Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Wahoo Redux]

At its bedrock, art is really just a conversation about ethics and experience. 

I don't think that's right at all. It's a nice idea, but I don't think it's at all plausible.

For one thing, it doesn't really capture non-representational art or art forms (e.g. suprematism, colour-field or action-paintings, music, dance) very well at all (the mimetic theory of art shares this failing, incidentally). More importantly, it's far too reductive, and offers a really impoverished analysis of art, its use, and its value. I am reminded, in this respect, of the literary Darwinists' analysis of genre as the play between tragedy and comedy, or of science fiction as being about species survival (or whatever trite thing it is they say--it's the end of a long day and I don't quite remember offhand. There's only so much garbage a chap can have ready to hand with a hatchling around).

Some art is about ethics at its core. A lot of Ursula K. LeGuin's work comes to mind--not least The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, although I think almost everything she wrote has a deep and rich moral underpinning. And some art is conversational, especially in the sense of trying to spark something inside its viewers, such as conceptual art or lots of avant-garde fun and nonsense.

But it needn't be and, frankly, most art for most of art history--especially 'art' with a lower-case 'a', though this applies to 'Art' too--didn't, and doesn't. Aestheticians pretty much gave up on the project of finding a common essence for art twenty years ago, and rightly so: the field has really flourished since.

I just have too much to do at the moment to really respond, and I wouldn't want to hijack the thread, but maybe this should be it's own post. 

You are a bit literal here.

This is not to say that ONLY ethics and experience are part of Art-with-a-capital-"A," but at the very DNA of any artistic endeavor is human experience----how can there not be?----and on some level there is an ethical overtone---we have to make choices about it.

Even a Pollock splatter painting engenders a reaction, often predicated on experience and exposure, and simply reacting to the colors in their abstraction is human experience.  The human brain can conceive of abstraction and patterns---that is an experience at the heart of art.  He does not have a moral in the way Omalas or The Hobbit do, but the fact that Pollock spattered house paint over massive canvases and called it "art," and museums, collectors, and admirers also call it "art," is an ethical choice to accept abstraction, something which would never have been accepted before in history.

As far as Art in the academy, fair enough, it must be justified to scale and purpose.  I simply see an attack on the part of some posters (and in my life outside of the Fora) on the very existence of Art in the academy.  Some people simply do not value its contribution.  Some are here on these boards.

[Parasaurolophus]

I just have too much to do at the moment to really respond, and I wouldn't want to hijack the thread, but maybe this should be it's own post. 

You are a bit literal here.

This is not to say that ONLY ethics and experience are part of Art-with-a-capital-"A," but at the very DNA of any artistic endeavor is human experience----how can there not be?----and on some level there is an ethical overtone---we have to make choices about it.

Even a Pollock splatter painting engenders a reaction, often predicated on experience and exposure, and simply reacting to the colors in their abstraction is human experience.  The human brain can conceive of abstraction and patterns---that is an experience at the heart of art.  He does not have a moral in the way Omalas or The Hobbit do, but the fact that Pollock spattered house paint over massive canvases and called it "art," and museums, collectors, and admirers also call it "art," is an ethical choice to accept abstraction, something which would never have been accepted before in history.

As far as Art in the academy, fair enough, it must be justified to scale and purpose.  I simply see an attack on the part of some posters (and in my life outside of the Fora) on the very existence of Art in the academy.  Some people simply do not value its contribution.  Some are here on these boards.

We're butting up against one of my areas of expertise, so you can imagine I have a lot to say on the matter. But you're right, there's a danger of getting too far afield. I'd be happy to contribute to a new post, however, if you care to start it.

For now, I'll just say this, by way of explanation: I think that the use of 'ethics' or 'moral' here is, at best, so overgeneral as to be entirely trivial (narrower characterizations, I think, would just be false). There's a lot more going on there, and it's a lot more interesting, than a characterization of it in terms of the 'moral' allows.

[Hibush]

UK Education secretary Gavin Williamson is proposing a 50% cut to university arts programs starting this fall. That proposal spells doom, so I'm adding it to this thread.

The univeristies' main argument seems to be that this cut is bad because it will reduce the number of low-income students. Choosing that as the main justification is not what forumites have been bringing forth. Has it been the argument at North American universities?

In contrast, a physics professor wrote a letter to the Guardian editor to protest the societal consequences of not having as many arts alumni in society. That angle is not quite the same as i'm used to hearing here.  Will this argument have more influence on the Tories who look at education spending with a cash-flow accounting mindset?

[spork]

UK Education secretary Gavin Williamson is proposing a 50% cut to university arts programs starting this fall. That proposal spells doom, so I'm adding it to this thread.

The univeristies' main argument seems to be that this cut is bad because it will reduce the number of low-income students. Choosing that as the main justification is not what forumites have been bringing forth. Has it been the argument at North American universities?

In contrast, a physics professor wrote a letter to the Guardian editor to protest the societal consequences of not having as many arts alumni in society. That angle is not quite the same as i'm used to hearing here.  Will this argument have more influence on the Tories who look at education spending with a cash-flow accounting mindset?

In the USA, low-income students do not go to college to study art. Overwhelmingly they major in whatever field they think will secure them a middle class lifestyle and that they are capable of completing. Nor is a university degree required to be a practitioner of that art. In fact I think it's a fairly safe assumption that most people who earn a livelihood as an artist do not have graduate degree in whatever their art field is, and probably many don't even have an arts baccalaureate degree in it either.

The same situation applies if one expands "art" to "humanities" generally (i.e., philosophy, history, etc.) when looking at why low-income students go to college in the USA.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

UK Education secretary Gavin Williamson is proposing a 50% cut to university arts programs starting this fall. That proposal spells doom, so I'm adding it to this thread.

The actual proposal linked in the article defines area subject to cuts as "High-cost subject funding: performing arts; creative arts; media studies; archaeology". It also explicitly mentions that
"... courses in the performing arts, creative arts, media studies and archaeology are very important, bringing huge benefit to society and our culture, as well as to the individuals who take them.
...
However, they [Students studying design, and creative and performing arts] are less likely than average to be mature (aged 21 or over) or to come from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background."

[mleok]

In contrast, a physics professor wrote a letter to the Guardian editor to protest the societal consequences of not having as many arts alumni in society. That angle is not quite the same as i'm used to hearing here.  Will this argument have more influence on the Tories who look at education spending with a cash-flow accounting mindset?

I don't know, I found the "argument" in the letter to be pretty weak,

But on top of vocational training, what the UK desperately needs is people who can think critically and analytically, who can use their imagination, and who can communicate. We get such people when they are allowed to study the subjects they really enjoy, because all subjects will teach such important and transferable skills.

It boils down to let people do what they like, the actual subject they study is unimportant, as all subjects teach important transferrable skils. I will point out that the last statement actually undermines some of the claims faculty in the humanities make, which allude to the primal role of their subject in teaching students to "think critically and analytically, who can use their imagination, and who can communicate."

[Wahoo Redux]

UK Education secretary Gavin Williamson is proposing a 50% cut to university arts programs starting this fall. That proposal spells doom, so I'm adding it to this thread.

The actual proposal linked in the article defines area subject to cuts as "High-cost subject funding: performing arts; creative arts; media studies; archaeology". It also explicitly mentions that
"... courses in the performing arts, creative arts, media studies and archaeology are very important, bringing huge benefit to society and our culture, as well as to the individuals who take them.
...
However, they [Students studying design, and creative and performing arts] are less likely than average to be mature (aged 21 or over) or to come from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background."

It is worth noting that, as with the recent Florida scholarship limitations, such proposals have a pretty big backlash.

As is so typical of human thinking, there is a herd mentality when it comes to designating some fault or enemy in society.  Right now it is doom-to-the-arts because they don't make us rich enough. 

[ciao_yall]

UK Education secretary Gavin Williamson is proposing a 50% cut to university arts programs starting this fall. That proposal spells doom, so I'm adding it to this thread.

The actual proposal linked in the article defines area subject to cuts as "High-cost subject funding: performing arts; creative arts; media studies; archaeology". It also explicitly mentions that
"... courses in the performing arts, creative arts, media studies and archaeology are very important, bringing huge benefit to society and our culture, as well as to the individuals who take them.
...
However, they [Students studying design, and creative and performing arts] are less likely than average to be mature (aged 21 or over) or to come from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background."

It is worth noting that, as with the recent Florida scholarship limitations, such proposals have a pretty big backlash.

As is so typical of human thinking, there is a herd mentality when it comes to designating some fault or enemy in society.  Right now it is doom-to-the-arts because they don't make us rich enough.

Right.

Imagine Twitter, Snapchat, or TikTok without graphic designers to make a user interface.

Imagine Apple without musicians to sell music on their site.

Imagine Facebook without well-written articles that people are interested in sharing.

Nope, don't need artists, musicians or writers. Not at all.

[marshwiggle]

As is so typical of human thinking, there is a herd mentality when it comes to designating some fault or enemy in society.  Right now it is doom-to-the-arts because they don't make us rich enough.

It's not "doom-to-the-arts" to say that students should be able to choose their courses; if they want to take arts, fine. If not, they shouldn't have to. (Same goes for STEM).

If the passionate proponents of a discipline can't present it to prospective students in a way that convinces them of its value, they're not very creative.

[Wahoo Redux]

In contrast, a physics professor wrote a letter to the Guardian editor to protest the societal consequences of not having as many arts alumni in society. That angle is not quite the same as i'm used to hearing here.  Will this argument have more influence on the Tories who look at education spending with a cash-flow accounting mindset?

I don't know, I found the "argument" in the letter to be pretty weak,

But on top of vocational training, what the UK desperately needs is people who can think critically and analytically, who can use their imagination, and who can communicate. We get such people when they are allowed to study the subjects they really enjoy, because all subjects will teach such important and transferable skills.

It boils down to let people do what they like, the actual subject they study is unimportant, as all subjects teach important transferrable skils. I will point out that the last statement actually undermines some of the claims faculty in the humanities make, which allude to the primal role of their subject in teaching students to "think critically and analytically, who can use their imagination, and who can communicate."

Nope. 

It is still a perfectly valid premise for the lib arts.  All along we have said that the lib arts train people to do the things they will need.  Never has anyone said the lib arts are the only way to do that. 

The LA critical and analytical raison d'être is a response to the 'what-are-you-going-to-do-with-that-degree' deflection.

For some weird reason, you just want to undermine the lib arts and stick to the above strawman.

[spork]

[. . . ]

Nope, don't need artists, musicians or writers. Not at all.

To me, this statement is a total logic fail, one that completely undermines the argument about "liberal arts teach important, transferable critical thinking skills." No one is saying artists aren't needed. The supposition is instead that one need not get a university degree to be an artist.

I'm not going to hire someone who views himself or herself exclusively, or even primarily, as a poet to fix the boiler in my basement. I'm going to hire a plumber who fixes boilers. Whatever poetry the plumber might write in his or her off hours is not my concern.

Neither repairing plumbing nor writing poetry requires a four-year university degree.

[Wahoo Redux]

[. . . ]

Nope, don't need artists, musicians or writers. Not at all.

To me, this statement is a total logic fail, one that completely undermines the argument about "liberal arts teach important, transferable critical thinking skills." No one is saying artists aren't needed. The supposition is instead that one need not get a university degree to be an artist.

I'm not going to hire someone who views himself or herself exclusively, or even primarily, as a poet to fix the boiler in my basement. I'm going to hire a plumber who fixes boilers. Whatever poetry the plumber might write in his or her off hours is not my concern.

Neither repairing plumbing nor writing poetry requires a four-year university degree.

You have your Picassos and your Faulkners and Wesley Willises, but most Artists-with-a-Capital-A are university educated.  This is where artists find mentors.  All professional classical musicians go through top-notch music schools.  I love Motley Crue (despite their apparent misogyny) but you don't need a university for that.  Tchaikovsky or Berg, you need a university trained musician.

Sorry for the apparently classism, but most plumbers do not write poetry.

And once again, we assume that LA pursuits only gain validity through direct degree-to-job dynamics.

[mleok]

You have your Picassos and your Faulkners and Wesley Willises, but most Artists-with-a-Capital-A are university educated.  This is where artists find mentors.  All professional classical musicians go through top-notch music schools.  I love Motley Crue (despite their apparent misogyny) but you don't need a university for that.  Tchaikovsky or Berg, you need a university trained musician.

Sorry for the apparently classism, but most plumbers do not write poetry.

And once again, we assume that LA pursuits only gain validity through direct degree-to-job dynamics.

Does Juilliard have math and science general education requirements?

[mleok]

Nope. 

It is still a perfectly valid premise for the lib arts.  All along we have said that the lib arts train people to do the things they will need.  Never has anyone said the lib arts are the only way to do that. 

The LA critical and analytical raison d'être is a response to the 'what-are-you-going-to-do-with-that-degree' deflection.

For some weird reason, you just want to undermine the lib arts and stick to the above strawman.

Mathematics is part of the liberal arts, and I have no issue who students who choose to major in whatever they choose to. My issue is with general education requirements that requires every college student taking classes they don't want to, and the practical reality that students try to do the bare minimum to satisfy them, and this often entails a path of least resistance that goes through classes that have little intellectual rigor or content and significant grade inflation, and which make a mockery of the claim that it develops a well-rounded individual.

[Ruralguy]

If its just a menu to be picked from three divisions, then it is pointless because the content and rigor will differ wildly. Unless the point is to "get exposure to a bunch of wildly different stuff with only tenuous connections", then, yeah, that kind of gen ed is fine. But IMHO, its better to a have a smaller and pointed gen ed requirement, if you believe in it and, after a time you can shows that people are learning what you want them to learn.