Interesting video! I listened to it while doing some yard work outside, haha. I agree that most *competent* people in engineering/art/programming/etc fields are all artistic and creative people. Natural sciences and illustration are particularly well-suited to each other - as an example, talented artisans had to work precisely to make accurate reproductions of plants for reference/study (Harvard University's "Glass Flowers" Gallery or the Field Museum's "Plants of the World" Exhibit). Photographs are great, but nothing beats having an accurate copy you can hold in your hand. Also, keep in mind that not everyone is intelligent enough to study STEM. Both my parents are engineers, yet I failed algebra twice and I couldn't pursue the STEM career I wanted because of either my lack of intelligence, inability to study, or a bad math foundation. It took many years for me to work past my math failures and focus instead on what I was actually good at - which ended up being design and illustration, and it led to a (so far) reasonably successful career. I used my interest in history and science to help me paint more accurately and to give myself a non-art creative outlet, rather than giving up on my interests completely because I couldn't be a geologist or ebola virologist (or whatever) without solid math or chemistry skills. Perhaps I misinterpreted some of your words (I didn't take written notes, haha) but I think you oversimplified the "fine arts" discipline quite a bit here - there's definitely a segment of fine arts that's focused on individualism, being elite, being "creative" in a snobby, weird way... but that wasn't my experience in college at all! Graphic design (at least at my particular public university) was a heavily collaborative major - we were in small classes and got to know each other, we all critiqued each other's work, we learned to utilize all sorts of old/new technology to solve problems, and we even got to collaborate with different disciplines (like, film students) on bigger projects that none of us could do alone. The goal was always to be a member of a team, or to otherwise solve problems for a client and be economically viable within the harsh realities of capitalism. Most working artists I know aren't that uptight about working for "the man" - they teach, do freelance work, sell products on their online store, are employed within a team of people, etc. They just want to work in a field they love and be compensated fairly for it. Pro-AI spheres in particular like to spread the myth of the "elite" artist around, and it's kind of annoying to push back on. On another note - I'm not sure how school is in the UK, but I occasionally substitute teach in the US - I've noticed a post-COVID rise of students who lack a passion for learning, have behavioral problems (act out, refuse to do work), and can't concentrate on anything that isn't on a computer screen. Children aren't given the opportunity to be bored and entertain themselves anymore with internet being so accessible; every waking moment is spent trying to disassociate and go back on Tik Tok to pass the 7-hour school day. Worst of all, classes aren't separated by ability, so smart students are bored and slowest students are left behind. Parents don't pay attention or discipline their kids. Textbooks were done away with, so readings can only be done on distraction-filled laptops. Art, music, or sports classes are currently the best way for us to give students some mental stimulation other than dry, by-the-test learning. I have a feeling that (because most teachers are forced to teach very specific approved material given to them by the state), that if dedicated creative classes are cut, learning will become entirely rote and we'll have a lot of uncreative young people who can't program, engineer, science, or medicine their way out of a novel situation.
Sam Hamper Thank you! Thank you kindly my dear Brother. For doing justice to the need for Art Education. You see, your course of study Engineering is well appreciated in the society today. As an artist one could gladiy say what I' m about to say now. The art in Engineering is not an end in itself, per say , that means that an engineer, study Engineering, but there is an element of art in Engineering, and so there is art in almost all the courses, and this is a good standpoint to teach art in that field or whatever course of study. Thank you for sharing ,new friends btw.
That was a great video. Very though-provoking. I think you're absolutely right. We already know that a lot of kids learn better if they have fun and I think both gamifying / sportifying as well as artifying school subjects could lead to highly more engaged students. We all had that one teacher who just had his own special way of teaching a very dry subject matter and just make it more interesting solely by the approach he used to teach it. Unfortunatelly the school system is slow to adapt and I think that needs to change.
I was an art tutor in the 80s I was a working artist as well but I had no qualifications. The art school bosted a 85% success rate but then in the early 90s the art school sacked all tutors that didn’t have big degrees. Soon after the art school boasted a 3% success rate and still do.
This really resonated with me and put into words thing I've had in the back of my mind for a long time. Very nice video, you have a great presence on camera. Thank you for making it.
Well put! Your argument about how artistry and creativity pervade many other professions also resonates personally. I have always thought that my fine arts degree was a great preparation for what ended up as a career in academia. I can imagine you might have similarly developed (creative) skills in your time as an engineer that you are finding valuable as an artist.
Love this. The same could be said for Liberal Arts education. Liberal arts education is dying and that isn't a bad thing as long as it is integrated into every other form of education. A liberal arts foundation should be required for every STEM student. The next Elon Musk, or Zuckerberg, should be forced to read and discuss Shakespeare, Milton, and Maya Angelou, before they are allowed to run the world with their technology.
beautifully presented. You really have a way with words.This one really got me thinking about the way art/creativity has shaped my life throughout the years. You're a beautiful man.🤭
USA/Philadelphia art school closing June 2024 - 1950s thru the '70s, PCA (Uarts) was relatively inexpensive combined with the graphic arts industry in Philadelphia, a graduate could work at their craft or support it. The decades since has students "mortgaging" an enormous debt with a dwindling art/craft industry employment, replaced by computer technology and the internet.
Very thorough and interesting video. I agree with you we should incorporate arts much more in STEM and vice versa, and recognize many art departments are broken. But I never get this distaste for Romanticism by so many artists today. I think the concepts of Romanticism and "selling out" have kind of been hijacked, and maybe you are responding to the hijacked version, not the core of each. You don’t define “selling out”, so I may be misunderstanding your point, but to me "selling out" means something like “throwing away your true values, interests and beliefs for a temporary financial reward.” By that definition, at least, it seems like just as big problem today as ever. Van Gogh having a patron - just like Thoreau not really "living in the woods" etc. - is a valid critique, but doesn't really argue why “selling out” and the individual artist as concepts are invalid - let alone damaging. Van Gogh was certainly a Romanticized figure, but not technically part of the Romantic movement, and probably not the best example of Romanticism. It seems a better example is Shelley’s Frankenstein - a brilliant problematization of scientific / technological hubris that only gets more relevant by the day. Frankenstein would never, ever grow out of the values of modern STEM. AI is almost literally the Frankenstein monster in digital form. Certain works simply must come from an independent-minded rejection or at least critique of Enlightenment progress - grounded in something like a sacred respect for nature, dreams, human emotion and human intution. I predict these ideals will only get more relevant and powerful in the future (whether it's associated with 19th century Romanticism or not). At least in an ideal system, public funding would allow more people to follow their true beliefs, rather than compromised ones, and create uncompromising works. I totally agree that this hasn’t been happening enough in practice, but I think the business mindset is already pretty well represented - if not overrepresented in universities- and what is lacking is really a more public, civic and communitarian mindset. Yes there are exciting parts of the tech world - especially around games and immersive entertainment (AR/VR) - and these should be celebrated rather than roundly rejected by artists and art departments. But what about the nearly endless list of tech companies - Uber, WeWork, even Amazon - that never need to make a single dollar of profit, all because they put growth and monopolization first, while successfully courting venture capitalists, working out complex financial schemes like "global work" sweatshops training their AI models, etc.? The myth of the individual entrepreneur seems much more pernicious and deleterious than the myth of the Romantic, individualist artist.
This is wonderful reply. Thank you so much, some really great points. I agree with you. I feel the reluctance for ‘artistic’ or romantic minded people to enter STEM is largely because of what you state in your last paragraph - this idea that it’s too profit and growth minded a sector. Artists feel these industries have little thought for what a cohesive and fairer community needs… I would argue that this drives more artists away from the field, when it’s exactly what it (and they) need. These two communities have ideological blind spots and would benefit from being better integrated at the level of school education. Our future technologists would be more sensitive to how their careers must benefit the souls of their audience and our future artists learn to foster realistic expectations regarding civic engagement from the funding they receive. I recognise my argument is quite focused on money, however I am talking about tax payers paying these things and in tough times it’s clear that the ‘value’ of the arts is having a tough job explaining its benefit - Of which you articulated really well. So Thanks again! A great read.
Have you been watching a lot of MKBHD, Señor Hamper? I'm getting a similar vibe. Anyway, solid arguments. 👏👏 I think this also strengthens the case for more creative collaboration between academic programs and for art educators to consider a more generalist approach, until we can - as you've suggested - dissolve the art program and allow it to permeate STEM.
I think an artist is always an artist whether they paint with water colours orbuilding with ones and zeros. Before picking up a paint brush I would look at some of my process workflows and they were a thing of beauty. Simple, sleek, efficient, they were works of art. The only difference is now that I tap more into my spiritual/emotional feminine side a little bit more, whereas before I was just tapping into my logical side. Regardless of which one of my works you look at, you will see my style and creativity at play.
Yes that is an interesting point about tapping into a feminine side, I would say that I also do this more when painting for myself which I do less when I was studying engineering. Although both were equally creative I think this is a key difference perhaps 🤔
No, I'm getting off the ride early. Any argument favoring what has happened in the UK, and the US relative to cutting spending on the arts, is in effect an argument FOR the neoliberal economic policies that have led to historic inequality. Sam seems to be very entrenched in such ideology ultimately. Seriously, the 1% doesn't need your help steamrolling societies and instituting economic polices that primarily benefit the super wealthy, while meting out austerity to any expenditures that benefit the masses. Nice try Sam.
The cuts to arts just keep coming no matter who’s in power. I’m trying to actively approach how to stop cuts by incorporating them more into every subject. What’s your solution? I get a lot of comments that accusing me of being entrenched in an ideology, when they are written like yours I do hope you can see the irony here…
Interesting video! I listened to it while doing some yard work outside, haha.
I agree that most *competent* people in engineering/art/programming/etc fields are all artistic and creative people. Natural sciences and illustration are particularly well-suited to each other - as an example, talented artisans had to work precisely to make accurate reproductions of plants for reference/study (Harvard University's "Glass Flowers" Gallery or the Field Museum's "Plants of the World" Exhibit). Photographs are great, but nothing beats having an accurate copy you can hold in your hand.
Also, keep in mind that not everyone is intelligent enough to study STEM. Both my parents are engineers, yet I failed algebra twice and I couldn't pursue the STEM career I wanted because of either my lack of intelligence, inability to study, or a bad math foundation. It took many years for me to work past my math failures and focus instead on what I was actually good at - which ended up being design and illustration, and it led to a (so far) reasonably successful career. I used my interest in history and science to help me paint more accurately and to give myself a non-art creative outlet, rather than giving up on my interests completely because I couldn't be a geologist or ebola virologist (or whatever) without solid math or chemistry skills.
Perhaps I misinterpreted some of your words (I didn't take written notes, haha) but I think you oversimplified the "fine arts" discipline quite a bit here - there's definitely a segment of fine arts that's focused on individualism, being elite, being "creative" in a snobby, weird way... but that wasn't my experience in college at all! Graphic design (at least at my particular public university) was a heavily collaborative major - we were in small classes and got to know each other, we all critiqued each other's work, we learned to utilize all sorts of old/new technology to solve problems, and we even got to collaborate with different disciplines (like, film students) on bigger projects that none of us could do alone. The goal was always to be a member of a team, or to otherwise solve problems for a client and be economically viable within the harsh realities of capitalism.
Most working artists I know aren't that uptight about working for "the man" - they teach, do freelance work, sell products on their online store, are employed within a team of people, etc. They just want to work in a field they love and be compensated fairly for it. Pro-AI spheres in particular like to spread the myth of the "elite" artist around, and it's kind of annoying to push back on.
On another note - I'm not sure how school is in the UK, but I occasionally substitute teach in the US - I've noticed a post-COVID rise of students who lack a passion for learning, have behavioral problems (act out, refuse to do work), and can't concentrate on anything that isn't on a computer screen. Children aren't given the opportunity to be bored and entertain themselves anymore with internet being so accessible; every waking moment is spent trying to disassociate and go back on Tik Tok to pass the 7-hour school day. Worst of all, classes aren't separated by ability, so smart students are bored and slowest students are left behind. Parents don't pay attention or discipline their kids. Textbooks were done away with, so readings can only be done on distraction-filled laptops.
Art, music, or sports classes are currently the best way for us to give students some mental stimulation other than dry, by-the-test learning. I have a feeling that (because most teachers are forced to teach very specific approved material given to them by the state), that if dedicated creative classes are cut, learning will become entirely rote and we'll have a lot of uncreative young people who can't program, engineer, science, or medicine their way out of a novel situation.
Sam Hamper Thank you! Thank you kindly my dear Brother. For doing justice to the need for Art Education. You see, your course of study Engineering is well appreciated in the society today. As an artist one could gladiy say what I' m about to say now. The art in Engineering is not an end in itself, per say , that means that an engineer, study Engineering, but there is an element of art in Engineering, and so there is art in almost all the courses, and this is a good standpoint to teach art in that field or whatever course of study. Thank you for sharing ,new friends btw.
That was a great video. Very though-provoking. I think you're absolutely right. We already know that a lot of kids learn better if they have fun and I think both gamifying / sportifying as well as artifying school subjects could lead to highly more engaged students. We all had that one teacher who just had his own special way of teaching a very dry subject matter and just make it more interesting solely by the approach he used to teach it.
Unfortunatelly the school system is slow to adapt and I think that needs to change.
I was an art tutor in the 80s I was a working artist as well but I had no qualifications.
The art school bosted a 85% success rate but then in the early 90s the art school
sacked all tutors that didn’t have big degrees.
Soon after the art school boasted a 3% success rate and still do.
This really resonated with me and put into words thing I've had in the back of my mind for a long time. Very nice video, you have a great presence on camera. Thank you for making it.
Well put! Your argument about how artistry and creativity pervade many other professions also resonates personally. I have always thought that my fine arts degree was a great preparation for what ended up as a career in academia. I can imagine you might have similarly developed (creative) skills in your time as an engineer that you are finding valuable as an artist.
Love this. The same could be said for Liberal Arts education.
Liberal arts education is dying and that isn't a bad thing as long as it is integrated into every other form of education. A liberal arts foundation should be required for every STEM student. The next Elon Musk, or Zuckerberg, should be forced to read and discuss Shakespeare, Milton, and Maya Angelou, before they are allowed to run the world with their technology.
beautifully presented. You really have a way with words.This one really got me thinking about the way art/creativity has shaped my life throughout the years.
You're a beautiful man.🤭
When it comes to software and creativity, I recommend reading the essay 'Hackers & Painters' by Paul Graham.
Thanks so much, will check it out
USA/Philadelphia art school closing June 2024 -
1950s thru the '70s, PCA (Uarts) was relatively inexpensive combined with the graphic arts industry in Philadelphia, a graduate could work at their craft or support it. The decades since has students "mortgaging" an enormous debt with a dwindling art/craft industry employment, replaced by computer technology and the internet.
Less education system, better education, because experience is everything you need.
Very thorough and interesting video. I agree with you we should incorporate arts much more in STEM and vice versa, and recognize many art departments are broken. But I never get this distaste for Romanticism by so many artists today. I think the concepts of Romanticism and "selling out" have kind of been hijacked, and maybe you are responding to the hijacked version, not the core of each. You don’t define “selling out”, so I may be misunderstanding your point, but to me "selling out" means something like “throwing away your true values, interests and beliefs for a temporary financial reward.” By that definition, at least, it seems like just as big problem today as ever.
Van Gogh having a patron - just like Thoreau not really "living in the woods" etc. - is a valid critique, but doesn't really argue why “selling out” and the individual artist as concepts are invalid - let alone damaging. Van Gogh was certainly a Romanticized figure, but not technically part of the Romantic movement, and probably not the best example of Romanticism. It seems a better example is Shelley’s Frankenstein - a brilliant problematization of scientific / technological hubris that only gets more relevant by the day. Frankenstein would never, ever grow out of the values of modern STEM. AI is almost literally the Frankenstein monster in digital form. Certain works simply must come from an independent-minded rejection or at least critique of Enlightenment progress - grounded in something like a sacred respect for nature, dreams, human emotion and human intution. I predict these ideals will only get more relevant and powerful in the future (whether it's associated with 19th century Romanticism or not).
At least in an ideal system, public funding would allow more people to follow their true beliefs, rather than compromised ones, and create uncompromising works. I totally agree that this hasn’t been happening enough in practice, but I think the business mindset is already pretty well represented - if not overrepresented in universities- and what is lacking is really a more public, civic and communitarian mindset.
Yes there are exciting parts of the tech world - especially around games and immersive entertainment (AR/VR) - and these should be celebrated rather than roundly rejected by artists and art departments. But what about the nearly endless list of tech companies - Uber, WeWork, even Amazon - that never need to make a single dollar of profit, all because they put growth and monopolization first, while successfully courting venture capitalists, working out complex financial schemes like "global work" sweatshops training their AI models, etc.? The myth of the individual entrepreneur seems much more pernicious and deleterious than the myth of the Romantic, individualist artist.
This is wonderful reply. Thank you so much, some really great points. I agree with you. I feel the reluctance for ‘artistic’ or romantic minded people to enter STEM is largely because of what you state in your last paragraph - this idea that it’s too profit and growth minded a sector. Artists feel these industries have little thought for what a cohesive and fairer community needs… I would argue that this drives more artists away from the field, when it’s exactly what it (and they) need. These two communities have ideological blind spots and would benefit from being better integrated at the level of school education. Our future technologists would be more sensitive to how their careers must benefit the souls of their audience and our future artists learn to foster realistic expectations regarding civic engagement from the funding they receive. I recognise my argument is quite focused on money, however I am talking about tax payers paying these things and in tough times it’s clear that the ‘value’ of the arts is having a tough job explaining its benefit - Of which you articulated really well. So Thanks again! A great read.
Have you been watching a lot of MKBHD, Señor Hamper? I'm getting a similar vibe.
Anyway, solid arguments. 👏👏 I think this also strengthens the case for more creative collaboration between academic programs and for art educators to consider a more generalist approach, until we can - as you've suggested - dissolve the art program and allow it to permeate STEM.
Guilty..
🤓
@@samhamper I think the title "Less Art Education = MORE Creativity?" captures the arguments and the commentary best.
Haha have you noticed the 1000 I’ve tired 🫣
✌😅
a "Theo" is basically Universal Basic Income 😛
Ha! I guess so!
It totally makes sense.
Please return the video of remember the fog. I want to share it with a close friend
Done! This channel will be changing soon and getting a new name. Still the same kind of videos though hopefully a lot more regular!
mhm
I think an artist is always an artist whether they paint with water colours orbuilding with ones and zeros. Before picking up a paint brush I would look at some of my process workflows and they were a thing of beauty. Simple, sleek, efficient, they were works of art. The only difference is now that I tap more into my spiritual/emotional feminine side a little bit more, whereas before I was just tapping into my logical side. Regardless of which one of my works you look at, you will see my style and creativity at play.
Yes that is an interesting point about tapping into a feminine side, I would say that I also do this more when painting for myself which I do less when I was studying engineering. Although both were equally creative I think this is a key difference perhaps 🤔
No, I'm getting off the ride early.
Any argument favoring what has happened in the UK, and the US relative to cutting spending on the arts, is in effect an argument FOR the neoliberal economic policies that have led to historic inequality. Sam seems to be very entrenched in such ideology ultimately.
Seriously, the 1% doesn't need your help steamrolling societies and instituting economic polices that primarily benefit the super wealthy, while meting out austerity to any expenditures that benefit the masses.
Nice try Sam.
The cuts to arts just keep coming no matter who’s in power. I’m trying to actively approach how to stop cuts by incorporating them more into every subject. What’s your solution?
I get a lot of comments that accusing me of being entrenched in an ideology, when they are written like yours I do hope you can see the irony here…