Does Art Serve Any Purpose?

[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?