Re: FBOFW Dec 22

peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
Peter Trei wrote:


My point is that the two positions are *not* equivalent. What
constitutes "good literature" is a subjective issue, a matter
of style. After all, we're dealing a branch of the entertainment
industry. While we can objectively state whether a given story
is internally consistant, opinions as to whether it is 'good'
rest on current notions - where 'current notions' are defined as
accurately by Oprah's Book Club as by what is popular in
university English departments.


Good lord. Michelangelo and Raphael just flipped in their graves. There
is no difference between Peter Max and Botticelli, or between Big Eyed
Children and Weeping Clowns and the works of Rubens and Rembrandt.


Also, no difference between Maria Callas and Brittney Spears, no
difference between Beethoven and Ray Stevens.


And to return to my former analogy, there is no difference between
Cream and Paul Revere and the Raiders, or between Miles Davis and the
kid blowing trumpet in your local high school marching band.

Because it cannot be graphed, it cannot be valid. 

"Battleship Potemkin" is indistinguishable from "Dude, Where's My Car,"
and "It Happened One Night" from "Ishtar."


Boy, I hit the x-ring on that one. Some buttons are waaay too easy
to push.

Pointing out that some things, such as art (and much as you may
not like it, 'My Mother the Car' & 'King Lear' are both small-a
art), share a property such as subjectivity, does not imply
that they are all the same (yes, I'll take KL over MMtC any
time I'm not too tired for Shakespeare. 'Ran' is one of my
favorite movies, btw; the story is powerful even absent
WS's language).

But the judgement as to what is good and bad in art is a human
judgement, a cultural phenomenon. What is considered good art
in one century is forgotten in the next, and re-popularized
in the one after that.

Science, otoh, does have a constant reference: external reality.
The experiment does not care what the department head thinks,
or what the faculity club consensus is, nor what the mass of
humanity wants the result to be. It is what it is.

Until it isn't. Read some Thomas Kuhn, ferchrissake. 

Bull. An observation is an observation is a observation.
What changes is how the observation is interpreted.

Kuhn accepted that there was objective progress in
science (read the postscript to the 3rd edition of SSR).

The arts do not progress, over the long term, save for the
introduction of new forms of expression (derived from the
actual progress of science and technology). The exposition
of the human condition in The Epic of Gilgamesh remains
touching and relevant today. There is a gradual accretion
of 'good' works of art, but the recent good stuff is not
better then the old good stuff.

This is not the case in science. Even under Kuhn,
the understanding of the universe improves
over time. Kepler's is a better theory than
Ptolemy's. Given current observations, there
is no rational viewpoint or paradigm under
which the preceeding sentence is not true.

The best Sumerian literature is on a level with
the best literature of today. The best Sumerian
science is a curiousity for historians.

Over time, art accumulates, but science builds.

One of the real challenges I run into is high school kids who are
taught that there is a "right" answer, and then want to write opinion
pieces. They think there is some "right" opinion that will get them
approval, and so they either go to the extreme left or the extreme
right. They want certainty because they spend too much time in school
filling out bubble sheets.


Depends on the subject. Walk over to the math class,
and you'll find that yes, they are expected to find
the Right (no quotes required) Answer, and that
there is only one answer which will get them a good
grade.

Ditto in high school physics or biology. There is
a body of established knowledge which must be
mastered before the student gets to the areas where
he or she can construct an opinion which is both
informed and different from the teacher's.

In the arts, students learn technique, and they
learn history. But are they taught what makes
Botticelli better than Thomas Kinkade? While
I don't think anyone here would disagree as
to which one is superior, are art students
taught that in a way which allows them to
build upon Botticelli's success? I don't
see that - if they were, Botticelli's works
would be as relevant today as Aristotle's
anatomy.

Over in science class, your students are acquiring
a far superior understanding of (to give one example)
the planets than anyone in the world possessed
just 50 years ago.

Can you teach your students how to write opinions
which are superior in construction to the best of
those expressed 100 years ago? Why not?

Life can't really be graded on a bubble ***. It's more complex than that. 

I sure as hell hope that you are teaching them that.
They need to be told that there are areas of human
experience to which science has not yet been applied,
and may never be. It is because science has been so
spectacularly successful in the areas where it does
work, that they try to apply it to areas where it does
not yet reach.

Peter Trei







.

Loading