4 ms·
The academic pedagogy of the fine arts is absolutely useless. The teaching that purports to be about technique is actually about aesthetics, and the teaching t
by FrankWilhoit 1y ago
The academic pedagogy of the fine arts is absolutely useless. The teaching that purports to be about technique is actually about aesthetics, and the teaching that purports to be about aesthetics is actually about technique. At the level that Naipaul and this article's author are working at, everything is unique and irreproducible, and standards can only be defined by exception: the only statement that can be made is "this is not good enough", and the struggle to specify "this", and why exactly it is not good enough, never ends. I could wish to have had criticism of this kind, but it is an extremely time-intensive process if it is not be (as it usually is) a series of isolated pinprick insights.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- radicaldreamer 1y agoPart of being well read is being able to define what the 'this' you mention is and to articulate why you think 'this' is not good enough or is sublime either by using well defined terms and concepts (like control of time, narrative flow, definition of characters, the evocation of the Sanskrit 'rasa') or dipping into one's own inventive abilities to define a new concept for what you're trying to describe, something very common in philosophy.
- FrankWilhoit 1y agoMy field is music, in which your reductions do not apply, but I will not insult literature by assuming that they apply there either. "Well defined" is the original mirage.