Why are music and fine arts taught in university?

[Aeolus]

As a side-issue to the current debate over humanities courses in university, it occurs to me that music and fine arts should not be taught as humanities courses. First and foremost, neither of them are really studies of any aspect of the human condition; they are both skills.

Second, they are directly vocational skills, once again unusual for humanities courses which are meant to "prepare you for life" but not actually give you directly marketable skills.

So, with these conditions in mind, why aren't music and fine arts taught as a form of skilled labour rather than university humanities courses?

Other than tradition, I can't think of any reason why they are considered "humanities" My ex was a professional dancer and his training certainly had much more in common with a carpenter or blacksmith than with an english major.

[Broomstick]

You just had to start a thread I'd be compelled to comment on while I was languishing in Tennessee without internet, didn't you?

As a side-issue to the current debate over humanities courses in university, it occurs to me that music and fine arts should not be taught as humanities courses. First and foremost, neither of them are really studies of any aspect of the human condition; they are both skills.

Second, they are directly vocational skills, once again unusual for humanities courses which are meant to "prepare you for life" but not actually give you directly marketable skills.

So, with these conditions in mind, why aren't music and fine arts taught as a form of skilled labour rather than university humanities courses?

I think a distinction should be made between courses that are part of learning one's trade/profession and those that are intended to make you a well-rounded human being with a basic knowledge base about subjects outside your specialized field.

You are correct, for those planning to enter an arts field (whatever art you're talking about) there is much that could be considered vocational training. Musicians, for example, put in a great deal of time mastering the physical aspects of performance. Visual artists must master various media. And so on. These are very intense courses of study, frequently with their own jargon and subtle nuances.

Then there are the "humanities" level of study - "music appreciation" or courses that study a type of performance and its role in society or art history... these are not vocational courses.

As an upside-down comparison - I went to an art college that turned out trained artists. We were also, in addition to all our art courses, also required to study a certain amount of math and science, but they would not be mistaken for the courses taken by those intending to be scientists. The "earth science" course offered would not, by any stretch of the imagination, make anyone a geologist. The point wasn't to make scientists, it was to make sure that we had an exposure to human knowledge outside our area of specilization. Ditto for the history, English, and math courses we were required to take (although the math actually had much more application that you might suppose for art). If we desired, we could opt to study, say, Spanish instead of English (provided you were already at a certain level of literacy) since the aim wasn't to turn us into journalists or novelists but to make sure we had a certain level of basic knowledge.

Likewise, my college roommate, who was working on her MD (and is now an ER doctor) was required to take some art and music as an undergraduate, but her "art" class was nowhere near the intensity of mine. Again, the idea was to introduce her to something outside her narrow field of study, broaden her horizons, etc.

So, to the exent you argue that being "well-rounded", that is, having a certain broad-and-shallow knowledge of many subjects as well as a deep specialization, is a good thing then universities should continue to offer, if not actually require, such "lightweight" courses of study.

Fine arts and music are way beyond simply skilled labour. Anyone can learn some skilled labour job, but not everyone can become a good artist or musician.

Do you have any backup for this? Can you think of an example where some person cared about (say) music more than anything else in his/her life, worked at it for a very long time and just was never any good?

I'm not talking about "not as good as the rest", because that will happen in any skill or trade. I'm talking about "not any good".

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've heard this stated many times as an article of faith, but I've never heard anybody back it up.

The Other Half worked as a music teacher for many years. Yeah, we saw a couple people like this. It's not common that someone who is truly dedicated to practice and making an effort fails to that degree but it does happen. Usually seems to be a major problem with hand/eye coordination, followed up by being hopelessly tone-deaf (just as some have perfect pitch, there are a minority with IMperfect pitch who really can't carry a tune to save their lives)

Likewise, there really are some people who simply can not master drawing/painting. Again, rare, but there are some out there. In some cases this is linked to genetic disorders. In other cases, medications required for chronic health problems can destroy artistic ability. There are also genetic quirks/medical conditions that can enhance artist ability although I'm not sure it's always a fair trade.

Are people seriously disputing the idea that some people can create better art than others, and some people just cannot make good art no matter how hard they try?

Okay if Broomstick will allow me, I will use her. She went through the whole road, worked harder than anybody should be allowed to, went homeless trying to finish her courses, slept in the studio floor. And people didn't want to buy her shit, so she washed out. At least that's what I got from her previous posts.

Well, close - I was never homeless, just close at one point.

Being a successful artist is NOT just about mastering skills - although skills are extremely important. There is an element of luck involved, as well as politics, social skills, and fashion. That's way some actors don't become an "overnight success" until well into middle age - they've actually struggled for years, even decades, until the right mix of role, opportunity, and interest of the public converge. Ditto for muscians, visual artists, writers... In fact, some artists are not recognized as great until after they're dead.

The bar should be high to enter institutions devoted to turning out professional artists because if you aren't willing to work your ass off AND take the risk you still might not be financially successful you have no business entering the profession. For "broadening horizon" level arts classes, though, it's another matter entirely. Rather like anyone can sign up for a course in calculus to gain a broader understanding of math, but entering a degree program in mathamatics requires you meet a minimum level of requirements and skill

And I realize that the posts I've answered are all mostly on the first page, but I haven't had time to read much further than that, and until I do, that's pretty much what I have to say on the subject

[Simplicius]

I'm not seeing the difference between a conservatory and what's being proposed as visual arts / music "trade schools." The very definition of the trade school (in my mind) is this sort of specialized form of education. My own university was essentially a "design school" with a science department as a totally separate college within the university (and a humanities department that had a supporting role to the two major colleges and the handful of very minor ones

What I'm arguing against here is the notion that music could be adequately taught in a two-year community college, rather than in a university or in a conservatory - which word I have been using interchangeably with "arts trade school." I have nothing against looking at the arts vocationally, or relying on dedicated schools to teach them - I just do not think that a community college is the best venue to do so.

I would like to keep music in universities for a personal reason, namely so that people such as myself who are musically inclined but not music majors still have challenging ensembles to join. But that does not enter into this discussion.

[Turin]

I'm not seeing the difference between a conservatory and what's being proposed as visual arts / music "trade schools." The very definition of the trade school (in my mind) is this sort of specialized form of education. My own university was essentially a "design school" with a science department as a totally separate college within the university (and a humanities department that had a supporting role to the two major colleges and the handful of very minor ones

What I'm arguing against here is the notion that music could be adequately taught in a two-year community college, rather than in a university or in a conservatory - which word I have been using interchangeably with "arts trade school." I have nothing against looking at the arts vocationally, or relying on dedicated schools to teach them - I just do not think that a community college is the best venue to do so.

Ah, I misunderstood. I don't have any objections to that. Two-year community colleges are frankly pretty lousy places to train anyone for anything other than basic business/accounting type skills. My ex was going to a community college for a while and in my observation, an ape could get a community college degree... it's basically just an extended high-school, and most of the things taught there should be taught in high school.

[Darth Wong]

I'm beginning to see the problem here: American community colleges are apparently worthless. In Canada, we have two tiers: "college" and "university". The two words are not synonyms here, the way they are in the US. "College" is for more vocational training, and can include things like nursing etc. It is not exclusively for two-year marginally-skilled labour diplomas.

In the US, it seems as if you have stratified your education system more than we have. Out of curiosity, why is this?

[Nova Andromeda]

-The community college system in Ca., at least when I went there, was setup to provide a few different functions. For me, it was a good place to get the general courses in the first 2 years of university out of the way. It was five times cheaper and the teachers were far better at actually teaching their subjects than anyone I had at U.C. Berkeley. After all, one cannot expect a person whose primary focus is writing grants, designing experiments, etc. to necessarily be a good teacher. Another role of the community college is to give people a place to prove that they actually have the dedication and intelligence to get through university. If you take the right set of courses, which is often defined by university transfer programs, then a university considering you for their program will have a far better idea of whether you will be successful or not than if you were fresh out of high school. A third function that the colleges fill is as a basic institution of learning. There are plenty of people in society who are illiterate, don't know arithmetic, don’t speak English, or want to pick up some basic skills such as programming, wood working, etc. Community colleges are a good place to address those needs. In fact, my experience in community college suggested that it was a far better place to learn than k-12 schools. The teachers were vastly better qualified and you could start at basically any level you wanted. One would probably be better off, educationally speaking, skipping all of high school and most of grade school and instead going to community college.

[Aeolus]

I'm beginning to see the problem here: American community colleges are apparently worthless. In Canada, we have two tiers: "college" and "university". The two words are not synonyms here, the way they are in the US. "College" is for more vocational training, and can include things like nursing etc. It is not exclusively for two-year marginally-skilled labour diplomas.

In the US, it seems as if you have stratified your education system more than we have. Out of curiosity, why is this?

There is nothing inherently wrong with US community collages. Many are excellent. There is however a snobbery about the whole thing. people who go to University look down on community college grads.

[Turin]

I'm beginning to see the problem here: American community colleges are apparently worthless. In Canada, we have two tiers: "college" and "university". The two words are not synonyms here, the way they are in the US.

I think they're less synonyms and more like "no one knows what the difference is." For some reason we have universities who split their departments into "colleges." So Syracuse University, for example, has the College of Architecture, the College of Science, etc. Then we have "colleges" which are really just smaller universities (like Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science, which was changed a couple years back to Philadelphia University). Then we have more vocational-type college settings like DeVry (which calls itself a university). And then we have the community colleges, which are really extended high schools.

"College" is for more vocational training, and can include things like nursing etc. It is not exclusively for two-year marginally-skilled labour diplomas.

In the US, it seems as if you have stratified your education system more than we have. Out of curiosity, why is this?

I'm hazarding a guess here, but probably because of how poor the public education system is. Prepping students for "real university" in theory should be possible in a college-prep track in high school.

But in reality many high school students entering even fairly decent universities are only barely literate and can barely handle basic algebra unless they are headed into a stronger specialty... I worked as a tutor for math, basic sciences, and writing when I was in school, and it was rather frightening what was being considered acceptable proficiency for incoming university students. Needless to say, students like this have really high failure rates and then end up sliding over into "business" classes or the like soon enough.

The result of this is apparently a need to have community colleges where students can get the basics that will let them survive in university. But the "prestige" associated with the "done with high school head off to university" track means that many students who should be in community colleges don't go... and the university-as-business model means that the schools are taking these boobs.

[Coyote]

For the longest time, I thought that the difference between "College" and "University" was really just enrollment numbers-- a smaller "institution of higher education" was considered a "college" until it reached some "X"-Number of students attending, at which point it was considered a "University". It wasn't until I went overseas and talked with student peers over there that I realized how odd it is that we use the terms interchangeably.

The only difference was anything specifically referred to as a Community College, which was looked as a VoTech/Poor Kid's College/High School with Ashtrays type thing.

It is telling that our society cannot even define or categorize education properly.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, it seems that in our society, a college can graduate to a university, and that universities are usually broken down into specialization colleges. A M.U, for instance, it used to be Monmouth College, but now it's not. It can be broken down into about 5 colleges.

[Howedar]

It is telling that our society cannot even define or categorize education properly.

I didn't know there was a set of "proper" definitions for higher education.

[Flameblade]

On the OT: Definition of Humanities.

As a side-issue to the current debate over humanities courses in university, it occurs to me that music and fine arts should not be taught as humanities courses. First and foremost, neither of them are really studies of any aspect of the human condition; they are both skills.

Second, they are directly vocational skills, once again unusual for humanities courses which are meant to "prepare you for life" but not actually give you directly marketable skills.

So, with these conditions in mind, why aren't music and fine arts taught as a form of skilled labour rather than university humanities courses?

I would have to say that its a matter what you consider the humanities to be. Going with the definition I provided above, then its clear why the arts are included. Now on the issue of whether the "humanities" is useful or not...

I do have to say that the idea of a specific course to "prepare you for life" would be a good idea, but that's more of something that would be put to better use at the high school level. I know I could have used it.