Friday, January 05, 2024
To Own the Future, Read Shakespeare
WIRED: many times a year, as if on a hidden schedule, some tech person, often venture-capital-adjacent, types out a thought on social media like “The only thing liberal arts majors are good for is scrubbing floors while I punch them” and hits Send. Then the poetry people respond—often a little late, in need of haircuts—with earnest arguments about the value of art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This was an interesting read, with a compelling argument to think about. Though I did choose a conservatory theater school for my degree, I do think there is a large value in a liberal arts education in many ways. Society loves to separate the different fields, and in terms of intensely detailed study and finding “experts” in a field, I agree with that notion. However to get a truly rich society of thinkers people need to be exposed to thoughts and ideas other than that of the people they are exposed to with the same backgrounds of them in their fields each day. I love how at CMU there are so many different areas you can study, and a mixed discussion between the arts and sciences is encouraged. I remember in high school I took many science classes, finding many of my friends in those fields, who would go to robotics club as I’d head off to drama club or painting class. Tapping on to this article’s commentary, think Newton and Shakespeare are both important to be knowledgeable about, and a rich liberal arts education can provide someone with a lot of inspiration and different influences in whatever field they choose in the future as well. It is a fruitless debate to argue the merits of one field versus another, as society thrives due to a combination of them all.
I found this article to relate heavily to the current climate of Carnegie Mellon. Its detail on the segmented clash between the humanities and sciences describes CMU as we both lead in AI/computer science and the performing and visual arts. While in a less visceral tone than used by the author, I agree with the main idea of this article. While less quantifiable, the humanities and arts are very important to our society. They promote curiosity and empathy, and their inability to be quantified is what makes them so valuable. This being said, this article did leave me asking, “Why so divisive?” Why are we so certain that sciences and humanities can’t collaborate? Maybe I pose this because my intended career in theatre technology is in clear opposition to this point. In theatre, we combine text (humanities) and lights, sound, sets, and computers (technology) to put on productions. I wish the author of this article would have considered this interdisciplinary facet.
I clicked on this article because it said Shakespeare and though there was a distinct lack of discussion about Shakespeare in it, I still found it interesting. This was a view point I’d never heard or seen. I have spent a lot of my life in “STEM spaces.” I’ve been on robotics teams since I was 10 and learning to code and use computers was something that was taught to me as an essential life skill as fundamental as learning to write essays. Despite a large STEM focus in much of my education, I never witnessed anybody talking down to the humanities. They are such an important part of our society and I believe that anyone who has ever really taken the time to read philosophy can see that. Shakespeare quite literally shaped the way we talk today and to say that humanities are not important is to abandon language. This article was interesting to read and I’m sure what the author is saying is true but it is something I have never really witnessed in my own life. Even now, going to Carnegie Mellon, a school known for its computer science program filled with STEM minded students, I have not witnessed it.
This article proves to be an interesting read. It offers a lot of interesting points about the divide in education. Should people be well rounded and know a lot about many things or only be an expert in one thing. In my own life I have always been focused on one thing but love to try other things. I love having dabbled in many different areas that many say is strange or unusual for someone like me. But the question is why it is seen as strange for a theatre kid to love music theory, art, sports, computer-science, history, movies, dancing, politics, science, mechanics etc. Why can't people be interested in many different disciplines without being told they are not focused enough, or they are not dedicated enough. I have many loves, but theatre and music will always fight to be number one and I have spent most of the short life I’ve lived so far practicing theatre and experiencing every part of it. That is something I am proud of, to have been able to experience the art in every way I know of. Many people have judged me for it saying that I have too many interests and that may be true, but I know that whatever I start I finish, and I do not really care if I seem unfocused. Because I promise you I am. The article talks about many things but in the end, it talks about how it takes every discipline individually tries to make sense of the tree, yet no one discipline alone can do it. Perhaps the answer is that it takes a combination of them all to see the whole picture.
Post a Comment