Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:52:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2130 times
|
| |
|
|
Lindsay,
I seem to be repeating myself. But anyway...
Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
>
> > Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
>
> It's fairly clear-cut that it *is* their reason for being. You may argue about whether > they
> fulfill that mandate, but their reason for being and the intellectual trajectory that > generated
> them are right in line with the idea that intellectual enrichment is the path to social
> improvement. It's a straight line from the 18th century to here (albeit not necessarily > one with
> a positive slope).
>
> > > Trying to imagine how the "Founding Fathers" (which is a very loaded term, because it means
> I'm not arguing that those individual people were somehow "evil"--although they represented > a confluence of interests that ranged from the truly altruistic to the absolutely > > mercenary. Read what I wrote again; I'm referring to the shorthand buried within the use > of that term. People who condemn DWEMs (Dead White European Males, a useful acronym for > > anti-postmodernists) in a knee-jerk or blanket manner--like your Race and Ethnic Relations > person--aren't going to get very far. The histori
cal truth is much more complex.
Hmm.. Well, from the people I have heard talk about this, they are high
up, this is another
debate I don't want to get into anymore....
>
> But in any case, the term *is* coded that way--African Americans, Native Americans, and
> Hispanics, for example, almost never invoke the Founding Fathers unless they're talking to > white or "European" America. It points to a problem where European America feels that its > position of power in 1800 means that it should define the culture of 2000, and only include > those elements "approved" by this group as "American". At the heart of that issue is the > > idea of what the United States is, what it should become, and whether or not we're true to > a vision set up two-plus centuries ago wh • en we're in an age with countless complicating > > factors that nobody predicted. The testament to the intellectual greatness you're talking > about above is that the
> Constitution has survived, and that it has remained a progressive, classical-liberal (which > is
> now called "conservative", go figure) document.
Yes, it is a weird reversal. A lot has changed since then, and a lot
more is needed, in terms
of government, etc., but the mode I feel the US has been drifting toward
is massive government nanny-state / socialism. I think this movement to
this is not what this country
was made up for, that's all. There are better solutions out there, IMO.
> Do I agree that this is the best country in the world? I agree that it has the potential > to be.
> In some ways it is, in other ways it *can* be but for our own silliness. The system has > enough
> nebulosity to include everyone, but the arguments occur over who must adapt to whom, and > that's
> where organs like the NEH and NEA found their mission statements.
There is a lot of silliness. Interesting...
>
> Read the pasage again. "How many people are like you or I..." I'm not disputing that you're
> active (and I'm also not sure you're implying that I am disputing it, but just in case...). I'm
> talking about the Average American.
Most average Americans don't do much, which is frustrating, but none the
less there...
> Again, is American Culture only those things you find unobjectionable? There are still Parisians
> who find the Eiffel Tower hideous (they wanted to tear it down in '06)--yet it is an indelible
> symbol of French Culture--granted, they argue endlessly over what is French and what isn't, but
> everyone seems to agree that the tower is.
>
> It's impossible to argue counterfactuals, like the existence of the Damon Wayans-esque urine in a
> jar without the NEA. I think they would have existed--they just wouldn't have had that
> audience. (And yes, I agree, it's tasteless.) I'm not sure, however, that I would consider the
> jazz festivals sponsored by the NEA to be wastes of money, nor would I consider their sponsorship
> of some foreign shows that already have worldwide exposure to be ill-advised. The urine-in-a-jar
> isn't the cookie-cutter NEA project, even though its opponents like to pretend that it is.
Yes, but it is still part of the NEA, though, and if we want to fund
music, etc. that is one thing, let the money go back to the communities,
so the people can decide, not some massive
federal agent in Washington. I am against the massive federal
government, which has seized power from the states, under the interstate
commerce clause. This is where most of the
federal legislation lies.
Let me state something else, I am not against art, or music, in any way.
But, I am against the concept of the government funding it. I think it
causes censorship issues and causes a lot of trouble. If we shift the
power and money away from Washington, and let individual communities
have it, let us see what they do with it.
> >
> > Two different subjects. Our pitiful education system is the result of
> > the above quote, not funding the NEA.
>
> I disagree. They're directly related. (And I don't think that the above quote caused our lousy
> education system--I'd like to dream of one day having that much effect on humanity, albeit for
> good and not for bad. ;) ) The arts and the humanities share the same purview of cultural
> literacy and breadth of knowledge--the origin of both as disciplines are intertwined, and they
> still share a lot of qualities. There's been an effort to "scientify" some of the humanities to
> get them away from the arts, but in the end they're still in the same basic category.
Culture and education? I think humanities should be taught, but in a
more neutral atmosphere, with the proper respects of other subjects.
> > When our schools are more of a
> > leftist indoctrination center, filled with things like environmental
> > awareness, and self-esteem training, rather than the cores of values,
> > math, reading, history (Not P.C., BTW). Blame our other wonderful
> > creation, the NEA (National Educational Association), and the teachers
> > unions.
>
> Well, I'm happy that at least you include history in the general category of the "core." But you
> say "not P.C."--which, again, is shorthand for a whole constellation of positions and
> viewpoints. Nobody ever says "I'm Politically Correct"--they only use the term in the negative,
> when they're being provincial or defending an equally biased position to the ultra-revisionist
> Martin Bernals of the world (read _Black Athena_ to see what he advocates re: "Greece stole all
> of its innovations and philosophies from Africa"; it's possibly the worst piece of political
> Afrocentric trash I've ever read). The positions that people identify as the "PC" are usually
> the noisy fringe; the bulk of my colleagues and I chart a course that steers well away from those
> rocks.
That's good.
> But at the same time, pointing to them as emblematic of the entire academy is also a
> problem that constantly threatens to undo the *real* progress that's being made in social > and cultural history.
I think there are serious problems in the elementary and high school
level, I think you are a teacher in.... I forget, a university, aren't
you? There is a huge difference.
Well, I have seen enough items from schools (nieces, nephews, cousins,
friends kids, etc.) to know that PC is alive and well. It is one thing
to respect others around you, but the main drive, I feel, in the PC
movement, is to drive away what I feel American culture is. The level of
information on the environment is staggering, and very disturbing. My
niece knows how to recycle, and the inherit "evils" of corporations,
etc. But she has hardly any knowledge of history, math, etc. That scares
me.
> > In terms of the cultural literacy programs, I have had enough of those
> > as well. I have taken all the required ones, and all they are is leftist
> > propaganda machines. I have never seen such a collection of Marxists,
> > Communists, Atheists, and Liberals in my life, spouting their views, and
> > using the classroom to do it.
>
> That's a mighty powerful statement. Was this Ohio State?
Yes, and Mott Community College. It was very disturbing. However, if it
wasn't for these classes, I probably would have never gotten into
politics, etc. I guess that is *one* good thing. ;)
>
> You're also choosing to apply "Cultural Literacy" to those bizarre general-studies "sensitivity"
> programs that I also can't quite grok. I include in "Cultural Literacy" such traditional
> subjects as Shakespeare, Comparative Religion, Expository Writing, and so forth. The position of
> the "Western Canon" is a perpetual source of debate in all Universities, from the
> ultra-right-wing and Ivy-League (Hah-vahd) to the ultra-liberal and quasi-public (most of U-M's
> LS&A departments).
If only I could study those! I only had a few courses with these in
there.
>
> That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Marxist, a Communist, an atheist, or
> a Liberal (whatever you mean by those).
Political opinions. Nothing is wrong with those beliefs (Atheism is a
different matter), but my opinion on those is wrong-headed. That is a
political debate.
> The important thing is to make sure your students know
> your viewpoint and understand that it may very well be skewed.
I would love to see one of those people say that!
> What's interesting to me is that
> some of my fellow academics embrace cultural studies for their introduction of "balance"
> and knowledge into a previously very narrow curriculum, but then don't bother to realise
> that they also have positionality.
Interesting as well.
> Here's an example (it's an anecdote, actually): I'm teaching a 300-level course called
> "Imperialism" this summer. A tenured faculty member is also teaching this course over the
> summer. However, he's a dedicated Marxist, and I'm not; his approach is predicated on the
> connection between global capitalism and exploitation. Mine is more concerned with > cultural
> exchange and imperialism as a relationship between people, however fair or unfair. He's
> unwilling to dissect his positionality as a Marxist before the students, while I am willing > to talk about where I come from on the issues and how that colours my perceptions. From > > previous experience, I'll be better received and have better classroom discussions, even > though I'm
> relatively liberal and completely Unitarian.
Well, at least your honest. I give more respect to you than the other,
that is for sure.
> I can see where these extreme people you mention are coming from, even if I don't agree. > What I
> find objectionable is that they pound it in as inviolable authority--everyone learns much > more when it's opened for reasoned and spirited debate.
>
> > My favorite was Race and Ethnic relations,
> > good Lord, I spent $500.00 to hear that I was personally responsible for
> > every illness of minorities. Hogwash. These courses are designed with
> > nothing more in mind than to make me spend thousands of dollars to help
> > the school because I am required to take it. Not withstanding all the PC
> > classes as well, which was additional thousands of dollars. I wonder how
> > far a Womyn's Studies degree can go in the real world?
>
> Did someone come and point at you, saying "you personally are responsible?" There is something
> to the idea of responsibility--the concept of majority privilege as reinforcing an unequal
> system--but if the message is that you are responsible for the initial injustices of the world,
> that's just wrong. The only thing we're responsible for is changing the system that already
> exists for the better.
He said the entire white race is responsible, that was his belief. That
blew my mind. There are so many examples for this class alone that is
mind boggling.
>
> In the "real world" (whatever that means), Women's Studies does rather well. Most of my friends
> who have such degrees went on to become health professionals, advertising and marketing people,
> and lawyers who specialise in women's issues. Granted, two of those require further training,
> but the degree is what got them there.
Well, most of the Womyn's Studies are very slanted to the left, from my
observations, but again, another debate.
>
> > I don't care how worthy it might be to you, I don't think the government
> > should be funding half the things it does. It is like the PBS spots, if
> > PBS doesn't do it, who will? Let's see, not the taxpayer?
>
> For PBS? The taxpayers do fund it, but not solely through taxes. I don't know about you, > but
> without Sesame Street, my childhood would have been much poorer.
I think PBS can survive on the free market, another debate..... Sesame
Street, another.. etc. etc. ad infinitum...
>
> > The NEA is a
> > small example of the huge amounts of money wasted on useless things. Our
> > government has shifted from what it was intended to do, into the current
> > beast of Washington, that just happens to spawn things like the NEA.
> > Everytime I see my sister, I see how the system does not work.
>
> How so? Apologies if you've brought it up somewhere else and I missed it.
My sister is a loser. She has been floating with her nose up from the
edge of despair for 10 years now. She hasn't worked a real job in
forever, and she went to school for free, and still screwed it up. She
had a child, the father left, and she is now alone. She has no money,
her car is broken yet again, my mom and I bailed her out so often, and
etc. etc. It is sickening. She has nothing to do with the NEA, though,
it was a rant outside the bounds, my apologies.
>
> > Until I
> > see the evidence that our current government is doing good, I will fight
> > everything, from the NEA (Art) to public schools (NEA) to school choice.
>
> The National Education Association is *not* a government agency. I think it's too unionish for
> its own good, but it's not a part of this "bloated government" everyone rails against.
>
> Again, the grass always looks greener--but I wonder what the world would look like without
> student loans (a much greater expenditure than the NEA, for example), or educational grants, or
> Affirmative Action. You seem to think it would be a better place, and I would agree, were those
> things not needed. No thanks, I'm not in any hurry to rush headlong into a new hereditary
> plutocracy.
I think student loans bloat the schools pockets, causing higher and
higher tuition, another debate, Affirmative Action has two faces, the
first I agree with (No discrimination), the second, where non-minority
people are discriminated, is bad (Another debate). I think some good and
some bad has come from these, but it needs to be looked at and dealt
with at a agency by agency basis.
> It's also interesting that people think that NEA grants go to help people "make" the art. That's
> not generally true. It helps the publicization of art, brings shows to locations that might not
> have been profitable, brings shows here from abroad, funds programs designed to improve art
> appreciation (this all includes music, btw!), and the like. More often than not the "art"
> already exists.
>
> I'll see if I can find anyone on campus who's been on an NEA advisory board--they can tell me
> what the applications are like, and what the money actually does.
Lindsay, we can go back and forth on the NEA, but no matter what it
does, how how good it might be (In your sight), I think it is a bad
institution. As I have said before, give the money and power to the
communities which pay for it in the first place, which is a good start,
and see where it goes. The federal NEA, as other federal agencies are,
are bad, not what the intentions of this country are, and have far too
much money and power.
Scott
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I agree that history, math, and etc., are important, but isn't teaching about caring for the environment important too? Is your fear that they're not learning both, or is it mostly from the fact that they're learning this at all? (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Caring about the environment and worshipping it are two different issues, and I don't think the present environmental movement, with its willing participants in the education system, is healthy. Kids should know both sides of things, not (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| [pardon the major snippage of Every Debate Known to Man ;) ] (...) I'm in agreement that it's flawed. I think where we differ is that I think it's better than nothing, whereas you believe that nothing would be better. Until it happens, the question (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) It's fairly clear-cut that it *is* their reason for being. You may argue about whether they fulfill that mandate, but their reason for being and the intellectual trajectory that generated them are right in line with the idea that intellectual (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
