I had an Art History professor last year who was really passionate about his work. He didn't muddy up his profession either, not a drop of art critique bled into his classes. He could not stress enough that the class was about identifying a period of work and understanding the progression of these periods throughout history, not about opinions on quality of the works.
He gave me an appreciation for how movements in art came to pass... and a deep cutting hatred for 'amateurs' who invent absurd personal meanings behind pieces of art.
He once told a story about a sort of tour he was giving in the Art Museum to a class he was teaching, describing a piece and giving a brief history, after which a friend of a class member who was tagging along said something to the effect of "Well, that's your opinion... I think he was trying to say blah blah blah..."
How arrogant is that? To look in the face of a professional and minimize his expertise to down a matter of opinion?
Professor Seymour was pissed off to no end about this, and that's why I liked him so much. This guy shows up and, even though everything he said amounted to idiotic blubbering, insulted not only my Professor, but his entire profession.
Just because you have a thought it doesn't mean that its correct. Just because you talk doesn't mean you're worth listening to. Just because you're alive doesn't mean you're important, intelligent, or that your opinion is in any way relevant. You can't look a man in the face and level your thoughts with his unless you've got ground to stand on.
Why do I gripe about the sort of things that will never change about humanity? I make my cynical outlook available for someone else to agree with and in turn also become a grumpy bastard.
Oh well.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Well, I don't believe you because that's just your opinion.
hahahahahahah oh man. spring break
Then we can finally kill Alex.
HEHEH HE'LL NEVER SEE IT COMING.
Yes, well, subjectivity is relative. That's a fact. In my opinion. And maybe that art was made more for people more like the tag along than the professor. So what DOES he know? Hell, what did/does the artist know? I'm not saying anyone is correct. Just that anyone could be. And to say that something is "just an opinion" is stupid only because it's obvious. "What do you see? How does it make you feel? What does that mean for us?" Let's not try to make it any simpler than that too quickly. Because I'm not sure it can be. In my opinion.
If everyone is right, then no one is right. What you're saying dissolves any form of structure and eliminates the use of things like education.
It does not eliminate the use of education. You can have a expert, informed opinion. But it is still that, an opinion. And If everyone is right it does not mean no one is right, it means there isn't always a RIGHT and a WRONG. And that's okay. Subjectivity does not mean something is unworthy of thorough consideration. Nor doe it mean that nothing is definitive. I just means that, as I think some artist is quoted as saying, "all things are relative."
If all things are relative, then relativity is itself relative, which means that there must, in fact, be an absolute. If some things can be absolute, then it follows that an expert's ideas about their expertise may be absolute, meaning that their ideas cannot be subject to fruitful debate. Note that I haven't defined the terms, "relative," "absolute," "expert," "ideas," and "debate." Of course the argument I just stated is subject to criticism because I never cared to define anything I stated. So it goes for most opinions. (Also note that I never offered any evidence to back up my claim in this last sentence).
It's my understanding that art history has nothing to do with the philosophy of art. Sure, it studies the ideas of artists and critics and even of art historians throughout the history of art, but it is a purely descriptive field, just as Jim said. Thus, an opinion on the history of art is based on historical evidence that points towards a general time-frame, cultural context, etc. Science works in much the same way, relying on strong inductive reasoning much more than deduction (though deductive reasoning does play a very large part, such as in mathematics, and it is that upon which much induction is based). Estimates about past environments, for example, are based on hard data, but they are still just estimates because the data do not point to any specific time down to the last second.
The subjectivity of mere opinion has no place in descriptive sciences.
Also, Jim, your reponse to Len begins with a fallacious argument. It can be broken down to the form:
If A, then not-A
A
Therefore, not-A
The conclusion is the denial of the premise A, the statement of which necessitates the following conclusion not-A. The conclusion of a stated premise cannot necessarily deny the premise. It's self-contradictory.
This tires me. Len hasn't spent enough time in science to understand what I'm saying.
I think if I were - looking at a landscape from a train crossing, then watching at a train barreled past me, and during that looking in the windows of one of the cars to see a homeless man dressed as a professor giving a power-point presentation on a painting of the landscape the train was obstructing - that would feel something like this.
Yet yeah, I am talking more about art philosophy than history - point taken.
Also Alex was dead on about your first response being based on principles I was refuting.
You know one thing Trinity had goen for it? Then had a "Science Gallery."And it lived up too that name.
"Just because you talk doesn't mean you're worth listening to."
Sums up your blog pretty well.
Sums up your comment. Go eat a dick.
When did you get a guard dog Jim?
yea, jim. since when do you have a guard dog, fag?
LOL I SEE WHAT U DID THERE
Brian Seymour? Please tell me you're talking about Brian Seymour. <33333333Brian.
Post a Comment