CMU School of Drama


Monday, September 15, 2008

Will strategic plan be realized in the arts?

The Tartan Online: "The drafts of the new strategic plan seem to show that Carnegie Mellon has an increasing appreciation for the arts, demonstrated in the following statement and in other places: “Interaction and interconnection between the arts and research, especially in technology, is a source of mutual strength, novel perspectives, and creative inspiration.”"

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Especially with "The Last Lecture" being so prominent lately, the briding of the arts and techology has been a hot topic recently. I'm all for art for art's sake, but I also think that the synthesis of any two different fields is productive. It's not a black and white issue; we don't need to decide that art cannot be practical or that art must contribute something to technological development.

Derek said...

While yes I think that it is great that we can continue to explore art and the possibilities of art with new technologies and sciences, and that it is great that the school is supporting this venture, I think its also important to remember that art for art's sake is not only "okay" because after all its art. But also because we are an educational institution that yes, throws much of its money into research and is able to gain something from it, whether it be reputation, money, or grants, we also need to accept that everything we support wont be commercial, or won't really achieve anything tangible for the community or the school. In an institution that heavily favors getting something back from what it puts in, the arts aren't always something that you can sell and get back.

Chris said...

I believe it is vitally important for artists to avoid boxing themselves in to their own worlds and ignoring the happenings out in reality. While art for arts sake is crucial for the continued development of the arts, art should also leave the viewer or audience member with something to take away, or a new point of view.
Basically what I am trying to say is that art does not need to have a purpose, but it should affect people in some way.

Dave said...

The idea of research as it could apply to the arts reminds me of the conservatory hour last year about avant garde theatre. Maybe if we say we are looking into "Interaction and interconnection between the arts and research, especially in technology" we will start seeing some of the huge budgets other areas of the university see's...

Anonymous said...

I think it is very easy for scientists to forget how important art is in the long run of society. It's very easy for artists and everyone to acknowledge the vitality of math, or research, or experiments because those show more immediate quantifiable results. Whereas art affects the quality of life, and good art shows people insight to society. To me art is how you quantify feelings, how you deal with life. Not only would the world be dark, colorless, and bare with our artists/designers but a good portion of the highly relatable commentary on society would disappear. Take Rent for example, or the upcoming movie Mike - these take current real issues and present them in a field that everyone can understand and discuss - art makes the tough issues assessable. Tying back more to the article, I think its fantastic to blend art and science because one quantifies feels/beliefs and the other quantifies objects/space so together they form perfect harmony.

Isabella said...

It can be very easy to disregard something that is not easily quantifiable however, we must keep in mind that regardless of how much of an impact science and research has on our lives, as humans a large portion of our lives is ruled by things that are, like art not quantifiable. We are ruled by instincts and emotions, and as technology has evolved we have become increasingly more successful at blending scientific research with human qualities. I think it is important to continue to blend art and science even if the results of the process are not always as tangible as we would like them to be, because both art and science have always been and will continue to be essential to our lives.

AllisonWeston said...

I agree with Hannah that this is not a black and white issue. Our constant tendency to label things as good or bad blinds us to the potential of blending different disciplines. At Carnegie Mellon, each student is on their own career track and can go through 4 years without ever stepping foot inside another academic building outside of their discipline. I think that CMU's new focus on the interdisciplinary can perhaps close this gap a little bit.

BWard said...

i think art should be judged based on how many people can appreciate it and be affected by it. a 100' pole or a brown triangle in the middle of campus isn't something that students here are very fond of.

the fall and spring concerts, recitals of friends in the Kresge, exhibits in the Frame gallery... students are more enthusuastic about these because they directly affect those students lives and sense of the campus. art should be practical - even if its practicality is only momentary enjoyment of life.

Anonymous said...

This article defiantly makes some good points. If you ask anyone, "Do you think it's a good idea to have the arts and engininerring or computer science work together on a project?" The person will say yes of course. It's why the world was created so that we could work together to achieve goals however sometimes the goals and ideas we have here look good on paper but are not that great when they are finished or like the article states are not practical. I have not hear of one good result from one of these projects but I am eagerly waiting to see one.

Anonymous said...

sometimes art is just art, and entertainment is just for the sake of entertainment. we do not need to decide its significant purpose to the universe. it exists for the sake of its own. maybe it's ok for arts to not have a meaning. it already has a meaning as a art.

Anonymous said...

This is such a powerful issue at hand. First off the arts always seem to be required to justify themselves. The reason for this I think is that the vast majority do not realize how much art there is. Without art there wouldn't be TV shows, posters, food packaging, cool looking cars, fashion, or even silverware. There would just be function; a series of square functional objects that move people from place to place, or contain substance to keep them alive. There would be no entertainment or beauty. Even more than entertainment value, the arts explore cultures, they reveal and preserve issues in the world, how people see them, and how these problems are resolved.

I agree that CMU, being as cutting edge as it is, needs to take part in revitalizing an appreciation for the arts among those who may not even be aware of the art surrounding them in their everyday lives. How this will happen or whether it will work, is an entirely different matter.