Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 19:03:13 -0800
From: "Thad Q. Alexander" <rattler-AT-inreach.net>
Subject: Re: PLC: Marvell


Patsloane-AT-aol.com wrote:

> 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.

Hmm, so then you are only teaching painting as a technique, not as an art
appreciation or critical approach? I'm wonder if I'm expressing the right terms
here, if you do not know the background of the object, how can you asses if it is
realism? I'm no nothing of art but I had to jump in. What period was it (and I
should know this but it eludes me now) where the subject of a painter was painted
in it's most perfect form, leaving the wort or skin blemish out of the portrait
because nature and God made only perfect beings? By knowing who the object was,
one could learn an awful lot of the painter as well, or so it seems to me.

Also, if a person was painted with a moody or dark background, would you no want
to know who that person was to better critic the piece? Knowing who would explain
the what in the background and all.

What say ye Dr. Sloan? :-)

>
>
> 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.

Oh, I doubt this very much, but then, that is the job of the student. To squeeze
the knowledge out of you! LOL! Well, so long as it is not a disruptable
curiosity. I know, I hate that my lit classes are only 2.5 hours long, or that
the semester is short. I love background, but then literature is best taught and
learnt, that way.

--
Thad Q. Alexander
(rattler-AT-inreach.net)
OCC Undergraduate
Long Beach, CA.
USA
---
CHAUCER-AT-listserv.uic.edu
Phillitcrit-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Phil-lit-AT-Was found morally unfit for my presence:11\3\97
SHAKSPER-AT-ws.bowiestate.edu
Great Books of Western Civilization
---
The good parts of a book may be only something a writer
is lucky enough to overhear or it may be the wreck
of his whole damn life and one is as good as the other.
    ----Ernest Hemingway




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