I’ve grown a bit weary of our lofty but vague advocacy of the arts. In our rhetoric and our strategy, we’ve become interchangeable with any other industry in search of public money, favorable legislation, or civic priority. Which is why I particularly like the specifics and evidence of this article on artistic endeavor and scientific innovation.
While I’ll admit it’s selective in its evidence (to be fair, I suppose they could list essential innovations that had nothing to do with the arts or artists), at least it backs up its argument with some specifics. I’m off to find the authors’ study on Nobel laureates in the sciences, which discovered this:
They are twenty-five
times as likely as the average scientist to sing, dance, or act;
seventeen times as likely to be a visual artist; twelve times more
likely to write poetry and literature; eight times more likely to do
woodworking or some other craft; four times as likely to be a musician;
and twice as likely to be a photographer. Many connect their art to
their scientific ability with some riff on Nobel prizewinning physicist
Max Planck words: “The creative scientist needs an artistic imagination.”
It’s time to get voraciously curious about where artistic experience and insight really connect to our world — our economy, our technology, our society, our history, and our daily lives. If we dive in with rigor, we’re bound to discover that the arts aren’t generically beneficial, but rather provide specific and unique impacts unavailable from elsewhere. That makes the life of the advocate a bit more difficult, but also (eventually) more resilient.
[ Thanks again to George, my new fount of useful links! ]
Wonderfully succinct and relevant! Thank you!
One of the arguments (getting a lot of airtime lately) that we’ve come to rely on is an argument that the arts produce instrumental economic benefit. We tend to use this as concrete, metric driven evidence of the value of the arts. Left out of the picture is the opportunity cost arguments: could the money (or foregone taxes) spent on the arts generate as much or more ROI if spent on something else? The answer is possibly “yes.” In light of that, it’s critical that we begin to sharpen our rhetorical ability to discuss instrumental benefits unique to the arts, and perhaps even intrinsic benefits or the arts.
National Boiler Service Inc., a manufacturer located in Trenton has invited an artist, Bob Dombrowski, to work with the company to establish a public sculpture in Trenton. The artist will provide sketches for sculpture that are based upon the specific piece of scrap metal generated by the manufacturing process, and be on hand during the construction process to be aware of possibilities beyond the original sketches. The completed sculpture will be placed on city owned property available to public scrutiny. The Trenton Arts Council and National Boiler Service will be the primary partners in this project. Beyond National Boiler, funding is from Georgia Art Projects funds and The City of Trenton Funds for the Arts. The entire project is expected to be completed by July.
Without a culture of artistry there will never be a new David by a Michelangelo or any other master work by a composer or playwright or any other art worker. All we will have are dusty collections of old arts artifacts.
Please let us know what you find regarding the study. Having a foot in both the art and the science camps, I found the correlation plausible, though quite possibly overstated.
As someone currently working in public education, I believe we’re on the cusp of a renaissance for arts in education. Businesses across the country are calling for high school graduates to have “21st Century Skills” that will make them productive members of the workforce. Those skills include creative thinking, problem-solving, communication, self-direction, and innovation, to name a few. We’ve known forever that these skills are attained by participating in the arts. For more information, visit: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org
You may be weary of our vague and lofty reasons for advocating for the arts, but I admit to growing weary that we even HAVE to advocate for the arts. Oh, to be an industry that is considered so important that it gets billions of dollars in government money with practically nobody arguing they are not important enough to deserve it, only disagreeing with how they should spend it. And then afterward, learning that the industry without shame spent taxpayer money on parties, corporate jets and executive bonuses with no recrimination, only a little righteous finger-wagging on news programs. Oh wait, I remember, they’re going to hell and we’re not. I feel better now.
The arts and the science world have long had a symbiotic relationship. Artists need new advances in technology to keep up with the demands of an expanding imagination, and scientists obviously benefit from pursuing artistic endeavors. The argument that we should advocate for the arts because they aid the science and technology fields is completely relevant, especially to some who aren’t that familiar with the arts field and can see more “meaningful” results in scientific projects.
This reminds me of the traditional ideal of the Renaissance Man, a social aspiration which seems to have fallen by the way side. It was not so long ago that scientists did not just do one thing well, they were also inventors, artists, sculptors, poets, and philosophers and were respected for it. Today we are often told to be “well rounded” which tends to mean getting a smattering of everything without really being able to devote enough time to enjoy any one particular thing. I think this idea of linking arts back together with science is a great one, we should bring back the thinking of arts being a necessary subject and skill for any person of intellect.