Hey, a way to procrastinate that actually involves thinking about topics remotely related to my studies. Can't knock that!
I suppose I would say that, since literature touches on so many other fields (one of my old profs used to say that an English major needed to know "everything" for this reason), to retain its identity as a field and remain... alive, I suppose, vibrant, fruitful, pick an adjective... it needs to maintain a certain balance between them. Art, and aesthetics, although problematic enough in themselves, have to remain part of the definition of lit, or else the field becomes merely a branch of sociology or history which happens to focus on text. Sociology and history can't be excluded, however, at the very least because aesthetic judgments are to some extent political, historical, sociological... (overlooking this wouldn't be acceptable in visual art criticism or art history either - it could even be called dangerous
( ... )
I've read philosophical texts which suggest that beauty is nothing more than the promise of happiness. This is to say that for something to be beautiful, for something to be aesthetically significant, it must have enough to it that a quick look isn't enough to tell you what's going on. The example we used was a church by Van Gogh versus a church by Thomas Kincaid. They called the Kincaid piece 'kitsch' as in it shows technical prowess and is pretty, but lacks that bit of soul that seems to characterize most 'good' paintings.
So, do you think we should go by this method of determining books? Rather than seeking out less stellar art just to balance the scales (and thereby weaken then canon) should we base merit off of whether or not a piece of literature holds promise for future interest?
Based on, idealy, what you think should be conveyed to students at the grade level you are teaching. Maybe it should connect with what they are doing in history(like junior year you should read American authors because you study American history). What it boils down to is getting them to read and think about what they are reading. If that means then choosing The Grapes of Wrath than maybe(though there are a shit ton of other books out there for that
( ... )
Comments 4
Reply
I suppose I would say that, since literature touches on so many other fields (one of my old profs used to say that an English major needed to know "everything" for this reason), to retain its identity as a field and remain... alive, I suppose, vibrant, fruitful, pick an adjective... it needs to maintain a certain balance between them. Art, and aesthetics, although problematic enough in themselves, have to remain part of the definition of lit, or else the field becomes merely a branch of sociology or history which happens to focus on text. Sociology and history can't be excluded, however, at the very least because aesthetic judgments are to some extent political, historical, sociological... (overlooking this wouldn't be acceptable in visual art criticism or art history either - it could even be called dangerous ( ... )
Reply
So, do you think we should go by this method of determining books? Rather than seeking out less stellar art just to balance the scales (and thereby weaken then canon) should we base merit off of whether or not a piece of literature holds promise for future interest?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment