I am a science student that used to go to art school, lol. I always knew they go hand and hand. Art opened up my mind to abstract thinking that is so rarely taught in science.
art class is the main reason I didn't drop out of high school. After most of my electives were art, my other grades went way up, everyone is different though. oddly enough I never even wanted to be an artist, the classes were just so layed back and non-stressful. I ended up going to art college.
So as a parent of a daughter that has creative and artistic abilities, I am now realizing not to depend on the public school system for resources, but to go out on my own and find something better even if I have to pay for it.
I cried over this part of this interview. Meanwhile, tech "innovators" from Silicon Valley are saying arts programs - choir, drama, dance, band, etc. - should be cut in schools, replaced with coding classes.
I am an art teacher and passionately believe that my subject is vital but I also think it is inaccurate to say that critical thinking or ‘creativity’ is not present anywhere else in the curriculum.
It's not just art and science that are inprotant. Ofcourse politics, economies and other studies do have a lasting impact on the world too. You can't have one without the others, it is all linked together.
It's unfortunate that high school art classes teach what's what instead of how to be creative. I agree with everything said, but art classes are not what was described.
+Jupiter Too bad as an art teacher that is my number one focus.. Its sad you did not have people who made you think outside the box and pushed to reach your potential
Although I enjoy art classes, I believe they are not taught properly. Art is not a followed system, art is creativity, following orders on how to do it instead of doing it your own way is not art.
Learning technical skills has its purpose. Was da Vinci doing art incorrectly because he was technically skilled? Of course allowing a person to be creative is vital, but saying that things like color theory, perspective, line, etc. are "not art" is completely misguided.
I wonder what if Leonardo DaVinci was alive what he was gonna say about this he was letraly an artist and a scientist he was simply a genius and one of the greatest scientists who ever lived if not the great
Art can change the course of history, it can change you whole perspective not just in big spectacular ways, but in the most mundane of ways it is an eternal spring of joy, but what good is that really in our world, particularly in this time, when prejudices are so rampant and hearts refuse to soften? I'm afraid art education as vital as they are, they simply fall as a mixed message in a time so lacking for inspiration in the face of such real world problems, when to simply suggest we see them in a different light, seems like treason to so many who refuse to plan for a brighter tomorrow rather then see the strings of our yesterdays.
the problem is that teaching art has gone backwards with the focus on contemporary art. It is not based on historical refinement of past masters in the field. It is all about play therapy based on maybe shock rather than skill sets. Art funding is cut because the emphasis is on mediocrity and has little public support. We need to get back to fundamentals and promote Art Guardians who will look after the general aesthetic of Art as an Art form with credibility. It all starts with the Art Academies and teachers who have been mislead in Art study over the past 120 years. A new rebirth or renaissance in an Art form which has served previous centuries well
Not to sound too dramatic. But you sound like a certain A. Hitler with your view of art. You really really do. BAH! The Dutch masters! The romantic period! The baroque painters! Renaissance! NOW THOSE ARE REAAAAL ARTISTS! Because they paint things that look very realistic.. And they have a skill that really everyone can really appreciate. With little prior academic knowledge, of why modern art or contemporary art is what it is. And why it exists. Which i'd prefer, rather than the "well my 5 year old could have painted that" mentality. But, in the case of the UK, where i live. I'm glad to see out of the recession, pretty much all the good galleries around near where i live. Have been given hundreds of thousands, in some cases almost millions. To expand and develop new contemporary art. And modern theatre. And referring to my second point, the "my 5 year old could have made that". Thats why there lacks little public support for modern art. Although, really there is. Its just the minority shout louder than the majority. Is in education as you say. But in teaching people about what it is. Rather than teaching people to gain skills to paint in a traditional style. Because you seem to be making out what Pollack was doing, or Hirst, or Antony Gormley requires no skill.
+ancient artist That don't make no sense. Telling a student to copy a skill does not mean they will learn to use flexible thinking. Creativity doesn't occur when you tell a student to copy what you made. Contemporary art encourages students to think about big ideas like poverty, conflict, identity, etc. Issues that are important today and we need creative solutions.
+Karen Schaschwary Brinker All the masters copied works from their predecessors to develop there working skills and learning how to use there tools of trade. One of the main reasons many artists have not mastered an ability to communicate their creative ideas to a sufficient standard is because they have little knowledge on how to use the repertoire of tools available to them. You have to learn that from somewhere and where better than the masters before them who have learnt this. Bit hard to do it today from Teachers with Masters degrees in art and struggle themselves in using these tools to standards of past masters
ancient artist If the teacher or lecturer has an MA in art. Which first off, is a little generic. There isn't really an "art MA". You'd specialise in fine art, or something along those lines. If you have that MA, then you should be able to communicate to a student, or class taking a degree, or lower qualifications (but not necessarily) the importance of communicating your creative ideas. I did my BA Hons in photography. One of my best lecturers wasn't, and isn't qualified in any way to teach photography. She has a MA in philosophy. And she is really amazing. She's been featured in the Guardian photography section. And has had solo shows around London. She was great because she taught us the importance of communicating an idea. But umm... If you have an MA in fine art, then you will be able to draw. My old technician had an MA in fine art, and he was jeffing amazing!!
+rorrt A masters degree should qualify you to be able to do something at a sufficiently high level of accomplishment in your chosen field. If someone has a MA in Fine Arts. They should be able to produce Art at a highly all round technical level and not just talk about it. If they want to be philosophers in Art history they should be acknowledged as teachers of history not Art /painters practitioners.
Then it is not hard to say, "The Art World is Dead". When Josh Groban or Freddie Mercury (past tense) sing anything their producers say....You have to be a singer! Where are those people for the fine arts world? I Am trying to find the UA-cam post where Neil points to Van Gogh's painting of Starry Night and says, If Einstein did not come up with E=MC2 another scientist would of discovered to, but if Vincent does not for his painting...no one else would ever do what you see there. That is pretty big!
Music, which is an art, has led to down a path of science and literature I wouldn't have gone down without it. In an age where everything is instant, music, learning an instrument, can never be instant. There is no way around the hours of practice to get better. This is how music has taught me patience. Playing in an ensemble has showed me what it is like to work hard and accomplish common goals like nothing ever has before. This is how music has taught me working in groups. And the discovery aspect of music, the realization that between music theory, performance etiquette and expression, has taught me that something has simple as music has a whole fascinating world behind it that allows it to be what it is today. This is how music has nourished my curiosity in pretty much everything else. Curiosity in complexity doesn't come as naturally as we might think. The arts brings that curiosity and passion in whatever it is we do out. P.S: sorry for the typos, it's hard typing on my phone.
+Fernando Herrera In Music there is a a level of fundamentals you have to learn before it resembles music. Unfortunately this does not apply to visual Arts where anything goes and lots of creative language is used to try and make sense out of it. The Dummies follow blindly accepting what the contemporary art academics, critics feed you as art. You can,t get away with similar language when describing music. Thats why music has held onto its aesthetic where contempt art has failed miserably
ancient artist I think when it comes to art, it only needs to effect one person for it to be worth it. If a piece of art reaches at least one person then it has succeeded. Art varies more than music, so those who like a particular piece will be a much smaller crowd than those who don't like it. Not every piece of art needs to be world famous for it to be considered art.
I am a science student that used to go to art school, lol.
I always knew they go hand and hand. Art opened up my mind to abstract thinking that is so rarely taught in science.
THANK YOU! I am so sick of people hating on art and history.
same! As an artist and history lover, I want art and history to be required.
art class is the main reason I didn't drop out of high school. After most of my electives were art, my other grades went way up, everyone is different though. oddly enough I never even wanted to be an artist, the classes were just so layed back and non-stressful. I ended up going to art college.
I 100% agree, art classes kept me in school
Art and Science go hand in hand
So as a parent of a daughter that has creative and artistic abilities, I am now realizing not to depend on the public school system for resources, but to go out on my own and find something better even if I have to pay for it.
Don't trust the government to fulfill your needs or make you happy. It will fail you every time.
@@jonathanhannah8117 Ever hear of "by the people, for the people?" this is what government is supposed to do
Not everyone can afford to do this. Parents / tax payers should insist that the arts remain an intefral part of the curriculum.
Art is a must!
Almost the only reason that I go to school is "today has an art class "
Amen 🙏 don’t cut arts programs , ART and music -those classes and experiences - totally engage the students !
I cried over this part of this interview. Meanwhile, tech "innovators" from Silicon Valley are saying arts programs - choir, drama, dance, band, etc. - should be cut in schools, replaced with coding classes.
+Jayne Cravens They're full of shit
Who said it?
Apple wouldn't have been the same success if Steve Jobs hadn't been into design and layout...
You gain soo much confidence from art its incredible
I am an art teacher and passionately believe that my subject is vital but I also think it is inaccurate to say that critical thinking or ‘creativity’ is not present anywhere else in the curriculum.
Definitely agree. It is needed in all aspects.
It's not just art and science that are inprotant. Ofcourse politics, economies and other studies do have a lasting impact on the world too. You can't have one without the others, it is all linked together.
Economics is a social science.
Well those other professionals are not getting their funding and education cut so drastically as the arts.
It's unfortunate that high school art classes teach what's what instead of how to be creative. I agree with everything said, but art classes are not what was described.
k
+Jupiter Too bad as an art teacher that is my number one focus.. Its sad you did not have people who made you think outside the box and pushed to reach your potential
The videos is important because it goes into depth on how art really is and why it's important
That was...well put out. Thanks, Neil. Again.
There is art in everything
Love u Neil very well said there is no world without art❤️
Although I enjoy art classes, I believe they are not taught properly. Art is not a followed system, art is creativity, following orders on how to do it instead of doing it your own way is not art.
Learning technical skills has its purpose. Was da Vinci doing art incorrectly because he was technically skilled? Of course allowing a person to be creative is vital, but saying that things like color theory, perspective, line, etc. are "not art" is completely misguided.
I wonder what if Leonardo DaVinci was alive what he was gonna say about this he was letraly an artist and a scientist he was simply a genius and one of the greatest scientists who ever lived if not the great
Vinci was really master of many fields. Bowing before him.
Apple brings creativity and engineering together.
1:01 - 1:30 1:52 - 2:18
Wise words Indeed
Thank you Neil deGrasse Tyson for you thoughts on the importance of art, science, and education!
Arts integration programs ! You integrate arts into social studies , science and so on
Well said!
Arts!!! Is a way to know different cultures, people's and philosophies!!! 🙏🙏🙏
Art can change the course of history, it can change you whole perspective not just in big spectacular ways, but in the most mundane of ways it is an eternal spring of joy, but what good is that really in our world, particularly in this time, when prejudices are so rampant and hearts refuse to soften? I'm afraid art education as vital as they are, they simply fall as a mixed message in a time so lacking for inspiration in the face of such real world problems, when to simply suggest we see them in a different light, seems like treason to so many who refuse to plan for a brighter tomorrow rather then see the strings of our yesterdays.
We don't "create" science, we discover it.
i agree👍👍
ight whos here for school?
the problem is that teaching art has gone backwards with the focus on contemporary art. It is not based on historical refinement of past masters in the field. It is all about play therapy based on maybe shock rather than skill sets. Art funding is cut because the emphasis is on mediocrity and has little public support. We need to get back to fundamentals and promote Art Guardians who will look after the general aesthetic of Art as an Art form with credibility. It all starts with the Art Academies and teachers who have been mislead in Art study over the past 120 years. A new rebirth or renaissance in an Art form which has served previous centuries well
Not to sound too dramatic.
But you sound like a certain A. Hitler with your view of art. You really really do.
BAH! The Dutch masters! The romantic period! The baroque painters! Renaissance!
NOW THOSE ARE REAAAAL ARTISTS! Because they paint things that look very realistic..
And they have a skill that really everyone can really appreciate. With little prior academic knowledge, of why modern art or contemporary art is what it is. And why it exists.
Which i'd prefer, rather than the "well my 5 year old could have painted that" mentality.
But, in the case of the UK, where i live. I'm glad to see out of the recession, pretty much all the good galleries around near where i live. Have been given hundreds of thousands, in some cases almost millions. To expand and develop new contemporary art. And modern theatre.
And referring to my second point, the "my 5 year old could have made that". Thats why there lacks little public support for modern art. Although, really there is. Its just the minority shout louder than the majority.
Is in education as you say. But in teaching people about what it is. Rather than teaching people to gain skills to paint in a traditional style. Because you seem to be making out what Pollack was doing, or Hirst, or Antony Gormley requires no skill.
+ancient artist That don't make no sense. Telling a student to copy a skill does not mean they will learn to use flexible thinking. Creativity doesn't occur when you tell a student to copy what you made. Contemporary art encourages students to think about big ideas like poverty, conflict, identity, etc. Issues that are important today and we need creative solutions.
+Karen Schaschwary Brinker All the masters copied works from their predecessors to develop there working skills and learning how to use there tools of trade. One of the main reasons many artists have not mastered an ability to communicate their creative ideas to a sufficient standard is because they have little knowledge on how to use the repertoire of tools available to them. You have to learn that from somewhere and where better than the masters before them who have learnt this. Bit hard to do it today from Teachers with Masters degrees in art and struggle themselves in using these tools to standards of past masters
ancient artist
If the teacher or lecturer has an MA in art. Which first off, is a little generic. There isn't really an "art MA". You'd specialise in fine art, or something along those lines.
If you have that MA, then you should be able to communicate to a student, or class taking a degree, or lower qualifications (but not necessarily) the importance of communicating your creative ideas.
I did my BA Hons in photography. One of my best lecturers wasn't, and isn't qualified in any way to teach photography. She has a MA in philosophy. And she is really amazing. She's been featured in the Guardian photography section. And has had solo shows around London. She was great because she taught us the importance of communicating an idea.
But umm... If you have an MA in fine art, then you will be able to draw. My old technician had an MA in fine art, and he was jeffing amazing!!
+rorrt A masters degree should qualify you to be able to do something at a sufficiently high level of accomplishment in your chosen field. If someone has a MA in Fine Arts. They should be able to produce Art at a highly all round technical level and not just talk about it. If they want to be philosophers in Art history they should be acknowledged as teachers of history not Art /painters practitioners.
I'm an artist (painter)need english native to help me to describe my artworks.
Then it is not hard to say, "The Art World is Dead". When Josh Groban or Freddie Mercury (past tense)
sing anything their producers say....You have to be a singer! Where are those people for the fine arts
world? I Am trying to find the UA-cam post where Neil points to Van Gogh's painting of Starry Night
and says, If Einstein did not come up with E=MC2 another scientist would of discovered to, but if
Vincent does not for his painting...no one else would ever do what you see there. That is pretty big!
my english is not good enough for this comment section im out
هلااا
Usually I'm with Neil in all aspects. But linking arts to creativity? I don't buy that.
Music, which is an art, has led to down a path of science and literature I wouldn't have gone down without it. In an age where everything is instant, music, learning an instrument, can never be instant. There is no way around the hours of practice to get better. This is how music has taught me patience. Playing in an ensemble has showed me what it is like to work hard and accomplish common goals like nothing ever has before. This is how music has taught me working in groups. And the discovery aspect of music, the realization that between music theory, performance etiquette and expression, has taught me that something has simple as music has a whole fascinating world behind it that allows it to be what it is today. This is how music has nourished my curiosity in pretty much everything else.
Curiosity in complexity doesn't come as naturally as we might think. The arts brings that curiosity and passion in whatever it is we do out.
P.S: sorry for the typos, it's hard typing on my phone.
+Fernando Herrera In Music there is a a level of fundamentals you have to learn before it resembles music. Unfortunately this does not apply to visual Arts where anything goes and lots of creative language is used to try and make sense out of it. The Dummies follow blindly accepting what the contemporary art academics, critics feed you as art. You can,t get away with similar language when describing music. Thats why music has held onto its aesthetic where contempt art has failed miserably
ancient artist I think when it comes to art, it only needs to effect one person for it to be worth it. If a piece of art reaches at least one person then it has succeeded. Art varies more than music, so those who like a particular piece will be a much smaller crowd than those who don't like it. Not every piece of art needs to be world famous for it to be considered art.