4 ms·

>Learning advanced math has definitely improved my life, often in unexpected ways. (Emphasis mine.) My impression is that the arts is about expressing yoursel

by lsc 9y ago

>Learning advanced math has definitely improved my life, often in unexpected ways. (Emphasis mine.) My impression is that the arts is about expressing yourself, and about understanding others. It's about understanding the human condition. I think that just like how understanding technology will allow you to see this years technical fads and how similar they were to the cycle a decade back, reading history and literature will allow you to see the same cycles in politics and communication fads. Also, having a common 'culture' to draw upon aids in communication. Having a common culture of the classics, I think, does this better than most things because the classics change more slowly than most things.

WalterBright 9y ago
Thanks for replying instead of downvoting me, but I still find your answer unsatisfying. I actually agree that learning a bit of history and politics is quite useful. But I mentioned art and literature. I'm a major consumer of art and books, but why would I need to study them? Let's take art, for example. There are many cases where counterfeiters have created fake "masterpieces" that fooled all the experts, even creating masterpieces that are in the style of some famous painter, but were original creations, and were sold accredited as being lost works of that painter. Once unmasked, those paintings became essentially worthless. Hence, it's "value" as art was purely based on who painted it. It had nothing to do with the artwork itself. To me that calls into question the whole purpose of the study of art, as even the experts seem ill-equipped to determine what is "great" art and what is a "hack job".
- lsc 9y ago
  >Once unmasked, those paintings became essentially worthless. >Hence, it's "value" as art was purely based on who painted it. It had nothing to do with the artwork itself. To me that calls into question the whole purpose of the study of art, as even the experts seem ill-equipped to determine what is "great" art and what is a "hack job". One can make the argument that if society doesn't fully understand something, that makes studying that thing that isn't fully understood more valuable rather than less valuable. In fact, I think that might be the whole of our disagreement (and the larger disagreement between those who think school should be purely vocational and those who value a broader education.) I believe this is what is meant when the college people say that they are trying to teach "how to learn" - it's about thinking about problems where the answer is unknown and maybe unknowable.
  - jasode 9y ago
    > if you don't fully understand something, that makes studying that thing that isn't fully understood I can't speak for WB but I think the point is that even the art professors and art experts also "don't fully understand" it either. If it's the "blind leading the blind", how do we measure the value of _formal_ classes? (Self) study of art is great. I think we can agree. But why is _formal_ study in a very expensive _formal_ classroom better? Are there any studies of improved brain performance or expanded lateral thinking that's specifically correlated back to college art classes?
    - lsc 9y ago
      >I can't speak for WB but I think the point is that even the art professors and art experts also "don't fully understand" it either. If it's the "blind leading the blind", how do we measure the value of _formal_ classes? Sorry, I made an edit after the quote, which I think makes my argument way more clear. I'm suggesting that there is value to studying a thing where nobody has the right answer. The professor doesn't have the right answer, either, but the professor does have a set of methods, tools and traditions for studying those problems for which society doesn't have the answers.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    > One can make the argument that if you don't fully understand something, that makes studying that thing that isn't fully understood more valuable rather than less valuable. One could, but I fundamentally don't care who created a painting that I enjoy looking at and would like to decorate my residence with.
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  Why would counterfeiting have anything to do with what you take away from a painting? As you say it has nothing to do with the art itself. The price of a piece shouldn't influence your enjoyment of it. Counterfeiting to me is fascinating because there's a lot of diligent work that goes into producing a good fake for collectors. And skilled counterfeiters have to study the painting and the context of the painting well enough to reproduce it using period materials, period techniques, and the technique of the specific artist they're counterfeiting. That's a form of art study which you're deriding here. When you actually get down to the business of enjoying and appreciating art, it's a deeply personal thing. For most people the price attached to the art has as much relevance to it as the cork does to the flavor of wine. Being able to talk about what you see in your favorites, why they make you feel the way you do, and what they communicate to you is what studying art is supposed to do.

by lsc 9y ago

WalterBright 9y ago

Thanks for replying instead of downvoting me, but I still find your answer unsatisfying. I actually agree that learning a bit of history and politics is quite useful. But I mentioned art and literature. I'm a major consumer of art and books, but why would I need to study them? Let's take art, for example. There are many cases where counterfeiters have created fake "masterpieces" that fooled all the experts, even creating masterpieces that are in the style of some famous painter, but were original creations, and were sold accredited as being lost works of that painter. Once unmasked, those paintings became essentially worthless. Hence, it's "value" as art was purely based on who painted it. It had nothing to do with the artwork itself. To me that calls into question the whole purpose of the study of art, as even the experts seem ill-equipped to determine what is "great" art and what is a "hack job".

lsc 9y ago
>Once unmasked, those paintings became essentially worthless. >Hence, it's "value" as art was purely based on who painted it. It had nothing to do with the artwork itself. To me that calls into question the whole purpose of the study of art, as even the experts seem ill-equipped to determine what is "great" art and what is a "hack job". One can make the argument that if society doesn't fully understand something, that makes studying that thing that isn't fully understood more valuable rather than less valuable. In fact, I think that might be the whole of our disagreement (and the larger disagreement between those who think school should be purely vocational and those who value a broader education.) I believe this is what is meant when the college people say that they are trying to teach "how to learn" - it's about thinking about problems where the answer is unknown and maybe unknowable.
- jasode 9y ago
  > if you don't fully understand something, that makes studying that thing that isn't fully understood I can't speak for WB but I think the point is that even the art professors and art experts also "don't fully understand" it either. If it's the "blind leading the blind", how do we measure the value of _formal_ classes? (Self) study of art is great. I think we can agree. But why is _formal_ study in a very expensive _formal_ classroom better? Are there any studies of improved brain performance or expanded lateral thinking that's specifically correlated back to college art classes?
  - lsc 9y ago
    >I can't speak for WB but I think the point is that even the art professors and art experts also "don't fully understand" it either. If it's the "blind leading the blind", how do we measure the value of _formal_ classes? Sorry, I made an edit after the quote, which I think makes my argument way more clear. I'm suggesting that there is value to studying a thing where nobody has the right answer. The professor doesn't have the right answer, either, but the professor does have a set of methods, tools and traditions for studying those problems for which society doesn't have the answers.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > One can make the argument that if you don't fully understand something, that makes studying that thing that isn't fully understood more valuable rather than less valuable. One could, but I fundamentally don't care who created a painting that I enjoy looking at and would like to decorate my residence with.
jschwartzi 9y ago
Why would counterfeiting have anything to do with what you take away from a painting? As you say it has nothing to do with the art itself. The price of a piece shouldn't influence your enjoyment of it. Counterfeiting to me is fascinating because there's a lot of diligent work that goes into producing a good fake for collectors. And skilled counterfeiters have to study the painting and the context of the painting well enough to reproduce it using period materials, period techniques, and the technique of the specific artist they're counterfeiting. That's a form of art study which you're deriding here. When you actually get down to the business of enjoying and appreciating art, it's a deeply personal thing. For most people the price attached to the art has as much relevance to it as the cork does to the flavor of wine. Being able to talk about what you see in your favorites, why they make you feel the way you do, and what they communicate to you is what studying art is supposed to do.