Why are music and fine arts taught in university?

[Darth Wong]

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?

[brianeyci]

My first answer is it takes a long time to develop those skills. Four years. So that's out of the realm of most technical colleges, unless they're extremely specialized like OCAD.

My second answer is that music and fine arts in university is an elite education. The admissions process is hardass: it's what humanities should be. You have to go to an interview, you have to have a portfolio, you have to have references, you are part of a small group of students intimately involved and extremely knowledgeable about the topic. Joe blow humanities student cannot take music as far as I know.

All this is just my observation though. I don't take music or fine arts so I don't have an answer based on experience, so I might be huffing a lot of smoke.

[raptor3x]

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?

So people who are rejected by conservatories have some place to go, although they almost always end up as gradeschool music/art teachers.

[Shinova]

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.

Now as for them being a humanities course, I agree that fine art and music really should be a separate department. Or just leave it up to specialized colleges and institutions who only do fine art or music and nothing else.

[brianeyci]

To expand further, I think that the purpose of university should be to cultivate a person with innate talent in a subject into a highly skilled and trained professional to make use of that talent. That's why doctors, scientists, engineers should always be in the realm of university. I doubt anybody is going to argue that intrinsically, you require innate talent in mathematics to do well in medical school or to become a scientist. Desire is not enough, sadly. We want the best doctors in our society. Far more people want to become doctors and have the enthusiasm to do so, without having innate ability.

On the other hand, a trade or skill should be something any person of reasonable intelligence can pick up regardless of innate talent. I bet you can teach almost anybody to cook, or clean, or work office equipment, or most of things people do in their everyday lives.

To that end I believe music should remain an elite education, because it requires innate talent. Imagine if it was not. People with no musical aptitude would flood into music and want to become musicians. Nobody doubts that the best musicians are the ones who have played since childhood. Then the same thing would happen with general humanities courses... the musicians who thought they were being taught music would have wasted their time and effort thinking they could learn and be as good as child prodigies. You aren't going to find hundreds of openings a year in the Toronto Symphony.

[Howedar]

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.

[Knife]

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.

You're going to have to explain that one for me. Why isn't art a skilled labor? Why can anyone learn a killed labor yet not art? What is the difference between the two?

[Alex Moon]

Music taught at the university level focus on more than simply playing or singing. It also involves a lot of history and theory.

[brianeyci]

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.

Now, seriously tell me with a straight face that can happen to say... a short-order cook, an electrician, or a plumber working just as hard. It's because fine arts and music is totally subjective, and you need innate qualities probably undescribable. Therefore the flood gates should not be opened for music and art... they should be as high as possible, preferably university, to prevent such a thing like what happened in general humanities from happening to music. Imagine if there was a decades long movement to make people more well-rounded characters and that the definition of this was music. It would be a disaster.

[Alex Moon]

I think DW and others are simply questioning why Music or Art should be taught in University courses, not that they should be taught to everyone. You can still have very strict entrance requirements for a music school.

[kheegster]

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.

You're going to have to explain that one for me. Why isn't art a skilled labor? Why can anyone learn a killed labor yet not art? What is the difference between the two?

Because art and music (especially the latter) actually does require above-average physical ability, just like athletes. The hand-eye coordination and fine muscle control to play a musical instrument is non-trivial, especially at a professional level. For example, I am simply unable to draw something as simple as a circle, so it would be impossible for me to become an artist no matter how much I tried.

Of course, this doesn't even take into account the subjective matter of 'artistic ability'. Even if you teach someone to play the piano to a high technical level, it far from guarantees the ability to actually play music that an audience will like and appreciate.

[SeeingRed]

I think part of it, too, is that there is a significant amount of theory and formal considerations that are associated with an education in music and the fine arts. At many universities, mine included, these aspects are taught separately in many ways from the performance aspects (music composition/education and "violin performance" are two separate majors, for example).

I think that the theoretical/formal aspects of this definitely fall under the humanities. As for the performance aspects, it's still true that to really progress to a high level of ability a fairly solid understanding of the theory is necessary. I think this probably separates music and the fine arts from many of the so-called "vocational skills"

[aerius]

You're going to have to explain that one for me. Why isn't art a skilled labor? Why can anyone learn a killed labor yet not art? What is the difference between the two?

Back in middle school and high school, everyone had to take art and shop classes. In Shop class, students who'd never touched a hammer or handsaw could be taught how to use them along with drillpresses, sanders, and other tools. By the end of the semester, every student could use these tools to build basic projects.

Art class wasn't anywhere near this successful, at the end of the semester most of us still couldn't draw or paint for beans, and a further two years of classes didn't really do much to change that.

Becoming a decent artist or musician requires talents which some people are just born with and others can never learn. Sawing lumber and nailing 2x4's into framing on the other hand is something which almost everyone can learn. I don't know why though.

[Shinova]

I'm just repeating what everyone else has said, but anyone can pick up a pencil and after a few months, learn to draw. After a few years they may become really good at it. Perhaps, after a lifetime of practice and study they can hone their mastery over their art to frightening, almost superhuman levels.

But not every artist, no matter how good they are with a pencil or brush, can produce work that is clearly unique and or usher forth a new art movement. You can clearly tell that these people are on another level. It's not just great skill anymore. It's become something else.

I'll use a music example.

Franz Liszt. Both a musician and composer. Often called the Pagannini of the piano. He possesed nearly superhuman skill on the piano, and at a relatively young age as well. He also wrote his own music, which makes him even more amazing on top of his piano skill.

And then see Beethoven. One of the best with the piano, but not as good as Liszt. Also wrote music.

So what makes Beethoven so much more well-known than Liszt if Liszt had more skill over his trade? Liszt's music was good, but Beethoven's music was something more than just good. Listening to some less-known composer's music, and then listening to something from Beethoven or Mozart and such, the difference becomes pretty clear. Beethoven pretty much single-handidly started the Romantic period in music. Liszt is remembered primarily as a great pianist.

Or an art example in Van Gogh. There were better-skilled artists with better command over color and light than Van Gogh, but the latter developed a style that made his paintings energetic and feel alive, and was clearly different from his peers even if his work went unappreciated until well after his death.

My point is with enough practice you can become a great art or music technician, meaning you have mastered the technique of art and music. You are a good artist or a good musician. But to be a great artist or musician, you need something more and it's only one-in-a-million or even more who have something like that.


It's like you're New York or LA philharmonic orchestra member, compared to Heifetz or Yo Yo Ma (sp?). Or Alan Copeland (again sp?).

[Knife]

Because art and music (especially the latter) actually does require above-average physical ability, just like athletes. The hand-eye coordination and fine muscle control to play a musical instrument is non-trivial, especially at a professional level. For example, I am simply unable to draw something as simple as a circle, so it would be impossible for me to become an artist no matter how much I tried.

So, athletics shouldn't be taught to the majority either, since it takes above average physical ability. Short people should just accept that they can't play basketball as well as tall. John Stockton would be surprised at that.

Of course, this doesn't even take into account the subjective matter of 'artistic ability'. Even if you teach someone to play the piano to a high technical level, it far from guarantees the ability to actually play music that an audience will like and appreciate.

I would propose that that 'subjective matter' has little to do with the artist him/herself and more to do with the community that buys and deals in such art. Atleast a fair part of it.

Back in middle school and high school, everyone had to take art and shop classes. In Shop class, students who'd never touched a hammer or handsaw could be taught how to use them along with drillpresses, sanders, and other tools. By the end of the semester, every student could use these tools to build basic projects.

If find your example as flawed as the other one above by Keegster. Are you saying that nobody could pick up a pencil/chalk and sketch a rough picture after their art class. A basic understanding of how to draw? After one year of shop class, could they build a house? That seems to be the standard you're placing on those in the art class.

Becoming a decent artist or musician requires talents which some people are just born with and others can never learn. Sawing lumber and nailing 2x4's into framing on the other hand is something which almost everyone can learn. I don't know why though.

All sorts of people can have inate talent in all sorts of fields that make them good at it, art is just one. The idea that art gets elevated over all others is absurd. One can say the skills of a master carpenter is every bit as artistic as some one who paints subjective subject matter, and yet I'd say the carpenter has a more marketable skill more deserving of appreciation.

[/quote]

[Spice Runner]

I had to take a course last year called Music appreciation. All we did was listen to various historical musical pieces and see a few musical productions. I don't mind taking just one course that is irrelevant to my course of study but any more would be pushing it.

[Spice Runner]

quick edit.

I meant to say that the music course in addition to the other humanities courses which were irrelevant to my major.

[Shinova]

So, athletics shouldn't be taught to the majority either, since it takes above average physical ability. Short people should just accept that they can't play basketball as well as tall. John Stockton would be surprised at that.

The point is anyone can be taught athletics and become good at it, but not everyone can become superb at it.

I would propose that that 'subjective matter' has little to do with the artist him/herself and more to do with the community that buys and deals in such art. Atleast a fair part of it.

Not quite true. You're referring to modern art, much of which is just sheer trash and BS. I have a lot of disrespect for them and their community of circle-jerkers.

However, I highly doubt any of these people except a very small number will make it into the history books. Jackson Pollack and Andy Warhol are probably the only ones with real artistic merit, and even then I personally don't see what's so amazing about them, especially the former.

Van Gogh or Picasso were clearly something else though.

If find your example as flawed as the other one above by Keegster. Are you saying that nobody could pick up a pencil/chalk and sketch a rough picture after their art class. A basic understanding of how to draw? After one year of shop class, could they build a house? That seems to be the standard you're placing on those in the art class.

Again the point isn't becoming good at it. The point is becoming good enough that you come to the point where you're not just another artist or musician.

All sorts of people can have inate talent in all sorts of fields that make them good at it, art is just one. The idea that art gets elevated over all others is absurd. One can say the skills of a master carpenter is every bit as artistic as some one who paints subjective subject matter, and yet I'd say the carpenter has a more marketable skill more deserving of appreciation.

We're not debating which skill is more important to society. Clearly carpentry or engineering is far more valuable to human society than art or music is. Which is precisely why if you want to make a good living doing art or music, you have to be daaaaamn good to earn any real recognition or money.

[Shinova]

Even something as practical as architecture can have clear levels of what is ordinary, what is good, and what is truly unique. Zaha Hadid is an architect who does stuff like public buildings, museums, car plants, and such. Whether her work appeals to your aesthetic or not is debateable, but her buildings are clearly something different from your usual.

So even an architect or carpenter can have merely qualified architects or carpenters, and unique architects or carpenters.

[Knife]

The point is anyone can be taught athletics and become good at it, but not everyone can become superb at it.

Actually his point, as I read it, was that it was like sports. Hence the;

Because art and music (especially the latter) actually does require above-average physical ability, just like athletes.

line at the very first of the post.

Not quite true. You're referring to modern art, much of which is just sheer trash and BS. I have a lot of disrespect for them and their community of circle-jerkers.

However, I highly doubt any of these people except a very small number will make it into the history books. Jackson Pollack and Andy Warhol are probably the only ones with real artistic merit, and even then I personally don't see what's so amazing about them, especially the former.

Van Gogh or Picasso were clearly something else though.

So now only those whos art you like are elite enough to go into university study? If they have so much talent naturally, why the need for university classes or degrees?

Again the point isn't becoming good at it. The point is becoming good enough that you come to the point where you're not just another artist or musician.

Why do you feel that's a good point in relation to the OT? If indeed it is only required by the top !% of the 1%, there is no need for universities to have the courses. Instead, dedicated art schools would seem to be a better recourse for such a small yet talented population.

We're not debating which skill is more important to society. Clearly carpentry or engineering is far more valuable to human society than art or music is. Which is precisely why if you want to make a good living doing art or music, you have to be daaaaamn good to earn any real recognition or money.

Sure we are if we're discussing if they should be part of a degree program. The resources and straight up money for those classes could be channeled somewhere else if in your view, only a small amount of highly talented people should take them, or in my view, they're no more or less special than other skills that people don't consider elite like art.

[metavac]

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.

Music and fine arts degree programs go beyond training practitioners and into the realm of criticism, analysis and appreciation of a human activity.

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.

History and literature degrees are marketable skills as well, and sought out by book and periodical publishing houses, news outlets, and schools. I share your contempt for this particular conceit and acknowledge that the work force values technical and scientific skill sets over those in the humanities, but the facts paint much more nuanced picture.

[metavac]

I had to take a course last year called Music appreciation. All we did was listen to various historical musical pieces and see a few musical productions. I don't mind taking just one course that is irrelevant to my course of study but any more would be pushing it.

I can't be this far out of the loop with everybody else. First car keys, then English lit and now this? Now mind you, I didn't take any music courses, but if you did your concentration in it you started with a music appreciation course that required you to critically and speculatively exam pieces (this was to meet your undergrad writing requirement). Next came straight up musical history, which was more of the same. Next came two semesters of harmony and counterpoint, where you'd learn how to analytically deconstruct music and place it within its historical and aesthetic context. From what I remember, you really had to love music to put up with all the work they shoveled at you.

[brianeyci]

If they have so much talent naturally, why the need for university classes or degrees?

Because talent without formal training is talent wasted. High school should identify those with talent, and shift them into higher learning. Again, the purpose of university in my view should be to cultivate those with talent, and like it or not (since you don't seem to like associating mathematical aptitude with artistic aptitude), it takes talent to be an artist, more than nailing boards or making a cake.

Don't worry. Nobody confuses a B. Music with a B.Sc. or a B.A. or a B.Eng., so I don't see your problem. Do you believe that music somehow "dilutes" higher education? Then I ask you what is the purpose of higher education? A status symbol for those good at math? Please.

Instead, dedicated art schools would seem to be a better recourse for such a small yet talented population.

Art can be a different faculty in the university, and often is. In fact, the university can handle the admissions of arts students and cut down on costs.

You want to rip art and music out of university and hope that resources get diverted into engineering or science? It won't work that way. Art donors and more importantly the students themselves will just take their money elsewhere, so your idea that art is "wasting" resources better put somewhere else is wrong.

[muse]

I think it's just one of those things which happens by default, and which no one has really bothered to fix. Universities usually have large archives & collections of art & music which are readily available for study by students along with professors who've spent many years becoming experts in the field and can pass on their skills to the students. Since the people & materials are already there it makes sense to teach the students there as well.

It makes sense but as Mike mentioned it doesn't really fit in. Some universities have a separate Faculty for fine arts & music instead of lumping them in with the Humanities, which makes sense to me. Some larger cities will also have music conservatories and arts colleges where students can specialize in those fields, I suppose those could be viewed as trades schools if one wanted to.

[Starglider]

Universities are a convenient place to teach these things. This way they can share all the things that they need in common with other advanced courses (admin, admissions process, student facilities, faculty support etc) which is an economy of scale over dedicated schools. Unlike some of the more overblown humanities subjects, I don't see any particular problem teaching these things at university; they do produce things of some use (albeit an abstract one) and they do require skill and extended study.