Its true about the tuition expense. Art streams aren't subsidized to the same extent that science & engineering tuition is.
Of course, the fact that those disciplines bring in millions of dollars in govt research grants to the universities probably has something to do with it.
I think fine arts programs are more dependent on student tuition to make them profitable.
Second thoughts can generally be amended with judicious action; injudicious actions can seldom be recovered with second thoughts.
--Cyteen by C.J.Cherryh
most art is shit.
though art has contributed a LOT to everything, and yet it is undermined.
i think it all goes back to the fact that it's people making the differences, not the subjects. in this age, the economy is benefiting mostly from those areas. in the past though, art was. from the stone age until the camera was invented.
at this day in age, a lot of thought and process goes into art. in the past it was used primarily for illustration, especially in the subjects of anatomy. a lot of what we know today about color comes from the color theories of artists in the past, and very intelligent people, who didn't limit themselves to certain subjects. today, a lot of philosophy goes into art. a lot of it is incomprehensible to most people... then again, a lot of artists do miss the connection between their viewers and themselves, and ultimately their art becomes more about learning something for themselves, than sharing ideas with other people.
it's the subject which you can't really write books about. anyone can study science; anyone can make an observation. and anyone can pick up a paint brush and scribble something on a canvas, or play guitar, or piano... but it takes someone who can comprehend it on other levels, in order to make a difference. i mean just look at the ones from the past... da vinci... newton... derwent... all of those guys were probably the most intelligent people to ever walk the earth.
Last edited by anachronistic; 19-08-08 at 02:56 PM.