From: Patsloane-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:00:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: PLC: Marvell


In a message dated 97-12-03 14:00:50 EST, Greg writes:

> Still, though, as a general
>  point: the only interp. that is identical with the thing interpreted is
the
>  thing soi-meme, so what one is really arguing about when it comes to rival
>  interps or rival exegetical methodologies is *degrees* of
>  incompleteness/imperfection or distortion, I guess.

As a painter, I'm not greatly concerned with data "about" paintings. Can like
a medieval painting of a saint though I've no idea who the saint is. Not
strange at all. You can form a strong like or dislike of a person before you
know what college they went to or where they live. 

My beginning art history students are another cup of tea.  They <must> know
who the saint is, or they feel they can't relate to the painting.  Much
easier to tell them who the saint is than to argue about whether they really
need to know. They insist they <do> really need to know, which makes this a
truth for them.  

I feel I'm addressing artificial barriers they created for themselves, and
this leaves me with an obligation to supply as much "background" material as
they feel they need.  At a later point, one hopes to be able to say--now
let's talk about the painting, and about whether all that  "backgound"
material was as necessary as you thought it was. 

Maybe they're testing me, which is a viable strategy.  Before I come out and
say, "forget all the background stuff," it has to be clear I'm familiar with
the material--that I'm not just looking for a way to justify my own
ignorance.  

pat sloane


     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---