Well, Academy of Art college in San Francisco has such a poor reputation, it’s not even accredited. I’ve heard that once upon a time they were a better school, but it’s gotten so bad that they are losing (or have already lost) the teachers they have which are good. I don’t know how heavily you researched the school before you went there, or when you tried to go there, but I heard pretty early on it’s a place to avoid.
As I said before, the biggest blow to the arts is lack of funding. For example, San Francisco State University used to have one of the best theatre departments in the country, then their funding got seriously reduced, and so did the quality of their program. They are working hard to make their theatre department good again, and from what I hear have made some progress, but I have some personal reasons not to go there.
I have heard some names of arts schools (fine arts can also apply to theatre, dance, film, and music) which actually have good visual arts programs, but since all of that info came to me as an accident and not through a research effort of my own, I hesistate to say anything about it.
Also, there are a lot of pit falls you have to look out for if you’re looking for a serious arts education, but if I went into that it would be a serious hijacking of this thread. But you picked up on one of the key things to look for - have the teachers practiced the art professionally, and did they succeed professionally. Some people in all of the arts are lousy artists themselves but make excellent arts teachers (and vice versa), but it’s a good thing to look at.
Heroic nerdity?! What a great phrase. “No, I’m not eccentric! I’m a heroic nerd!”
That some people study Latin or Greek precisely because of God seems to me to explain why no one has mentioned what you seem to consider the obvious. Greek and Latin are rarely goals in themselves, but are instrumental to some other end, such as a study of history, literature or religion or whatnot.
Though it might seem like heroic nerdity to study something no longer usually part of the curriculum, I’d also point out how many textkittens seem to be interested in a lot of languages, both living and departed.
i understand the prestige part; i chose to do it because my entrance would bind me to continue, and not be distracted by anything, unless i wanted complete embarrassment, which i received anyway!
i also hoped that there would be significant prose composition, in which i marked all my macrons and stacked enclitics just like i stack my paper for going to school.
hahae interaxus du er jo en meget morsom mand
“heroic nerdity” is interesting. i was treated like a bit of a hero by classicists in this ‘PLE’. but the romance of it all would have been lost had i actually been offered latin classes, support, help from and discussion with expert latinists. indeed, i probably would have refused to go and done it myself, or more likely, done something completely unrelated, like chinese.
as the study of classics comes closer, the opportunities of actual teachers and whatnot, i find myself attracted by sinotibetans and african isolates for which i can’t find a textbook.
it is true that people learn greek and latin for reasons other than the languages themselves. i learn languages in order to write with them. a language attracts me like a becoming girl or a shiny bar of platinum (both of which i possess), and reminds me of all memories of the country (if i have been there), the environment and unique traits - indeed it is the closest thing to being a person of that nationality, living in that country, without actually being in such a state. interaxus should know very well - sweden reminds me of lakes, pine trees and of course swedish girls in the summer. if i studied swedish in school though we would probably have to learn how to cook meatballs and pick out a correct flowery lampshade from ikea as part of our translation/composition examination. in a way therefore i am glad that certain things are not in the curriculum. that which is obscure is often mysterious, and often is the most attractive. is this all learning the language for itself? i would say half and half, at any rate far more than those who wish to ‘find god’ in the vulgate or investigate history and religion. but learning any language, especially ancient, surely must involve at least a slight bit of learning for the sake of the language alone, because it’s a consuming endeavour.
I’m 48. That was 1976. AASF was considered THE school on the West Coast then. My program was accredited through a relationship with UC Berkeley, the funding came through one of their scholarship programs, but a lack of accreditation does not necessarily have anything to do with excellence. That is a total myth. (Except in the case of a school that has LOST its accreditation.) Accreditation is mainly a tedious and expensive process. If you have time and money, you can get accredited.
Not according to a dictionary nor traditional usage. But the “fine” in “fine art” was never much of a descriptive. It’s just a couple of sounds that refer to a certain small set of traditions. I know the usage is unjust. I know it is irritating to artists in performing arts, but as you know, languages and usage are often quirky rather than logical.
And I don’t want to hijack this thread either. I’ve been paying attention to every response and collected a list. I have definitely learned some things.
I don’t know: I just love writing and reading in Greek and Latin. I don’t have ulterior motives; I’d love to read Plato and Spinoza some day, but otherwise, I’m learning them for their own sake.
I agree, but I have heard that AASF is a bad school in addition to lacking accreditation (and quite frankly, if everybody knew it was a good school, it wouldn’t matter terribly if it were accredited - the people who mattered would recognize it as a good education).
And “fine arts” is applied to the performing arts in official contexts - one can get a “Bachelor of Fine Arts” degree in Theatre or Dance, and maybe other performing arts as well, as well as for visual arts. One might even be able to get a BFA in creative writing, but I’m not sure. Music people, on the other hand, can get “Bachelor of Music” degrees - which is like BFAs, except it’s for music - and there is still the plain ol’ “BA” degree for all arts.
Classics, that is the ancient world in all its guises, literary, linguistic and otherwise, is such an all-encompassing and nigh unbounded field that either to ask what external benefit its study brings or to investigate what purpose Classicists pursue is, to me at any rate, as unintelligible as asking mankind why it reads, learns or converses with others.
~D (awaiting the day when ‘postmodernism’ is but an embarrassing memory of past folly)
I feel I have to say something about postmodernism, maybe I dont understand it as I
should but I did see how those who adhered to it behaved when I first came to
college. While these people maintained there was no point of view better or worse
as regards a text. Because they refused a context they seemed to me to default to
a gut reaction to these books. Almost invariably judging them harshly as somehow not
correct. Well.. blacklisting them.
Its too bad. This theories effect has been very damaging to a number of departments.
Imagine a student saying they were studying the classics at a party and getting snubbed
for it. I"ve been given a hard time for reading Greek before by people involved in this
posmodern literary criticism. No big deal, but I can imagine a younger kid feeling hurt
if they were snubbed for pursuing such an un-pc subject. Yeah. I think it was the moralistic
tone that I saw on a number of occasions that bothered me.
As for why I study classics. Well after studying an eastern discipline for 25 years, and
seeing its effect on people. I saw that no westerner could effectively assimilate such
a foreign diet. Western acculturation would always remain, so it may as well be more
actively investigated, than present in some haphazard manner. So I lit upon the Graeco-
Roman heritage to take a look at, and I’ve enjoyed it immensely. Now I no longer think
about why, I just look forward to my time with some of the old writers.
Well, first of all I am usually very sceptic about anything that defines itself in relevance to something else if that “something else” is not the only alternative. What does postmodernism means really? After modernism? Nice way to describe your world view.
Postmodernism in particular I never quite liked (and I am talking about all the different ‘definitions’ of it; I guess since all is subjective it follows that almost everyone has his/her own definition about what postmodernism is).
Anyway, it’s nothing new under the sun, just a compilation of thoughts expressed before cast in a rather cynical grouping.
My reasons for learning ancient Greek and Latin are rather banal I’d say: I had no choice whatsoever about ancient Greek and no choice about Latin once I decided what I wanted to study in the Uni.
The reason my Latin is still rusty is pure laziness and the reason I still study ancient Greek (I don’t believe anyone can ever say that he has known all there is to know about a language even if we’re talking about his/her native one) is that I just love it (although I admit to a partiality to classical, Attic Greek )
True that. You’ll recall that I said, when I visited the school that I was “appalled.” And now my first impression is common. And they all thought I was just an arrogant teenager who thought he was too cool for school.
Good point. Notice however the plural in the term? You’ll hear it that way: “Master of Fine Art” for painting and sculpture (sometimes music composition), and a “Master of Fine Arts” for performing arts and commercial fields like illustration. It is fine with me if the term simplifies; however, at cocktail parties amongst the beau monde (rich people who buy art and support the arts), the misuse of the terms is a shibboleth.
I really could talk about art and the arts forever, but returning to the topic at hand…
I am happy to believe you meant that as an artistic way of saying that the classics belong in the essence of our lives and studies, but I’m looking for ways of explaining the study of classics to people who do not already get it and inspiring them to want it. I’m talking about funding, selling books, getting documentaries made, classics programs expanded in schools, more students signing up for courses, and really bringing the classics to ordinary people, not just an elite few.
That is not an unintelligible goal. Really, to get way out there hyperbolic while stating a plain, cold, hard fact at the same time, the survival of Western Civilization depends on it.
So thanks for the responses so far. I notice that no one has talked about studying the bible in particular, but one of the authors of one of my books says that sometimes up to half his students in his Greek classes are there for that reason. Is the reason that no one’s brought this up because I already mentioned it in the first post of the thread?
By the way, those Swedish girls you mention are a case in point. A black-haired beauty in a sea of blondes has no rival. The triumph of the exotic over the everyday? Rarity versus the norm? Like what makes Latin sexy today? Q.E.D.
Annis wrote.
I’d also point out how many textkittens seem to be interested in a lot of languages, both living and departed.
Me too.
Whiteoctave wrote:
Classics, that is the ancient world in all its guises, literary, linguistic and otherwise, is such an all-encompassing and nigh unbounded field that either to ask what external benefit its study brings or to investigate what purpose Classicists pursue is, to me at any rate, as unintelligible as asking mankind why it reads, learns or converses with others.
Some classicists may have failed to notice it or may still be in denial but the cataclysm did happen, didn’t it? Those defending the merits of a classical education from the start of the last century onwards lost the battle. Society is not the same. The denizens of today’s classical ghost towns are no doubt very much alive. In a world racked by constant change, understanding the mindsets and motivation of survivors makes some sense.
Alauda wrote:
Painting and sculpture are still best taught the old fashioned way just like it was done in Greco-Roman times, and throughout the medieval era.
Surely that’s a gross over-simplification. Workshop practices and goals have varied greatly over the past 2½ millennia.
There were no sculptors who could sculpt like Phidias, Myron, or Michelangelo. They could not, and indeed, defiantly proclaimed why they WOULD not teach or do. It left a bitter taste. I decided to teach myself.
The best practitioners aren’t always the best teachers - except of themselves perhaps.
