Does Art Serve Any Purpose?

[prickly_pete]

It seems like art arose out of a need to communicate ideas to non-literate societies. Sort of the way a totem poel told the history of a tribe to its memebers.

Now that everyone can read, what's the point really? Is there anything that art can express that can't just as easily be communicated through speach? Forgive me if I sound a little crude, but I've been reading about the ongoing debate about the role of the arts in public schools and I'm just kind of curious how you all feel about this. Does art really have anything to offer students? Should it be taught at the expense of mathematics and science?

For instance, why go to an art exhibit? What could that offer me?

[G L Wilson]

Why poetry? Why philosophy? Why anything? If you need a reason for a thing, then you need not that thing. Art is an interest, nothing more, or nothing.

[J.D.]

Part of me wants to be the hip alternative kid in high school who isn't going to explain, for instance, Neutral Milk Hotel, figuring that if you don't get it, that's your problem--and better for me, since I'm part of an exclusive club who does get it.

The other part of me, the teacher, the one that worries people like you read this stuff and then vote the arts out of public school, that part of me feels it necessary to make a statement. So here it goes. Art is important because it helps us experience life more fully by paying attention and appreciating what's around us.

Art is necessary because it is the only "true" account of what it was like to be a human here on this spinning rock. Everything else is just a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, a bunch of tallies and numbers. Now I'm including music and literature in "Art" when I say this. But look at a Romantic lanscape by Cole or Inness. That's not what the scene looked like, but it's what it looked like, you know what I mean? When we're all dead and gone, don't you want people to know what things looked like?

[The Atheist]

It seems like art arose out of a need to communicate ideas to non-literate societies. Sort of the way a totem poel told the history of a tribe to its memebers.

No, it's a lot older than that; art forms are known to go back for over 40,000 years.

There's no doubt it's driven by evolution, as it definitely contributes to group behaviour/society.


Now that everyone can read, what's the point really? Is there anything that art can express that can't just as easily be communicated through speach? Forgive me if I sound a little crude, but I've been reading about the ongoing debate about the role of the arts in public schools and I'm just kind of curious how you all feel about this. Does art really have anything to offer students? Should it be taught at the expense of mathematics and science?

For instance, why go to an art exhibit? What could that offer me?

This is where it gets really easy, because we've built a culture around the evolutionary development, just as we have with love and nationalism.

As the saying goes, beauty is in the ear or eye of the beholder, so all art has some value intrinsically as entertainment.

I don't believe there is a need for art any more, but it's not about to go anywhere. It should be taught as well as maths & economics, but never instead of.

[prickly_pete]

The only way you're going to really know anything about art though is to study it relentlessly for many years of your life. So what's the point in forcing students into taking an art class or two - is this really accomplishing anything is all I'm asking. Like, I could read the Bible on my own or have someone well-versed in theology explain it to me. I don't need paintings or sculptures in order to interpret the message the way someone in the Middle Ages would.

Don't get me wrong, I'm saying we should burn books or anything. I'm just asking something that I think is important even though its difficult to answer.

[G L Wilson]

Art or poetry or philosophy is orgasm.

[Ecurb]

Art or poetry or philosophy is orgasm.

From sex or masturbation?

[G L Wilson]

From sex or masturbation?

From desire.

[prickly_pete]

When we're all dead and gone, don't you want people to know what things looked like?

I get that it's a cultural handprint, but why should I care about it if the only purpose to it is to leave something for posterity to debate about and speculate on? Why would I care what someone 100 years from now thinks about my own epoch? How could I possibly know how they're going to interpret my epoch? We don't have any control over that.

How does art make life now any better?

[prickly_pete]

Art or poetry or philosophy is orgasm.

*Vinnie from Good Will Hunting*

"Trust is, trust is...life!"

[G L Wilson]

I get that it's a cultural handprint, but why should I care about it if the only purpose to it is to leave something for posterity to debate about and speculate on? Why would I care what someone 100 years from now thinks about my own epoch? How could I possibly know how they're going to interpret my epoch? We don't have any control over that.

How does art make life now any better?

Art is life most plainly.

[G L Wilson]

*Vinnie from Good Will Hunting*

"Trust is, trust is...life!"

Plato never trusted his own desire or anybody else's, he is now the favourite of tyrants.

[Ecurb]

From desire.

Desire suggests an object of desire.

[blithe spirit]

Art is a pleasurable and effective form of visual communication using a vast selection of medium (paint, pastel, collage, sculpture, etc) that further enhances personal expression and reaches a vast visual audience. It's also very cathartic for the artist in this way.

In the school system, if an art teacher can help a student get in touch with his creative side then that student is just that much farther ahead in every facet of his life. He can use it to reduce his own stress, to communicate to those who are more visual learners, as well as enhance a myriad of career paths. Ever heard of web designers? They make top $$$ if they're good.

[G L Wilson]

Desire suggests an object of desire.

Desire suggests knowledge in the Biblical sense. Bertrand Russell was about as sexy as his mathematics (no wonder he never got Aristotle).

[blithe spirit]

Desire suggests knowledge in the Biblical sense.
...Huh?

[G L Wilson]

...Huh?

Carnal knowledge, darling.

[prickly_pete]

Art is life most plainly.

Ugh, what is this muddle? I think too many liberal arts courses are making your brain soft.

[prickly_pete]

Art is a pleasurable and effective form of visual communication using a vast selection of medium (paint, pastel, collage, sculpture, etc) that further enhances personal expression and reaches a vast visual audience.

Not really. Art is highly specialized now. Only a few who spend years of study are going to understand whats going on when they go to a museum. Whereas everyone in the tribe would've understood what the totem pole meant. The point is museums and the like are irrelevant to the vast majority of people nowdays. Tell me where I'm wrong? Isn't this what Bakhtin was getting at perhaps? That the only relevant art form is the novel and that everything else is anitquaited - kind of like mental masturbation more than anything else?

[G L Wilson]

Ugh, what is this muddle? I think too many liberal arts courses are making your brain soft.

Life is like a steak, it has got to be well done.

[blithe spirit]

Carnal knowledge, darling.
"Carnal" is only mentioned once in the Bible and refers to sex...not knowledge. Carnal Knowledge is a movie with Ann Margaret. Is Hollywood your God?

[G L Wilson]

I'm Miss Blithe to you (okay, you can drop the Miss).

"Carnal" is only mentioned once in the Bible and refers to sex...not knowledge. Carnal Knowledge is a movie with Ann Margaret. Is Hollywood your God?

Hollywood has only one love, and that is greed.

[G L Wilson]

Not really. Art is highly specialized now. Only a few who spend years of study are going to understand whats going on when they go to a museum. Whereas everyone in the tribe would've understood what the totem pole meant. The point is museums and the like are irrelevant to the vast majority of people nowdays. Tell me where I'm wrong? Isn't this what Bakhtin was getting at perhaps? That the only relevant art form is the novel and that everything else is anitquaited - kind of like mental masturbation more than anything else?

I remember Bakhtin mentioning something about the dialogic, that can be equally applied to the visual arts.

[blithe spirit]

...Art is highly specialized now. Only a few who spend years of study are going to understand whats going on when they go to a museum. Whereas everyone in the tribe would've understood what the totem pole meant. The point is museums and the like are irrelevant to the vast majority of people nowdays....Isn't this what Bakhtin was getting at perhaps? That the only relevant art form is the novel and that everything else is anitquaited - kind of like mental masturbation more than anything else?
"highly specialized" as in "digital art"? That's only one form of art. Pete, you're missing out on a whole world of creativity. Visit a gallery and then don't just view each piece but actually take the time to read the plaque next to it...you'll begin to understand and appreciate art. Not sure what what the tribe understanding a totem pole has to do with anything...btw, cave paintings came first. If Bakhtin actually said your last statement then, sorry but he is ignorant about "relevant art forms", not to mention...crude.

[prickly_pete]

"highly specialized" as in "digital art"?

Nah, specialized in the sense that it takes years of study to really know something about art. You can't just walk into a gallery and know what's going on.

[prickly_pete]

Like, painting is not part of our cultural dialogue. Niether is poetry. Why would we teach this in schools? Why would you teach something that is relevant to just a handfull of people? More people watch movies and sports than they do operas or art exhibits. This is just a fact. Why wouldn't we look more closely at these things than we would at, say, Michaelangelo which is irrelevant to almost everyone in the United States?

I mean, I hate to sound crude here but I'm on a roll and I don't think anyone has even attempted to answer the questions I've presented. Just some jibberish about how "art is life" "living a fuller life" and the like.

[G L Wilson]

Nah, specialized in the sense that it takes years of study to really know something about art. You can't just walk into a gallery and know what's going on.

Art is not science, prickly_pete.

[G L Wilson]

Like, painting is not part of our cultural dialogue. Niether is poetry. Why would we teach this in schools? Why would you teach something that is relevant to just a handfull of people? More people watch movies and sports than they do operas or art exhibits. This is just a fact. Why wouldn't we look more closely at these things than we would at, say, Michaelangelo which is irrelevant to almost everyone in the United States?

I mean, I hate to sound crude here but I'm on a roll and I don't think anyone has even attempted to answer the questions I've presented. Just some jibberish about how "art is life" "living a fuller life" and the like.

Art is not science, prickly_pete.

[prickly_pete]

Art is not science, prickly_pete.

You act as though art is something that the viewer has access to instantaneously and ignore how meaning is largely achieved through referencing other works indirectly. Look at School of Athens for instance - just an cursory viewing would tell you that unless you know something about Greek Philosophy that painting probably isn't going to make alot of sense.

And that's exactly what I'm getting at. In order to talk about art and get beyond anything more than just calling it "pretty" requires a pretty vast cultural knowledge that can only be achieved through years of personal study. If you're missing the "intertextuality" as it were than what's the point really?

[G L Wilson]

You act as though art is something that the viewer has access to instantaneously and ignore how meaning is largely achieved through referencing other works indirectly. Look at School of Athens for instance - just an cursory viewing would tell you that unless you know something about Greek Philosophy that painting probably isn't going to make alot of sense.

And that's exactly what I'm getting at. In order to talk about art and get beyond anything more than just calling it "pretty" requires a pretty vast cultural knowledge that can only be achieved through years of personal study. If you're missing the "intertextuality" as it were than what's the point really?

I will leave the intertextuality to the elites and stick to what I like, thanks prickly_pete.

[prickly_pete]

I will leave the intertextuality to the elites and stick to what I like, thanks prickly_pete.

Oh thats fine. Just be aware that if you ever walk into the Sistine Chapel the chances are monumentally small that you'll have any clue of what's actually going on.

In other words though, its a personal thing that has absolutely no purpose in public schools. Am I getting that right?

[G L Wilson]

Oh thats fine. Just be aware that if you ever walk into the Sistine Chapel the chances are monumentally small that you'll have any clue of what's actually going on.

In other words though, its a personal thing that has absolutely no purpose in public schools. Am I getting that right?

The Sistine Chapel is a masterpiece, what's not get?

[G L Wilson]

Form is the better part of man. Are we to deny a man's genius because he is different to us?

[prickly_pete]

The Sistine Chapel is a masterpiece, what's not get?

That's just the thing tough. Just looking at it and calling it a "masterpiece" doesn't get you anywhere. Definitely doesn't convey the sense that you've aquired anything new by looking at it.

[G L Wilson]

That's just the thing tough. Just looking at it and calling it a "masterpiece" doesn't get you anywhere. Definitely doesn't convey the sense that you've aquired anything new by looking at it.

Perhaps not but it's a start.

[stlukesguild]

You act as though art is something that the viewer has access to instantaneously and ignore how meaning is largely achieved through referencing other works indirectly. Look at School of Athens for instance - just an cursory viewing would tell you that unless you know something about Greek Philosophy that painting probably isn't going to make alot of sense.

And what is your point? All art employs a language and all languages must be learned. This is true whether we are speaking of a contemporary novel, an Elizabethan sonnet, a Chinese Tang poem, an Impressionist painting, a Baroque opera, a classical symphony, or a Modernist ballet.

I largely share the belief of Oscar Wilde who proclaimed that "All art is quite useless." Of course, as always, Wilde had tongue firmly in cheek and one must read the rest of his introduction to The Picture of Dorian Gray to fully grasp his intention.

If there is a value to art I believe that it primarily lies with it worth to the individual. Walter pater puts it best in his Conclusion to The Renaissance:

Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,–for that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is to form habits... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist’s hands, or the face of one’s friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch...

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve–les hommes sont tous condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among “the children of this world,” in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion–that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.

1868.

Of course this does not seem to be the "usefulness" of art of which you speak. Rather, it seems you ask of utilitarian purpose... a rather pedestrian idea despised by most artists (Didn't Mallarme note that the most "useful" room in the home was the toilet?). Yet certainly this is something that is asked by governments and school boards when it comes to funding the arts. The usual response is to point out that the various arts support learning in other fields: mathematics, science, history, etc... but I would suggest that the arts have another central value: instilling empathy.

When we read... or turn to the arts in general, we often discover the voice of others who do not necessarily reaffirm our own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... The strongest artists don't pander to us. Rather, they offer up an honest expression of their own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... and as a result they force us to broaden our thinking to other possibilities. As Anna Quindlen proclaimed, "Books (and I would expand this to include the whole of the arts) are a means to immortality." (Kafka, among others, agreed, comparing reading with an "intercourse"... a dialog with the dead.) Quindlen continued "through (the arts) we experience other times, other places; we manage to become more than our own selves." If art has a utilitarian value, it lies here... in the ability to spur on an empathy... a greater understanding of others.

[MarkBastable]

Art is not science, prickly_pete.

Actually, in terms of the perception of the good stuff, I don't think there's much difference.

The crap stuff, yes - there's a perceived difference.

[prickly_pete]

Rather, it seems you ask of utilitarian purpose... a rather pedestrian idea despised by most artists

Is that wrong though? Is it wrong to look at art as something social? I mean, art is clearly trying to communicate something or some idea and in that sense it's just as much of a language as any other. But whereas I can see the need to aquire the language of mathematics in an advanced society I don't see any reason to aquire the language of painting or poetry or music.

I would argue that you're actually looking at art the wrong way by saying that its basically confined to some mental process or spiritual realization in the viewer. I think it would be more accurate to look at it as something that one applies in a shared cultural dialogue in his/her everyday life. If it isn't doing that than what's the point? If I went and got my bachelor's in English how many people would I be able to talk about Ezra Pound with? By contrast, if I see a movie or watch a baseball game I can apply that in any number of given situations with virutally anybody I meet. That's why I brought up the totem pole. The totem pole would've been understood by everyone in the tribe insofar as they could refer to it and use the stories it told in everyday life - it was part of a shared cultural language. Whereas, say, Michaelangelo - how relevant is that to anyone in the 21st Century?

I mean, awareness of other views and places - this can just as easily be accomplished by a newspaper as anything else. Consciousness of the existence of other cultures was achieved through advances in printing and communications and also increase in literacy. It didn't really have anything to do with exposure to art at all.

[Buh4Bee]

I very much agree with St.L. on many points.

Not all artworks needs to be understood by taking a class, just as not all art viewers need to be taught how to appreciate a painting. There is a certain learning curve. If you are going to really understand art at a deep level, yes, you will have to invest learning time. Is art useless as Oscar Wilde so kindly points out? I can accept the idea that experiencing art makes life better. It is an experience that insights passion, but also fuels the cognitive mind. It exercises the brain and calms the body; almost like a prayer, even if it last for a few moments. For this simple reason, art should continue to be taught and experienced in school. The world needs the creative mind, as it has always needed it. This is why art, in its constant struggle to be supported by humanity, still is defended and held in high esteem.

[prickly_pete]

I can accept the idea that experiencing art makes life better. It is an experience that insights passion

I'd agree. I just wonder though how much art is really achieving and how important it actually is if its not firmly intrenched in the social and cultural lives of most people. Popular movies seem way more relevant to being a functioning member of our culture than painting or poetry. You could definitely get by in life here without having read a single word of Shakespeare. I think you'd be pretty debilitated socially if you'd never seen a movie though. See what I'm saying?

[Buh4Bee]

I see your point. Art is not valued by the average citizen, at least, in the US. But this is yet another reason why it should be an important part of the school curriculum. But to take it too another extreme, we could say that math and science are also not valued. How many people go through an average day and use very little math? From a societal view point, education is the backbone of the transmissions of a society's values. Therefore should we stop teaching math after 6th grade, just because it is not valued? Some would agree with this idea, but than they would be ignorant to a certain degree. This is just one narrow part of a much larger argument attempting to answer a complicated question. This is not an argument about education.

[prickly_pete]

I see your point. Art is not valued by the average citizen, at least, in the US. But this is yet another reason why it should be an important part of the school curriculum.

I'm saying its not valued because it's irrelevant - not because people made a conscious decision to just not care about art. What would be wrong with courses on film or sports - activities that are far more relevant to the vast majority of people primarily because these are activites that people have been indoctrinated in and have already aquired an familiarity with without having to think twice about it. Why would you teach a class on Raphael? How is that relevant to the cultural lives of Americans, or Brits, or Germans for that matter?


How many people go through an average day and use very little math?

You need some math to function in our society. You need no Shakespare.


From a societal view point, education is the backbone of the transmissions of a society's values. Therefore should we stop teaching math after 6th grade, just because it is not valued?

Our society values math deeply. Now that doesn't mean most people go home and do linear algebra after dinner but what our society values above all else is economic and technological advancements. That simply isn't possible unless tens of millions of students aquire highly technical skills through math and science.

What a society values may not correspond directly to the personal habits of most of its members. Having served in Iraq I would say that most people in the Middle East probably don't go home and read the Koran after work. But its still a big part of school curriculums without any disapproval because it underscores the importance of piety, self-discipline, subordination of women, the clan, and the community - values that that society treasures the same we treasure economic and technological innovation.

But yeah, I'd agree that whether it should be taught in schools isn't whats really at stake here...I'm just mentioning it now because sometimes its fun to talk about these things

[Buh4Bee]

I get what you are saying Pete. Is art irrelevant? I can't say I agree with that viewpoint. Is it irrelevant to the average person? If it is, it shouldn't be. My argument on math, as you pointed out, does not bolster my defense for the arts as well as the plausible view presented by St. Luke's. I'm a teacher and I will defend the arts till my last breath.

It is fun to discuss these things and I am glad that no one is taking anything personally. It's hard to avoid that sometimes. Thanks for serving in the war!! Glad you are back home.

[G L Wilson]

prickly_pete, you raise elitism as if it were a bad thing. People deserve the intertextuality that we talked about earlier, it is not essential but then nothing is. Breathing is not essential, however we still breathe every day.

[sk2]

Does art have a future?
What would the world be like without art or higher forms of culture.
What would be deemed creative? What of excellence?
How would those certain individuals learn to live if they didn't have
much further means of expression besides science and the popular.
How much education does a person really need to survive in this world?
Could it perhaps be that art can serve as meaning and purposes beyond
the merely utilitarian. Couldn't human life perhaps mean something more
then just the culture of the masses?

[Fyodor]

From Einstein's essay "Cosmic Religion:"

"How can this cosmic religious experience be communicated from man to man, if it cannot lead to a definite conception of God or a theology? It seems to me that the most important function of art and of science is to arouse and keep alive this feeling in those who are receptive."

[stlukesguild]

whereas I can see the need to aquire the language of mathematics in an advanced society I don't see any reason to aquire the language of painting or poetry or music.

Then that's fine. It's beyond you. Art is an elective affinity. You choose that it is important to you... or not.

I would argue that you're actually looking at art the wrong way by saying that its basically confined to some mental process or spiritual realization in the viewer. I think it would be more accurate to look at it as something that one applies in a shared cultural dialogue in his/her everyday life.

The work of art is a creation of the artist. Some artists embrace a utilitarian purpose for art. Others fully reject the notion. As an artist myself, I vehemently reject the notion that art SHOULD be anything other than that which the artist wishes it to be. Certainly, art involves a dialog... between the art work and the audience, but as Oscar Wilde recognized, "It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."

If it isn't doing that than what's the point?

And how do you measure the success of failure of a work of art to engage the audience?

If I went and got my bachelor's in English how many people would I be able to talk about Ezra Pound with? By contrast, if I see a movie or watch a baseball game I can apply that in any number of given situations with virutally anybody I meet.

And thus you assume that the number of individuals who embrace a given experience are somehow a measure of relevance? I could go on and get a PhD. in astrophysics and how many people could I hold a serious discussion with as to worm holes or the space-time continuum?

That's why I brought up the totem pole. The totem pole would've been understood by everyone in the tribe insofar as they could refer to it and use the stories it told in everyday life - it was part of a shared cultural language. Whereas, say, Michaelangelo - how relevant is that to anyone in the 21st Century?

How many could identify the artist, the tribe, the period in history from which a given totem pole was created vs Michelangelo's David? And again... how is this at all relevant? More people listen to Lady Gaga than Schubert, hence Lady Gaga is more "relevant" than Schubert? Relevant to what?

I mean, awareness of other views and places - this can just as easily be accomplished by a newspaper as anything else. Consciousness of the existence of other cultures was achieved through advances in printing and communications and also increase in literacy. It didn't really have anything to do with exposure to art at all.

Really? And yet we see just how much of an understanding the majority have of China or the Middle-East based upon the media.

[stlukesguild]

I'm saying its not valued because it's irrelevant - not because people made a conscious decision to just not care about art. What would be wrong with courses on film or sports - activities that are far more relevant to the vast majority of people primarily because these are activites that people have been indoctrinated in and have already aquired an familiarity with without having to think twice about it. Why would you teach a class on Raphael? How is that relevant to the cultural lives of Americans, or Brits, or Germans for that matter?

Again with "relevance". You are assuming that the purpose of art and culture is to reinforce our own standards, beliefs, values, experiences, and prejudices. If anything, its worth is quite often the reverse... it opens the audience up to endless other possibilities.

[Rores28]

This question has sort of morphed as you've gone along. Your initial question was what's the point of art. Most obviously for pleasure, just like sports, or food (beyond sustenance), or sex (beyond procreation), drugs etc..

I think that question was just meant to be polemical and your real question now is why in school? But its not why art in school, its why the visual arts and literature in school, I believe. And even then your asking why study old visual/literary art. The practical value of disciplines like graphic design and website design must be obvious to you, as I'm sure is the general study of the written word.

Is this right... sorry I just want to make sure before I answer your question, which seems a bit nebulous at the moment.

Also I suspect this is a pseudo troll job. I think you have some paper due on this topic and are phishing for discussion here.

[Rores28]

Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,–for that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

Holy ****. SLK you just blew my mind. I've only gotten chills I think reading 3 or 4 authors before, (Shake, McCarthy, Dostoevsky, and maybe Great Gatsby) and now its 5. I think I'll be picking that book up the next time borders has a good coupon. Is the whole book that good?

[G L Wilson]

The postmodernists destroyed the old guard and replaced it with a new one. Art is eternal. It precedes existence.

[JCamilo]

This question has sort of morphed as you've gone along. Your initial question was what's the point of art. Most obviously for pleasure, just like sports, or food (beyond sustenance), or sex (beyond procreation), drugs etc..

Well, pleasure is not the main function of sports (rather, physicall prowless function is power. Then health... Food main function is sustainance, not pleasure. Sex is reproduction ,not pleasure. Obviously, the obvious is lost. Art is more obviously used as medium to store and develop human knowledge and culture. Pleasure is an accident.


I think that question was just meant to be polemical and your real question now is why in school? But its not why art in school, its why the visual arts and literature in school, I believe. And even then your asking why study old visual/literary art. The practical value of disciplines like graphic design and website design must be obvious to you, as I'm sure is the general study of the written word.

The question is a motto today:those disciplines grant professional formation just like any other. As literature, the most powerful technology of humankind is the written language. So, sharring the literature is somehow a democratic ideal. Of course, the science of schools is also not pratical. You do not became a scientist from it, so why science? Or why history? Why anything but cooking?

Btw, this discussion is kind off pointless. It assume that art must be useful.Or that people who manipulate art cannt find an use for it. Which is rather a false question. No social power happened without cultural power and art is necessary there.

[G L Wilson]

One thing the rich don't have is taste.

[Drkshadow03]

It seems like art arose out of a need to communicate ideas to non-literate societies. Sort of the way a totem poel told the history of a tribe to its memebers.

Now that everyone can read, what's the point really? Is there anything that art can express that can't just as easily be communicated through speach? Forgive me if I sound a little crude, but I've been reading about the ongoing debate about the role of the arts in public schools and I'm just kind of curious how you all feel about this. Does art really have anything to offer students? Should it be taught at the expense of mathematics and science?

For instance, why go to an art exhibit? What could that offer me?

Art deals with our most important experiences and problems (say coping with the idea of death or surviving poverty or entering into a bad marriage), but it deals with them in an emotionally, aesthetically, and intellectually stimulating way. This last part is key.

You can in fact deal with those experiences and problems in speech (which, by the way, only complicates matters since many famous speeches once written down become art). You can read an op-ed in a paper or an article and gain some of the same information. But when a novel or a poem deals with the same issues it does so through an aesthetic manipulation that hopefully allows us to see the issue in a completely new light, that at its best lets us see the issue in a way we have never seen it before and creates empathy for a fictional character's experiences.

Literary critic D. G. Myers has this to say (http://dgmyers.blogspot.com/2011/01/backlash-against-gribbenizing.html) of the matter (in relation to Huck Finn):


"A great novel is a disturbing comprehensive vision of the human experience. It persuades you, for a while, to watch the human parade from a weirdly angled window—to consider human life under the aspect, not of eternity, but of an odd and assertive particularity. This is what it means for a novel to be truly great: it changes your life. But not in any trivial self-improvement fashion. For a long time thereafter—if not forever—it affects the tone of every human encounter, the symbolism of every human gesture, the legitimacy of every human feeling. Even if you reject the great novelist’s vision, you are unable to shake the influence that it has upon the way that you view human actions.

No one who reads Huckleberry Finn can ever again use words like “nigger,” “humane,” “moral,” or “conscience” in the same way. And in that sense, Alan Gribben and his critics belong to the same fraternity of the fundamentally unchanged."


As St Luke has suggested art instills empathy for other times, other cultures, and individuals with different experiences than ourselves. I would add that not only doe it offer us a connection with others who are different and help us understand their experiences, but at its best, it can also reflect our own experiences back at us and remind us we're not alone in our problems and ordeals; there is someone else out there who has undergone the same trials and tribulations, who has the same experiences and faults and difficulties as us.

The reason to engage with art and to go to an art museum is because you enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, then don't go. I think it's that simple. What does it have to offer you? The possibility of enjoyment. But more importantly it allows you that weirdly angled window (the artist's vision through their art) to view the world anew, to read a story and to come away from it looking at the beauty of nature in a fresh light or your relationship with your parents differently or recognize the social problems teeming all around us.



Not really. Art is highly specialized now. Only a few who spend years of study are going to understand whats going on when they go to a museum. Whereas everyone in the tribe would've understood what the totem pole meant. The point is museums and the like are irrelevant to the vast majority of people nowdays. Tell me where I'm wrong? Isn't this what Bakhtin was getting at perhaps? That the only relevant art form is the novel and that everything else is anitquaited - kind of like mental masturbation more than anything else?

Oh I don't know about that. Certainly we could take statistically significant polls to see if people claim that art is irrelevant to them. However, I've been to quite a few major and even 2nd tier art museums in my life, and they're almost always crowded as hell. When there was free admission on Memorial Day to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, for example, there was a line out the door to get in all day long. Art is highly specialized, but it doesn't mean one can't learn the language through formal or informal study.

[MarkBastable]

One thing the rich don't have is taste.

What does that mean?

[MystyrMystyry]

The point is the horse talks - not that it makes sense

[G L Wilson]

What does that mean?

Money doesn't buy you happiness, it buys you gross trinkets.

JCamilo said that no social power happens without cultural power and art is necessary there.
To me, art conveys nothing to an owner other than saying the owner has money.

[MarkBastable]

To me, art conveys nothing to an owner other than saying the owner has money.


Well, quite. It doesn't tell you, for instance, whether or not he has what you call taste. He might have; he might not. So even as a generalisation, 'the rich have no taste' doesn't really stand up.

[G L Wilson]

Well, quite. It doesn't tell you, for instance, whether or not he has what you call taste. He might have; he might not. So even as a generalisation, 'the rich have no taste' doesn't really stand up.

Have you actually been inside Buckingham Palace lately?

[Emil Miller]

Desire suggests knowledge in the Biblical sense. Bertrand Russell was about as sexy as his mathematics (no wonder he never got Aristotle).

Bertie was very sexy indeed, regardless of his mathematics.

Caroline Moorehead’s biography, Bertrand Russell, A Life (1933), states that his most enduring lovers were Lady Ottoline Morrell and Lady Constance Malleson but that he had slept with Miriam Brudno, Helen Dudley, Celeste Holden, Katherine Mansfield, and (probably) Barry Fox and T. S. Eliot’s wife, Vivienne.

His multiple marriages and controversial views led to his being denied a teaching position at the City College of New York (CCNY), for he was challenged by a parent, the Episcopal bishop, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy as one who likely would undermine the “health and morals” of his students.

[MarkBastable]

Have you actually been inside Buckingham Palace lately?

Not for a couple of years. Why?

[JCamilo]

Money doesn't buy you happiness, it buys you gross trinkets.

JCamilo said that no social power happens without cultural power and art is necessary there.
To me, art conveys nothing to an owner other than saying the owner has money.

But that conclusion is a jump in the sky. Rich people has money and time to be educated. It was rich poeple who paid for Michelangelo and Beethoveen.

And it is certainly a mistake: When Augustus needed to express the new order, the formation of a new empire, did he threw money on the streets or hired a poet named Virgil? He might actually have done both, but it is Virgil's Aeneid an expression of power and roman civilization over the barbaric years of civil wars.

The Sistine is just "I have money" or expression of power of the Romans?

But it is not always about the powerful, the revolutionary too: The burgoise starts out of power, with irony and comedy. The go with Moliere, Perrault, La Fontaine, which have implict the critic to the nobility. Their art have all there, it was not about the money.

If you find a griot, you will find him keeping alive tradition and it is extremelly important to african culture, because it was a culture without the power of written register of europe and they are politically destroyed by europeans, so keeping tradition alive is a form to convey cultural power related to their identidy. Without those guys, we would jump from Pharohs to Slaves in America and say that is all african culture.

The jews? Between their removal from Israel and their return, they maintened their cultural identidy, how? With Shakespeareans's sterytipes? Of course not: the literature, specially the parables and humor, gave them a sense of unity, not to mention the identidy caused by the bible (ultimatelly, a work of art).

There were societies without lawyers. Without scientists. Without philosophers. Without religion. But not without art. And whores. Humankind would not preserve something just for fancy our use.

[Drkshadow03]

One thing the rich don't have is taste.

Ah, fallacious reasoning, G L Wilson loves thee! :lol:

[prickly_pete]

By "why should we care?" I mean "why is mandatory in high schools and colleges?" because obviously somebody cares about it (or thinks they do) and thinks the rest of us should too. I'm not trying to infringe on the artists freedom to do whatever s/he likes, but imposing it on unsuspecting teenagers is something different. It is, after all, a language of sorts that is accessible only to the people who've studied it relentlessly for a long time in the same way that higher level mathematics is accessible to only a few. I'm not so sure about contemporary artists, but most of the artists of the 18th and 19th Centuries acknowledged as much and were very hostile to the idea of a newly literature public with different tastes knocking them off their high horse. Their work was intended specifically for a limited audience of the classically educated and as education became more oriented towards aquiring skills (probably because wealth was becoming based on knowledge of commerce which increasingly infringed on landed wealth) their importance in the grand scheme of things began to wane.

I don't see how much has changed. Whereas our society would quickly descend into the Dark Ages if we didn't teach math and science I don't see any need for teaching Shakespeare. Not because I have anything against art, more because its completely inapplicable outside a very narrow field. Like, say you're on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan. Your convoy hits an IED and you start taking enemy fire. Before you PID and start rocking the .50 Cal to bring the rain you yell out "Once more unto the breach dear friends!" My point is, what use does that have when nobody knows what you're talking about? On the other hand, if you yell out "Go ahead, make my day!" that would make alot more sense because everyone more or less understands the connection and how its being used and how it can spur them to action. It has application to your situation other words. I don't know that quoting Henry V does that and in that sense what's the point of making it manditory? There's no way to contextualize it to apply to the situation is what I'm saying.

I mean, everyone is familiar with movies and they can easily be referenced in different situations without us even having to think about it. That to me is what art or a culture is. Not mandatory schooling in subjects that were - even at the time of the their creation - intended only for a small priveledged class and now seem little more than relics fit for a museum. Don't get me wrong, I read and goto art exhibits all the time but that's a personal choice based on a personal interest.

[prickly_pete]

The jews? Between their removal from Israel and their return, they maintened their cultural identidy, how? With Shakespeareans's sterytipes? Of course not: the literature, specially the parables and humor, gave them a sense of unity, not to mention the identidy caused by the bible (ultimatelly, a work of art).

There were societies without lawyers. Without scientists. Without philosophers. Without religion. But not without art. And whores. Humankind would not preserve something just for fancy our use.

This really the only coherent point in the entire thread. I can't debate this at all - you're correct. I'd note though that it was a sense of identiy because it was part of their culture - it was something one wouldn't even have to think about it was so firmly imbeded in everyday experience. Same with movies or rock n' roll for us to some degree. Yes, every society has art there's no debating that.

The point is why bother teaching art that is no longer relevant and is inapplicable in everyday experience. I'm sorry, but something like TS Eliot for instance was intended for only a very select field of people. It is a relic that has no applicability in the cultural lives of people in this society. Why make it mandatory then? This makes no sense to me at all.

[Drkshadow03]

This really the only coherent point in the entire thread. I can't debate this at all - you're correct. I'd note though that it was a sense of identiy because it was part of their culture - it was something one wouldn't even have to think about it was so firmly imbeded in everyday experience. Same with movies or rock n' roll for us to some degree. Yes, every society has art there's no debating that.

The point is why bother teaching art that is no longer relevant and is inapplicable in everyday experience. I'm sorry, but something like TS Eliot for instance was intended for only a very select field of people. It is a relic that has no applicability in the cultural lives of people in this society. Why make it mandatory then? This makes no sense to me at all.

But is Shakespeare irrelevant to everyday experience? Is Chaucer? Is Dante? Isn't this merely your opinion? Perhaps these works last because they still are relevant in one way or another. However, because they're older the mandatory teaching of them is necessary to allow students access to their specialized language so they can discover those work's relevancy for themselves. After all, from my experience as a teacher most students don't necessarily walk into their math and science classes seeing how it's relevant to their lives. Should teaching just be a matter of confirming our student's biases? Should I stop teaching them anything, except video games 101. Or does a good teacher show students other options and possibilities that normally would elude them? They show them how literature, old and new, is relevant to their lives by teaching them how to read it.

And that is exactly why literature is still relevant. It gives you a wider access to your life and the issues that pervade it.

[JCamilo]

This really the only coherent point in the entire thread. I can't debate this at all - you're correct. I'd note though that it was a sense of identiy because it was part of their culture - it was something one wouldn't even have to think about it was so firmly imbeded in everyday experience. Same with movies or rock n' roll for us to some degree. Yes, every society has art there's no debating that.

But the jewish people here had nothing to do with the 1st century jews. They are not escatological as in the past, they are rather ironic (the capacity for dialetic is a jewish trait they preserve), they transform the absence of the temple in a defense of the text, the vallue the disciplines that were related to the text, no more the normative (which made no sense, with Jerusalem lost). They transformed as it was necessary. They believe in this identidy by the power of tradition rather by pratice. And of course, this philosophical development was not restrict to the philosophers - many - but the dimension, how it spread, the dialogue, the dialect - happens with the help of art. Identidy came from transformation.


The point is why bother teaching art that is no longer relevant and is inapplicable in everyday experience. I'm sorry, but something like TS Eliot for instance was intended for only a very select field of people. It is a relic that has no applicability in the cultural lives of people in this society. Why make it mandatory then? This makes no sense to me at all.

Well, TS Eliot, which I find to be quite easy (not his poems, but his ideas), is no more specialized (which is) than Newton, Einstein, Darwin, or maths. I do not apply evolution on everyday life either.

Anyways, the answer is: tradition must be taught otherwise the sense of identtidy would have no place to form and develop like in the Jewish example. (I do not consider the only place to taught something the schools). TS Eliot ends absorved by the repulsion.

Another thing to consider is that in a class, 40 kids, 1 can be a poet, just like 1 can be a geneticits and this may justify the teaching of Eliot and mendel. Also, relics in art are appliable. I wont remain on Eliot (easy, he is rather recent, not even a real classic, and was even present in the last Indiana Jones) but heck: the story of what you should do or not with the body of your enemy is one of themes of Iliad. And If one wants, the Story of Obama and Osama. There is a ethical level in Homer that would render Obama as a coward. I just applied it. If the destiny is no longer epic, it is not my fault. The heroes arent either.

[prickly_pete]

I'm not against art in schools per se, I'm just thinking that the reason that some art (for instance you're practically guaranteed to run into Shakespeare in high school) is chosen over others is an overly Romantic misunderstanding of how art actually functions in everyday life. I think school boards tend to select classical literature for instance because they're thinking in terms of mental processes or some kind of spiritual experience that is induced in the reader - they think Shakespare or Raphael is so amazing that a mere cursory viewing will produce a more enlightened individual. To me this seems completely bogus. To me a culture is embeded in the everyday lives and thinking of the indivudal members of that culture. Its not something you have to goto a museum to see. For the child of an 18th Century aristocrat Shakespare was embeded in everyday life, it was something you grew up aquiring probably without any forethought on that matter - same as, say, the Koran is imbeded in everyday life in Saudi Arabia. Now? Not so much.

Like, if you seriously believe in a geocentric universe you're a ****ing loon that's probably going to have some problems if you ever let that out largely because its so entrenched in our conceptual understanding of the world. I don't think the same is true of Shakespeare. Its just not something that is part of our everyday life or thinking the way, say, a totem pole would've been for Pacific Northwest tribes a thousand years ago. If we're going to explore something why not explore something relevant to our own culture like, say, movies or sports?


But the jewish people here had nothing to do with the 1st century jews

Wow, really? I had no idea!

At any rate religious texts are relevant in religious communities because they're part of one's upbringing and ongoing cultural life - its read from birth, its read before meals, its quoted in everyday conversation, you hear it at services, you sing hymns that are either quoted directly from scripture or inspired by scripture in some way. Its such a part of ones life that its not even a second thought - same way we would approach movies or sports for instance.

Shakespeare isn't part of our cultural upbringing in the United States. He just isn't. I don't know how much more plainly I can put this. Do you quote Shakespeare at meals? Do you take your sweetheart down to a river bank and receit sonnets from memory? Do you apply it in everyday situations? I mean we all know the answer to these questions so come on now.

You may think Shakespeare should be part of our cultural dialogue but that's a different issue from whether he currently is part of our cultural dialogue now.


After all, from my experience as a teacher most students don't necessarily walk into their math and science classes seeing how it's relevant to their lives

Yeah, but the difference is if they aquire no math skills they're going to be screwed probably both socially and economically. Same isn't true of Shakespare - there's billions of people living perfectly healthy social lives without Shakespeare. The child of an aristocrat in the 18th Century however probably would've suffered socially if they knew nothing of Shakespeare because, again, that was part of their cultural upbringing and poets wrote specifically for that audience.


Or does a good teacher show students other options and possibilities that normally would elude them?

Sure, but why does it have to be classical authors? I'm not opposed to teaching art necessarily - I'm opposed to teaching relics that aren't part of the cultural lives of people living today. If you want to grill students from 5 on up in classical rhetoric so that they can actually make something of this stuff is one thing, but just handing them Hamlet at age 16...not sure this really accomplishes anything.


And that is exactly why literature is still relevant. It gives you a wider access to your life and the issues that pervade it.

I agree, but why's it gotta be classic literature? Couldn't Twilight serve the same purpose if analyzed with a critical approach?


Another thing to consider is that in a class, 40 kids, 1 can be a poet, just like 1 can be a geneticits

So should we make piano lessons mandatory on the off chance we might find a Beethoven? Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

[JCamilo]

I'm not against art in schools per se, I'm just thinking that the reason that some art (for instance you're practically guaranteed to run into Shakespeare in high school) is chosen over others is an overly Romantic misunderstanding of how art actually functions in everyday life. I think school boards tend to select classical literature for instance because they're thinking in terms of mental processes or some kind of spiritual experience that is induced in the reader - they think Shakespare or Raphael is so amazing that a mere cursory viewing will produce a more enlightened individual. To me this seems completely bogus. To me a culture is embeded in the everyday lives and thinking of the indivudal members of that culture. Its not something you have to goto a museum to see. For the child of an 18th Century aristocrat Shakespare was embeded in everyday life, it was something you grew up aquiring probably without any forethought on that matter - same as, say, the Koran is imbeded in everyday life in Saudi Arabia. Now? Not so much.

Absolutely, he is the author more adapted by Hollywood, the current (maybe I am a year or so outdated) teenage boom is Twilight, which have impossible love romeoandjuliet like tones, I just saw a Manga of Shakespeare (I am in Brazil), so it seems to me he manifest quite well enough for someone so absent. But do you really study him so much in the class? I have no idea, but how much 1 or 2 works?


Like, if you seriously believe in a geocentric universe you're a ****ing loon that's probably going to have some problems if you ever let that out largely because its so entrenched in our conceptual understanding of the world. I don't think the same is true of Shakespeare. Its just not something that is part of our everyday life or thinking the way, say, a totem pole would've been for Pacific Northwest tribes a thousand years ago. If we're going to explore something why not explore something relevant to our own culture like, say, movies or sports?

Like THor? A Shakespearean bastard movie? I agree whole hearted that the Cult of Shakespeare cann't be the sole reason of the universe, but the question is if Shakespeare should be shared (in literature class I suppose) with modern writers? Sure. Studying Shakespeare is a specialization, which belongs to the real of academy and not school.




Wow, really? I had no idea!

At any rate religious texts are relevant in religious communities because they're part of one's upbringing and ongoing cultural life - its read from birth, its read before meals, its quoted in everyday conversation, you hear it at services, you sing hymns that are either quoted directly from scripture or inspired by scripture in some way. Its such a part of ones life that its not even a second thought - same way we would approach movies or sports for instance.

Well, of course it is not just language (hidiche language was even lost in a sense) but considering Shakespeare coined a handful of words in english more than anyone else in english, you do quoth him a lot. :D


Shakespeare isn't part of our cultural upbringing in the United States. He just isn't. I don't know how much more plainly I can put this. Do you quote Shakespeare at meals? Do you take your sweetheart down to a river bank and receit sonnets from memory? Do you apply it in everyday situations? I mean we all know the answer to these questions so come on now.

Hollywood is a bastard child of Shakespeare, of course, again it is also important to show the childs of Shakespeare. Just teaching him alone in a island is bad teaching.


You may think Shakespeare should be part of our cultural dialogue but that's a different issue from whether he currently is part of our cultural dialogue now.



Yeah, but the difference is if they aquire no math skills they're going to be screwed probably both socially and economically. Same isn't true of Shakespare - there's billions of people living perfectly healthy social lives without Shakespeare. The child of an aristocrat in the 18th Century however probably would've suffered socially if they knew nothing of Shakespeare because, again, that was part of their cultural upbringing and poets wrote specifically for that audience.

Rudimentar maths may go for everyone, but geometry? Calcs? In the end, you can find good reasons to dismiss many stuff we were taught.




Sure, but why does it have to be classical authors? I'm not opposed to teaching art necessarily - I'm opposed to teaching relics that aren't part of the cultural lives of people living today. If you want to grill students from 5 on up in classical rhetoric so that they can actually make something of this stuff is one thing, but just handing them Hamlet at age 16...not sure this really accomplishes anything.

Ethan Hawke had a hamlet movie recently, didnt he? Emos are quite hameltian :D




I agree, but why's it gotta be classic literature? Couldn't Twilight serve the same purpose if analyzed with a critical approach?

DkrShadow here will point that some people do use Harry Potter. (I think Twilight is bad, but must be someone). I think it must be all.




So should we make piano lessons mandatory on the off chance we might find a Beethoven? Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Well, do you see, it is the whole problem of the democracy. They try to guess and hit the button. It is as ridiculous as expecting a professional doctor.

[prickly_pete]

I feel like its probably my fault that I seem to be missing the mark with my examples. Let me just summarize what I've said thus far:

1) Art is something that is used and applied to everyday life. I gave an example from Iraq. When I say "Go ahead, make my day" before a firefight this resonates (though how it works in application might be slightly different for each individual) with the people who hear it. If I said, "Once more unto the breach dear friends" nothing is achieved - the phrase doesn't resonate and it can't be applied. This is what I mean when I say art is something that can be used

2) In order to use art one has to be indoctrinated in that culture. Quoting a Dirty Harry line during a firefight in Iraq is an application of art that occurs quite naturally. It's not something that has to be 'taught' per se. Its not an action that would occur to you just watching Dirty Harry in isolation, but is something we've learned to do because of ongoing exposure and indoctrination in a wider cultural setting and dialogue. Same with religious texts - folks in those communities quote scripture or make analogies with scripture not because they went to a class and were told "make analogies to Moses" or "quote Mohammed in x,y an z situations" but because its been part of the cultural life they've been engaged with since birth.

3) Shakespeare wrote for a very narrow audience. Namely folks who'd recieved a classical education, instruction in rhetoric, familiar with the theatre - you know, the whole deal. If he was writing for a very narrow audience in his time, what makes you think his work is applicable to the entire population (or at least a majority of it) in our own?

4) (Using Shakespeare as an example again) if you want Dante or Shakespear or whoever to be part of the cultural life of most people than this is something that folks are going to have to be drilled with from birth (or at least grade school) on up. Since this - at least for the foreseable future - isn't something that is going to occur naturally its will have to be imposed on people from the top down - perhaps similar to how Marx was imposed on Soviet school children from the top down.

5) Shakespare is not part of the cultural life of most people - actually, the VAST majority of people. This doesn't mean they're not exposed to art since every society has a common cultural dialogue in art. It just means they're getting it from film and popular music.

6) Film and popular music are just as capable of exposing students to different ideas and opinions as classical literature is.

Tell me where I'm wrong...

[Drkshadow03]

I'm not against art in schools per se, I'm just thinking that the reason that some art (for instance you're practically guaranteed to run into Shakespeare in high school) is chosen over others is an overly Romantic misunderstanding of how art actually functions in everyday life. I think school boards tend to select classical literature for instance because they're thinking in terms of mental processes or some kind of spiritual experience that is induced in the reader - they think Shakespare or Raphael is so amazing that a mere cursory viewing will produce a more enlightened individual. To me this seems completely bogus. To me a culture is embeded in the everyday lives and thinking of the indivudal members of that culture. Its not something you have to goto a museum to see. For the child of an 18th Century aristocrat Shakespare was embeded in everyday life, it was something you grew up aquiring probably without any forethought on that matter - same as, say, the Koran is imbeded in everyday life in Saudi Arabia. Now? Not so much.

Like, if you seriously believe in a geocentric universe you're a ****ing loon that's probably going to have some problems if you ever let that out largely because its so entrenched in our conceptual understanding of the world. I don't think the same is true of Shakespeare. Its just not something that is part of our everyday life or thinking the way, say, a totem pole would've been for Pacific Northwest tribes a thousand years ago. If we're going to explore something why not explore something relevant to our own culture like, say, movies or sports?



Wow, really? I had no idea!

At any rate religious texts are relevant in religious communities because they're part of one's upbringing and ongoing cultural life - its read from birth, its read before meals, its quoted in everyday conversation, you hear it at services, you sing hymns that are either quoted directly from scripture or inspired by scripture in some way. Its such a part of ones life that its not even a second thought - same way we would approach movies or sports for instance.

Shakespeare isn't part of our cultural upbringing in the United States. He just isn't. I don't know how much more plainly I can put this. Do you quote Shakespeare at meals? Do you take your sweetheart down to a river bank and receit sonnets from memory? Do you apply it in everyday situations? I mean we all know the answer to these questions so come on now.

You may think Shakespeare should be part of our cultural dialogue but that's a different issue from whether he currently is part of our cultural dialogue now.



Yeah, but the difference is if they aquire no math skills they're going to be screwed probably both socially and economically. Same isn't true of Shakespare - there's billions of people living perfectly healthy social lives without Shakespeare. The child of an aristocrat in the 18th Century however probably would've suffered socially if they knew nothing of Shakespeare because, again, that was part of their cultural upbringing and poets wrote specifically for that audience.



Sure, but why does it have to be classical authors? I'm not opposed to teaching art necessarily - I'm opposed to teaching relics that aren't part of the cultural lives of people living today. If you want to grill students from 5 on up in classical rhetoric so that they can actually make something of this stuff is one thing, but just handing them Hamlet at age 16...not sure this really accomplishes anything.



I agree, but why's it gotta be classic literature? Couldn't Twilight serve the same purpose if analyzed with a critical approach?



So should we make piano lessons mandatory on the off chance we might find a Beethoven? Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much. It seems to me your delineating very artificial boundaries of where our culture begins and ends and are presenting a rather idealistic version of sports and movies place in our society. Let's take your examples that supposedly demonstrate Shakespeare's unimportance. I don't know about you, but I don't really quote many movies or sport figures to begin my meals anymore than I do Shakespeare ("I could've been a contender! Alright, please pass the chicken thigh"). I also don't serenade my lover with the latest quotes by Lebron James. Oh, I talk about movies and sports sometimes with friends. However, I also talk about Shakespeare too. It all depends on who I am with. Some of my intimates are bored to tears if I begin talking about basketball and only are interested in discussing the arts, while others are the opposite. Certainly my fiance is more interested in my literary interests than she is in my love of basketball. The problem is that with a more complicated society you get a more fragmented one, hence why I don't believe you can claim Shakespeare isn't part of our culture. There are numerous sub-cultures. More importantly if it's being taught in high schools across America then that too is part of a culture. Certainly a culture's education systems and what it chooses to teach is by definition a part of that culture.

Even so, Shakespeare is quite popular in the United States. There have been countless scholarly books written documenting the history of Shakespeare in America. Most states host annual Shakespearean festivals. Despite your claims, I guarantee I could walk up to most people on the streets with a minimum of education and they would recognize select Shakespeare lines ("A rose by any other name . . ." or "To be or not to be"). So I don't even accept your premise that Shakespeare isn't a part of our culture since this is demonstrably false looking at the various productions put on yearly that often sell out and how even the average non-literature Geek can usually recognize popular Shakespeare lines. In other words, I would challenge your assertion and suggest Shakespeare is in fact part of our cultural dialogue (but, of course, so is many other things).

Could you survive in the real world without much knowledge about Shakespeare? Sure. Could you survive without personally having knowledge of trigonometry? Sure. Could you survive without having any knowledge about how DNA works? Certainly. Could you survive in the workforce without basic reading skills or basic arithmetic? Probably not.

[prickly_pete]

Oh so every weekend Shakespeare plays gross billions upon billions of dollars? Every fall Sunday 15 stadiums of 80,000 people are filled to capacity to watch Shakespearian drama? Tonight I'll assume there'll be 20 some odd million people reading Hamlet instead of watching Game 5, right? You hear about the 'Shakespeare Tour' holy moly that grossed like 100 million in ticket sales already! There's countless television programs, radio shows, preview shows, round-the-clock analysis, entire sections of the New York Times and every major newspaper in the country devoted to Shakespeare huh?

lol, this is beyond dillusional. You're taking your own particular sub-culture which doesn't even form a spec on the map of the American cultural landscape and saying its indicative of a general knowledge and appreciation for Shakespeare. Its ridiculous mate. No point comparing it to math or sciene either by the way. If we never knew who Shakespeare was we'd have no problems. Take math and science out and the entire society folds.

I mean, if this is the type of thinking that goes on in English departments you can count me out.

[Rores28]

So I'll answer this assuming the question is now why teach "old" art in public schools. Also you keep bringing up math and science which are not directly relevant unless you are suggesting that math and science classes be expanded to take up the time currently inhabited by literature classes. But you don't seem to be suggesting that. You are suggesting teaching sports and movies instead.

Here are my objections:

You have to realize that school is essentially the ultimate long-view-putting-off present-pleasure-for-future-pleasure situation. Very few people like school in general, many only enjoying a few subjects, if that. But none of them graduate high school saying that they wish they hadn't done that. School is essentially the societal manifestation of eating your vegetables. Because of that it is sort of a waste of time teaching/viewing hackneyed hollwood movies or sports. People are obviously gorging themselves on these things anyway, they are plenty adept at watching and continuing to watch **** movies as well as sports. It's sorta like saying we should teach beer pong and flip cup in school because they have become such a shared cultural experience. Surely more people know the intricacies of beer bong than the intricacies of Othello. Kids got partying down... they need no top down motivation.

Further sports are already taught in schools (Phys Ed), along with the myriad after school and intramural sports available. Sports at every school I've ever walked into are constantly shoved down one's throat, so I don't really think they warrant more exposure, they're merit at this point is plateaued.

As far as movies, I agree that they should be taught in school and of course many universities have degrees in film etc...But movies are art, so this is sorta in contradiction I think to your initial premise.

So none of this really addresses why old literature should be taught in school, just why more sports and popular movies shouldn't be. This point is a little harder to defend perhaps but I still think literature should be taught, and at the very least I don't think the time that literature currently occupies should be filled with more math and science.

I'll post reasons pro lit later though

[Drkshadow03]

Oh so every weekend Shakespeare plays gross billions upon billions of dollars? Every fall Sunday 15 stadiums of 80,000 people are filled to capacity to watch Shakespearian drama? Tonight I'll assume there'll be 20 some odd million people reading Hamlet instead of watching Game 5, right? You hear about the 'Shakespeare Tour' holy moly that grossed like 100 million in ticket sales already! There's countless television programs, radio shows, preview shows, round-the-clock analysis, entire sections of the New York Times and every major newspaper in the country devoted to Shakespeare huh?

lol, this is beyond dillusional. You're taking your own particular sub-culture which doesn't even form a spec on the map of the American cultural landscape and saying its indicative of a general knowledge and appreciation for Shakespeare. Its ridiculous mate. No point comparing it to math or sciene either by the way. If we never knew who Shakespeare was we'd have no problems. Take math and science out and the entire society folds.

I mean, if this is the type of thinking that goes on in English departments you can count me out.

I NEVER said anything about Shakespeare having equal cultural currency to sports. So stop attacking your own imagined strawman. I just said it has some cultural currency. One having more doesn't require the other to have none if you failed to comprehend my point.

As far as general knowledge. Of course, everyone has general knowledge about Shakespeare since pretty much EVERY student has to read it in high school. Whether they enjoyed him, paid attention, or ever would bother to see one of his plays on their own volition again is another question entirely.

While Shakespeare doesn't typically sell out entire football stadiums every Sunday, he still manages to pull in close to 80,000 people (http://www.centralpark.com/guide/activities/shakespeare-in-the-park.html) every summer to Central Park and fill up English classes at universities across the nation (and world). And while not grossing billions, most of the recent Shakespeare flicks are capable of grossing millions: Midsummer Night's Dream - 16,000,000+ (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=midsummernightsdream.htm), Romeo and Juliet - 46,000,000+ (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=romeoandjuliet.htm). All I'm saying is there is still a large and literate sub-culture in America that is interested in Shakespeare that extends beyond just English Majors.

Besides your comments about Shakespeare being for the elite is beyond ignorant. Shakespeare wrote for everyone, not just a rich elite (http://www.shakespeare-online.com/essays/shakespeareaudience.html).

While I agree society wouldn't fold if Shakespeare disappeared tomorrow the way it would if science and math did, my comments about the necessity of the average person's general knowledge of those subjects still stand, and I've heard too many firsthand experiences about individuals who have had their lives changed by reading and performing Shakespeare and literature in general for the better to dismiss it as comfortably as you do. Society might not fold, but thousands of individuals within society would've been poorer or have led worse lives without having read Shakespeare (such as the many disadvantaged students of the Hobart Shakespeareans (http://www.hobartshakespeareans.org/) who have changed the course of their lives through literature and art).

What happens if we substitute an actual American author into the discussion? Nathaniel Hawthorne might not be as popular as football for the average American either, but I think it would be a pretty dumb argument to claim he is therefore not a part of the American cultural dialogue at all. Hell, they even make updated movies based on his works too (just like the apparently "irrelevant" Shakespeare) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1282140/).

As the weirdest irony of all, your whining about English departments for wanting to defend the study of traditional figures (and you should be the last person criticizing anyone's thinking considering your argument consists of made-up "facts" about Shakespeare's audience and a false comparison to sports that at best only proves one activity is more popular than the other, not that the other activity lacks popularity or interest altogether), whereas when most people whine about the presumably "bad" type of thinking that goes on in English departments its typically when those departments change their focus from old well-respected books to studying popular culture films or the culture of sporting events or the anatomy of beer pong (the very types of things you claim would be more relevant to our current cultural condition).

[prickly_pete]

While Shakespeare doesn't typically sell out entire football stadiums every Sunday, he still manages to pull in close to 80,000 people every summer to Central Park and fill up English classes at universities across the nation (and world).

Grasping at straws is what I think its called. Look at it like this: tens of thousands of people attend dog shows in the United States every year. There's magazines that cater to that niche market. There are products that cater to that niche market. There's been films and documentaries about dog shows that cater to that niche market...

With that said is it really an accurate portrayal of things to say that dog shows are part of the American cultural dialogue? Does that mean that the vast majority of people know what a "major" means and other terminology applicable to dog shows? If the average person on the street can give a general summary of what a dog show is does that mean that dog shows are part of his/her cultural life?

Of course not. We both know that only trainers and dog breaders can get the full-spectrum of experience when it comes to dog shows. The rest of us (in so far as we ever found some reason to goto a dog show at all) are just watching a bunch of muts walk around in a circle. But does that mean we have to educate everyone about dogs and dog shows and cram it down the throats of high schoolers and college students? I know plenty of people who have had their lives changed by studying dogs and interacting with them for the better so why shouldn't Cynology be mandatory in schools? I mean, my subculture is important to me so surely it should be important to everyone else.

Acknowledging that dog shows are relevant to practically no one and probably shouldn't be taught in schools seems common sense that everyone would agree on, but somehow when we start talking about poetry instead of dog shows the rules all change. Its understandable since we care deeply about what we read about, but that still doesn't make Shakespeare anymore relevant to the vast majority of folks out there. I agree with Rores28 - keep it in the academy with the rest of the antiquaited cultural relics where it belongs.

I mean, again, I have no problem teaching art in school if it has some applicability to the cultural life of Americans. Shakespeare doesn't hold any significance, is not used at all by the vast majority of folks so why bother? Why not start studying Lao-Tsu or Shikubu or Averroes or some other material that is irrelevant to the life people live now?


Besides your comments about Shakespeare being for the elite is beyond ignorant. Shakespeare wrote for everyone, not just a rich elite.

So because I can pay $20 to get in a museum or art exhibit (which pretty much makes it accessible to everyone) than that means the artist creates for the general public? That means that the works on display can be easily grasped by everyone and applied to their everyday life?

lol Got it.

[WyattGwyon]

First of all, the contributor to this thread calling itself "G L Wilson" is obviously a bot of some kind engaged in a Turing test. This artificial entity just generates random, nearly incoherent snippets simulating (poorly) the products of human thought. Whoever programmed it is laughing at you for continuing to respond long after this should have been obvious.

Given the focus of this forum I will stick to literature in addressing the value of art:

Works of literature can, arguably, reveal more about the fundamental nature of life, human interaction, morality and a host of pressing human concerns in a more concentrated, powerful, and memorable way than just about any other products of human ingenuity. One who has carefully read and absorbed Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov, for example, is likely to have a deeper appreciation of the complexities and challenges of ascribing motivations to and determining the moral culpability of his/her fellow humans than someone who has not. Fictional characters often exhibit in concentrated form human foibles, capacities, and qualities that are encountered in diluted form in those around us. Seeing the "purer strain" in a fictional being can help one to pick out and identify the fainter and more elusive traces in real-life encounters. Literary types can thus be valuable guides to human understanding. William Gaddis's JR prophetically lampooned the destructive capacity of a corporate culture attuned to exploiting the minutia of tax loopholes and stock manipulations rather than creating products of real value; his A Frolic of His Own sends up the litigious mania of our society in a way that is both highly instructive and hilarious. Heroic characters like those of Hugo and Conrad, who have the courage to stick to a personal code of morality in the face of overwhelming resistance and danger instill an appreciation of the best of which human's are capable and provide strong ethical models.

This post is getting long, but how about an example from poetry:

We all know something about the toll of tyranny and soulless bureaucracy on human life. But a well turned stanza can make the knowledge cut like a knife:

The mighty hand leads to a sloping shoulder,
The finger joints are cramped with chalk;
A goose's quill has put an end to murder
That put an end to talk.
(from Dylan Thomas's "The hand that signed the paper")

In short, literary art is one of the best places one can go to learn about the deepest problems of living on earth and functioning as an ethical being. Treat it as superfluous at your grave peril and to the detriment of civilization.

[Drkshadow03]

In short, literary art is one of the best places one can go to learn about the deepest problems of living on earth and functioning as an ethical being. Treat it as superfluous at your grave peril and to the detriment of civilization.

Which is essentially how everyone has pretty much answered the question.

[Buh4Bee]

I don't think this is a matter of debate anymore. I think this is a very black and white perspective for the OP as well as many of the posters. (many who are teachers).

[prickly_pete]

In short, literary art is one of the best places one can go to learn about the deepest problems of living on earth and functioning as an ethical being. Treat it as superfluous at your grave peril and to the detriment of civilization.

Sounds way to cliche to be taken seriously, but sure. Stil, how is film any less capable of accomplishing this? Why should classic literature hold some priveleged position?

[lieasleep]

First of all, the contributor to this thread calling itself "G L Wilson" is obviously a bot of some kind engaged in a Turing test. This artificial entity just generates random, nearly incoherent snippets simulating (poorly) the products of human thought. Whoever programmed it is laughing at you for continuing to respond long after this should have been obvious.



really?! some of it was pretty damn thought provoking. no way

and that was a really good post you had up there. I think you just about hit the nail on the head

[prickly_pete]

I don't think this is a matter of debate anymore. I think this is a very black and white perspective for the OP as well as many of the posters. (many who are teachers).

Except I've defended a tough position at least moderately well and have heard nothing in return except tired platitudes about how "art is life" and how popular movies are "trash."

[WyattGwyon]

Sounds way to cliche to be taken seriously, but sure. Stil, how is film any less capable of accomplishing this? Why should classic literature hold some priveleged position?

Essentially, it comes down to scope and depth. Where film falls short of the novel in these domains is too obvious to belabor. Not to mention the fact that a large proportion of the best films are just adaptations of works of narrative literature or drama.

A few further comments: I cited contemporary as well as classic fiction. Screenplays, another form of literature, are also capable of accomplishing these kinds of goals. I would say that good literature should occupy a privileged position regardless of whether or not it is incorporated in a film.

Whether or not something is a cliche has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it should be taken seriously. In any case, the question with which you started this thread is a cliche so it is hardly seemly of you to complain if you get cliches in response! The crucial question is: do you dispute the examples with which I supported my "cliche" and can you offer examples from film that address the same issues with comparable power and depth?

I have to get up at 4am to climb a mountain so I won't be posting again tonight.

[WyattGwyon]

Except I've defended a tough position at least moderately well and have heard nothing in return except tired platitudes about how "art is life" and how popular movies are "trash."

Okay, I lied; One more post. I gave much more than this in answer and so did St. Luke.

[prickly_pete]

Where film falls short of the novel in these domains is too obvious to belabor.

Enlighten me. What are scope and depth exactly? Define those for me. Where would I find this 'depth'?

[lieasleep]

Enlighten me. What are scope and depth exactly? Define those for me. Where would I find this 'depth'?

the novel :blush5:

but seriously, the visual medium does have some built in limitations,

1. length (you think three hours is long, try reading The Recognitions by William Gaddis, now that is a work with depth and scope)

2. the only dealing in internal thought is through physical expression of those thoughts, at least when it comes to film. Films deal in the internal through dialogue and attempts at making visual the internal, sequences that usually don't work (there are, of course, some exceptions to this one) but the novel deals with the internal much more fluidly, to say the least, which allows for greater depth.

I will think of some more but I am too tired right now...

[Rores28]

Other stuff that is a better alternative than sports and movies (assuming the movies we are talking about is the general regurgitated pap that most folks like) for the partial supplanting of literature studies in high school.


-philosophy
-ethics/morality
-dialectical skills (logical fallacies,common human perceptual errors and bias etc)
-current philanthropically relevant material
-foreign affairs / current politics

If we were to remove literature (partially or wholly), as is implicit in your argument, we would have to ask why sports and movies would be better things to include/augment than these. I don't think we can produce too many cogent reasons on this front, so the question now is why literature instead of these alternatives.

First I don't think that position can be wholly defended. As much as I love literature I do think some of these subjects need more weight in current public schools, though not solely to the detriment of literature. However,

Literature subsumes a variety of other topics that don't currently get enough attention due to its somewhat protean nature.
Many of those topics, and sundry others, are born out in various literary works, essays, satires, tragedies etc... often concomitantly and in synergistic fashions


Narrative is often more effective at fomenting people to action than statistics, no matter how irrational this seems. Further it gets students interested in otherwise dry topics
One person dying is a tragedy, 1,000 dying is a statistic or something right. Narratives that highlight suffering and human injustices in particular not only stick in memory longer, but have a more emotional impact. A major difficulty in schools is even getting kids to pay attention and become interested, and one of the best ways of overcoming that difficulty is framing particular problems in a narrative.


Variety of study adds to creative capabilities which given the exponentially increasing sophistication of technology, some people predict is fast becoming the most important personal skill.
The more diverse the stimuli people are exposed to, generally speaking, the greater is their creative capability. So we lose that if we keep pumping in the same old stuff they are getting anyway (sports and movies) or if we substitute more of the subjects they are already studying (science and math).
Why is creative ability important?

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

http://www.kurzweilai.net/

http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.h tml

Truly poignant classical literature often gives insights that predate scientifically verifiable results.

http://www.amazon.com/Proust-Was-Neuroscientist-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0618620109

Literature allows you to double dip into writing
No one would deny the importance of the written word, and literature is simply the best of the written word. Reading, especially good literature, undeniably makes one a better writer, so now you are to an extent getting a class that teaches writing as well.

Further I think you exaggerate the need to understand intertextuality in order to enjoy literature. I read Hamlet for the first time last year while knowing virtually nothing about Shakespeare and it was immediately my favorite piece of literature, and still is. The same goes for Othello, I read it and loved it. Later I studied them and had an even greater appreciation for them, but I still loved them to begin with. Hamlet was so good to me when I first read it that I implored everyone around me to read it because I actually felt bad for them for not having experienced its brilliance.

[stlukesguild]

As this discussion has morphed I find myself suspecting that Rores might have been brushing near the truth when he stated: "I suspect this is a pseudo troll job. I think you have some paper due on this topic and are phishing for discussion here."

This very question pops up from time to time on most arts forums: What is the purpose of art? As usual, members trot out a variety of arguments as to the "purpose" or "worth" of art but these are challenged as "elitist", having no relevance to our culture today, ignoring the desires of the larger audiences, and having no practical worth. The questions get more difficult as we are confronted with challenges as to why Art should be taught in school or why the arts should be supported by tax dollars. And one begans to suspect that the whole is but a game as the anti-Art individual seems more than passingly well educated and capable of citing Shakespeare or calling up less than common figures such as Averroes.

The reality is that we might question why nearly anything is taught in school beyond a basic level. Seriously, the mathematics that I studied beyond middle-school have had absolutely no relevant use to me. I studied history, geography, biology, mythology and many other topics that I quite likely could have gotten along well without.

When it comes to the purpose of Art in the broader sense, I stick with Oscar Wilde and accept that all art is meaningless. We... the audience... give it "meaning"... or not. Art is an elective affinity. The individual is free to choose whether a given art form is worthy of his or her efforts... or not.

But we return to the question as to why the arts are taught in school... and again I will note that one might ask this of any subject beyond a basic level: Why teach biology? Why teach history? Why teach physical education? Most educators recognize that there is a basic body of knowledge that is necessary to communicate successfully in our culture. Of course there are disagreements upon what these are. Once these are mastered... the choice of what is studied in school often relates to specializations. The individual students decide whether to study French or German or Chemistry or Physics or Art III, or British Literature. And I will assume that this is fine, as the individual student has selected what courses to study based upon his or her own future goals.

But what about the idea of requiring that we read Shakespeare or study art? One might argue that Shakespeare, Art, Music, History, are all taught with the aim of developing larger skills in critical thinking. Admittedly only a small number of students will go on to a career in the visual arts, but the visual arts are not taught solely for the benefit of these students. They are also taught with the aim of teaching all the ability to think critically when looking at visual imagery. The same is certainly a partial value in reading poetry and literature. The student learns to think critically in terms of language. Far too many are unable to look at an advertizement or a brief bit of news footage and recognize what message those behind it all intend to convey. Far too few are able to listen to politicians, radio talk show hosts, "analysts" and even recognize that there is an individual behind the words who has certain motives that may not be in the favor of the listener.

Teaching the ability to think critically is but one purpose of art. Art is also taught as a means of self expression. Art is taught as a means of reinforcing ideas utilizing visual imagery, music, words, etc... for students who have different ways of learning. The arts are taught as part of our collective culture... and as a door to "others". Confronted with the question, "What is the purpose of art?" one might very well respond, "What is the purpose of life." Experience? Pleasure? Knowledge?... ultimately the question cannot be answered. Art... and certainly life... cannot be reduced to a simple practical "meaning"... but this in no way means that Life and Art are meaningless. Again I turn to Mallarme who recognized that the most practical... the most useful or utilitarian room in the house was the toilet. While our OP's mental Onanism may surely find no better abode than the toilet, I doubt that most of us would imagine the toilet as the center of our existence.:smilewinkgrin:

[G L Wilson]

The rich need taste and have it not.
The poor need discernment and are robbed of it.
The art critic discerns what he doesn't have, i.e., genius.
In other words, the artist must work miracles.

[JCamilo]

I feel like its probably my fault that I seem to be missing the mark with my examples. Let me just summarize what I've said thus far:

1) Art is something that is used and applied to everyday life. I gave an example from Iraq. When I say "Go ahead, make my day" before a firefight this resonates (though how it works in application might be slightly different for each individual) with the people who hear it. If I said, "Once more unto the breach dear friends" nothing is achieved - the phrase doesn't resonate and it can't be applied. This is what I mean when I say art is something that can be used

Internet virus were called Trojan due to a reference to Homer, the very first classic. So, it works like Dirty Harry. Classic literature equates movies.
(I wont go futher with Shakespeare, be my Romeo is a current expression for dating. His words are used in english language. And he does not need to be the most used, just to be used. And he is)


2) In order to use art one has to be indoctrinated in that culture. Quoting a Dirty Harry line during a firefight in Iraq is an application of art that occurs quite naturally. It's not something that has to be 'taught' per se. Its not an action that would occur to you just watching Dirty Harry in isolation, but is something we've learned to do because of ongoing exposure and indoctrination in a wider cultural setting and dialogue. Same with religious texts - folks in those communities quote scripture or make analogies with scripture not because they went to a class and were told "make analogies to Moses" or "quote Mohammed in x,y an z situations" but because its been part of the cultural life they've been engaged with since birth.

Trojan virus is used even if people has no knowledge of homer. They would link to achilles heel naturally (even if it is not actually homeric). Obviously, classical oldest literature is naturally expressed on daily usage.


3) Shakespeare wrote for a very narrow audience. Namely folks who'd recieved a classical education, instruction in rhetoric, familiar with the theatre - you know, the whole deal. If he was writing for a very narrow audience in his time, what makes you think his work is applicabele to the entire population (or at least a majority of it) in our own?

Because you are mistaken. Shakespeare didnt wrote for a narraow audience. At all. He wrote at sametime for the lower classes of london and the nobility. The same plays. He is actually a prime example of popularity and quality put together. His work was applied to broad group, it is still, considering he is the most popular writer ever and also, Hollywood main source.


4) (Using Shakespeare as an example again) if you want Dante or Shakespear or whoever to be part of the cultural life of most people than this is something that folks are going to have to be drilled with from birth (or at least grade school) on up. Since this - at least for the foreseable future - isn't something that is going to occur naturally its will have to be imposed on people from the top down - perhaps similar to how Marx was imposed on Soviet school children from the top down

Alas, Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet is the most reckonozied teenage drama. I do not want anything, the entire word has reference to it. It is part of cultural life o most people. In english it is impossible, a hundred words with current use are created by him.



5) Shakespare is not part of the cultural life of most people - actually, the VAST majority of people. This doesn't mean they're not exposed to art since every society has a common cultural dialogue in art. It just means they're getting it from film and popular music.

Nothing is part of cultural life of most people. Most people has no use for physicas, chemistry, biology. Darwin is even denied by a large population of America (Shakespeare is not).


6) Film and popular music are just as capable of exposing students to different ideas and opinions as classical literature is.

And ignoring classical literature to focus on Film or popular music (Which make reference to classical art) is as wrong on focusing on classical art. You must teach both.


Tell me where I'm wrong...

Done. Give me a 10.

[MystyrMystyry]

The only way you're going to really know anything about art though is to study it relentlessly for many years of your life. So what's the point in forcing students into taking an art class or two - is this really accomplishing anything is all I'm asking. Like, I could read the Bible on my own or have someone well-versed in theology explain it to me. I don't need paintings or sculptures in order to interpret the message the way someone in the Middle Ages would.

Don't get me wrong, I'm saying we should burn books or anything. I'm just asking something that I think is important even though its difficult to answer.

Listen - the purpose of education is to open the eyes of students to another world, and allow them to pursue things that interest them - when people consider learning as really long and hard, there is something wrong with their understanding and attitude - I, like everyone I know, love learning new things, coming across new ideas and ways of thinking

Would you be happier if there was no art and the highest cultural achievement was the weekend's football results? No I thought not - there are entire countries where art and self-expression has been outlawed because a self-styled noong said it should be seven centuries ago - and those countries are worse places to live in than just the desert without anyone in it

Art elevates the mind, heart and spirit - and if you don't know that then why do you listen to music? Do you think music isn't an art?

The Romans considered art as only something that had a practical purpose - a bridge, a coliseum, a road, a lighthouse. All those mosaics and sculptures were to them merely decoration, but without them it would have been a pretty bleak place to live

[MarkBastable]

Come to think about it, he might be right about the rich having no taste.

When I was broke, I used to like Chekhov, Mahler and Picasso. But since I've made a few quid, I find myself increasingly drawn to Die Hard, Justin Bieber and pictures of kittens peeking out of battered hats. Perhaps I should just give it all away so that I can enjoy the National Portrait Gallery again.

[MystyrMystyry]

But those examples may equally be early onset Oldtimers

[prickly_pete]

The reality is that we might question why nearly anything is taught in school beyond a basic level.

OK, we can question math and science but where are the engineers going to come from? Where are the lab technicians going to get training? Where are people going to learn the necessary background for designing software to make our lives easier? Where are the doctors going to come from?

Art is a little different. That's going to occur by itself quite naturally whereas an advanced technological society is something that has to be consciousless supported. You look at Afghanistan and all they really do in school is study the Koran - literature in other words - how far has that society come now?

Now, again, I'm not against art or literature classes but why would we load the course syllabus with material that is now irrelevant to our everyday lives? For an American to be forced to read Shakespeare is not that far off from forcing them to read the Koran. They both have nothing to do with the culture they've grown up in.

[prickly_pete]

Trojan virus is used even if people has no knowledge of homer. They would link to achilles heel naturally (even if it is not actually homeric). Obviously, classical oldest literature is naturally expressed on daily usage.

Patently ridiculous. The vast majority of people I would wager know the story of David and Goliath. That story takes up about half a page in the book of Samuel. So does that mean because I know the story of David and Goliath that I have a working knowledge of the Bible? Patently ridiculous.


Shakespeare didnt wrote for a narraow audience. At all. He wrote at sametime for the lower classes of london and the nobility.

See my above post. Anyone can get into a museum or art exhibit nowdays. Anyone can goto a Barnes & Noble and buy Heidigger. Does that mean these folks produce for the general audience? Patently ridiculous.


he is the most popular writer ever

Only because of the predominance of English in the modern world. If he had lived in Lithuania nobody would've ever heard of him. I'm sure if Croatian was a world wide language Ivo Andric would be the most popular writer ever, but since it isn't we don't know about him.


Hollywood main source

Negative. The vast majority of hollywood films EVER produced have absolutely nothing to do with Shakespeare.


Alas, Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet is the most reckonozied teenage drama. I do not want anything, the entire word has reference to it. It is part of cultural life o most people.

Again, see above. People having heard of Romeo and Juliet and having some vague idea of what the story consists of doesn't mean much. People have heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Is Aesop part of their cultural expierence as well? Not really...but I wouldn't deny that there are a handfull of stories from the past that are still used in application to everyday life. The question is: are these mere specs on the cultural map enough to warrant teaching the entire Western Cannon of art and literature and making it far and away the predominant focus of art programs? Probably not.


Nothing is part of cultural life of most people. Most people has no use for physicas, chemistry, biology. Darwin is even denied by a large population of America (Shakespeare is not).

Again, we actually need this stuff though. Americans have a cultural life - movies, music, sports, etc. Apparently the culture they grew up with isn't good enough so we cram archaic works down their throats. This I find morally repugnant.


You must teach both

Why? Why not teach dog shows as well? Its just as relevant to most people as Shakespeare.

[MarkBastable]

Pete,

Is your argument that art serves absolutely no purpose at all, or that it's not as vital as some other things?

[MarkBastable]

The reality is that we might question why nearly anything is taught in school beyond a basic level. Seriously, the mathematics that I studied beyond middle-school have had absolutely no relevant use to me. I studied history, geography, biology, mythology and many other topics that I quite likely could have gotten along well without.


I think Luke has a good point. I read somewhere - in a book or something, y'know - that by the age of eight you know everything you need to know in order to survive, even in an industrialised society. Nothing you learn after that is really necessary, if the necessity is to have a fair shot at feeding yourself, finding shelter and passing on your genes.

It may be of course that society as we know it would fall apart without qualified electricians - but people would still survive. We can be sure of that - because human beings got along fine without electricians for many thousands of years.

Could a society get along without art? Well, you'd think so, if you were trying to determine what art does to keep a society going. And yet, although many human societies have struggled by without microwave ovens or efficient mass transit networks, not many - perhaps none - have ever got along without art. Which would suggest that it does have some purpose, even if we can't figure out what it is.

[MystyrMystyry]

See that's where the argument is wrong

When you say 'most people' you're speaking about those who don't have a comprehensive education - why should society stoop to the lowest common (idiot) denominator when soaring to the heights is patently preferable

If Shakespeare's lost on you and all you ever understand is that 50cent lucked his way through by being in the right place at the right time - then you will accept minimal talent as being superior to genius

Your personal cultural experience has skewed your view of beauty and perfection by taking shortcuts through and bypassing worthwhile cultural icons and benchmarks - are the great achievements too difficult for you to encompass?

I've embraced Shakespeare, Dickens, Michelangelo, Matisse, Beethoven and Bach - and a million others - and my life is far richer for it than if I'd accepted only the dross that they who would do so try to spoonfeed the unwary

Shakespeare is as relevant to the intelligent today as he was in his own time - and the more you learn the more you see it in everything: cultural references are everywhere in the arts and the more allusions you comprehend the more your appreciation increases

The trick is to seek the big picture, not the little one - your brain is like a muscle and needs exercise lest it wither and die

Here's a quick example of cross-reference relevance: you're watching a John Ford western filmed in the 1950's. It's been advertised as a Western and for all intents and purposes looks like a Western, but is it really a Western?

Well it is, but actually it's closer to being a film about the Korean War than any stylised version of How The West Was Won

See? An entire subtext that you could have gone your entire life unaware of and I've just shortcut it for you thus depriving you of the Eureka moment that you may have worked out for yourself. Why? Because 'The 1950's! Western! Dat ain't my kulcha, man!'

As a side note, are you aware the U.S. never signed a peace treaty with North Korea? Yep - the war's still on!

[MystyrMystyry]

You snuck in there Mark

[prickly_pete]

Pete,

Is your argument that art serves absolutely no purpose at all, or that it's not as vital as some other things?

Well the generation of art is going to happen on its own accord so I don't know if "vital" is exactly the word because its hard to imagine a human society without it. Shoot, I mean even simple relays of information - even in these we see a human need to impart some kind of aesthetic quality into everyday speech. Say I got in a car accident for instance and went home to tell my wife. Its hard to imagine me walking in and being like "Crash. Car done." Instead I'd give some elaborate story - that if someone took the time to analyze - would reveal dramatic pauses, climaxes, and so on. So even here, in everyday speech, we're all artists to some degree. The point is this is something that occured quite naturally to me because of my cultural life. Nobody had to tell me "dramatic pause in x,y and z situations for effect." It's just something that's done.

A culture is much like language in that its probably impossible to talk as though we're outside of it. We have art sports, movies, popular music - shoot, ever been to the South Bronx? There's art on every building! To act as though art isn't going to happen unless its instructred is like saying we'd never be able to speak unless we took and English class.

So yeah, it's going to happen whether we have art classes or not. My question then is why do we have art classes? And if we do need them for some tangible purpose (other than vague concepts like "opening the mind" or "exploring different worlds" that mean different things to different people) then why does it have to be classical art? If classical literature for instance isn't part of our cultural life - which is unequivocally isn't for the vast majority of people - then what purpose would teaching it serve? We know what purpose math and science serves. I'm not so sure what purpose Shakespeare serves outside of, again, convoluted ideas like "opening the mind" or there was once a Leonardo Di Caprio movie based on a Shakespeare play because if these are the best justifications you can give for teaching Shakespeare than you might want to reevaluate your outlook on things.

[prickly_pete]

why should society stoop to the lowest common (idiot) denominator when soaring to the heights is patently preferable

What are these 'heights' you speak of? Where can I observe those? Define 'heights' exactly?

These are ridiculous concepts that aren't any substantively different than saying we should read Shakespeare because it expresses "truth" or "the sublime" or "essences." This is all talk from a long bygone area. We've been out of the muddle for sometime now. No need to go on talking like this.

[Rores28]

Pete,

Is your argument that art serves absolutely no purpose at all, or that it's not as vital as some other things?

Neither, the argument has been whittled down to "why teach Shakespeare in school."

edit, "Why teach Shakespeare in public school?"

[prickly_pete]

Neither, the argument has been whittled down to "why teach Shakespeare in school."

Whoa, nothing has been whittled at all here. Nobody is discussing this seriously - just alot of hot air about "opening minds" and "enriching ones soul". Fluff is all I've heard thus far.

My original question in post #1 - I can't see how this isn't bound up with my other question of why teach the classics.

What purpose does art serve? Creates common experiences that can relayed through a common cultural dialogue. If Shakespeare (I'm just using him as an example of all classics) isn't part of a common cultural experience why bother?

[Drkshadow03]

I agree St Luke, he's looking more and more like a troll, a Glenn Beck wannabe whose just "asking questions." Even though, the question itself is old hat. Why do we need those arts? At some point I begin to wonder if it's an either/or issue; you either get it or you don't.

We've all given him essentially the same response. So there seems to be some agreement, but the only real response he has given to the idea that art opens up your mind and the world, and that a critical language is needed to understand art as deeply as possible, hence why you need to study it, is that these are "cliche" and "convoluted" responses, which doesn't actually rebut the point.

P_P seem to at least agree that art has a seminal role as a part of culture. So a large part of understanding another culture and time period is to understand their art (reason to study it).

Of course, this is really just a variant of what we have all been saying all along: reading literature or engaging with art allows you to view your own culture or other people's cultures or other time periods or problems that most people have to face in their life (say coping with the death of a loved one) in a dramatic fashion that helps you emotionally deal with those issues or think about those issues intellectually by proxy of a fictitious character experiencing them and in a way that also entertains (what literature does).

However, the very nature of art is to hold up a mirror to experience and rework and retell our experiences through artifice. We need to learn about literature in order to develop the critical thinking skills to understand it and our world that expresses itself through cultural means (such as literature), develop an understanding of the types and tropes of stories that reoccur throughout societies, and to understand the various components that make up a literary work (the reason to study it).

PP's argument has basically broken down into a fallacious appeal to novelty. Old things = bad and irrelevant. New things = good and useful. There is no reason to think older literature is less relevant than newer literature or less relevant than other mediums such as film (which has merits in its own right).

So why study specifically Shakespeare in literature classes in America? Well, for starters America begins as a British Colony and Shakespeare is a British author. So in that sense he does form a backdrop of our cultural heritage. More importantly, the early Americans up until the 19th century saw Shakespeare as a seminal part of their cultural heritage (source (http://www.shakespeareinamericancommunities.org/education/shakespeare-america)). I would agree that somewhere in the 20th century Shakespeare lost some of his appeal to the masses. However, as already noted Shakespeare still thrives across the U.S., which all have well-attended Shakespeare festivals and Hollywood continually produces films based on the Bard's work, including modern takes, that do well in the box office. (relevant to our larger cultural history and a cross-section of the literate population).

More importantly, Shakespeare's plays when you get to their core are about universal experiences and feelings that all people can relate to across time period and cultures, hence why his popularity has endured. He is relevant to people's everyday lives precisely for that reason. While not everyone walks around depressed like Hamlet, I think most people at some point in their lives have felt life was pointlessness and questioned if its all meaningless ("How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world.") So despite the antiquated language, the situations within the plays, the character's feelings and thoughts are still relatable to a modern person, still, in fact, speaks to our experiences as people living in a contemporary world (reason for study).

He is considered by most scholars to be one of the best, if not the best, writer in English. Since I already gave reasons for why we should study literature and the arts in the first place, the reason to study Shakespeare in those classes is that if students are going to study literature it makes sense that they should study the best literature has to offer. (reason for study).

Anyone who has spent time actually reading other works of literature, both new and old, American or otherwise, knows that Shakespeare allusions and references abound in literature. So to fully understand other literature that let's for the sake of argument say is more relevant, requires you to have some working knowledge of Shakespeare's works. In other words, Shakespeare is a seminal part of studying literature as a discipline in general (reason for study).

[zoolane]

It seems like art arose out of a need to communicate ideas to non-literate societies. Sort of the way a totem poel told the history of a tribe to its memebers.

Now that everyone can read, what's the point really? Is there anything that art can express that can't just as easily be communicated through speach? Forgive me if I sound a little crude, but I've been reading about the ongoing debate about the role of the arts in public schools and I'm just kind of curious how you all feel about this. Does art really have anything to offer students? Should it be taught at the expense of mathematics and science?

For instance, why go to an art exhibit? What could that offer me?

Art of any sort such writing, singing, painting is creative outlet which people need to able to express their self thought what ever mean possible clothes they wear or music listen. Everyone should have creative outlet to release inner fears or happy in their self.

If you were suppression and not be able express yourself ideas or feeling creative it can have dangerous effect I think.

Why everyone should going to art exhibit ail least second in their life time?
Because show different culture and ideas of life and different aspect. Maybe might sparkle of something in you.

[JCamilo]

Patently ridiculous. The vast majority of people I would wager know the story of David and Goliath. That story takes up about half a page in the book of Samuel. So does that mean because I know the story of David and Goliath that I have a working knowledge of the Bible? Patently ridiculous.

Sorry, Sir. But your exampel was a line of a movie by Clint Eastwood, far from his more popular those days. I gave you more. And those are examples of those identidy you admire in the Jews. They do not need to know all texts, they do however know about it.

And we are not talking about knowleage, but the casual modern manifestation.




See my above post. Anyone can get into a museum or art exhibit nowdays. Anyone can goto a Barnes & Noble and buy Heidigger. Does that mean these folks produce for the general audience? Patently ridiculous.

Shakespeare is not a museum. He wrote to general audience because this audience was his income source. They could understand him? Like a specialist, no. But he did wrote to them, one can easily see how his plays are filled with popular themes, his comedies, etc. He is not Francis Bacon.




Only because of the predominance of English in the modern world. If he had lived in Lithuania nobody would've ever heard of him. I'm sure if Croatian was a world wide language Ivo Andric would be the most popular writer ever, but since it isn't we don't know about him.

Sure, then why not some other author? The english predominance raises at the end of XIX century. Shakespeare english was even outdated. You had Poe's tales written to general public, you had Kipling fables, you had H.G.Wells, Faulkner... I dunno who, but it is Shakespeare, an outdated english writer who wrote no prose. It is rather obvious, his quality helps a lot. And saddly for Americans, english is more predominant for then than for brazilians.



Negative. The vast majority of hollywood films EVER produced have absolutely nothing to do with Shakespeare.

Which is not what I claimed. He is the main source, which implies only that from all sources Hollywood has, he is the most used. And Surprisingly, unlike your claim, Movies, Hollywood, modern american culture shows Shakespeare relevance. It would be much easier if you were aiming Cervantes...




Again, see above. People having heard of Romeo and Juliet and having some vague idea of what the story consists of doesn't mean much. People have heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Is Aesop part of their cultural expierence as well? Not really...but I wouldn't deny that there are a handfull of stories from the past that are still used in application to everyday life. The question is: are these mere specs on the cultural map enough to warrant teaching the entire Western Cannon of art and literature and making it far and away the predominant focus of art programs? Probably not.

Well, Fables are efficient because they are always part of their cultural experience, but anyways, what place you are talking about? Kids are not taught the whole Western Cannon.




Again, we actually need this stuff though. Americans have a cultural life - movies, music, sports, etc. Apparently the culture they grew up with isn't good enough so we cram archaic works down their throats. This I find morally repugnant.

You dont. Science is irrelevant for most people. I have use for biology as I have fishes, but a hundred more usefull is the fact I know Shakespeare. It actually the reason why people pay me to write. The creationist debate over evolution actually shows how irrelevant science can be in teaching.




Why? Why not teach dog shows as well? Its just as relevant to most people as Shakespeare.

Yes, you would probally be happy to know, so schools probally teach people to handle horses. I am sure hunting was considered part of education at some time.

[aliengirl]

I was attracted by the first post of this thread and have read most of the replies. I won't try to give any answer to the original question as it has been answered in the most satisfactory way by St. Luke and others. It seems that OP wants to continue argument for the sake of argument. For your kind information I don't watch much Hollywood movies or movies from other countries (you know others too produce movies). I don't watch much sports. But I don't think I lead a purposeless life. Also the OP seems to treat art in a confined manner. Art and culture does not mean only American culture or European art. Try to read about other culture for example Indian and Chinese and then you'll discover what role art has played in the development of human civilization.

[Rores28]

Whoa, nothing has been whittled at all here. Nobody is discussing this seriously - just alot of hot air about "opening minds" and "enriching ones soul". Fluff is all I've heard thus far.

My original question in post #1 - I can't see how this isn't bound up with my other question of why teach the classics.

What purpose does art serve? Creates common experiences that can relayed through a common cultural dialogue. If Shakespeare (I'm just using him as an example of all classics) isn't part of a common cultural experience why bother?

Troll sighting confirmed.

[G L Wilson]

The man is no troll. He is defending the indefensible but he is no troll. He must deepen his argument certainly, however I cannot see how he can without defeating his purpose. As an old Schoolman once said, Learn everything as you never know what might be of use. It was true then and it is true now.

[prickly_pete]

This has become more a discussion about Shakespeare than it is about curriculum. I'm just using Shakespeare as an example, but really I question the applicability of teaching any of the classics in school.

I mean the facts speak for themselves. The vast majority of people don't read Shakespare at all. The vast majority don't go to the theatre. The vast majority don't want anything to do with books on theory of drama, stage, lighting etc (it might do ya'll some good to note here how reading drama is something quite different than actually experiencing it which, again, just reenforces the reality that this is stuff from an era completely foreign to our own). Shakespeare constitutes absolutely no part of the everyday thinking of the vast majority of people. Just live with it, the interest is absolutely not there. Shakespeare's been marching a slow retreat from English departments for at least the last hundred years (probably due at least in part to the VAST amount of quality literature produced in the last century that inspires more interest and has more applicability) so obviously I'm not the only one who thinks along these same lines. It's plainly acknowledged by most.

I'm sorry but this "cultural heritage" bit has gotten way out of control and seems fundamentally reactionary in nature. If we clung to this "cultural heritage" you all find so sacred we'd still be painting on cavewalls and worshipping statues. Grow up. Things change. Societies change. Cultures change. The fact that Shakespeare is a dead letter isn't hurting anybody - its just the result of natural evolutions (most of which we have no control over) in our society.

Would you be suprised if some primitive tribe in the Amazon rejected Shakespeare too? Of course not, because it's completely foreign to their cultural world - there's no way that they could take something from a drastically different society and apply it to their everyday lives. But somehow for us its different because we have this "cultural heritage" we have to worry about. As if Shakespeare wrote with the audience of some radically different society in mind. It's really absurd.

[G L Wilson]

"History is bunk." That's not bad for an anti-semite, in fact, it is a lesser evil.

[JCamilo]

Would you be suprised if some primitive tribe in the Amazon rejected Shakespeare too? Of course not, because it's completely foreign to their cultural world - there's no way that they could take something from a drastically different society and apply it to their everyday lives. But somehow for us its different because we have this "cultural heritage" we have to worry about. As if Shakespeare wrote with the audience of some radically different society in mind. It's really absurd.


The funny thing is that I saw a man with not education, unable to read, in a countryside in the obscure country of the amazons to storytell Chaucer and Chaucer was not even fully published in portuguese in brazil. But of course, classical art has no saying on today and everyone who takes as hot bath needs to know physics...

[G L Wilson]

The funny thing is that I saw a man with not education, unable to read, in a countryside in the obscure country of the amazons to storytell Chaucer and Chaucer was not even fully published in portuguese in brazil. But of course, classical art has no saying on today and everyone who takes as hot bath needs to know physics...

Aren't there a lot of poo jokes in Chaucer?

[prickly_pete]

classical art has no saying on today

Sorry mate. Shoot, even the scholars of art have no access to the cultures that produced the works they're claiming to be interpreting faithfully. It's really ludicris to pretend like we have access to the coneptual world of people that lived 500, 1000, or 2000 years ago. Beyond hair-brained stupid.

[G L Wilson]

Sorry mate. Shoot, even the scholars of art have no access to the cultures that produced the works they're claiming to be interpreting faithfully. It's really ludicris to pretend like we have access to the coneptual world of people that lived 500, 1000, or 2000 years ago. Beyond hair-brained stupid.

Sorry, mate, but humanity is not limited to the space inside your head.

[Rores28]

PP you seem to be permanently stuck in combat mode. Off damned mode!

[Drkshadow03]

Shakespeare's been marching a slow retreat from English departments for at least the last hundred years (probably due at least in part to the VAST amount of quality literature produced in the last century that inspires more interest and has more applicability) so obviously I'm not the only one who thinks along these same lines. It's plainly acknowledged by most.


Repeating the same tired argument that has already been debunked by every member on this thread doesn't magically prove your argument no matter how many times you repeat it and throw a temper tantrum about it.

Where do you have any evidence that Shakespeare has "been marching a slow retreat from English departments for at least the last hundred years?" As an English Major who has attended minimally 3 different colleges, everyone of them offered multiple Shakespeare courses every semester. In fact, I'm pretty confident just about every university's English department offers a Shakespeare course once a semester minimum. So what evidence are you presenting that demonstrates Shakespeare is slowly retreating from English departments besides you just making stuff up?

Well, apparently since you cannot find another member on this forum thus far who agrees with you there can't be a lot of people who are "thinking[ing] along these same lines" and it's clearly not "plainly acknowledged by most."

[prickly_pete]

Repeating the same tired argument that has already been debunked by every member on this thread doesn't magically prove your argument no matter how many times you repeat it and throw a temper tantrum about it.

Whoa player - I'm not mad about anything. Just dissapointed that some folks seem unwilling to listen to a dissenting voice. It is true that Shakespeare is still read, but his prominence in English departments isn't anywhere near what it once was because - as I mentioned before - Shakespeare has to compete with other authors. The college I'm planning on attending is not planning a single Shakespeare course for Fall 2011. I could post the syllabus if you like? Bowdoin - which is right down the road and one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country - offered 23 courses in their English department for Spring 2011 only one of which offered Shakespeare and that was a special interest course confined specifically to the Sonnets. You need me to post that syllabus too?

In most high school's Shakespeare has been phased out almost entirely aside from maybe the token reading of Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet that teachers still feel the need to cling to. American literature is far more popular probably, I would guess, because someone came to their senses and realized the massive societal changes that have occured in the last 400 years (you know nothing big, just the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, World War II, emancipation of women) and realized that the needed to switch things up just get students to begin caring again.

I mean, you must be aware that this is an ongoing cultural debate - whether classics or 'great books' should even by taught anymore. What about The Closing of the American Mind? What do you think inspired that work? What about Harold Bloom's ranting? Surely thats a response to some challenge. Roger Scruton? I mean, there's mountains of material by widely respected scholars addressing this same issue we're talking about now so don't act as though questioning the legitimacy of teaching Shakespeare is akin to saying the earth is flat. This has been a heated academic debate for some time now.

When is it really enough though? How long should we continue to hold on to these relics from the past - 1000 years? 5,000 years? In 25,000 years should students be reading Shakespeare?

How long are we going to ignore the avalanche of art that's been produced just within the last 10 years nevermind the last 50 or 100? Why restrict ourselves to material produced 400 years ago by people who lived in radically different societies from our own? I'm no scholar but I know these aren't questions that can be flippantly tossed aside with "We're English - Shakespeare was English - Shakespeare needs to be taught" erat quod demonstradum. As if its obvious.

[Rores28]

Grade A trolling.

[Drkshadow03]

Whoa player - I'm not mad about anything. Just dissapointed that some folks seem unwilling to listen to a dissenting voice. It is true that Shakespeare is still read, but his prominence in English departments isn't anywhere near what it once was because - as I mentioned before - Shakespeare has to compete with other authors. The college I'm planning on attending is not planning a single Shakespeare course for Fall 2011. I could post the syllabus if you like? Bowdoin - which is right down the road and one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country - offered 23 courses in their English department for Spring 2011 only one of which offered Shakespeare and that was a special interest course confined specifically to the Sonnets. You need me to post that syllabus too?

In most high school's Shakespeare has been phased out almost entirely aside from maybe the token reading of Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet that teachers still feel the need to cling to. American literature is far more popular probably, I would guess, because someone came to their senses and realized the massive societal changes that have occured in the last 400 years (you know nothing big, just the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, World War II, emancipation of women) and realized that the needed to switch things up just get students to begin caring again.

I mean, you must be aware that this is an ongoing cultural debate - whether classics or 'great books' should even by taught anymore. What about The Closing of the American Mind? What do you think inspired that work? What about Harold Bloom's ranting? Surely thats a response to some challenge. Roger Scruton? I mean, there's mountains of material by widely respected scholars addressing this same issue we're talking about now so don't act as though questioning the legitimacy of teaching Shakespeare is akin to saying the earth is flat. This has been a heated academic debate for some time now.

When is it really enough though? How long should we continue to hold on to these relics from the past - 1000 years? 5,000 years? In 25,000 years should students be reading Shakespeare?

How long are we going to ignore the avalanche of art that's been produced just within the last 10 years nevermind the last 50 or 100? Why restrict ourselves to material produced 400 years ago by people who lived in radically different societies from our own? I'm no scholar but I know these aren't questions that can be flippantly tossed aside with "We're English - Shakespeare was English - Shakespeare needs to be taught" erat quod demonstradum. As if its obvious.

Checking out Bowdoin, there is one course on Shakespeare's sonnets and at least two courses that include Shakespeare's works (Intro to Drama and Renaissance Sexuality) for the Spring 2011 semester. I also checked a few of the previous semesters course offerings (not all of them) and they all pretty much had a course on Shakespeare and a couple of broader courses that included Shakespeare's work each semester. The Atheist gave a similar argument when we had a similar debate about the relevancy of the Bible for literature studies. On average there was about one Bible as literature class per a semester at most of the universities I checked. The problem, of course, is try the same thing with any of newer contemporary writers or Chaucer or Virginia Woolf or whomever and most likely there will only be one course also. Does that mean no author is relevant because they only get one course a semester and in some cases those contemporary writers only get one course every two years? Meanwhile, as already noted there is an entire course on Shakespeare's work every semester and other courses that include his work each semester as well, so he is over-represented compared to the rest of them. Both you and the atheist in his previous argument act like if Work X is really that important than there should be 9 courses per a semester offered. None this really speaks to importance or relevance of these works; all this really means is there are only X amount of English majors per a semester and Y amount of instructors to offer courses who don't want to continually teach the same exact course over and over again.

I am not arguing we should restrict ourselves to the last 400 years. On this point I am sympathetic and even in agreement to an extent. I think it's good to read contemporary literature and for it to be taught at universities and in some cases high school. And most universities offer a course or two on contemporary work (although far less than they offer Shakespeare from my experience).

I think you're falsely creating a golden age of Shakespeare's plays in high school to make your point as if once upon time people used to read ALL of Shakespeare's play. When my parents went to school they read about 2 - 3 of Shakespeare's plays in high school (about the same amount most high schoolers read it today).

I'm well aware of the culture war debates. The debate is basically between younger hippy art critics/English majors versus other older generation art critic/English majors. If you look at most English departments course offerings they seem a compromise between both sides. And personally I agree with both sides. We should read more contemporary works (more previously excluded works such as Science Fiction), more people of color, more women writers, but I also think we shouldn't jettison all the great works of the past because newer works build off of them, they are time tested, and they still have plenty to offer us.

[G L Wilson]

prickly_pete is not a troll! Look at the Shakespeare Discussion Group below on this forum and tell me it's not dead. He has a point. I, for one, am willing to hear it.

[mortalterror]

We should read more contemporary works (more previously excluded works such as Science Fiction), more people of color, more women writers, but I also think we shouldn't jettison all the great works of the past because newer works build off of them, they are time tested, and they still have plenty to offer us.

I disagree. As far as time goes, education is a zero sum game. You only have so many teachable hours, and so every time you ad something you have to exclude something else. You can't tell me that nothing is lost dropping Homer from the curriculum for contemporary, lesbian, minority writer #4. If the professor wants to teach lesbian fiction then he should teach Sappho. If they want to teach Spanish heritage then have students read Cervantes. And if they want contemporary texts, have them read Marquez. The Joy Luck Club and M Butterfly are not as central to the Asian experience as Confucius or Du Fu. I know that as an American it's my patriotic responsibility to salute the colors, but why should I be reading William Dean Howells when I could be reading Dante, or at least Melville?

[prickly_pete]

Both you and the atheist in his previous argument act like if Work X is really that important than there should be 9 courses per a semester offered.

Yeah, I can understand how one would think that based on my previous post. My only point was to draw attention to the massive difference in the space Shakespeare occupies in the academic life of a contemporary student versus a student - or really any member of the aristocratic class - two or three hundred years ago. I would seriously doubt the average English major these days has anywhere near the same grasp and knowledge of Shakespeare as an English major just a century ago. This is largely a result of the fact that most of the people in college these days have no classical education, no training in rhetoric, or any of the tools you'd need to really experience Shakespeare fully...this would include, I believe, a majority of English majors.

Like I've said, if we were drilling students in rhetoric, prosody, and if theatre was an active part of their everyday lives - Shakespeare by all means, sure. For whatever reason though a classical education has fallen into disrepute and as such I don't much see the point of giving them Shakespeare when they're illequipped to approach it.

[G L Wilson]

Yeah, I can understand how one would think that based on my previous post. My only point was to draw attention to the massive difference in the space Shakespeare occupies in the academic life of a contemporary student versus a student - or really any member of the aristocratic class - two or three hundred years ago. I would seriously doubt the average English major these days has anywhere near the same grasp and knowledge of Shakespeare as an English major just a century ago. This is largely a result of the fact that most of the people in college these days have no classical education, no training in rhetoric, or any of the tools you'd need to really experience Shakespeare fully...this would include, I believe, a majority of English majors.

Like I've said, if we were drilling students in rhetoric, prosody, and if theatre was an active part of their everyday lives - Shakespeare by all means, sure. For whatever reason though a classical education has fallen into disrepute and as such I don't much see the point of giving them Shakespeare when they're illequipped to approach it.

What does Latin have to do with Shakespeare?

[JCamilo]

Not much, just like 300 years ago, Shakespare was object of study of just a handful of writers and drama workers. It will only be so present in education when he was bowderlized or the Lambs's versions were published.

Those are not good claims: he either say nobody knows Romeo and Juliet then he says Shakespeare is massive imposed on students. Those two things cann't co-exist: Either Shakespeare is very read by students (which would know his works, making him as present as Stephen King) or not.

[G L Wilson]

Shakespeare is a massive impost on the young. But as I have grown older, I have grown to love him. And if I was a teacher, I would want to pass on that love to my students. Anything given in love is a gift indeed, I think.

[IceM]

I'm of the camp that thinks that art (included in this are artworks, music and literature, just for specification) is a mechanism for expansion on the human experience. Math and science certainly have their practicality. Yet the amount of people who choose to appreciate one field of study or another is irrelevant. Greatness is not defined by numbers. Those artworks, as are those thinkers, writers, musicians and other individuals who we consider great, have in some way expanded upon the possible experience life can offer us. Great art, at least in my premature appreciation of it, is that which captures anything else undefinable by another expression. What act of math, science, history or health could inspire my soul to reach the heights I feel when listening to 1812 Overture or Liebestraum, when reading Borges's or Shakespeare's Sonnets, when looking at Cole's or David's paintings?

The intention of teaching the humanities, or any subject in general, is to expose the students to the various fields of study, educate them in the cultural arts throughout history, and provide the basis for having fundamental abilities in the various fields of study. Beyond algebra, I cannot think of any math I'll need if I never major in that field. Similarly with science: I perhaps won't need chemistry. Or music appreciation. Or anything. But by having a solid exposure to the various fields, and the humanities, I can say I've been exposed to the means by which my thoughts, experiences and abilities to experience have been expanded, providing a means of living a more satisfactory, more enjoyable life.

[Delta40]

No it just distracts me from bus stop advertisments.

[kathreeds]

The critically important role of the arts in the academy, as in life, is to enable us to see the world and the human condition differently, and in seeing the world through a particular work of art, to see a truth we might not have understood before.

We should encourage students to take courses that will unlock their intuitive and creative impulses.

Regards,
Kath

[prickly_pete]

Those are not good claims: he either say nobody knows Romeo and Juliet then he says Shakespeare is massive imposed on students. Those two things cann't co-exist: Either Shakespeare is very read by students (which would know his works, making him as present as Stephen King) or not.

*sighs*

OK, that is not what I'm saying at all. I've never once in this thread said nobody has heard of Romeo and Juliet. Pretty much most people have some vague idea of the story the same way most people have some vague idea of David in Goliath. But does it - and the classics in general - hold the same cultural importance as a totem pole would for a tribe in the Pacific Northwest? As the Iliad once did for the Greeks? Do they hold the same cultural importance as the Koran does in the Middle East? Do they hold the same cultural importance that they once held to the aristocratic classes in the Western World? Do they hold the same cultural importance as popular music and movies do for us now? The answer - I think - is unequivocally no. And in that sense I'm asking what the purpose is of teaching them the same way - I would imagine - someone in Pakistan would ask 'why?' if schools suddenly started teaching Confusious.

It doesn't have any bearing on our conceptual world. I'd even go far as to say that all of the people who do read the classics that this is just a hobby and doesn't have any bearing on their conceptual world either - it can't I don't think, we're too firmly entrenched in our own culture and epoch to undergo the type of world-chaning transformations you're all suggesting are possible. It would be very difficult (well, impossible actually) for the Iliad to be experienced and lived the same way it was for the Greeks because for that to happen we'd have to be in a position where we could accept that natural phenomena are caused by Gods, objects have personalities, etc. In the same way to fully experience and live Shakespeare we'd have to be entrenched in a world where blood feuds, laying ones life down for Kings, and writing sonnets for our sweethearts was considered common practice. This simply isn't possible. Such behavior today is laughable if not extraordinarily dangerous.

We don't have access to that society, that world anymore. I think its monumentally arrogant to act like we do. We know that artists aren't tapping into some kind of "universal truth" (fluff) and that the cogency of their work is contingent on specific socio-historical conditions - why pretend otherwise? Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world? Why pretend like one artist (or one kind of artist) has a priveleged access to truth and the 'human condition'? These are antiquaited, reactionary, and long since debunked ways of looking at things.

If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter (again, not talking about all literature, just stuff that is no longer used by the vast majority of people) and something that should be reserved for specialists. Science isn't really part of our cultural life either, but its definitely part of our conceptual world. You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat.

[stlukesguild]

If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter and something that should be reserved for specialists.

Why? Because you say so? I probably shouldn't even renter this fray because it is obvious you are just trolling here... still, what knowledge base or subjects do you imagine are something lived and applied in our everyday social interactions? Calculus? Biology? Chemistry? Astrophysics? Theology? Philosophy? Psychology? Sociology? History? etc... etc...? Very few bodies of knowledge are necessary and have an application in our everyday transactions and dialog with others. We might agree that a common language is needed and perhaps some common reference points... but beyond that? The rest is elective... the choice of the individuals based upon their needs, their discipline and area of study and employment, their desires.

[prickly_pete]

Very few bodies of knowledge are necessary and have an application in our everyday transactions and dialog with others.

You're confused. We might not all be physiologists but a basic understanding of the human body is built into our conceptual understanding of the world and this doesn't have anything to do with schooling or instruction. Even people with no education to speak of, even a 5th grade drop out, knows that if s/he's sick s/he should goto the drug store and get some Robitusson instead of, say, trying to get the evil spirits out of their body through bleeding. Where or how one aquires this I'm not quite sure, but at any rate its obvious it doesn't happen because you took a course on nutrition.

What does this mean? It means from birth we've aquired the conceptual world typical to people living in modern technological societies and that we've already learned 'how things are done' in other words. Apply this to art then, we're approaching, say, the Iliad with alot of conceptual baggage. The natural world is just part of that baggage (a major part of it), but we're part of a particular social and cultural world that brings its own baggage as well. We're not living in an aristocratic society. We don't exchange women as gifts. We don't consult oracles. We don't go down to our ships and cry because our war prize was taken from us and ask the Gods to help the opposition gain ground in the war. This is all behavior that is indicative of a primitive society that we no longer have access to which prevents us from living that art - applying it to our daily lives - in any real way.

By contrast if I watch the NBA Finals and see a nice crossover I can attempt to use that in the intraumural league I play in. If I see a popular movie with a funny line I can apply that to any number of situations. I can play popular music in the car and we can all sing along to it. I see the clothing in a music video and if I think it complements my physique I can try and emulate it. This, this is what art is about and the only way it can truly be lived.

The same isn't true of the Iliad. That cannot be used. It might, broadly speaking, have general themes (war, jealousy, etc.) that are common to all human societies but all books manifest some general themes such as these. What matters though is whether they can be lived in any real way. We might enjoy the Iliad as a story, but the drastically different society in which it was created prevents it from actually being lived...

...so go ahead and try to run down to a ship and cry because your war trophy was taken, or act like trees have personalities, make a pledge to die for Obama, or take your lover down to a river bank and read sonnets for all I care. Isn't going to get you very far.

[JCamilo]

*sighs*

OK, that is not what I'm saying at all. I've never once in this thread said nobody has heard of Romeo and Juliet. Pretty much most people have some vague idea of the story the same way most people have some vague idea of David in Goliath.


Pete, you clearly said a hundred times people do not read Shakespeare, the majority of people does not. I will repeat: If Shakespeare is imposed over students as reading obligation, then a lot of people would have read it (and not have just a vague idea about it). Simple as that.


But does it - and the classics in general - hold the same cultural importance as a totem pole would for a tribe in the Pacific Northwest?

I cannt logically compare a vague unespecific object to a real one with precision, which totem? Lets put on perspective: some classics are sacred actually. Try to destroy a Last Super painting on a church and you will see the importance of it.


As the Iliad once did for the Greeks?

While I do not address to the notion that the Greeks had no sacred text, the fact is 500 years after homer, the Iliad was used as teaching material for greek youth. But fail to me how an oral, almost pre-writing society can be equal to a society like a modern one.



Do they hold the same cultural importance as the Koran does in the Middle East?

Obviously not. But then, Darwin has no importance there. You would need to write him off the curriculum too.
I would say, despite the part of the Koran which condem the poets as liars, they are fairy liberal on teaching art. But again, if Shakespeare has less importance thna the Koran, we must point out, that the Koran is mandatory to all muslims and not just the book, but the idiom, which they must recite everyday, which implies how it is more improtant than Shakespeare, as I doubt that schools do more discussing him a few classes.
Also, Lets just point out: except for religion itself, the Koran is not useful. Just like Shakespeare, it does not brings doctors, lawyers, engineers, drivers, cookers, etc. And it is of course, doctrined. Nobody is born with culture in his brain.


Do they hold the same cultural importance that they once held to the aristocratic classes in the Western World?

You insist with it? The importance of Shakespeare to the aristocracy is minimal. The guy was preserved by scholars, poets until the romantic movement. It was Milton, Pope, Champman, etc the guys who worked with shakespeare in the majority. Not lord Blah and King buh. And when Shakespeare returned the only aristocratic that gave him importance was Lord Byron. Coleridge, Wordsworth, Dr.Johnson are not members of the aristocracy at all.


Do they hold the same cultural importance as popular music and movies do for us now?

Probally more. You pick a critery and say: do they have the same importance. I pick another: The author which adaptations of his works won more Oscars? Shakespeare. How this is lacking importance? (It is illogical to pretend things must have more importance, they just need to be important. Newton has less importance today, lets wipe out his classes).




The answer - I think - is unequivocally no. And in that sense I'm asking what the purpose is of teaching them the same way - I would imagine - someone in Pakistan would ask 'why?' if schools suddenly started teaching Confusious.

But then it goes; Shakespeare is part of the heritage and culture of America. The evidences are all there. Commun used expressions, constantly publishing, drama adaptations, continual references, and hollywood constant apaptation. It is actually quite natural to the average american to have to have some shakespearean notion.

Like i told you, it is not like it is Cervantes or Dante or Goethe. Which I bet are minimaly taught in America. So, it is not like at all if you are teaching Confucio in Pakistan (I am sure however, they would imediatelly reckonize the universal vallues of his philosophy, as they the same anywhere. Or you will use the absurd chrnologic critery to dismiss philosophy as well?)


It doesn't have any bearing on our conceptual world. I'd even go far as to say that all of the people who do read the classics that this is just a hobby and doesn't have any bearing on their conceptual world either -

Dude, enterteiment is one most prolific industries in the world. Propaganda, movies, music, comic books, video-clips, television... they produce professionals from the same class that will come the engineer and they will need all reference in the world. A script writter who only know Stephen king will lose his job to the dude who know Stephen King and the classics. When those guys are making any product, they do not care if it was from 1500 or 2000. They will use all. After all, the capital of United States architeture is based on Roman Empire architeture, this classical art manifestation 1800 years after.


it can't I don't think, we're too firmly entrenched in our own culture and epoch to undergo the type of world-chaning transformations you're all suggesting are possible. It would be very difficult (well, impossible actually) for the Iliad to be experienced and lived the same way it was for the Greeks because for that to happen we'd have to be in a position where we could accept that natural phenomena are caused by Gods, objects have personalities, etc. In the same way to fully experience and live Shakespeare we'd have to be entrenched in a world where blood feuds, laying ones life down for Kings, and writing sonnets for our sweethearts was considered common practice. This simply isn't possible. Such behavior today is laughable if not extraordinarily dangerous.

I am not even remotelly suggesting we experiment Shakespeare as did their peers. I am saying we experiment it, that is all, you know on earth and all we kneed to know.


We don't have access to that society, that world anymore. I think its monumentally arrogant to act like we do. We know that artists aren't tapping into some kind of "universal truth" (fluff) and that the cogency of their work is contingent on specific socio-historical conditions - why pretend otherwise? Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world? Why pretend like one artist (or one kind of artist) has a priveleged access to truth and the 'human condition'? These are antiquaited, reactionary, and long since debunked ways of looking at things.

I would point that the way you have experience with Harry Potter is different from the way DrkShadow have. Art is not the explanation, thus everyone experience is different. Does not matter if it is created now, 1 century ago or thousand years.


If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter (again, not talking about all literature, just stuff that is no longer used by the vast majority of people) and something that should be reserved for specialists. Science isn't really part of our cultural life either, but its definitely part of our conceptual world. You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat.

Wait, you will have serious difficulties in real world if yu try to be a script writer which has no idea who Shakespeare is.

However, knowing earth is round (this is not really Science, which is the study of facts, not the facts themselves) has no effect on life of 90% of the population. Taxi drivers care less for this. However, some people seem to think man didnt land on moon...

And voilla´, many poeple has this kind of supersticions yet, but the only people who will really have problem are doctors. I do not need (i do) to know what caused my diabets, but the doctor. All the rest of the world can live with the idea it is caused by eating toooo much sugar.

Knowing thermodinamycs is not a pre-requisite for a hot shower.

[JCamilo]

You're confused. We might not all be physiologists but a basic understanding of the human body is built into our conceptual understanding of the world and this doesn't have anything to do with schooling or instruction. Even people with no education to speak of, even a 5th grade drop out, knows that if s/he's sick s/he should goto the drug store and get some Robitusson instead of, say, trying to get the evil spirits out of their body through bleeding. Where or how one aquires this I'm not quite sure, but at any rate its obvious it doesn't happen because you took a course on nutrition.

You know obviously, you should go to the doctor because you have no knowledge about the disease, biochemestry and just getting some drugs is a supersticion as modern as demons on fax-machines?

[prickly_pete]

If we're going to have a debate could we stick to debating our respective points in a summary way instead of just breaking it all down into 36 quotes and responding to them individually? This was as far as I bothered to get:


But fail to me how an oral, almost pre-writing society can be equal to a society like a modern one.

Bingo! And that would apply equally to pre-industrial revolution societies and all that came with it. You're right on the money now, finally! Thank you.

[JCamilo]

I am vastly trained to read in any style. Be it breaking lines or not. I have no problems with that - It is a bit like reading a play.

Anyways, bingo, all your comparassions makes no sense then?

[prickly_pete]

You know obviously, you should go to the doctor because you have no knowledge about the disease, biochemestry and just getting some drugs is a supersticion as modern as demons on fax-machines?

Yeah, cough drops are a superstition lol.

Look at what I've reduced some of you to. I'm dropping knowledge some cats can't even handle.

[JCamilo]

Seriously? Cough drops are not a cure for disease. It is exactly the kind of argument that some will tell you: despite all biological knowledge you have to study, your daily life has no application to it. Cough drops do the same effect as our old aunties teas, some small treat on effects, nothing else. It does not tell you anything about the disease you may have (which is caused by factors the cough drops wont treat), which is up for a doctor to tell you: dude, cough drops do not heal tuberculosis...

[prickly_pete]

Wow, just wow.

[IceM]

*sighs*


It doesn't have any bearing on our conceptual world. I'd even go far as to say that all of the people who do read the classics that this is just a hobby and doesn't have any bearing on their conceptual world either - it can't I don't think, we're too firmly entrenched in our own culture and epoch to undergo the type of world-chaning transformations you're all suggesting are possible. It would be very difficult (well, impossible actually) for the Iliad to be experienced and lived the same way it was for the Greeks because for that to happen we'd have to be in a position where we could accept that natural phenomena are caused by Gods, objects have personalities, etc. In the same way to fully experience and live Shakespeare we'd have to be entrenched in a world where blood feuds, laying ones life down for Kings, and writing sonnets for our sweethearts was considered common practice. This simply isn't possible. Such behavior today is laughable if not extraordinarily dangerous.

We don't have access to that society, that world anymore. I think its monumentally arrogant to act like we do. We know that artists aren't tapping into some kind of "universal truth" (fluff) and that the cogency of their work is contingent on specific socio-historical conditions - why pretend otherwise? Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world? Why pretend like one artist (or one kind of artist) has a priveleged access to truth and the 'human condition'? These are antiquaited, reactionary, and long since debunked ways of looking at things.

If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter (again, not talking about all literature, just stuff that is no longer used by the vast majority of people) and something that should be reserved for specialists. Science isn't really part of our cultural life either, but its definitely part of our conceptual world. You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat.

I disagree with a lot here. I will agree, however, that our culture isn't the same as that of Homer's, Shakespeare's, Chaucer's, and everyone else whose work is considered to be a classic. But so what? One would think that the distinct differences between the two cultures would create a greater interest in the works tells us, not what is told within the work. Certainly I will not cry out to Zeus if my girlfriend dumps me. But the cultural void between my day and Homer's should tell me, that, while the literal cultural idiosyncracies (polytheism, women as gifts) are different, there must be something of metaphysical worth in that work. I believe Coleridge called it the "suspension of disbelief." We understand what occured isn't real, yet can still appreciate what the art has to offer.

That being said, literature, as does music and art, expresses what could not otherwise be expressed. I maintain, what events could capture the similar beauty of 1812 Overture, of Liebestraum, of works only art is capable of presenting. The humanities enlargen and enhance our ability to experience the conceptual world. They enhance creativity and build empathy. That alone is priceless.


You're confused. We might not all be physiologists but a basic understanding of the human body is built into our conceptual understanding of the world and this doesn't have anything to do with schooling or instruction. Even people with no education to speak of, even a 5th grade drop out, knows that if s/he's sick s/he should goto the drug store and get some Robitusson instead of, say, trying to get the evil spirits out of their body through bleeding. Where or how one aquires this I'm not quite sure, but at any rate its obvious it doesn't happen because you took a course on nutrition.

What does this mean? It means from birth we've aquired the conceptual world typical to people living in modern technological societies and that we've already learned 'how things are done' in other words. Apply this to art then, we're approaching, say, the Iliad with alot of conceptual baggage. The natural world is just part of that baggage (a major part of it), but we're part of a particular social and cultural world that brings its own baggage as well. We're not living in an aristocratic society. We don't exchange women as gifts. We don't consult oracles. We don't go down to our ships and cry because our war prize was taken from us and ask the Gods to help the opposition gain ground in the war. This is all behavior that is indicative of a primitive society that we no longer have access to which prevents us from living that art - applying it to our daily lives - in any real way.

By contrast if I watch the NBA Finals and see a nice crossover I can attempt to use that in the intraumural league I play in. If I see a popular movie with a funny line I can apply that to any number of situations. I can play popular music in the car and we can all sing along to it. I see the clothing in a music video and if I think it complements my physique I can try and emulate it. This, this is what art is about and the only way it can truly be lived.

The same isn't true of the Iliad. That cannot be used. It might, broadly speaking, have general themes (war, jealousy, etc.) that are common to all human societies but all books manifest some general themes such as these. What matters though is whether they can be lived in any real way. We might enjoy the Iliad as a story, but the drastically different society in which it was created prevents it from actually being lived...

...so go ahead and try to run down to a ship and cry because your war trophy was taken, or act like trees have personalities, make a pledge to die for Obama, or take your lover down to a river bank and read sonnets for all I care. Isn't going to get you very far.

As Stluke as mentioned, if life were reduced to practicality and necessity, life would be narrowed, and even many of the great maths and sciences would be unnecessary to everyday living. The humanities provide experiences otherwise undefinable in your conceptual world. They expand upon our appreciation of life by creating what could not be created otherwise.



Look at what I've reduced some of you to. I'm dropping knowledge some cats can't even handle.

Don't flatter yourself.

[JCamilo]

You should not discuss with one who thinks the pratical use of Biology that you learn in school has anything to do with him going to a pharmacy and buying some drops for coughing.

Soon,we will only take bath with clear water after we learnt it is H20.

[prickly_pete]

metaphysical

So now we're not only trying to resserect dead literature, we're trying to ressurrect dead philosophical projects as well. Shoot, why not go back to human sacrifice while we're at it lol.

This thread is spiraling out of control lol.

[Drkshadow03]

I disagree with a lot here. I will agree, however, that our culture isn't the same as that of Homer's, Shakespeare's, Chaucer's, and everyone else whose work is considered to be a classic. But so what? One would think that the distinct differences between the two cultures would create a greater interest in the works tells us, not what is told within the work. Certainly I will not cry out to Zeus if my girlfriend dumps me. But the cultural void between my day and Homer's should tell me, that, while the literal cultural idiosyncracies (polytheism, women as gifts) are different, there must be something of metaphysical worth in that work. I believe Coleridge called it the "suspension of disbelief." We understand what occured isn't real, yet can still appreciate what the art has to offer.


I agree. Since one of the stated purposes of literature is to give us an insight into other time periods and cultures, this aspect of what literature or art does would increase the further an older culture moves away from our everyday cultural experiences.

However, I am always surprised when reading older worker just how little has changed. One scene that has always stood out to me in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is The Canon’s Assistant’s Tale. His tale is about a corrupt alchemist who tricks a priest out of his life-savings by performing sleight-of-hand tricks and pretending he can transmute coal into silver. Reading this I couldn't help think about Bernie Madoff ripping people off people and their life-savings. Sure, we no longer have alchemists, but the heart of this tale is a guy who dupes another out of his life-savings with the belief that by investing it in his arts he can make him richer.

There are other tales, archetypical characters, and situations in the book that have modern applicability and parallels too. I think the same could be said of Homer or Shakespeare or any ancient writer.

Most of us don't pray to Zeus anymore, but we still fight brutal wars where soldiers are kept long periods away from their families. It's not hard to imagine a modern soldier on tour for two years in Iraq and then kept on longer with stop-loss policy couldn't relate to Ancient Greek soldiers complaining about how long they've been away from their families fighting the Trojan war.

We might not all react with the age of Achilles or freak out because we didn't get the slave-girl we wanted (since that is foreign to our culture), but I'm sure most people at some point have felt horribly slighted and felt like they weren't given their just deserts by a boss or a parent or someone in charge of them. Some to the point of deciding, "I'll keep working here and do my time, until I'm ready to retire, but I'm never doing anything extra for that guy while he stills leads this company."

I think the power of literature is when we discover the universal (those experiences, situations, feelings, emotions that are naturally part of the human condition) within the particular (those elements that are part of different cultures and times).

[G L Wilson]

Knowledge is power, prickly_pete.

[IceM]

It'd be pointless to read fiction literally, knowing none of it is true.

Great works of literature are heralded classics because they offer each generation of reader something beneficial. It is the responsibility of each reader to decide the influence of the work on him or herself. You've chosen to reject my other pretenses that the humanities offer an experience that transcends your conceptual world. That is your decision, yet your rejection is not a rebuttal of my assertion.

Besides delivering a gratifying experience, the humanities provide knowledge and wisdom for those capable of receiving it. Two years removed from reading the Odyssey, I still find myself inspired by Ulysses's perseverance. Similarly, I find an affinity with Stephen Dedalus, with Tom Joad, with other characters whose experience provides me with knowledge I would not have received elsewhere. The bulk of that experience influences my judgment, and how I live.

Human sacrifice is a religious practice. I hope in your future postings you remain on-topic.

[prickly_pete]

You've chosen to reject my other pretenses that the humanities offer an experience that transcends your conceptual world.

You can't transcend your conceptual world - by definition even. There are some who operate in a different conceptual world than we do - these are the people on the subway having conversations with ghosts. You can't get outside of what you're already imposing on the world. The whole idea is laughable.

[prickly_pete]

It's not hard to imagine a modern soldier on tour for two years in Iraq and then kept on longer with stop-loss policy couldn't relate to Ancient Greek soldiers complaining about how long they've been away from their families fighting the Trojan war.

I've thought about this myself before. Actually I fought in Iraq (and I do mean fought, I wasn't some typewriter clerk sitting on a FOB all year) and one of the things that most struck me was how drastically different war is even compared to wars a few decades ago. There's no way that my and someone of the same rank who was at Stalingrad had even remotely similar experiences (aside from seeing people get killed). Generally speaking seeing someone get blown up is probably the same as it was 70 years ago but this is a pretty general level of abstraction and if we're going to work in generalities why would the Iliad be preferable to An Angel From Hell or Saving Private Ryan for that matter?

At any rate, I'm pretty skeptical about this line of reasoning - that art and literature is about affirming how we're all basically the same. Seems to do a great violence to the text, I would think, not to mention being a fairly uninspiring reason for reading at all.

[G L Wilson]

Then Odysseus wasn't suffering from post-traumatic stress in the Odyssey?

[My2cents]

I don't know if it's already been mentioned here, I'm thinking it has been, I can't imagine it being overlooked, but just in case it hasn't been touched upon, a major purpose of art is to give the reader, the viewer, the listener a vicarious experience of something that he/she would otherwise never really know what it would feel like to experience. It's something very intangible in other words, something that has no practical application, but for all that something very priceless and invaluable -- like a precious memory.

[G L Wilson]

I don't know if it's already been mentioned here, I'm thinking it has been, I can't imagine it being overlooked, but just in case it hasn't been touched upon, a major purpose of art is to give the reader, the viewer, the listener a vicarious experience of something that he/she would otherwise never really know what it would feel like to experience. It's something very intangible in other words, something that has no practical application, but for all that something very priceless and invaluable -- like a precious memory.

Absolutely spot on.

[WyattGwyon]

*sighs*

It doesn't have any bearing on our conceptual world. I'd even go far as to say that all of the people who do read the classics that this is just a hobby and doesn't have any bearing on their conceptual world either - it can't I don't think, we're too firmly entrenched in our own culture and epoch to undergo the type of world-chaning transformations you're all suggesting are possible. It would be very difficult (well, impossible actually) for the Iliad to be experienced and lived the same way it was for the Greeks because for that to happen we'd have to be in a position where we could accept that natural phenomena are caused by Gods, objects have personalities, etc. In the same way to fully experience and live Shakespeare we'd have to be entrenched in a world where blood feuds, laying ones life down for Kings, and writing sonnets for our sweethearts was considered common practice. This simply isn't possible. Such behavior today is laughable if not extraordinarily dangerous.

We don't have access to that society, that world anymore. I think its monumentally arrogant to act like we do. We know that artists aren't tapping into some kind of "universal truth" (fluff) and that the cogency of their work is contingent on specific socio-historical conditions - why pretend otherwise? Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world? Why pretend like one artist (or one kind of artist) has a priveleged access to truth and the 'human condition'? These are antiquaited, reactionary, and long since debunked ways of looking at things.

If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter (again, not talking about all literature, just stuff that is no longer used by the vast majority of people) and something that should be reserved for specialists. Science isn't really part of our cultural life either, but its definitely part of our conceptual world. You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat.

Nearly all of your examples of ancient beliefs and practices no longer relevant to our conceptual world are in fact still in common practice, you are just too literalistic to see it. Probably half of the world's population, including millions of born-agains in your country, do believe that natural phenomena are caused by gods—and if you consider existence a natural phenomenon, the percentage is much higher. Blood feuds?: Read any news from Mexico lately? Laying lives down for kings?: Is the quest for WMDs where they don't exist any more absurd a mission than recapturing some noble's tart? Heard of the Viet Nam War maybe? And people still write poetry and songs in pursuit of love. Did you actually put any thought at all into these examples?

This quotation proves you incapable of anything approaching critical thought:

"Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world?"

Uh, it's different because we aren't advocating death for those who don't appreciate Shakespeare; we aren't offering any particular book as a guide to specific ritualistic behavior, etc., etc. — once again, no though has gone into your statement.

"If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter"

You seem to be the only one in this discussion incapable of applying it to our everyday lives, as your ill-chosen examples all too amply illustrate.

"You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat."

How is thinking the earth's current species once took a boat-ride with a 956 year old man or that blowing one's self up in a murderous act to improve one's sex life substantially different than saying the earth is flat? And, of course, trees do have personalities.

In conclusion, you are either a troll or someone without the critical skills to carry on an intelligent conversation on these matters. In either case you aren't worth any more of my time.

[G L Wilson]

Nearly all of your examples of ancient beliefs and practices no longer relevant to our conceptual world are in fact still in common practice, you are just too literalistic to see it. Probably half of the world's population, including millions of born-agains in your country, do believe that natural phenomena are caused by gods—and if you consider existence a natural phenomenon, the percentage is much higher. Blood feuds?: Read any news from Mexico lately? Laying lives down for kings?: Is the quest for WMDs where they don't exist any more absurd a mission than recapturing some noble's tart? Heard of the Viet Nam War maybe? And people still write poetry and songs in pursuit of love. Did you actually put any thought at all into these examples?

This quotation proves you incapable of anything approaching critical thought:

"Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world?"

Uh, it's different because we aren't advocating death for those who don't appreciate Shakespeare; we aren't offering any particular book as a guide to specific ritualistic behavior, etc., etc. — once again, no though has gone into your statement.

"If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter"

You seem to be the only one in this discussion incapable of applying it to our everyday lives, as your ill-chosen examples all too amply illustrate.

"You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat."

How is thinking the earth's current species once took a boat-ride with a 956 year old man or that blowing one's self up in a murderous act to improve one's sex life substantially different than saying the earth is flat? And, of course, trees do have personalities.

In conclusion, you are either a troll or someone without the critical skills to carry on an intelligent conversation on these matters. In either case you aren't worth any more of my time.

He is not a troll. I can see his point but I cannot agree with it. What he seems to be saying is: why is classicism more substantial than modernism? And of course it isn't. He has invented a straw man which he likes to pound to relieve his stress. It is not doing him a lot of good but he is trying to find his way home after we sent him into a butcher's to fetch a pound of flesh. I don't think that prickly_ pete is an unthinking man, I think that he has been tortured beyond my and your imagination, and he deserves a break.

[stlukesguild]

If I see a popular movie with a funny line I can apply that to any number of situations. I can play popular music in the car and we can all sing along to it. I see the clothing in a music video and if I think it complements my physique I can try and emulate it. This, this is what art is about and the only way it can truly be lived.

Sorry, Leroy, but that's not what art is about: Hallmark Card platitudes that you can use on Mother's Day or clever lines that you might attempt to use as pick up lines. The fact that you are too blind or ignorant to see beyond your own notions of practicality is irrelevant to others who clearly value art passionately. Again, regardless of G.L. Wilson's cheer-leading, the reality is that this entire post IS nothing but a bit of mental Onanism conducted by a troll. You have gotten endless answers as to the value of art and the reasons as to why it is taught. If you were legitimately putting forth a question that would have been enough... but it is not. You simply counter every legitimate and sincere answer with another twist or turn. The entire dialog is all too familiar. I've sat through such repeatedly led by clever, clever boys who think themselves oh so bright after having taken a couple semesters of college classes. At least these disputes in college had the added advantage of being accompanied by beer. Here it becomes far more meaningless than you presume art to be.

Seriously, what is YOUR purpose? I would suggest that YOU might just be far more meaningless and irrelevant than ART.

[G L Wilson]

If I see a popular movie with a funny line I can apply that to any number of situations. I can play popular music in the car and we can all sing along to it. I see the clothing in a music video and if I think it complements my physique I can try and emulate it. This, this is what art is about and the only way it can truly be lived.

Sorry, Leroy, but that's not what art is about: Hallmark Card platitudes that you can use on Mother's Day or clever lines that you might attempt to use as pick up lines. The fact that you are too blind or ignorant to see beyond your own notions of practicality is irrelevant to others who clearly value art passionately. Again, regardless of G.L. Wilson's cheer-leading, the reality is that this entire post IS nothing but a bit of mental Onanism conducted by a troll. You have gotten endless answers as to the value of art and the reasons as to why it is taught. If you were legitimately putting forth a question that would have been enough... but it is not. You simply counter every legitimate and sincere answer with another twist or turn. The entire dialog is all too familiar. I've sat through such repeatedly led by clever, clever boys who think themselves oh so bright after having taken a couple semesters of college classes. At least these disputes in college had the added advantage of being accompanied by beer. Here it becomes far more meaningless than you presume art to be.

Seriously, what is YOUR purpose? I would suggest that YOU might just be far more meaningless and irrelevant than ART.

Oh, what a sensitive human being art has made you!

[mortalterror]

Oh, what a sensitive human being art has made you!

Ahahahahahahaha. Alright Wilson, high five!

[stlukesguild]

From what I recall Hitler was an "art lover" as were quite a few of the most rapacious rulers of the Italian Renaissance. The notion that art can replace religion and ethics in turning us into spiritual, high-minded, noble beings died out by the late 19th century. Undoubtedly, you heard of "art pour l'art"? As for my closing questions as to the purpose of our provocateur... I am simply restating what I suggested earlier. We might not be able to assign a practical purpose to art any more than we might assign a practical purpose to life itself.

If my responses to Prickly-Pear seem less than sensitive, it is because I sense that he has been simply pulling our chain for far too long. Seriously, I even doubt his whole Afghanistan veteran schpiel which seems all too well constructed to garner empathy. He is far too well versed in the use of language and debate for the common foot-soldier... or the typical Joe-sixpack ignorantly railing at the Arts and those effete elitists. Considering also that this thread constitutes the vast majority of his posts to the site, I see little reason to doubt that he is but a clever student desiring a little entertainment by baiting members at a literature site with his pseudo-iconoclastic arguments.

[G L Wilson]

Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't; either way, is it not your duty to dispute him? Instead you wish to demean him, to pluck his liver out and show it to the vultures. Are you a man or a mouse?

[stlukesguild]

No... it has become my "duty" to ignore him.

[mortalterror]

From what I recall Hitler was an "art lover" as were quite a few of the most rapacious rulers of the Italian Renaissance.

Did he just compare himself to Hitler?

[G L Wilson]

Did he just compare himself to Hitler?

I think he did, anyhow no matter: art for art's sake? It sounds like a load of cobblers to me. What price art? High above life or low like a dog? Somewhere inbetween, Goldilocks, methinks. It is as she said, Just right.

[G L Wilson]

The term of art is not its lifetime. It endures on through other artists and other lives. It is the answer and the question.

[prickly_pete]

Laying lives down for kings?: Is the quest for WMDs where they don't exist any more absurd a mission than recapturing some noble's tart? Heard of the Viet Nam War maybe?

Exactly my point. Even when you read Homer you still interpret it on your own cultural terms. You see the divinely inspired wars of a primitive aristocratic tribe as akin to an advanced industrial society fighting an insurgency in modern-day Iraq - a completely ridiculous comparison to be sure but nevertheless the only way you can make sense of it. THIS is my point exactly - the only way to make sense out of this stuff is to interpret it on our own terms (which in and of itself requires that we ignore a very large part of the text that offends us or that we can't even begin to understand - exchanging women as gifts, etc.) which really brings one to ask, if all we're doing is bringing our own cultural baggage to our readings of these works then what's the point really? We're reducing Homer to a modern narrative from Iraq anyways so why not just read something writen last year like, say, a modern narrative from Iraq since - innescapably - this is what any war story is going to be compared with and ultimately reduced to.

[prickly_pete]

Seriously, I even doubt his whole Afghanistan veteran schpiel which seems all too well constructed to garner empathy. He is far too well versed in the use of language and debate for the common foot-soldier

That's pretty ignorant. There's actually alot of smart people in the Army and quite a few with degrees even.

[Drkshadow03]

Exactly my point. Even when you read Homer you still interpret it on your own cultural terms. You see the divinely inspired wars of a primitive aristocratic tribe as akin to an advanced industrial society fighting an insurgency in modern-day Iraq - a completely ridiculous comparison to be sure but nevertheless the only way you can make sense of it. THIS is my point exactly - the only way to make sense out of this stuff is to interpret it on our own terms (which in and of itself requires that we ignore a very large part of the text that offends us or that we can't even begin to understand - exchanging women as gifts, etc.) which really brings one to ask, if all we're doing is bringing our own cultural baggage to our readings of these works then what's the point really? We're reducing Homer to a modern narrative from Iraq anyways so why not just read something writen last year like, say, a modern narrative from Iraq since - innescapably - this is what any war story is going to be compared with and ultimately reduced to.

You're confusing meaning with significance. Meaning is the abstract themes, problems, and ideas inherent in the text and its situations. Significance is how it relates to your society today and to us as individuals. Beowulf as a text shows the need for heroism in fighting monsters (meaning). The need to highlight heroism is more important than ever after 9/11. We still need heroes to stand up to the monsters of the world (significance). This also calls attention to the difference between applicability versus allegory, by the way.

However, you're assuming in these argument by misreading our points that the only function of a literary text is to be reduced back into modern terms and generalizations. Most of us have also pointed out the difference in cultures is what makes literary texts interesting too. In other words, it's both the difference and alienness of these cultures AND what values, emotions, experiences, and situations span across cultures to our own.

The value of Homer is seeing how the situation of his soldiers and the emotions of his characters is applicable to contemporary society and all societies in between, while also recognizing this is a vastly different culture than our own with very different customs and traditions and delighting in learning about that alien culture through the text. It's both, not either/or.

Your previous comments about the 19th century nobleman enjoying Shakespeare, and we'll extend this to Homer as well, undermine your own argument. Certainly you're not implying that the life of a 19th century nobleman is anything like the world of Homer or even Shakespeare's, yet according to your example he can somehow relate to those older texts in one way or another, despite major changes in society since the times of those texts. I'm failing to see why it would be so hard for us to relate to these texts as well simply because now we have atomic bombs, computers, and IPADs.

My example earlier of the Hobart Shakespeareans in fact demonstrates students from different cultural backgrounds (mostly Asian and hispanic) and disadvantaged economically are capable of enjoying and understanding Shakespeare once trained to read it (without years of training either). Amazingly, Shakespeare continues to be enjoyed and performed not only in the USA, but in China, Japan, and hundreds of other countries in which it didn't originate.

[prickly_pete]

You're confusing meaning with significance.

Meaning with application, yes. Guilty as charged.

But wouldn't you agree with our good friend Wittgenstein that meaning is application and that there isn't some ideal (I guess Platonic) meaning in our minds or the sky or wherever? That language is a fundamentally social act?

[prickly_pete]

I would agree though, Wilson is absolutely killing it. That is a wise individual right there.

[G L Wilson]

Exactly my point. Even when you read Homer you still interpret it on your own cultural terms. You see the divinely inspired wars of a primitive aristocratic tribe as akin to an advanced industrial society fighting an insurgency in modern-day Iraq - a completely ridiculous comparison to be sure but nevertheless the only way you can make sense of it. THIS is my point exactly - the only way to make sense out of this stuff is to interpret it on our own terms (which in and of itself requires that we ignore a very large part of the text that offends us or that we can't even begin to understand - exchanging women as gifts, etc.) which really brings one to ask, if all we're doing is bringing our own cultural baggage to our readings of these works then what's the point really? We're reducing Homer to a modern narrative from Iraq anyways so why not just read something writen last year like, say, a modern narrative from Iraq since - innescapably - this is what any war story is going to be compared with and ultimately reduced to.

Historicism vs. Humanism is a non-event as humanism wins hands down.

[G L Wilson]

Meaning with application, yes. Guilty as charged.

But wouldn't you agree with our good friend Wittgenstein that meaning is application and that there isn't some ideal (I guess Platonic) meaning in our minds or the sky or wherever? That language is a fundamentally social act?

I like it. You could have something there, prickly_pete. I apply humanism to everything I do, yet the meaning of humanism eludes me. Is not the meaning of humanism what I give it? Am I not looking beyond the material to a greater goal? I think I am. But where does this leave us? Lost? Is not the loneliness of existence relieved by art? I think it is.

[Stonebolt]

It seems like art arose out of a need to communicate ideas to non-literate societies. Sort of the way a totem poel told the history of a tribe to its memebers.

Now that everyone can read, what's the point really? Is there anything that art can express that can't just as easily be communicated through speach? Forgive me if I sound a little crude, but I've been reading about the ongoing debate about the role of the arts in public schools and I'm just kind of curious how you all feel about this. Does art really have anything to offer students? Should it be taught at the expense of mathematics and science?

For instance, why go to an art exhibit? What could that offer me?

Other than an interest? Well here's what I could say, the deepest truths of life are hard to express directly with language. Language is made and interpreted by fallible humans, and is therefore fallible.

Look at a tree. What do the letters t-r-e-e have to do with this living thing? Nothing. All language is made up. Therefore, using it in an indirect way, or not at all, is sometimes the best way to impart wisdom.

[PeterL]

I still can't understand why people as such broad questions. The repsonses are all over the board. If there had been some basic definitions, then the responses might be relevant to something useful.

[m2vihand]

I think art serves other purpose than entertainment. All great novels have a deep core thought. Without literature, i think the world would be more chaotic, because classics always teach something good.

[prickly_pete]

Look at a tree. What do the letters t-r-e-e have to do with this living thing? Nothing.

Well if I said "climb this tree" would you know what I was talking about? If I fall off a tree in the woods would I make a sound? Or would this sound be unintelligible?

[Rores28]

I still can't understand why people as such broad questions. The repsonses are all over the board. If there had been some basic definitions, then the responses might be relevant to something useful.

Two reasons: They have a blinkered conception of the question and so do not anticipate the various backgrounds that will be employed in answering the question or,as is this case in this instance, they ask them so that they can slip around the answers and say "no no this is what I was really asking" thus prolonging the discussion.

Trust me I had an extensive trolling career in the not to distant pass... I know the tricks.

[PeterL]

Two reasons: They have a blinkered conception of the question and so do not anticipate the various backgrounds that will be employed in answering the question or,as is this case in this instance, they ask them so that they can slip around the answers and say "no no this is what I was really asking" thus prolonging the discussion.

Trust me I had an extensive trolling career in the not to distant pass... I know the tricks.

I hadn't regarded this as trolling, but I guess that it is one form. 'Tis a pity, because there were some very good discussions here in the not distant past.

[Drkshadow03]

Two reasons: They have a blinkered conception of the question and so do not anticipate the various backgrounds that will be employed in answering the question or,as is this case in this instance, they ask them so that they can slip around the answers and say "no no this is what I was really asking" thus prolonging the discussion.

Trust me I had an extensive trolling career in the not to distant pass... I know the tricks.

I concur.

[cyberbob]

^ LOL well I share many of those opinions to some extent (except #1 & 7) and I'm not a troll.

Art obviously must serve SOME purpose or it wouldn't exist. I doubt it's just an evolutionary intellectual byproduct.

You might as well be asking if anything that does not make us more likely to reproduce serves a purpose.

Do you think that natural selection cares if we become rich or happy or good at math? No. If being brainless amoebas helped us thrive in our environment that's what we'd be.

There's nothing intrinsically beneficial about being rich. Our complex minds have decided that being rich entitles you to more resources which makes you more likely to thrive. If our minds have decided that art has some value then it does.

In terms of education, learning art extensively is mainly done to teach it unless you can actually get paid to do it.

All humanities are "useless" to some extent because lives are not dependant on some people being very good at them. Most public schools require just 1 art course.

[cyberbob]

You might not think that everyone needs to know whether or not Tom Jefferson banged his slaves but you don't doubt that everyone should know SOME history do you? And by extension, you don't doubt that SOME people should know a whole bunch of history so they can have the authority to teach it and be references for when obscure facts ARE needed.

So how is art different? Even if it has no practical use now it's still part of human history and culture. It's not like kids are learning TOO MUCH art in public school. SOME knowledge is necessary because an educated person should be aware of at least rudimentary knowledge of something so ubiquitous. And by extension, SOME people should be able to learn a whole bunch so they can teach it and be references for when obscure facts of it are needed.

[Arrowni]

There is also the reality of esthetical pleasure. It just exists, so we deal with it.

[Mr.lucifer]

Art is about truth, is it not?

[prickly_pete]

Art is about truth, is it not?

Isn't truth a fairly ridiculous concept?

[stlukesguild]

Art is about truth, is it not?

Is it?

[PeterL]

And what might this "truth" thing be?

[Mr.lucifer]

Truths about life?

[cyberbob]

If art were about "truths of life" then babies wouldn't enjoy music or drawings because they'd mean nothing to them.

I'm sure some people enjoy some art that state "truths" they can relate to, but that's just one factor of artistic taste.

For example, if you like hot dogs because they remind you of the 4th of July that doesn't mean the 4th of July is why all people like hot dogs.

The root root cause of liking hot dogs (and all food) is the same as the root cause of liking art: It increased our species' chances of survival at least in the past if not still now.

You don't need to look back at your life to know why you like food or art. You like it because its impossible not to. Things can affect your tastes, but everyone innately has SOME tastes.

Even if art has no purpose now that doesn't mean we can ignore it anymore than we can ignore an inflamed appendix.

[Arrowni]

Art isn't about truth anymore than fruit is about truth. Fruits are real, and they send to a reality of interactions which set off our understanding of the universe. There is a big gap from recognizing those interactions to saying fruits are all about truth.

[PeterL]

While survival is the reason for liking most things that people like, I think that there are secondary reasons for people liking art. Those reasons vary from art to art.

[Drkshadow03]

I disagree. As far as time goes, education is a zero sum game. You only have so many teachable hours, and so every time you ad something you have to exclude something else. You can't tell me that nothing is lost dropping Homer from the curriculum for contemporary, lesbian, minority writer #4. If the professor wants to teach lesbian fiction then he should teach Sappho. If they want to teach Spanish heritage then have students read Cervantes. And if they want contemporary texts, have them read Marquez. The Joy Luck Club and M Butterfly are not as central to the Asian experience as Confucius or Du Fu. I know that as an American it's my patriotic responsibility to salute the colors, but why should I be reading William Dean Howells when I could be reading Dante, or at least Melville?

I agree that education is a zero sum game in so far as there is a limited amount of time and courses for teachers to offer and a limited amount of time to read all the books we would like before we die. According to your reasoning, we should, therefore, choose to spend that time with Homer over contemporary, lesbian minority writer # 4 since each class offered on contemporary lesbian minority writer # 4 takes time away from a class dealing with a more important writer like Homer.

However, while this argument seems sound in theory, I think there are a number of problems with it when one starts considering it in a little more depth.

For starters, this presumes contemporary, lesbian minority writer # 4 has no value or little value whatsoever rather than simply less value in comparison to Homer. Just because writer A has more value doesn't necessarily mean writer B has no value. If you played that ranking game with everyone equally I'm sure we could find numerous Canonical figures who we could all agree are good, but inferior to Homer. Does that mean studying those figures are a waste of time too? Who gives a crap if Dante is superior to Melville (as you hint in your post above)? Does that mean we should never bother to read Melvillle since it takes time away from Dante? Should we never offer courses on James Fenimore Cooper or D.H. Lawrence because that's one less class on Homer?

Even though education is a zero sum game with limited time for what is to be taught and limited time for us to learn before we die, we still make decisions all the time where lesser works are granted some of that time simply because lesser doesn't automatically imply worthless.

Even the situation your raising is inapplicable to the reality of studying literature at university since really all literature programs in the country are different. Some have strong medieval programs, some have strong Renaissance programs, and some have strong contemporary American literature programs. The courses offered are going to reflect the professors' interests and subject expertise, and they're going to hire based off what kind of program they want to offer. So even then it's not really a matter of Homer versus Contemporary lesbian minority writer # 4.

[mortalterror]

I didn't say that they have no worth. I'm saying that they should go last, after the student has a solid foundation. I have friends who graduated with English degrees who have never read the Bible, never read Homer, never read The Divine Comedy, or really anything before the nineteenth century. These are smart men, and I shouldn't have to explain Genesis to them on the street or who Tennessee Williams is in the middle of a crowded video store. After four years, they should know something and if they don't then their teachers have failed them. They've been defrauded. Their money and their time have been wasted, frittered away on a professor's pet thesis. They've been shortchanged by an entire university, handed from one negligent teacher to the next, and that I find unacceptable.

Without standards we risk filling our children's heads with nonsense. Teaching from bad examples can be even more harmful than not teaching at all.

[Drkshadow03]

I didn't say that they have no worth. I'm saying that they should go last, after the student has a solid foundation. I have friends who graduated with English degrees who have never read the Bible, never read Homer, never read The Divine Comedy, or really anything before the nineteenth century. These are smart men, and I shouldn't have to explain Genesis to them on the street or who Tennessee Williams is in the middle of a crowded video store. After four years, they should know something and if they don't then their teachers have failed them. They've been defrauded. Their money and their time have been wasted, frittered away on a professor's pet thesis. They've been shortchanged by an entire university, handed from one negligent teacher to the next, and that I find unacceptable.

Without standards we risk filling our children's heads with nonsense. Teaching from bad examples can be even more harmful than not teaching at all.

My point was I would like to see a balance. I have no problem with programs that offer a good background in classical works and contemporary works (or at least offers the students the option of exploring contemporary literatures of various sorts through electives). Really it's less a matter of more Shakespeare and less lesbian Minority Writers than it is developing better curriculums and requirements for some of the programs that are out there. The problem with the thesis you presented is the program I went to suffered not because we read too many contemporary authors at the expense of Homer and Shakespeare (we read plenty of Canonical figures in my classes and we missed plenty of major ones as well, hence why I feel like I'm always playing catch-up), but rather the required courses were too haphazard and all over the place as far as coverage. You could completely skip over major figures (like Dante and Homer), but still cover Emily Dickinson, Melville, and Whitman, or vice-versa, depending on what classes you took, while still fulfilling generalized requirements.

A quick fix to these problems of a lack of a standardized background would be to require all Freshman to take a Great Books program through their English and Philosophy departments for an entire year (Fall and Spring semester) similar to the program at Columbia, so everyone is reading a standard set of works at the beginning of their education regardless of major. Then have 10 Course requirement for a literature major on top of the freshman Great Books program that might consist of say:

2 Major Author courses, 2 Period Courses, 1 Critical Theory Course, 1 Shakespeare Course, 1 Upper-level Seminar Course on a Specialized Topic, 2 Electives, 1 Thesis.

This setup allows for someone to focus on 20th Century literature if they so choose, while still getting a decent background in the seminal texts of Western Literature through the Great Books Program + Shakespeare Course.

[prickly_pete]

I have friends who graduated with English degrees who have never read the Bible, never read Homer, never read The Divine Comedy, or really anything before the nineteenth century.

I know, its f-ing hilarious how many worthless degrees are handed out by liberal arts programs these days. What do really expect though? Alot of literature is written at a very high level of abstraction and if you don't come to it with the necessary tools already in hand you aren't going to get very far. I'd wager that I've read more books on literary theory than about 95% of the people graduating with degrees in English these days.

You're right. It is a scam.

[G L Wilson]

The last refuge of the scoundrel is an education. But it just so happens that I like scoundrels.

[Venerable Bede]

I have to agree that English degrees do not make you read enough of the essential classics. Everyone should have read Dante and Homer before graduating with a degree in literature.

None of the courses offered through the English department at my university deal with any author who didn't write in the English language. Hence, a student could graduate without reading big literary figures like Tolstoy, Hugo, and Dante merely because they aren't English. You'd have to go out of your way to get a broader education and most people aren't going to do that.

[Venerable Bede]

The last refuge of the scoundrel is an education. But it just so happens that I like scoundrels.

I never understand these one or two line posts that Wilson makes. I feel like they're supposed to be supremely intelligent, but they just don't make any sense.

[WyattGwyon]

I never understand these one or two line posts that Wilson makes. I feel like they're supposed to be supremely intelligent, but they just don't make any sense.

Venerable one:

I submit that this Wilson entity is in fact a bot being trained for upcoming Turing tests. (That is to say, its responses are machine generated and then submitted by its creator.) The strategy of answering complex passages with terse, quasi-paradoxical snippets is a common strategy those who program bots employ to distract humans from an egregious dearth of relevant content. It is quite likely, given Wilson's chronic toadying, that the bot's programmer is in fact the very person who began this thread. The person submitting in the name of Wilson is part of the development team for this bit of software.

[Rores28]

I agree with Wyatt

[prickly_pete]

Really? I think Wilson is probably the most intelligent person on these boards to be perfectly honest.

[Drkshadow03]

Really? I think Wilson is probably the most intelligent person on these boards to be perfectly honest.

Which says everything we need to know about the value of your judgement.

[Venerable Bede]

I submit that this Wilson entity is in fact a bot being trained for upcoming Turing tests. (That is to say, its responses are machine generated and then submitted by its creator.) The strategy of answering complex passages with terse, quasi-paradoxical snippets is a common strategy those who program bots employ to distract humans from an egregious dearth of relevant content. It is quite likely, given Wilson's chronic toadying, that the bot's programmer is in fact the very person who began this thread. The person submitting in the name of Wilson is part of the development team for this bit of software.

Yep, that sounds pretty plausible to me.


Really? I think Wilson is probably the most intelligent person on these boards to be perfectly honest.

With such pearls of wisdom as the assertion that Hitler and Walt Disney are akin in wickedness.

[G L Wilson]

With such pearls of wisdom as the assertion that Hitler and Walt Disney are akin in wickedness.

Does art serve any purpose? Does it not sin? Does it never err? I uphold art as a privilege precisely because it rarely abuses my trust.

[ralfyman]

It is an end in itself, together with other aspects of the liberal arts. The purpose of any other occupation is to provide for more means to appreciate the latter.

[Venerable Bede]

Does art serve any purpose? Does it not sin? Does it never err? I uphold art as a privilege precisely because it rarely abuses my trust.

See what I'm talking about; what does this mean? :confused:

[G L Wilson]

See what I'm talking about; what does this mean? :confused:

It means that art is usually something that doesn't lie or deceive.

[stlukesguild]

It means that art is usually something that doesn't lie or deceive.

Who on earth told you that? The very word "ART" is related to "artifice" and "artificial" while in literature one speaks of "fiction" and "fables". Art is full of beautiful lies. I've always loved this one:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/5870320756_1028a09a51_b.jpg

Bonnard painted any number of paintings of his wife, Marthe, bathing. This magical painting of Marthe floating in a field of glittering stars... like a Byzantine mosaic... was painted when his wife was already in her 60s.

Truth?

[mortalterror]

Venerable one:

I submit that this Wilson entity is in fact a bot being trained for upcoming Turing tests. (That is to say, its responses are machine generated and then submitted by its creator.) The strategy of answering complex passages with terse, quasi-paradoxical snippets is a common strategy those who program bots employ to distract humans from an egregious dearth of relevant content. It is quite likely, given Wilson's chronic toadying, that the bot's programmer is in fact the very person who began this thread. The person submitting in the name of Wilson is part of the development team for this bit of software.

I've been thinking the same thing. Not that he's a bot but that it's one person with multiple accounts.

[Venerable Bede]

It means that art is usually something that doesn't lie or deceive.

Really? Art always shows things exactly the way they are?

[G L Wilson]

It means that art is usually something that doesn't lie or deceive.

Who on earth told you that? The very word "ART" is related to "artifice" and "artificial" while in literature one speaks of "fiction" and "fables". Art is full of beautiful lies. I've always loved this one:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/5870320756_1028a09a51_b.jpg

Bonnard painted any number of paintings of his wife, Marthe, bathing. This magical painting of Marthe floating in a field of glittering stars... like a Byzantine mosaic... was painted when his wife was already in her 60s.

Truth?

Truth.

[stlukesguild]

Looks quite like fantasy or fiction to me.

[G L Wilson]

Really? Art always shows things exactly the way they are?

Can you not read? I said usually.

[G L Wilson]

Looks quite like fantasy or fiction to me.

And there is no truth to fiction?

[endgame]

yes ... it helps us to live better :)

[Jeremydav]

I've always found that Truth, capitalized, is found in any piece of art. She may have been in her 60s at the time, but he painted her as he felt and digested her essence. Why is that not true?

[Crass the head]

It can if the artist creating it has a purpose. I think we should be concerned with the visibility of purpose, not the existence of purpose. There really isn't much art without purpose, from horribly materialistic pop stars to the deepest, most internally troubled poets.

[G L Wilson]

I appreciate honesty, art delivers on this score.