From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 16:07:16 GMT
>Matt said:
>>
>> If we take art and music as our first two examples, the problem will
>> present itself. The first question is, "Can art and music students do
>> without art history and music history?" At first one might think, "Sure,
>> why not? What does it matter if a really good painter knows who Monet and
>> Picasso are? Why does a singer need to know about Schoenberg and what he
>> was up to? I'm sure they're not thinking of any of them when they're
>> singing and painting." At first the demand to know the history of your
>> discipline seems like a reactionary thing to demand. Made by the
>old-guard
>> before the avant-garde changes the rules. If that was all there was to
>> this, just some left over snobbery from the old establishment, it might
>> seem well enough to chalk this difference of opinion over philosophology
>to
>> a difference in opinion about whether Verdi's La Traviata or Madonna's
>> "Like a Prayer" is more respectable. Over whether pop singers who are
>> classically trained (like Mariah Carey) are more respectable then those
>who
>> are not (like Brittany Spears). Over whether there is a thing called
>> <ahem> "bullshit" art.
>>
>> But after this initial thought, I would have some questions about how a
>> person, ignoring history and tradition, learns how to sing or paint. If
>> you ignore everything done in the past, will you turn out to be a great
>> singer or painter? Will you, indeed, even know who to draw or sing a
>note?
>> The answer is, "Yes, possibly." One can train themselves in all sorts of
>> activities. If a person grew up in the wild and heard no music and talked
>> to no musicians, had no contact with the outside world, and had a guitar,
>> it is possible that the person could teach herself how to play like Jimmy
>> Page without ever having heard of Jimmy Page. Is it statistically likely?
>> I doubt it.
>
>Mari says:
>
> Studying art history doesn't necessarily make an artist a
>better artist. If you consider what you say later in your post:
>"......there's an adage to
>> remember, 'Reading is the enemy of writing......" i think the "adage" rule
>can apply to studying art history as well as studying art principles and
>techniques. The can influence can be a plus or minus ordeal me thinks.
>
I was thinking along the same lines.
I think you can study art history as a "historian"
and as an "artist".
You can also study philosophy as a "historian"
or a philosopher.
The difference in whether there is just shallow memorization
or deep application. I mean when James talks about the squirrel and
the guy running around the tree given by Pirsig is
a great example.
Or Pirsig's story about the girl not being able to write
so he narrows her task down to a brick.
She couldn't see through her own eyes, she could only
rattle off information.
I think you can read other people's philosophy, look
at art like the girl was doing at the beginning and
when she finally looked at the brick through her
own eyes so to speak.
erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 09 2002 - 16:00:57 GMT