Darth Wong wrote: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'm not going to try to pick up the Knife-brianeyci argument, but I will try to make a separate case for the fine arts' place in the university.
To the first point, the university that includes the fine arts in its humanities department probably has an underdeveloped fine arts program, one which receives little attention compared to other departments. My former school, Skidmore, is only a college, but has substantial art, theater and music departments. The arts departments are considered separate from the humanities and social sciences, with their own section of campus, dedicated facilities, and so on. To take another example, the University of Maine system recently founded a school of music around an entire campus. A simple Google search will turn up pages of other university music schools, and a like amount of dedicated Schools of Art and Colleges of Fine Art in unis around the US. It would appear to be the case that a university which takes its arts seriously will not merely lump them in with the humanities.
To the second point, it might be unusual for humanities courses to provide directly marketable skills, but the same cannot be said for any and all university courses. Since many, if not most universities separate their arts and their humanities, this point would seem to be moot.
It would seem, then, that the fine arts
are taught as a form of skilled labor, at least in the same fashion that engineering is taught as a form of skilled labor - a student attends university, becomes heavily involved in an arts program, and graduates after four years with the option of pursuing further training in the arts or beginning a career in same.
Why is the university an acceptable place to learn the 'skilled labor' of the fine arts? I would suggest that it is the particular opportunities afforded by university education. To take an example, to succeed in music requires a deep understanding of the principles involved, the music theory and other 'brain work' as well as the countless hours of physical training in the form of practice, rehearsal, and performance. The music student must have the opportunity to participate in all different styles of performance - solo work, small ensemble, and orchestra/full chorus/concert band. The student must have experience with the other aspects of music as well, including applying the theoretical background to composition, and conducting. The idea, I suppose, is that music students should be given the opportunity to develop the intimacy with the entirety of the subject that will allow them to become great composers, conductors, or performers, since natural-born virtuosos are few and far between. I would bet that the same is true for the other arts - that making a career in that art requires a solid background in every aspect of the art, because there isn't much of a division of labor in art. Consequently, art students have to work their asses off if they expect to get anywhere.
Universities provide an environment suitable for such an education. The programs are four years, while most US vocational programs, which are run through community colleges, are only two. Universities have the advantage of much more funding than community colleges. The University of Maine System appropriates almost four times as much as the Maine Community College System - roughly $200 million vs. roughly $50 million. The size, money, and cultural status wielded by universities are apt to attract arts faculty, as is the typical requirement that faculty members produce original work in their fields as well as just teach. Universities also have an edge in attracting high-profile guest artists and sponsoring exhibitions, performances, and concert series which contribute to the reputation and quality of an arts department. The progression from undergrad to graduate work - which does not involve community colleges - allows a student to train for eleven years in his art if he so chooses. And, finally - as a matter of personal opinion - the rather sheltered and sequestered environment available in the university setting allows someone who is striving to master an art the opportunity to do so over the course of his full 4-11 years, rather than having to enter and leave an environment of dedication to the subject with the commute to community college and back.
Perhaps I have not seen nearly enough, but as far as I can tell, community colleges - the primary home of vocational education in the US - are simply too small and too brief to suit the kind of hard work that success in the arts requires. I would no more relegate the fine arts to a vo-tech program than I would the natural sciences.
Keep your symantics whoring to your self. You're dodging again, btw. Do you feel you are one of the intellegent people you feel should go to university? I wait with baited breath for your answer. 
