There's some truth in every side of this complex argument. Although I am an unreformed advocate of the Liberal arts, for the same reasons as the article's author, I also think the Liberal Arts have become too soft, losing much of the rigor they had years ago when the 'canon' was still in place and established standards of excellence that measured performance. Nothing demonstrates that softness more than the widespread curricula in the visual arts, especially in the practice of art and its overlap into art theory and art history.
Many years ago, before the technological revolution, many artists became 'applied artists' meaning skilled illustrators and designers. Often they had a strong technical education, packed with skill-oriented studies, but rather slight study in the traditional arts and letters. Professional art schools flourished on 'diploma' programs and not degree programs. The G.I. Bill changed that and art schools began to offer degrees. Later, the technology revolution eliminated many applied art vocations. The once ubiquitous 'commercial illustrator-artist' was replaced by digital technologies. What happened to those many young 'applied artists' who once packed the art schools preparing for solid careers in commercial illustration and the like? They are still there but now they are enrolled in 'fine arts' programs, proliferating in all directions, and without any structured curricula, and feverishly centered on 'deskilled' and 'post-studio' activities. Compared to plumbers (the favorite trade for comparison of Liberal Arts to 'applied' trade skills) these new artists are like plumbers who never used a wrench but saw it as a tool for every task under the sun. I think many artists-in-training are being abused by art schools that collect excessive tuition, promise nothing but fantasies based on the the one-in-a-million chances of actually having a successful career in the infinitely expanded art field, and solicit poor candidates for the 'genius vocation'. On the other side, I also agree that any student or any person should be able to pursue any study or vocation they choose, regardless of what the economy seems to demand right now. Fifty years ago, a young and ambitious student, usually a male, would be encouraged to study the Liberal Arts as an excellent preparation for non-specialized careers in business -- I mean corporate executive-hood. I tried to encourage my students to pursue their passion for learning, whatever it might be. wc. ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, September 25, 2012 6:26:42 AM Subject: "How Art History Majors Power the U.S. Economy" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/postrel-how-art-history-majors-power-the-u-s-.html
