Major Advice (Potentially Double in Art and Physics)

[ThereIam]

Hi!

I'm a college student majoring in physics. I had a very terrible freshman year (during which I thought I would be pre-med). I switched to being an art major my sophomore year and took lots of art classes. Then I freaked out and decided that if I was going to go to school it should be for something that I would actually learn best at school, and so I began my physics major my junior year. Predictably, I am going to be a five year student.

I am now half-way through my (first) senior year with one year and a half remaining. I realized recently that I have more options than I thought.

Option 1: Double Major: load up on physics and art classes and go for the double major. This will cost me the ability to take at least one of three of the most advanced level classes. This is okay, I think - its atypical for students here to take all of them anyway. The minimum is 1, and I plan on taking 2. It will also cost me the ability to take any computers science classes, which I had been sort of intent on doing for employment options. Also, I won't be able to take any more math (I will have taken Calc 1, 2, Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, and Physics math course that covers Calc 3, Fourier Analysis, and other math that physicists depend heavily on).

Option 2: Physics Only
I will get to take computer science, and retain my sanity. I might be able to pick up more math classes, or save my parents a boatload of money by being a part-time student next fall. I could have a ****load more time to devote to learning the piano, which is something I desperately want to do.

I won't be able to take the senior art project classes (where I would basically credit for doing whatever I wanted art-wise, and then I would get to participate in the senior gallery exhibition (something I've wanted to do since I knew it existed).

My question is really if you think Option 1 will hurt my career or graduate studies options. Really any general thoughts and advice are appreciated. I have rolled this stuff over in my head too many times to look at any of it objectively.

I sort of doubt that I want to go for a PhD. I see a masters in an engineering field as a much more probable outcome. I might say screw it all and be a concept artist for video games or try the art world on for size (I'm not too technically shabby). I don't know. Help me, please.

 

[qspeechc]

Just some thoughts of mine:

With the math you have you might not need to take more math courses. If you do go on to do graduate work you can pick up whatever courses you are lacking then (but see below).

You can always learn the piano after you graduate, whichever route you take with your studies. This anyway seems a better option to me because if you want to become proficient in a musical instrument you need to devoted at least an hour or two every day, so I do not think it is a good idea to study an instrument while you are at university.

Unless you are an exceptional art student, do you really think having your work in a gallery will do much for your art career?

You say you "sort of doubt" you want a PhD. A PhD is something you have to really love, and which takes a lot of effort to obtain, so if are not sure about it I suggest don't bother even applying for it.

Also, it is extraordinarily unlikely you will be able to make a living as an artist, even less than your chances of becoming a physicist, so unless you have exceptional skill and love for art forget about becoming an artist.

My feeling is: what really will you get from adding the Art major? You might be able to work in an art gallery or teach art to school children with the degree, which seem the only jobs you can realistically get with that degree; is that something you would be happy doing? I do not know how well you have been doing so far in your studies, but it sounds unlikely that you will be accepted for a graduate program in physics.

Another option is to finish your physics degree, then go back and get an engineering or computer science degree. You already know some math and physics so you could get the degree in 3 years (I think) and work part-time to pay for your studies. Just an idea.

If you do only a physics degree then you can, as you say, work part-time to ease the enormous cost of university, if this is something your family needs help with.

 

[twofish-quant]

My question is really if you think Option 1 will hurt my career or graduate studies options. Really any general thoughts and advice are appreciated. I have rolled this stuff over in my head too many times to look at any of it objectively.

My experience is yes it will hurt your career and graduate studies options, but life shouldn't necessarily revolve around career and graduate school, and may be worth the hit. In my situation, the fact that I did non-physics things *did* hurt my admissions to graduate school, but it was really, really, really helpful once I got my Ph.D.

It's one of those "what do you want to do with your life" questions. You are going to be dead in a few decades whatever you do, and if you think that studying art is a good way of spending your life, then study art.

I see a masters in an engineering field as a much more probable outcome. I might say screw it all and be a concept artist for video games or try the art world on for size (I'm not too technically shabby). I don't know. Help me, please.

There is actually a decent commercial demand for people with art skills. With physics, then you could go to work for Disney (I'm being serious here since I know someone that did that.)

 

[twofish-quant]

Unless you are an exceptional art student, do you really think having your work in a gallery will do much for your art career?

There is a pretty decent demand for commercial artists. Take a walk down the street and look at all those billboards and advertisements. Someone had to draw them.

Also, it is extraordinarily unlikely you will be able to make a living as an artist, even less than your chances of becoming a physicist, so unless you have exceptional skill and love for art forget about becoming an artist.

I know people that make decent livings being artists and writers. If you have a piece of software that you don't want to look like garbage, you hire a graphical designer to make the software look decent. Also, you have a lot of technical writers to write manuals.

Something that you find in the software industry is that you find that software ends up being the "day job" for lots of creative people. I've personally known graphic artists, movie producers, and science fiction writers that work in the computer industry. For that matter, what I'm doing really isn't that different from what they are doing.

You might be able to work in an art gallery or teach art to school children with the degree, which seem the only jobs you can realistically get with that degree

Or make decent money designing the look and feel of the iPhone, or put together corporate annual reports.

 

[qspeechc]

I suppose we have different ideas of Art. You have more in mind design, which I would not call art at all. Art has a higher Truth and higher Seriousness that design does not possess. We call the statue of Laocoon and His Sons Art, but the design of the iPhone is not. This is what I thought was meant by Art. If, however, twofish-quant's idea of design is what is actually meant, then I apologise and withdraw all my statements about the Art degree.

 

[axiomatic7777]

In my situation, the fact that I did non-physics things *did* hurt my admissions to graduate school, but it was really, really, really helpful once I got my Ph.D.

Could you elaborate on this? (If my curiosity is not too invasive - I'm in a similar situation...) what non-physics things did you do? To what extent it hurts your grad school admission? How do you know about it?

 

[twofish-quant]

I suppose we have different ideas of Art. You have more in mind design, which I would not call art at all. Art has a higher Truth and higher Seriousness that design does not possess.

And that definition comes from Plato, and I don't accept that definition. Neither did Andy Warhol. The fact that he was able to get Campbell Soup cans into MOMA makes a pretty serious point which is that you can go into a supermarket, and if you look at it from the right perspective, you find yourself in an art gallery. You can try this and it's pretty cool. You can go into MOMA and then spend the afternoon analyzing the art there, and then go into a supermarket and do the same thing.

The problem with that definition of art is that it is tremendously dis-empowering. If only things with *TRUTH* and *SERIOUSNESS* are art, then the only people that can do art are people that are selected by rich people have spare time and money, that this leaves people with money to define what *TRUTH* and *SERIOUSNESS* are, and rich people will define *TRUTH* in ways that benefit rich people. *SERIOUSNESS* is a bad thing because that just relegates "art" into dusty things in museum shelves. Art needs to be funny sometimes.

Also, if you have a wide definition of art, then you learn some bits of *TRUTH*. For example, you look at a Dutch landscape painting. If it is a good painting, it makes you feel something and affects you at a subconscious level. Now you go to a supermarket, and look at a label. That label was designed by someone that specifically wants you to make you feel something so that you go out and buy that can of Coca-Cola.

We call the statue of Laocoon and His Sons Art, but the design of the iPhone is not.

Who is "we" and why do "we" make those distinctions? That's a serious question. I don't make those distinctions.

Also one thing that I've found about commercial artists is that they spend a lot of time studying old masters. I have a friend that writes flash games, and if you go into his workshop there are all sorts of pictures and pieces of design.

This is what I thought was meant by Art.

So why did you think that? (That's a serious question.)

 

[twofish-quant]

Could you elaborate on this? (If my curiosity is not too invasive - I'm in a similar situation...) what non-physics things did you do? To what extent it hurts your grad school admission? How do you know about it?

I ended up doing radiation hydrodynamics in type II supernova. I did a lot of computer programming, studying Chinese, reading lots of history, literature, economics, education, law and all sorts of things that had nothing to do with physics. I also spent a huge amount of time in student government.

It hurt my grad school admissions because I got B's in my physics courses rather than A's, and my undergraduate research experience was in computer science and not physics. I got into a decent physics graduate school, but my friends who did get A's and had physics research experience were able to get into grad schools that I got rejection letters for. On the other hand, it helped a lot with the "so what do I do with my life now that I've gotten my Ph.D." question.

What's interesting is that I do have something of an "alter ego." One of my friends ended up getting A's, doing the right research things, working their way up the academic ladder. They are now a dean of a major research university, and I think that they are seriously likely to either win the Nobel Prize or become President of Harvard.

 

[qspeechc]

This is, of course, not the place to discuss what Art is. That would only de-rail this thread. If you like, twofish-quant, you can start a thread else-where and I would be happy to discuss these matters there.

What is important here is why ThereIam wants an art degree. No artist ever needed an art degree to practise art or be successful at it. For that matter, you can study Art on your own. Will the art degree give him more jobs that he can do, or a higher salary, or some other material benefit that will justify getting the degree, when he can very well study art on his own? (Eh, I have assumed you are male, I apologise if you are not)

 

[Rika]

I used to have the same problem. I wanted to be a graphic designer and make games but I was also interested in physics. However when I realized that I don't want to do math/programming/engineering for the rest of my life and that I have much more fun when I make art and games I've chosen an art route.
It's true that you don't need an art degree in order to do art. But if you want to make a good art you must polish your skills. No matter where and how do you do it - you need a certain amount of time for that. It's impossible to be both professional artist and scientist in the same time. As for me - I'll soon finish my B.Sc in physics and go to the university of fine arts.
So you should decide which (art or physics) suits you better and go for it.

 

[ThereIam]

Thanks much for all the discussion. I suppose I didn't write the post so long ago, but I've already changed direction quite a bit (or at least it feels like it). I don't have a very good idea of my chances for getting into graduate school. I have got only one grade in Physics that is less than an A- (B+ in Quantum Mechanics I) though some of my math grades were not so hot - B+s and Bs. My overall GPA is a 3.4ish, potentially 3.5 by the time I graduate. I'm more concerned that I will simply lack the coursework, or that it will look like I have done the bare minimum, and I have no research experience. But I am not afraid about that either - I will get research experience before I apply to graduate school. So the coursework is what I am more concerned about, but I am starting to worry about it less because even now I'll have managed to squeeze at least 3 more courses in than I technically need.

The benefits of getting an art degree were largely already mentioned. You get much better at art insofar as technical ability is concerned simply by virtue of time invested, you have a community of like-minded peers for inspiration, and you benefit from the input who simply are better than you (or I have been fortunate enough to have these benefits).

Anyways, thanks for all the input.