I think you get this in a lot of fields where you don't get much payoff early on. Many fields are attractive, but as soon as you get into the hard stuff, the stuff that you have to do fairly well to get a return, only some people find the attraction of the field itself or at least the rewards from the field to outweigh the need to do the hard work of getting better at it.
Typically in the arts, there are rewards for having a basic facility. You can write a funny blog post, play a recognizable tune on a guitar, or draw pretty enough flowers. You get that return in many sports. You don't have to play at a professional or even collegiate level to enjoy a game of tennis or basketball or running or biking to find it rewarding. There are countless others at roughly your level of competence if you feel a need to compete. It still takes time and effort to get really good in these areas, but there are payoffs along the way. (Think of it as natural gamification.)
Choose something like cabinet making, aviation or weaving, and you have to get much deeper into the weeds to start getting the goodies. Pick another field like finance, mathematics, law or chemistry, and the payoffs may be even farther out. Some people start finding rewards sooner than others. The path may line up with their existing interests or talents. In some situations, the path may provide lucrative or social benefits even early on.
I personally would want to take "literature for physicists", "visual arts for mathematicians", "music for science majors" and similar. In fact I did eventually take "music for science majors", or at least an equivalent - it was in the overall genre of "music appreciation", not specifically directed at STEM people, and not from a 4 yr university.
My grounding in arts of all kinds was terrible. I read voraciously, and picked up some so-called literature that way - but no theory or comprehensive overview. My parents played classical and some folk music on their old record player, and there was also AM radio, and music associated with TV programs - but again, no theory and no overview. And as for visual arts - those mostly weren't in my environment at all, and still aren't.
There really should be more material available to get a basic understanding of things, starting from cluelessness and mild distaste, rather than from either enthusiastic fanhood or a conviction of one's one ineptitude.
Part of the issue is, we're asked in a modern society to decide collectively on things which require some mathematical and scientific background; our personal well-being demands at least a little understanding of finance. We absolutely *should* be trying to make at least a basic understanding of those things more appealing, and where poor/ineffective pedagogy has failed to do that, an apology makes sense (if not necessarily from any one person on behalf of the field). The arts are also important to understanding and connecting with other people, including people different from yourself, which is also crucial in our world, but you maybe don't have to enjoy a specific genre of music AND literature AND poetry AND ... to get that.
I find the lack of specificity about the "hidden depths and marvels" frustrating here. To appreciate the things that I find marvelous and deep about mathematics does take a substantial mathematical foundation, the building of which really can't be skipped. Mathematics education is about learning to think mathematically, to be able to approach and solve problems that are mathematical in nature. What does a tour of the most interesting or counter-intuitive results ultimately do, if one can't follow the work that led there?
Are we talking about mathematical puzzles and recreations that can be approached with little more than arithmetic? Or mathematicians explaining, as best they can, what they find deep and marvelous in mathematics? I enjoy the My Favorite Theorem podcast, and I know a fair amount of math to begin with, but no such presentation can ever get me to the point where I could make use of the theorem or its results.
I think you get this in a lot of fields where you don't get much payoff early on. Many fields are attractive, but as soon as you get into the hard stuff, the stuff that you have to do fairly well to get a return, only some people find the attraction of the field itself or at least the rewards from the field to outweigh the need to do the hard work of getting better at it.
Typically in the arts, there are rewards for having a basic facility. You can write a funny blog post, play a recognizable tune on a guitar, or draw pretty enough flowers. You get that return in many sports. You don't have to play at a professional or even collegiate level to enjoy a game of tennis or basketball or running or biking to find it rewarding. There are countless others at roughly your level of competence if you feel a need to compete. It still takes time and effort to get really good in these areas, but there are payoffs along the way. (Think of it as natural gamification.)
Choose something like cabinet making, aviation or weaving, and you have to get much deeper into the weeds to start getting the goodies. Pick another field like finance, mathematics, law or chemistry, and the payoffs may be even farther out. Some people start finding rewards sooner than others. The path may line up with their existing interests or talents. In some situations, the path may provide lucrative or social benefits even early on.
I personally would want to take "literature for physicists", "visual arts for mathematicians", "music for science majors" and similar. In fact I did eventually take "music for science majors", or at least an equivalent - it was in the overall genre of "music appreciation", not specifically directed at STEM people, and not from a 4 yr university.
My grounding in arts of all kinds was terrible. I read voraciously, and picked up some so-called literature that way - but no theory or comprehensive overview. My parents played classical and some folk music on their old record player, and there was also AM radio, and music associated with TV programs - but again, no theory and no overview. And as for visual arts - those mostly weren't in my environment at all, and still aren't.
There really should be more material available to get a basic understanding of things, starting from cluelessness and mild distaste, rather than from either enthusiastic fanhood or a conviction of one's one ineptitude.
Part of the issue is, we're asked in a modern society to decide collectively on things which require some mathematical and scientific background; our personal well-being demands at least a little understanding of finance. We absolutely *should* be trying to make at least a basic understanding of those things more appealing, and where poor/ineffective pedagogy has failed to do that, an apology makes sense (if not necessarily from any one person on behalf of the field). The arts are also important to understanding and connecting with other people, including people different from yourself, which is also crucial in our world, but you maybe don't have to enjoy a specific genre of music AND literature AND poetry AND ... to get that.
I find the lack of specificity about the "hidden depths and marvels" frustrating here. To appreciate the things that I find marvelous and deep about mathematics does take a substantial mathematical foundation, the building of which really can't be skipped. Mathematics education is about learning to think mathematically, to be able to approach and solve problems that are mathematical in nature. What does a tour of the most interesting or counter-intuitive results ultimately do, if one can't follow the work that led there?
Are we talking about mathematical puzzles and recreations that can be approached with little more than arithmetic? Or mathematicians explaining, as best they can, what they find deep and marvelous in mathematics? I enjoy the My Favorite Theorem podcast, and I know a fair amount of math to begin with, but no such presentation can ever get me to the point where I could make use of the theorem or its results.