Should the sciences replace the arts? Why are the arts important?

[aras]

I saw a similar question and it got me thinking.

Sciences have cured diseases and saved millions of lives, built cars and planes, fridges and ovens, houses, etc.

Arts have not built cars but made them look pretty. They have made multi-million dollar movies. I can also think of paintings and sculptures. They have not made computers but made them look pretty.

Someone who has lost a loved one to a yet incurable disease, might wonder what would happen if 10% of the artists/actors and 10% of the budget for the arts/movie industry was spent on curing such diseases.

I can imagine a cancer researcher on his death bed thinking he lived a life that was satisfactory as he spent much time trying to cure an illness. But what would Tom Hanks or Seinfeld say? Unless Seinfeld says that by bringing laughter he has contributed to people's mental health (and we're back to science again), how is he going to justify his endeavors to himself?

By the way, I have nothing against these actors. I was trying to use famous people since it is too easy to assume that a no name artist has made no significant contribution to people's well being.

I have a science background and I'm a creative/artistic person too so I am looking for a satisfactory answer for myself, to be honest. My formal training is in sciences which explains my bias in favor of them.

[jcoltage]

b/c all the girls do Art studies ... (sorry ladies but its true .. wish you would come on over to the business studies)

[goob3r]

Art enriches our lives through expression of the intangible. Science doesn't.

[ullyeus]

Who deems what is important enough to not regret on their deathbed?

[aras]

Who deems what is important enough to not regret on their deathbed?

That's a good question. I'm just assuming that people want to make positive contributions to their fellow human beings. Forget the death bed thing...I was just trying to make a point. I'm just saying that drawing pictures of trees does not seem as important as saving someone's life.

[cheeseshredder]

So what about business? Spend all your time working to make someone else rich.

[aras]

So what about business? Spend all your time working to make someone else rich.

Damn I did not think about business. I don't know how that fits in there. My argument about the arts was more clear-cut but I suppose we do need some type of business.

[cheeseshredder]

Damn I did not think about business. I don't know how that fits in there. My argument about the arts was more clear-cut but I suppose we do need some type of business.

What is your argument exactly. The arts are a major component of society/life.

Edit: What is mean is that without Arts, there would be no point to life. Everything has its role and you could even say that both disciplines depend on each other.

[Bazooka Joe]

It's all related. Science exists because of business, business succeeds because of art.

Would we have so many doctors if it paid minimum wage? Will people buy a brick or an ipod?

[scottmcl]

yeah....pfttt who needs teachers,professors, lawyers, anthropologists etc...

idiot.

[Supra_KL]

yeah....pfttt who needs teachers,professors, lawyers, anthropologists etc...

idiot.

I think he meant visual art, music, literature and etc. Not social sciences (psychology, law, poli sci and etc.)

Kinda do agree with the OP. Seems odd that society places the movie/music/sports industry higher than any branch of physical science, math or social science.

[UrbanPoet]

without art there will be no science.
Philosophy is an "art" and you could easily say that philosophy created science.

You could easily argue that art created science.... Science @ one point was called "Natural philosophy".

The idea of "over analyzing life" the heavens, the earths, the mind, our thoughts, and the meaning of life inspired society to think about science too.

The "Scientific method" was derived from the exact same principals explored in philosophy by the ancient Greeks. They took it to another level

[DeimosBeros]

I've caught myself thinking the same thing on more than one occasion. We see alot of sci-fi interpretations of the future that picture our civilization taking advanced leaps in technology and quality of life. And I think, "Hey, why shouldn't I and everybody else go into engineering and the like so that we can move faster into that futuristic star trek/star wars universe, yeah that would be cool."

I believe in alot of places of the world, most countries encourage their young people into practical fields that they hope will help push their cultures and society forward. These places turn out doctors, engineers of all makes and sizes, teachers, rocket scientists, etc.
North america on the other hand is more liberal in its thinking and somewhere along the way creates these fields of study that I think are a complete waste of time in this day and age. It's not that the liberal arts aren't enriching to the soul as opposed to the hollowness of technology and industry, it's just that it ain't helping the world on the whole.
I'm an artist myself, I was born with enough dexterity and imagination to produce pretty pictures but I don't see it getting me to a level where I can claim financial freedom, though I do feel happier when I indulge in sketching.

Let's be realistic though.
Will the arts ever solve our garbage crisis?
Will it cure cancer?
Will it create more food to sustain an ever growing human population?
Will it find an infinite source of clean, renewable energy?

I might be narrow minded in this regard, but I just don't see the liberal arts doing any of this.

[cnbc]

Because science students wish to take bird courses to boost their GPA. Where do they find such courses? Faculty of Arts.

[milhaus]

Watch Equilibirum.