It's hard to get this message out, but I try:

I believe that in this century, particularly in the United States, there is a growing imbalance of science and technology over art and humanities.

"Our reactions to a work of art, or rather our interpretations of those reactions, have been largely conditioned by the mental climate brought about by scientific materialism. Nothing is more pervasive or more powerful than such a climate. It is indeed a climate in that it allows only certain growths to come to maturity, stunting and warping all others. The characteristics of this particular climate that interests us at present is that it has made difficult or impossible the correct evaluation of our aesthetic experiences and for this reason has hindered us in understanding the significance of a great artist. It has distorted our aesthetic perceptions by forcing us to accommodate them to a system in which they really have no place, so that our reactions to a work of art are no longer accepted by us in their purity, but are immediately interpreted and sophisticated to serve our general outlook. For this reason most criticism is concerned with secondary issues, which are the only ones that can appear in the prevalent mental climate."

"The reason that our reactions to a work of art can not be adequately described is not that some unique and isolated faculty is involved, but that art is not superfluous, that it exists to convey what cannot be otherwise conveyed."

-J.W.N. Sullivan, 1927

In short, art is being distorted and pushed to the brink.

I've been told before: "Art major?...throwing your life away."