Oooooh, well I was always better at the Sciencey-type subjects. Predominantly Maths, that was my forte. Artsy-type subjects I suck at! I just can't do 'em!

With regards to what should be taught in what ratio, I think they both should be taught. In equal ratio to begin with, till you reach an age when you know what you can and can't do. Then it should be up to the individual person. Ummm, pretty much as it is!!

ok i think sceince and maths and that rubbish is more important in making certain useful things for this world but as an artist arts so much better. art is there for you to express yourself and let your feelings run wild. art is more likely to stop a war because it can bring love from a beautiful painting and in general make the world a better place.

I think PoF is basically right. Children need a well rounded education untill they know their strength and weaknesses.

As for which is more important.... Thats a toughie.

Without the arts we wouldnt have anything like books, film, theatre, dance. I love all these things.

But without science we wouldnt have microwaves, cars, the internet and such.

It's hard to choose, tho having a science brain myself i'd probably go with science, just to stick up for my kind.

It may be worth pointing out that the human race struggled through without microwavces for all but the last 20 years or so of history, whereas I can't think of a single global culture of any significance for millennia without any artistic culture (anyone suggesting America gets a smack)....

But is this C.P. Snow model of human learning still relevant?

I'm definitely an Arts person !

I had a lot of problems when I was born which led to some brin damage...they have since found out that it is the part of my brain that does numbers...no wonder I can't do maths !!!

I have no problems writing essays and stuff. I'm doing A Levels in History, RE, Classics and English Lit...I don't think you can get more artsy than that . I believe that both camps are important, although I also think that the world is divided into those that can do science subjects, and those who can't.

Would anyone agree?

---

by Tannhauser
It may be worth pointing out that the human race struggled through without microwavces for all but the last 20 years or so of history, whereas I can't think of a single global culture of any significance for millennia without any artistic culture (anyone suggesting America gets a smack)....

---

I can't imagine any civilization at all without the invention of... say... they wheel?
And what would the artist paint with without the paintbrush? or the pencil? You could say the first 'artist' was the 'scientist' who discovered you could use a dye of some sort to paint...

(Edited by The Noid 05/04/2002 11:49)

---

by Cat
I think PoF is basically right. Children need a well rounded education untill they know their strength and weaknesses.

---

Ditto.

And good point, Noid

Now that's clever no wonder ya a techy

Is it me, or do people keep confusing "the arts" and "fine art"?

yeah no offence noid but dancing was probably before an invention, dancing, expressing ones selves to inspire to make inventions

How do you differentiate between them?

Whether 'science' or 'art', the study of either is about understanding the world we live in and our own place within it.

Scientists strive to understand that which governs the physical world, artists seek understanding of the spiritual world (well most of them, Jeffery Archer springs to mind).

As creatures that inhabit both worlds, both are critical to humanity's ability to know itself.

Which is kind of what I mean about the CP Snow thing. Is it really the case that one can be considered an intelligent or well-rounded human being without some understanding of both these "divisions".

Personally, speaking as a Humanities student, I'm well out of the whole argument, but I could have a crack at explaining how a microwave oven works and have a crack at explaining how Flann O'Brien works - should there be this idea of "the Two Cultures".

As for teaching in schools - a utilitarian solution might be to educate according to a quota system, based on an estimate of available emploment at the point of graduation. A more wishy-washy but perhaps easier and more equitable system might encourage the student to sdiscover where there interests and talents lay, and then hope that they could find something useful to do with their skills later.

---

by SPIKE
yeah no offence noid but dancing was probably before an invention, dancing, expressing ones selves to inspire to make inventions

---

Key word here being probably. We can speculate all day as to which came first but since none of us were around at that point in evolution, it's a moot point.

In any case, chronological primacy seems a fairly silly way to decide relative value.

Humans have a drive to understand and make meaning of their existence and to communicate that knowledge to others. Arguably, early art was science (although the conceptual distinction is pointless), mythology about gods, the stars, the sun and moon and the natural world were the first efforts to explain the world.

---

by Incandenza
Arguably, early art was science

---

Equally, early 'scientists' (alchemists and the like) considered what they were doing to be an art. I think that the distinction is a fairly recent one.

I agree that a balance is necessary. I could never really choose between the two at school - I enjoyed elements of all subjects and was equally good at them. I always loved reading so I took arts subjects at A-level but I still regret not being able to do Maths and Physics as well. Then again, I have a degree in English Literature and I'm an accountant, so maybe I'm just confused

I am the top of science in my school year, I hope to be some kind of biologist when I'm older, so I like Science alot more, and it's more useful for me, obviously. I think that there should be 3:1 ratio of science to the arts. I think it's reasonable.

I really enjoy the arts, and i am involved in dramatics in school time and my spare time. At the end of thr day, the arts are useful as they give life variety and colour, but science is more useful.

I'm an art person, me.

Don't get on well with Science or Maths- that's the subjects and the teachers.

Actually I get good Science grades but my Biology techer has it in for me so it's a lot less enjoyable.

My maths teacher also has it in for me- maybe he had some kind of issues with punk in the 70s cos I got an especially big frown when I wore a Sex Pistols t-shirt for non uniform day

Anyway, back on subject, I LOVE Art and Drama and Music (although I don't take music as a lesson anymore cos I couldn't have all three) so I sit firmly in the Arts camp.

Oh, and CK- be a Marine Biologist- that's the best kind . They we can go on long trips to Hawaii looking for new, exotic kinds of marine life!!!

(Edited by Linz 05/04/2002 17:18)

---

by LinzMy maths teacher also has it in for me- maybe he had some kind of issues with punk in the 70s cos I got an especially big frown when I wore a Sex Pistols t-shirt for non uniform day

---

LOL, did it say anything offensive on it?? And my mum says the 70's was a scarey era

---

Oh, and CK- be a Marine Biologist- that's the best kind . They we can go on long trips to Hawaii looking for new, exotic kinds of marine life!!!

---

Actually I was thinking about forensics (sp?) science as then we can look at stuff at gigs like.....something

i prefer the arts..but also math and biology...

---

by coolkat
LOL, did it say anything offensive on it??

---

No, actually it had quite a nice picture of Sid Vicious and Johnny Rotten holding hands