>I don't agree that mathematics is art with no qualifiers whatsoever

No art is without qualifiers. Mathematics is a kind of art. So is painting.

Not every calculation or result is art, and not every application of paint.

The qualifiers are what we are discussing.

>Calculus is useful, regardless of its history.

Useful to whom? Certainly not to the college student taking it only because it's a required course during the last semester.

>The reason people don't appreciate mathematics is ... not because they don't learn about the history

You have neither authority, experience, nor qualifications to say that.

>And if we're honest, they're right. Very few people will ever need to know calculus at any point in their lives (outside of school), and fewer still will need to calculate things by hand.

So, you have proven me right, and yourself wrong with this statement.

You very clearly demonstrate that there's no reason for most people to learn Calculus for the purpose of using it.

The conclusion should be : this is not WHY Calculus should be taught.

Not we should not teach Calculus.

You get the WHY wrong, everything else follows.

> But you're arguing that it's the way to appreciate art, and that if I don't do that I'm missing the point.

You are missing the point, indeed.

If you see something, and you like it, I am in no position to tell you that you are doing it wrong.

But if you are not enjoying something because you have no idea what it's for, I could point out a way that will change your experience.

I'm telling you that:

a)you're missing something, and

b)point you in the direction to learn more to find out what you're missing.

I can't implant that knowledge into your head, you have to go and actively learn.

This is not specific to art, mind you - which is why others are so irritated with your argument.

You can look at the first transistor ever made, and say that it's stupid because it's larger than a radio lamp, which does the same thing. You can't appreciate that invention without knowing the history of how it affected electronics engineering, the connections, the impact.

You don't need any of that to enjoy electronics. But you need to do that if you want to criticize it, which is what you are doing.

In fact, forget about art.

There's something in the world that a lot of people talk about. You look at it, and say it's stupid. We tell you that it may seem stupid to you, but regardless of your perception, it had an impact on the world, that there is more to that something than what you're getting, and what you need to do to see it.

You sound like a person that says that a book is stupid because they only read the cover, and doesn't know that one can open a book and there will be much more inside.

We are telling you to do that before you judge the book.

It may not be the way to enjoy books, as you put it, but if you don't do it (and decide, in isolation, that the cover is the only important thing), you are depriving yourself of something.

And trying to criticize and correct others based on that level of interacting with books is surely not wise.

On that note:

>Why can't I look at the thing in isolation

This is precisely one of the biggest themes and questions of modern art, most prominently - in late 19th / early-to-mid 20th century.

This question has been explored in depth before you were born.

Taking an art history course will expose you to that exploration, and allow you to answer it for yourself.

We really cannot do this for you, and we surely cannot do it in HN comment section.

This is a good question, but a good answer to it involves referring to a good deal of prior art and philosophy. To boot, the entire notion of symbolism requires a larger context to have things that a symbol can stand for, and symbolism is one of the most ancient forms of art.

The 20th century thinkers and artists have very conclusively shown that there is no such thing as a "thing in itself" when it comes to art in particular. There was never a time when art was a thing in itself.

Art pieces like Cage's 4'33" were made precisely as counter-examples to the claim that you even can make art as a thing in itself.

Of the Black Square, painted by Kazimir Malevich, a Ukrainian, in 1916, I can tell you that it was an important enough piece of work to be officially and specifically banned in the USSR for fifty years (1930 - 1980).

So I hope that, if anything, you'd have enough curiosity to find out why the Soviet regime considered it dangerous.

Which, perhaps, it was. The USSR collapsed in 1991.

Whether there was a connection or not isn't something you'll learn by looking at the painting in itself.

Same goes for Andy Warhol (born to Ukrainian parents in the US, incidentally).

Sincerely hoping that reading this will be a starting point of exploration and learning for you, and not an opportunity to double down on what you have already said.