Michael,
Infuriatingly, I can access the full article if I click the link while
I'm at work, but I can only access the precis if I click it at home.
This didn't stop me reading it - when I was supposed to be getting on
with something else - and I'll draw a veil over the question of how many
patients are now dead as a result, when they ought to be still alive.
But the worst thing is that my comments will have to be based on how I
remember your article, because I don't have the actual text in front of
me. From what I remember, you did rather a good job of demolishing other
people's ideas about what might constitute the 'value' of art, but I was
a little bit more suspicious when you came to your own ideas on the same
subject. As I remember these came down to (a) the best art is the art
which provokes in us the widest/most intense range of
interpretations/reactions, and (b) art teaches us how to live. Both of
these sound a bit like F R Leavis to me - in fact there was a whole
school of literary criticism, particularly based in Cambridge, which was
founded on the ideas that the best literature teaches us how to
experience life more fully, distinguish and understand our own ideas,
emotions and aesthetic responses more scrupulously, and thereby become
more fully aware and morally capable people. This was used as an
argument in favour of (a) doing literary studies at University level,
and in fact making the study of literature (and by implication art more
generally) into one of the most important University departments; and
(b) preserving a canon of the 'best' literature and trying to make sure
that it was routinely taught in schools. In other words it was a very
'highbrow' argument; only the best literature could have the
sought-after uplifting effect; so in the end it came down to 'Reading
Shakespeare can make you a better person, but reading Longfellow can't',
and then down to arguments about who deserved to be in the canon and who
didn't. Henry James and Jane Austen - in (because they're ironic and
morally scrupulous). Dickens - out (too much of a showman, too
sentimental - until Leavis had a change of heart and suddenly decided
'Hard Times' was a grownup novel). T S Eliot in, Milton out. Dante
better than Milton. John Donne better than Spencer. And so forth.
Then along came Structuralism and said, 'Actually, we only find value in
art because we've been trained to do so; an image means one thing if you
see it in a museum and something entirely different if you see it on the
front of somebody's T-shirt; the whole thing, the whole act of
interpretation, our whole response to art, is a cultural construct, and
the context in which we do our viewing/reading/listening is everything;
it's probably more important than the work of art itself'. Which I don't
entirely buy, but it had the effect, in about the 1970s, of knocking
down the whole 'art makes you a better person' edifice.
Basically I think I shy away from any attempt to define what art does
for us. I do think it can make us better people - or at least it can
enrich our lives by giving us experiences we wouldn't have had
otherwise. I do also think that some art is better than other art, and
the breadth and depth and range of its effect have got something to do
with how you would calibrate the differences. In other words, if I had
to put my money anywhere, I might put it somewhere very close to where
you've put yours. But I don't like to see any of this written down as a
formula, because it always seems to come out wrong. I'm a great believer
in responding to individual works of art on a case-by-case basis. And
I'm also a believer, as someone who tries to be creative himself, in
just trying to make the stuff that feels right, without worrying too
much about philosophical justifications.
Edward
On 25/09/18 23:08, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
Hi Edward -that link should take you into a screen readable version. > The way the thing is licensed means that's all I can send unless >
people get the hard copy when it's out ( not sure when)... Mail me >
personally if you still can't get into it... ( & thanks for > looking!)
cheers m. > > > ------------------------- *From:* Edward Picot via
NetBehaviour > <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> *To:* >
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org *Cc:* Edward Picot >
<julian.les...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 6:02 > PM
*Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] on art and knowledge > > Michael, > > I
can't get into the full text! Do you need a login or something? > >
Edward > > > On 25/09/18 11:46, Michael Szpakowski wrote: >> Hi folks I
have a piece on this topic coming up in a forthcoming >> issue of the
International Journal of Art and Design Education. >> They've posted a
public 'read-only' copy of it here: >> https://rdcu.be/7BPg >> >>
comments, responses, disagreements, whatever most welcome! cheers >> m.
>> >> >> _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour
>> mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >>
<mailto:NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> >>
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing >
list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >
<mailto:NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> >
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing >
list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
