Zed A. Shaw, Painter

What's interesting is that, to learn these 4 things you have to learn a ton of additional subjects from the classics. For example, if you learn to paint a portrait you need to learn a lot of art history so you know what a "portrait" should look like.

To learn to read/write at a journalist level you have to study many authors and literature. To code you need to at least get through algebra, maybe calc, or learn those through ode. To play 1 instrument you have to learn music history too. That covers a huge set of classics.

I feel its still kinda poor because it leaves you with no physics or chemistry, or biology (other than anatomy, for painting) - or even economics and history - you'd cover a bit for journalism, but not enough. And you kind of need those for a basic grasp of reality.

Sure, there's not a lot of direct science, but you're forgetting that painting includes chemistry (make your own paint, pigments) and physics (optics could be an entire semester through replicating old masters like vermeer's optics tricks). Not to mention astronomy.

Theoretically so, sure, but I've painted thousands of portraits and never used astronomy. And landscapes. Starry night skies. Know nothing about it. And I feel the theory of evolution, climate science and probability are extremely important - so we survive ourselves.

Not to mention that a *ton* of early scientists all used many of these optics devices. Kepler used camera obscuras. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herschel … used a camera lucida. That leads into photography, optics, light, physics, and astronomy.

Sure, a lot of new science comes from unlikely places, but your education suggestion means those things wouldnt be used for science. They'd be used for art, and philosophy. A purpose shapes a tool a lot.