Non-specialized.
My girlfriend sometimes tells me that I'm special. A strange word. Special. It functions as a non-specific compliment or a vague insult directed at one's intelligence. At least she doesn't tend to call me "retard." In the modern era 'special' has become the root of specialized. Specialization, as we're told, is a trend that has expanded drastically since the Renaissance ended. The "Renaissance Man" is not identified by his genius, but his prolific and varied genius. Leonardo, the epitome and pinnacle of the concept, was hugely influential in art, medicine, engineering and essentially whatever the hell he felt like studying. For centuries since, he has been celebrated for that. Yet ever since it seems like we've been doing everything possible to make sure another Leonardo never comes around again. We seem to think that to be decent at any profession, one has to dedicate a lifetime to study or practice or advancement. And we've built these huge cultural monoliths, like Education and Business and Art and Science that are so rigid that only "specialists" are allowed into any of the little clubs. Are we not deluding ourselves that the multitude of areas in which Leonardo excelled and produced groundbreaking ideas and work were so much simpler then than they are now? We're talking about understanding of detailed anatomy complete with dissections, illustrations, and theories about how the body functions; plausible machines of locomotion or war; some of the most cherished pieces of artwork in multiple media that have ever been created. One man. Leonardo was truly a genius and very dedicated to his various interests, so it can't be expected that anyone would even approach his legacy, yet it seems a discredit to his genius to suggest that current fields of work are so much more demanding or difficult or complex than those at the time of the Renaissance.
Think of any formal field of work in today's world in which you have no "specialized" education or work experience. Now, say you come across a brilliant idea that could lead to some significant advancement in that field. Now try to imagine getting any experts to listen to you or getting the idea published... Seems to me that it would be pretty difficult to get any attention whatsoever. I don't know about anyone else, but this seems like a pretty shitty situation that gets absolutely no attention. Imagine Pavlov, this kooky physiologist who likes to collect samples of dog saliva, trying to tell people about this idea of conditioned and uncondition stimuli if it hadn't been in the very very early days of the field of psychology. I don't know that it would have been easy, even for a fellow scientist trained in the field that fathered psychology (psychologists used to be mostly specialized doctors). I understand that specialization and expertization (a word?) are somewhat necessary, but the constructs that govern these "fields" are way to rigid.
I think the lack of diversity in options is part of what has made it so hard for me to make lasting decisions about my own intended profession. I have a huge number of interests, so picking architecture would mean eliminating literature, physics, music, math, psychology and professional boxing, among others. It's still possible to pursue other interests, but it becomes essentially impossible to DO anything in those fields, and I think I could make a real run at a Feather-weight belt. Are largely redundant tiers of education (requirements in College that often are more basic than a lot of high-school classes, some grad school classes that are no different from undergrad classes in the same field) really so important? All for a couple of pieces of paper, which lets you get into a position where professionals tell you that you don't know shit, so go get 3 soy lattes. If we're learning so much, then why the fuck doesn't anyone know anything? All the bullshit we go through to get jobs isn't really to learn and develop and become better. It's simple validation that you've gone through the process.
This rant has gotten slightly off of the original topic, but there are really a series of interconnected issues that piss me off about how we're taught and what were expected to do to get jobs. Maybe we should revert to a system of patronage. But a lot of the rich people today seem more interested in suppressing or bottlenecking science and art than in promoting them. Maybe that hasn't changed so much, but it seems like it. That's yet another rant, though.
I dream of being able to learn what I'm interested in and study what I'm interested in and DO what I'm interested in. I'm not silly enough to think that I'm a Leonardo who's simply missing his Renaissance. A bit of the Renaissance would be nice about now, though.
Still, I've pretty solidly picked architecture as the field I want to work in, and I'm happy to say that I'm really excited by that. Now I just need to figure out what sort of specialization.
Think of any formal field of work in today's world in which you have no "specialized" education or work experience. Now, say you come across a brilliant idea that could lead to some significant advancement in that field. Now try to imagine getting any experts to listen to you or getting the idea published... Seems to me that it would be pretty difficult to get any attention whatsoever. I don't know about anyone else, but this seems like a pretty shitty situation that gets absolutely no attention. Imagine Pavlov, this kooky physiologist who likes to collect samples of dog saliva, trying to tell people about this idea of conditioned and uncondition stimuli if it hadn't been in the very very early days of the field of psychology. I don't know that it would have been easy, even for a fellow scientist trained in the field that fathered psychology (psychologists used to be mostly specialized doctors). I understand that specialization and expertization (a word?) are somewhat necessary, but the constructs that govern these "fields" are way to rigid.
I think the lack of diversity in options is part of what has made it so hard for me to make lasting decisions about my own intended profession. I have a huge number of interests, so picking architecture would mean eliminating literature, physics, music, math, psychology and professional boxing, among others. It's still possible to pursue other interests, but it becomes essentially impossible to DO anything in those fields, and I think I could make a real run at a Feather-weight belt. Are largely redundant tiers of education (requirements in College that often are more basic than a lot of high-school classes, some grad school classes that are no different from undergrad classes in the same field) really so important? All for a couple of pieces of paper, which lets you get into a position where professionals tell you that you don't know shit, so go get 3 soy lattes. If we're learning so much, then why the fuck doesn't anyone know anything? All the bullshit we go through to get jobs isn't really to learn and develop and become better. It's simple validation that you've gone through the process.
This rant has gotten slightly off of the original topic, but there are really a series of interconnected issues that piss me off about how we're taught and what were expected to do to get jobs. Maybe we should revert to a system of patronage. But a lot of the rich people today seem more interested in suppressing or bottlenecking science and art than in promoting them. Maybe that hasn't changed so much, but it seems like it. That's yet another rant, though.
I dream of being able to learn what I'm interested in and study what I'm interested in and DO what I'm interested in. I'm not silly enough to think that I'm a Leonardo who's simply missing his Renaissance. A bit of the Renaissance would be nice about now, though.
Still, I've pretty solidly picked architecture as the field I want to work in, and I'm happy to say that I'm really excited by that. Now I just need to figure out what sort of specialization.