I'm sure others have noticed this, but I find it very interesting how they compartmentalize "art" into something that doesn't include music, film, and so on. And how they react very poorly to the idea of liking "art" by itself.
Show this thread
-
I think if you try to put artists in a box, they always cry, "don't put me in a box!" (I mean, I get that. Even if it's a really nice box.) So I try not to generalize about what they "want." (They want... EVERYTHING.)
But I do think that there are intersections of intentionality and aesthetics that help characterize that nebulous thing we call "design," and that this is often very understandable to engineers, whereas "art" can feel more disconnected from intent.
-
-
I think engineering students get intentionality (I made X to evoke Y feeling or encourage Z behavior) and control, so if you show them that something humanistic gives them that, they are usually happy to learn about it. This is how I sell them on improving their writing skills.
-
I'd expect there's also the fairly simple interpretation, which is that "art" is a word with multiple definitions or connotations, and that the most common is probably "that which is found in an art gallery/museum" rather than, say, "the entire creative enterprise".
-
Yes, but that is also what's so disappointing. Maybe it's just me, but it does seem that I encounter "arts" students who are dismissive of science/engineering much more infrequently than science/engineering students who are dismissive of "the arts".
-
I think it depends on your context. When I was at an Ivy with lots of humanities majors, I had to convince them that STEM was an important thing to take seriously. At the engineering school I'm at, it's the opposite issue — I have to convince them reading is worthwhile.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.