I have to say, while I definitely think this is an interesting idea and merits further investigation, it also makes me sad because it's another step away from legitimizing the idea of art for the sake of art. I feel like nowadays you hear a lot about art for the sake of: Making you a better employee, making you a more well-rounded person, making you more marketable, making you better at focusing on the job...I guess that if that is what we have to do to get the arts recognized (and funded) as a valid pursuit, than so be it, the ends justify the means.

Or maybe I'm just being unrealistically pie in the sky in thinking that art deserves a place in society for reasons other than because of what it does for people's mentalities or how productive it makes them at work? But still, it's a less-than-ideal reason, in my mind, for supporting the arts.

@milena colleges are cranking out plenty of people who have the skills to be an accountant or a manager or an engineer. but what's common in all these streams is everyone is thought to color inside the lines.

the line 'if all you have is a hammer, then every situation is a nail' is quite true here. the study of the arts allows the person to see the situation/role/problem in more ways than the traditional.

it's an employer's market today. what differentiates the stars from the mediocre is the spark of creativity/genius that they bring to their roles. most people do this instinctually. but a study of the arts (whether full-time or part-time, formally or casually) enables a person to harness the creativity within.

@molly i'm curious to understand how you define art.

As someone who is a patron and student of the arts, (have been for much of my life, including making it official in college) I am constantly amazed at how easily they are dismissed.

I can say the personally, my background in the arts has not helped me land a single job, sadly. Even if you take the utilitarian approach that arts exposure and education leads to a more well rounded creative problem solver in the work place, the stigma is still great, I feel, when one who is arts based is evaluated by the corporate cogs we call hiring managers in most companies today. (Please note the use of the word MOST, and don't confuse it with ALL.)

An education in the arts does have a demonstrable effect on the overall quality of the student and eventually the adult/employee. I am not prepared with specific names and references to studies to back up that claim, (and hence endorse making arts a core curriculum.) But then again, I think that certain subjects that have been taken for granted as "crucial" in our current outdated education system today also lack any specific empirical study to prove that they are universally intrinsic to success. (I maintain that the simple need to exercise doesn't justify P.E. in our schools, but I am not on a crusade to have it removed or cut from the budget in such a way as the arts have been over the years.)

Finally, I am very much in agreement with Molly on the subject of "Ars gratia artis". (Art for art's sake.) I too sometimes wonder if we should really be lashing the success and failure of the arts onto the mast of other ships, such as corporate productivity. Do we really need to defend paintings, classical music, theatre, ballet, and the like on the grounds that "being exposed to such things early and often will help kids grow up into better, more productive corporate citizens"?

Perhaps doing so at this time doesn't dilute the mission of art for arts sake. But what does the future hold? After all we don't have to convince the world to fund the local high school football team because "Playing football increases stamina, and leads to future employees that require few breaks during the day." We fund football because everybody finds football to be important to the lifeblood of a community in many places. If that tenuous argument is taken for fact, shouldn't we at least be able to bring arts into the same safe zone?

I don't know if the point you made towards "Tyler" was referring to me or not, (That isn't my name.) But I just wanted to respond nonetheless.

First of all, Maslow's pyramid assumes that people are aware of what each of their needs may be. That there is some innate understand of everything that benefits them. If people are still uncertain about the benefit to themselves and society that the arts contain, they won't fight for them as much. The goal is to convince them of same.

Secondly, my football analogy remains the same. All of the money and support lent towards athletics of every level, even in (or especially in) rought economic times) would seem to indicate that people do not by default, draw back on spending based on some hierarchy of needs. Nobody needs athletics. They too should be considered a top of the pyramid extravagance, but yet clearly are not. Which seems to indicate that something's connection to one's basic survival is not in fact directly proportional to how much time and effort are put into it.

It all goes back tot he original point of the post. The arts can and do serve a vital purpose in the creation of a well rounded person and well rounded society. Employees in all industries would thrive better in a world where both were nurtured.

@Ty - sorry, my mind must have filled in "ler" when I typed.

I could be wrong, as I have not formally studied psychology, but I don't think Maslow's hierarchy depends on people being aware of what their needs are. Humans do not need to be acutely aware their fundamental need is to eat and find shelter. This is on the level of instinct, really. Yes, in a luxury society, because it is rare for someone to ever think about where their next meal is coming from or where they will lay their head, they are spending more time at the top of the pyramid in general. But that was my exact point, when they must make that shift towards survival, the top of the pyramid gets less attention, not because of some fundamental flaw in their thinking, or lack of understanding about their "true" needs, but because they must allocate their now more-precious resources to more basic needs. It doesn't matter how much you want to see the ballet, how much you value the ballet, and the spiritual sustenance it could give you, if you have to choose between ballet and paying your rent or eating your next meal, most every human will choose to eat and maintain adequate shelter.

Your point about sports vs. art is interesting. I don't know why people like football better than operas. I can only think of things I've observed only anecdotally, namely, the barrier to "enjoying" football (distinct from being a great player) is very low. You don't have to get dressed up, and I'm told anyone can understand the rules (though I've not tried.) The arts barrier to enjoyment is high. I know people who are intimidated at the very thought of going to see a performance of a symphony, ballet, or opera because they don't know what to wear, when to clap, or how to adequately gauge if what they are seeing is any good. These are often intelligent people who I might even consider very creative in their own right. In sports, the "winner" is clear - the team or man with the most points. There is no similar rubric for the arts. In fact, the enjoyment of the arts is so subjective, it seems that anyone can do anything, including covering themselves in chocolate and rolling around on a stage and call it "art."

I think there are significant hurdles in the arts to "connect" with audiences, whereas sports are easy to enjoy, even if you have no prior knowledge of the sport. I recently was invited to sing the national anthem at a hockey game. I have no knowledge of hockey, but stuck around for a quarter and enjoyed the sport and understood which team was better and felt I more or less "belonged" in the crowd despite my lack of knowledge. I can't say the arts are that "inviting."

You certainly must know that the rolling around in chocolate definition of the arts is a stereotype that many use to gage the arts as a whole. But then, it is the responsibility of the arts to counter that pretentious notion, and thus far they have not been very successful at so doing. But that's for another forum.

Second, I see your point about the "barrier" being low for football. I don't agree it's as high for the arts as you seem to think it is, but once again, the blame for that perception lies with the arts community. Another forum.

More to the point, I do in fact believe that the arts are fundamentally important to survival, but let us suspend that for the time being. Surely you must agree that football, low barrier or not, is simply not vital to the survival of someone. Nor for that matter is playing the lottery, partaking in liquor, or smoking cigarettes. In fact the later significantly hinders one's chance of survival. And yet people from all economic backgrounds, including the very poor, spend money they otherwise do not have on such pursuits. I bring it up only because it would seem to indicate that not all things at the top of the survival pyramid fall by the wayside when the choice is between rent and something else. And that in fact, depending on the community, some of those things are chosen INSTEAD of rent or medicine or food any given month.

I am not saying that you are wrong in your assessment of Maslow. I am simply inclined to believe that Maslow himself was incorrect. That people do want to survive, but can be for whatever reason compelled to spend time, attention and money they do not have on certain things that are not vital. And if football can do it, so can the arts.

@Kathryn - I do understand your point, but I can't say I agree that I fit the description of "core" passion as you describe it. I consider myself to be very happy and comfortable in my skin working as a researcher and professor in finance and economics - it provides me considerable fodder for what I consider to be one of my passions: economics. What I was trying to express in the quote you mentioned is that there is a point when I can feel deprived of musical expression, however, I can just as a easily get sick of it. If my schedule is booked with singing gigs, I can get burned out on that and want to cuddle up to a an economic tome to "balance" things out.

So what I'm getting at is I crave both and I think many people are similar. I do feel that when I took my first econ class, something was awakened within me, much like the first time I heard a beautifully sung opera aria. So - I think my "core" is both disciplines, not just one.

I think how what you said ties in with my observation and what Daniel Pink seems to be saying is that perhaps utilizing right and left brain thinking is not just good for people and makes them better workers, but perhaps even their "cores" crave finding a right and left activity that suits them?

Agreed, Milena. Perhaps you and I can discuss that side issue further on some other forum some day!