Why isn’t Art held to the same standard as Science?
Not so long ago, I saw on my Medium reading recommendation an article which stated that art should be held as important as science.
For that part, I agree wholeheartedly.
I would even argue that art itself is a form of science, combined with professional knowledge relating to neuroscience, psychology, physics and other fields.
And I know that I am not alone.
Growing up in China, art and literature were always undervalued when put in the same sentence with scientific subjects. For us creative kids who loved crafting, doodling, or writing, we learned at a much younger age to hide our passion for artistic expression. It was okay to call the creative zone a hobby, and it was okay to dive in once in a while. But never, oh never would we dare to tell our parents that we wanted to become an artist.
When the question of “what do you want to be when you grow up” came up in the classrooms, all one could hear was “lawyer! Doctor! Scientist! Astronomist!” Etc.
Before my senior year in high school, I needed to decide whether I was choosing Arts & Literature or Math & Science as my future focus. My parent took the selection form from me. They left for the other bedroom and returned five minutes later with a checkmark placed under Math & Science, next to “Chemistry.”
I bet they did not see the pencil residue left in the checkbox for “History” one row above.
My father said proudly: “You are good at chemistry!”
“But I’m not good at organic chemistry.” I tried to reason with him, “I’d fail so fast. Organic really kicks your butt in the senior year — I asked my teacher.”
“But your Chemistry teacher also said you were smart enough to handle that.” My father was very insistent.
My mother followed: “We can always find you a tutor. My students were all great at Chemistry.”
Yea.
I thought.
‘Course they were. They were all studying Chemistry and Epidemics and doing lab works, etc., etc.
That night, I could not sleep.
I was tossing and turning like a fried egg, wondering what I would do from now on.
In China, the selection of academic path was a tremendous deal.
It decided your entire future.
If I decided to go down Math & Science, I would not be able to switch to Arts & Literature at all — not until I graduated from college.
Even then, I’d need to get another Bachelor’s degree in the related field to earn a Master’s. That meant another four-year of my life as an investment.
Or I could stick to the science majors. I was not that bad at Math. And like my mother said, I could always get a tutor.
But I liked history. I loved literature. I cherished arts.
The next day, I turned in my path selection form.
Checked under History.
It didn’t take me long to realize the history class was more like the loser’s class. Even our class headteacher preferred to be in one of the science classrooms.
This was nothing new, though.
For decades, scholars and educators had been emphasizing the importance of art and art education. Repeatedly, psychologists connected art education with cognitive development. Nonetheless, while the spotlight on art education was growing, the stereotype laid on artists did not change much.
However, I’d like to save the ranting about bias against artists for another post, whereas focus on the standard of artist nowadays.
Regardless of the spotlight art and art education received, our artistic world was wandering away from a reliable, universal standard of measurement
We said art should be as important as science. Nonetheless, we rarely evaluated art to the same standard as we did with science.
Many proudly introduce themselves in networking events: “I am an artist, what about you?”
But rarely you’d hear somebody say “I’m a scientist.”
Because the title scientist was not given out easily. It required dedication, professional knowledge, and genuine experience, findings and achievements.
On the other hand, art seemed far more self-indulging, and even money-driven in this age.
My understanding of art, like that of science, is the pursuit of truth and transcendental value in the world that surrounds us.
It is true that artistic value is more difficult to measure than scientific achievements. Also, to evaluate a piece of art is surely different from testing a scientific result or formula.
Nonetheless, I still see scientific methods in the creation of an artwork.
For example:
- Theme, value and personal expression aside, does a piece of art demonstrates well-developed style and proper use of media?
- Is the color combination well thought? Is the choice of symbols, elements and methods the outcome of artistic research and development?
- Does the artwork show craftsmanship, meaning careful handling and application, including scrutiny in sealing, matting and framing?
- Most importantly, can the work independently express the artist’s perspective, or trigger deeper thoughts in the audience? Or does it need a five-hundred word long essay to stuff explanation and higher concept into an audience mind.
In an age where our standard on art is lowered to a piece of rock or a jumble of shredded paper as long as the artist can “make some meaning out of it,” we are sabotaging the efforts we have made in decades to raise art to the same position as math and science, or any other subject.
The dominance of scientific subject is not only seen in the US, but worldwide. It is a sad yet cruel fact that science is crowned as the most important, privileged, and intelligent subject.
But we should not forget how difficult it is to be recognized in the scientific field. On the other hand, how easy it is to call oneself a painter, and artist, a designer, etc. in the modern world.
Is it a lack of shame? Perhaps.
Though I doubt if even the most shameless person would call himself/herself a scientist or inventor without actually inventing a handful of impressive devices.
If you’re an anime fan, you’d remember Kyouma in Steins’ Gate. He comes across as a hallucinator, and somewhat a loser as his whole life is nothing but a fantasy. However, we could not deny that his whole set of theory is crazily well-developed and even scientifically supported.
But how many of the “artists” can say that they do the same? That they continually sharpen their skills and try to dig deeper into their art? That they hold themselves high enough to understand that the term artist is an entitlement, not a self-confidence boost?
I say very few.
Sad.
