works in business, but the separation between the top and the rest is much greater. Fact of life.

As for arts education. Perhaps our institutes of higher edumacation have fallen behind in the arts in a way similar to many other facets of professional learning because they have become too hamstrung by inbred values and too busy chasing political correctness. Ask yourself: why the population of our college campii has shifted so dramatically toward the distaff side–with a few exceptions?

4

The arts themselves are extremely valuable, but an education in them is practically worthless. As paineful truth pointed out, there is certainly a good market for art. But the individuals who tap that market are usually those of natural talent. You either have it or you don’t. While it is possible to learn to be good at art, even if you do, your chance of becoming a successful artist is very slim in comparison with that of a person with natural talent. Guitar is a good example. Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimi Hendrix never went to art school. They were just born with a love for the guitar, natural finger dexterity, an ear for music, and a talent for composing. You can’t go to art school and learn to play guitar like Stevie Ray Vaughn. Most guitarists will practice all their lives and never get that good.

5

it’s not about “natural talent.” Natural talent is a myth. Talent is developed through time and practice. When you’re being lectured about art, you are not building the skills allowed to create a product of worth to society. And so, an art degree is not as valuable as other degrees. Another sign as to how the educational world can be backwards in some respects. What if an art degree advertised “Get your art degree. Learn useless knowledge about art so you can be an art teacher. Otherwise, we’ll waste your time while you fantasize about becoming a real artist and while all the other real artists are spending their time actually doing art and selling them”

the value of art is becoming less and less, because it has become digitally reproducible and so there is an abundance of art. in addition, in my opinion, art’s main purpose is to invoke emotion or to give people hobbies, which is of questionable practical value, if by being practical we are talking about providing value to the community in terms of health, education, housing, food, tools for business and making money, or the necessities of life. Art has great social value, especially rare objects of art, or art craved by the masses, but it does not have as much practical value.

now, art can transmit messages of truth to people, but there is a problem with art as educator: 1) art of popular culture usually transmit messages like “love is so grand” or “sex is wonderful” or “violence is exciting,” what people want to hear rather than what they should be hearing leading to messages that are discordant with reality and consequently creating a maladjusted population 2) high-end art transmits messages that are too specialized and not useful for the general population like “it’s about the medium” or “isn’t it intriguing that the artist is the art itself?” etc. Experience is the greatest educator, IMO.

6

What kind of value? Market value? Social value? Personal value?

“The way you approach problems” is art in some sense. I know many engineers, and many of them would greatly benefit from a more artful understanding of problem solving.

7

I’m not sure political correctness hampers education, if so, how? I think you have a very political American approach to it and I just wouldn’t know. As for the other arts, I don’t have any coherent argument against them because I’m led to believe more effort and intellect goes into being a Beethoven, Mozart or Orwell than it does into being a Van Gogh, hence the specific selection. Could be biased, but I’m opening it up to debate to check that. The top 1% of artists would also make far less than the top 1% of any of the other mentioned professions.

Market and social value. But the two might in their generality overlook the vast contribution of engineering, finance and medicine to global development. As a very broad systems example I generally use: The sewage system, piping, electricity, roads/bridges/transportation, the engineering know-how required to make medicinal/surgical items, the engineering required to make the devices that play music and display art work, vaccines against terrible diseases, financing to get all the aforementioned projects going and legislation and government to keep them functioning while the judicial system maintains social stability.

Are you think of any particular examples of how more artful approaches may enhance the ‘engineering paradigm’?

8

Depends on the location I suppose. The arts has pretty strong market value in certain locations. Market value is a function of how much something is valued of course. So arguing over which has more market value in general makes no sense. It depends on the market.

Yes, I’m thinking of whether architects or engineers make better designers of buildings. Engineers as a group are notoriously linear in their thinking, whereas good architecture depends on a whole different approach to problem solving.

9

Well, the general markets for engineering projects, stock market trades, or surgical procedures are each probably of higher value than my target arts fields combined. The value of daily forex and derivatives trades alone runs in the trillions. I say probably, but it’s a certainty.

The engineering education in the US is very broad, so I’m led to assume that engineers there are probably more broadly educated than here. An exchange student was doing vietnam history as the minor to his engineering degree in the US for example. We have a much more focused education here. But then again, architects are pretty much the artists and the engineers need to make the structure stand, that’s how I believe it works here at least. Bu you’re probably right. It must be a result of the demands of the engineering profession.

10

The free market is always right. If the masses have no time for the Van Goghs and Dalis of this world, why would there be value in arts?

11

Value is a subjective lable, n’est pas?

In order to assess what is more or less valuable, one must first assess what is value, and value really is subjective based upon how the viewer or ‘assessor’ sees/feels the focus is warranted, given the circumstances.

In truth, there is little that is of greater or lesser value than any other ‘thing’, it is only how humanity chooses to order values based upon their needs/wants/desires/beliefs, and so perspective plays an important role in defining value and therefore compensation based upon that order of value(s).

If one looks at the root of all professions and applications of intelligence, skills and abilities, whether conditioned (trained), developed by practicum or somehow inherent within the individual(s), then on cannot discount that the artistic nature of our species plays an important role in ALL applications of said intelligence, skills, abilities and/or professions.

Our ability to be creative and innovative is not a function of logical functioning but of artistic ‘license’ and diversity, which is then applied to more logical areas such as engineering. How are such innovative and creative buildings devised if not through artistic roots, then channeled through a more structured means such as the logical aspects of engineering?

Is it even possible to separate the logical from the creative and attempt to value one greater than the other when the obviousness of the connectivity between the two presents itself to show that all need be respected for their particular roles in our lives and world as we know it?

The Arts are infused within the most non-artistic lifestyles and careers, often without an apparent influence, so how is it that we tend to differentiate and thus discriminate based upon a falsely created bias towards one or the other?

Human history is a flowing river of populist behaviour swinging from one time period where the Arts were considered the most desirable of all human attributes to another time period where the Sciences were thusly viewed, and no doubt will continue to fluctuate for as little or as long as we are able to manage to survive.

There was a time not so long ago in history (in terms of the lifeline of the human species) where Salt was considered one of the most valuable commodities of ‘Man’, more valuable than even the life of those in certain life positions.

Perhaps the focus should be more on the value of life and how we value others regardless of position in life or career and less upon station in life.

Maybe that would be the catalyst that would elevate the human condition and present a truly monumentous leap in human evolutionary progress.

Wouldn’t that be a wonder in and of itself?

12

I’m assuming that the “value” here is money, no?