Strange Classes you've taken

[driveway]

There's nothing wrong with not liking to read Shakespeare. I've read everything he's ever written, with the exceptions of The Rape of Lucrece and Troilus and Cressida, two works I have no question I'll get around to reading, but I've got the background and experience to be able to "stage" them in my head as I read. If that's not something you're able to do, then you probably won't enjoy reading the guy.

He didn't write to be read, he wrote to be performed. A good production of Shakespeare is as good as art gets. Unfortunately a bad production of Shakespeare (and most of them are) is wretched beyond belief.

I have mixed feelings about teaching Shakespeare in high-schools. On the one hand I like the idea of exposing kids to the work, on the other it's so often poorly taught, and a lot of what Shakespeare is doing with language is going to be way above the level that most high-schoolers are capable of dealing with that it could (and often does) just turn kids right off altogether.

Finally, Romeo and Juliet should never be performed in high schools. The actors playing the title characters should always, always end up sleeping together - if they don't the production is doomed to failure.

Anyways to get the thread back on topic, the strangest class I ever enrolled in would have to be Indonesian Shadow-Puppet Theatre. However I did have the good sense to drop the class, twice.

At UVic there was, and might still be, a phenomenal "trap" course called Listening to Music. It's offered by the music department and is a first-year course with no pre-reqs that's open to students from any faculty. So, of course it gets filled with engineers and biologist and psych kids thinking that it'll be an easy 'A'.

In actuality though it's an intensive Music Theory class, requires huge amounts of effort and study and has something like an 80% drop/failure rate.

Foolish scientists, thinking art is easy.

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by chid

Many artists, including myself do these things purely for the discourse they create. They clearly know who funds them but don't you think it is funny that they get funding and are allowed to express these criticisms in a creative (sometimes) fashion? Art - esp. contemporary art IMO has a main function to force its viewers into shock / displeasure / enjoyment ONLY for the dialogue it creates and the thoughts it provokes

I can see your point and it definitely does stir up conversations and provoke thought, usually starts along the lines of WTF???

For me I guess being exposed to it constantly changed my opinion and made me a little more cynical. I got tired of listening to 18/19 year olds from suburbia give their views on how corrupt/unfair society is and their need to "take action against the evil government and everything mainstream" when the government was in fact the only reason they were there. Pretending that what they were doing in their art classroom in Calgary was changing the world. Who knows maybe 100 years from now people will find some of the work profound, but I doubt it, I still believe that hammering a nail in the floor and calling it art is bogus. Any half wit with a brain cell could technically call themselves an artist, Johnny Knoxville is technically an artist, he just doesn't claim it as so.

IMO to be an artist you have to be able create something, whether it be drawing, painting, sculpting whatever that not everyone can do like draw realistically or design a great structure, pretty much all art before the 1970's and "contemporary". Again things like hanging string from a staircase takes ZERO creative thought or planning.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well how am I supposed to take a statement that my opinion on Shakespeare is not equally valid?

Well, your opinion on Shakespeare is only as valid as you make it. When you read a tiny fraction of his work, and then dismiss the rest because you "don't enjoy it"--well, you can guess how "valid" that is.

In fact, one of my pet peeves is the idea that somehow a person can arrive at an opinion with no knowledge to back it up, and that opinion is somehow "equally valid" just because we live in a relativistic, politically correct universe.

Well, sorry. If you're ignorant, your opinion is less valid. "Them's the breaks." Of course someone who has read more Shakespeare has a more valid opinion on his merits than you. That's just the way life works. It's just as true of engineering, nuclear physics and politics. Nothing is free in this life. You have to work for the validity of your opinions just like you have to work for everything in this life. The more you learn, the more "valid" your opinion. The more you refuse to learn, the less "valid" your opinions will be. You can choose not to read Shakespeare--but to do so renders your opinion on his merits less valid than that of a person who chooses to read him.

The good news about ignorance is that it's only permanent if you want it to be. But you don't get to pretend that your "opinion" is just as valid as that of someone who knows more than you do. But I don't doubt you'll find some way to be offended and take umbrage--so go ahead and do that, I suppose. However, that doesn't add to the validity of your opinion--and I'm pretty sure you know that.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Are you saying you like the way Shakespeare's impressive diction feels on your tongue?

That's the sort of pun that would make Shakespeare proud!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Are you saying you like the way Shakespeare's impressive diction feels on your tongue?

You know, the worst Shakespeare-related film I've ever seen was this Al Pacino version of Richard II; it's actually more of a critical look at staging the play as opposed to a film adaptation, and they spend about half an hour talking about the first soliloquy, and then rush through the rest of the play in record time (pausing to argue about whether they should cast Winona Ryder in it). It's exactly what you're talking about, if you over-analyze the text, you ruin its ability to tell a story; Shakespeare is a lot of fun because you can plunge into his work at incredible depth and still find new layers of subtext, but typically the strength of his plays is how they work as complete stories, and you can't appreciate that if you just dive right into analyzing and dissecting every word.

Pacino's version of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was amazing though.

[Bobblehead]

One of the benefits of growing up in SW Ont was going to Stratford and seeing Shakespeare performed.

In my school, Gr.9 English had a trip every year (I saw Julius Caesar) and something almost everyone in the class remarked upon was for the first act it was very difficult to understand. But then your ear seems to pick up the cadence; suddenly you didn't notice the archaic speech but followed the story. Sure, there are many parts that we didn't understand but seeing it performed filled in the gaps and it was a highly valuable experience.

I don't read any Shakespeare but would have zero reservations about going to see his plays.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Pokerface

IMO to be an artist you have to be able create something, whether it be drawing, painting, sculpting whatever that not everyone can do like draw realistically or design a great structure, pretty much all art before the 1970's and "contemporary". Again things like hanging string from a staircase takes ZERO creative thought or planning.

I disagree. Being an artist doesn't require your ability to create something that most people can't - that's being a technician or a craftsperson. Being an artist requires three things:

Having ideas no one else has had, or coming up with new ways to present old ideas.

Actually following through on your ideas and doing them. It's all well and good to have an idea for a peice of art, but Marcel Duchamp's Fountain is art not because he was the first to think of calling an ordinary object art, but because he was the first to actually do so.

Actually living as close to your artistic ideals as possible. This is the hardest part of being an artist. You can't just paint a picture and call yourself an artist. You're a painter, sure, but probably not an artist. You actually have to comport yourself in day-to-day life in a way that compliments whatever conclusions you've drawn about life and choose to express through your art.

That's why Bruce Springsteen is an artist and Britney Spears isn't.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, your opinion on Shakespeare is only as valid as you make it. When you read a tiny fraction of his work, and then dismiss the rest because you "don't enjoy it"--well, you can guess how "valid" that is.

In fact, one of my pet peeves is the idea that somehow a person can arrive at an opinion with no knowledge to back it up, and that opinion is somehow "equally valid" just because we live in a relativistic, politically correct universe.

Well, sorry. If you're ignorant, your opinion is less valid. "Them's the breaks." Of course someone who has read more Shakespeare has a more valid opinion on his merits than you. That's just the way life works. It's just as true of engineering, nuclear physics and politics. Nothing is free in this life. You have to work for the validity of your opinions just like you have to work for everything in this life. The more you learn, the more "valid" your opinion. The more you refuse to learn, the less "valid" your opinions will be. You can choose not to read Shakespeare--but to do so renders your opinion on his merits less valid than that of a person who chooses to read him.

The good news about ignorance is that it's only permanent if you want it to be. But you don't get to pretend that your "opinion" is just as valid as that of someone who knows more than you do. But I don't doubt you'll find some way to be offended and take umbrage--so go ahead and do that, I suppose. However, that doesn't add to the validity of your opinion--and I'm pretty sure you know that.

I've never once claimed to be well versed in Shakespeare, in fact as you're well aware I've claimed just the opposite. My only point has ever been that I haven't particularly enjoyed what I've read. Why isn't that valid? I have to read 20 works before I can decide if I've enjoyed any of them? It's a matter of personal taste, not an assessment of quality. You seem to have turned this into a debate over the merits of the work, when all I've said is that it's not up my alley.

I'll put it to you this way, if someone went to 4 hockey games and decided it just wasn't their thing would that opinion be invalid?

[Ace Handy]

I took a class at U of L called "Exploring Creativity". It was pretty much pre-school for twenty somethings, full of Management students looking for an easy option. The bummer was it was on Friday morning from 8-11 and she actually took attendance. So you had a room full of sweaty, hung-over kids trying not to puke while exploring their creativity.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'll put it to you this way, if someone went to 4 hockey games and decided it just wasn't their thing would that opinion be invalid?

Yes. Hockey is, empirically speaking, the best, most exciting, and most enjoyable sport.

In all seriousness, it would take more than 4 games to learn the nuances of the game. Someone who gives up after watching only 4 games hasn't given it a real chance. I suspect the same is true for your experience of Shakespeare.

To me, having read a play only once, without watching it performed, without help with the language, without attempting to perform some of it yourself, is tantamount to not reading it at all. 4x0 is... well, math isn't my strong suit, English is. But I think it's still 0.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yes. Hockey is, empirically speaking, the best, most exciting, and most enjoyable sport.

In all seriousness, it would take more than 4 games to learn the nuances of the game. Someone who gives up after watching only 4 games hasn't given it a real chance. I suspect the same is true for your experience of Shakespeare.

To me, having read a play only once, without watching it performed, without help with the language, without attempting to perform some of it yourself, is tantamount to not reading it at all. 4x0 is... well, math isn't my strong suit, English is. But I think it's still 0.

In grade 12 I had a fantastic teacher at Francis that made Hamlet very interesting. In grades 10 and 11 my teachers sucked and so too did the Shakespeare.

That being said, at this point in time, I don't find anything redeeming for myself in reading Shakespeare. When it is presented to me and I HAVE to learn it, I admit I can get some satisfaction out of how epic it really is.

To use an analogy, I know Citizen Kane is an amazing film, but I didn't particularly enjoy it. I get why people think that but I certainly wouldn't rank it as the all time best. Same with Shakespeare, I can recognize its greatness but don't particularly enjoy it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying you don't like Shakespeare but it is pretty ignorant to say that it sucks.

[MissTeeks]

I took a History class in Crime and Punishment in 18th and 19th Century England that was lots of fun. Learning about being drawn and quartered, what horrible way to go!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yes. Hockey is, empirically speaking, the best, most exciting, and most enjoyable sport.

In all seriousness, it would take more than 4 games to learn the nuances of the game. Someone who gives up after watching only 4 games hasn't given it a real chance. I suspect the same is true for your experience of Shakespeare.

To me, having read a play only once, without watching it performed, without help with the language, without attempting to perform some of it yourself, is tantamount to not reading it at all. 4x0 is... well, math isn't my strong suit, English is. But I think it's still 0.

Well you'll have to forgive as I just haven't had the time to attempt to break through that wall and come to the same conclusions as you. Like I said before, reading for pleasure is pretty rare for me nowadays, and when I get the chance I'm not inclined to suffer through something I don't enjoy on the chance that I'll change my mind by the end. Maybe I'll pick it up at some point in the future, maybe not. To be honest, I find very little fiction interesting, I prefer historical texts, biographies etc. So if I don't decide to pick it up again it's not because I think it lacks any redeeming qualities, it's simply because I like other things.

I haven't made a judgment that all Shakespeare is terrible, or even not something I might love, I've simply stated an opinion that my experiences so far have not been enjoyable. It's a simple matter of personal preference, nothing more. I'm sure there are plenty of things that you don't like that I enjoy, and maybe you'd come to like them too if you tried them again, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your current opinion on the matter.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by enthused

A couple arts students who have a difficult time in a philosophy class does not indicate that Alberta has a poor education system. Not everyone is going to excel at every subject, people certainly have their strengths and weaknesses.

Sure, some art students may struggle at certain courses that say, engineering students find easy. However, there are some engineers who can't write a paper, let alone a proper sentence to save their lives. Not everyone is perfect in every subject, but that doesn't in any way say that Alberta has a poor education system.

Well wouldn't that further prove my point that the system isn't that great? Especially in the North American (and moreso Canadian) careers, you have to have a diversified skill set (and I use the word "skill" very losely) and you can't be that ridiculously weak in any skill. Simple A and B, A or B and so on, thats like kindergarten logic except they put it into words such as "If Joe has 3 nickles and 2 dimes and Bob has 5 quarters and 4 dimes, how many dimes do Joe and Bob have combined?" I'm not talking about anything crazy here, it was an introductory level and it was a class from their department. If an engineer can't write, they're going to be screwed in the workforce since you always have to make proposals, make presentations and so on. As far as the engineer is concerned, they should be able to write/read enough that they can communicate with their clients, customers, peers or what have you. I'm of the firm belief you shouldn't be that ridiculously weak and make an excuse that you don't need it, whether it being adding 7+10 or writing a comprehendable sentence.

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by driveway

I disagree. Being an artist doesn't require your ability to create something that most people can't - that's being a technician or a craftsperson. Being an artist requires three things:

Having ideas no one else has had, or coming up with new ways to present old ideas.

Actually following through on your ideas and doing them. It's all well and good to have an idea for a peice of art, but Marcel Duchamp's Fountain is art not because he was the first to think of calling an ordinary object art, but because he was the first to actually do so.

Actually living as close to your artistic ideals as possible. This is the hardest part of being an artist. You can't just paint a picture and call yourself an artist. You're a painter, sure, but probably not an artist. You actually have to comport yourself in day-to-day life in a way that compliments whatever conclusions you've drawn about life and choose to express through your art.

That's why Bruce Springsteen is an artist and Britney Spears isn't.

This is a very fine line we are walking, this is an extremely subjective topic. I agree with your statement:

Having ideas no one else has had, or coming up with new ways to present old ideas

Except that one would have to have the skill to execute these ideas, otherwise you just have a creative thought. Even still that wouldn't always make you an "artist". I believe just because you claim something to be art doesn't mean it should be nor does it make you an artist.

Duchamp's fountain is a famous piece of art yes, but a urinal with a signature? the craftsman that made it or the designer should be credited with that piece of art before Duchamp. Would the fountain piece even be considered art had he not painted "Nude descending a staircase"? That piece took something I believe defines an artist:

an eye for detail, space and shape that you first understand and then transfer into a creation whether that be a painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. The style is irrelevant but the understanding is key. Which you can tell Duchamp has otherwise he could not create this piece.

It all comes down to your individual idea of what is an artist and art. I consider Duchamp an artist based on the work I've seen (ie nude on staircase), but not all of his pieces I would consider art, again simply based on my definition. I agree with living your ideals and creating art for that reason whatever it may be, but in my mind if you don't have the talent and understanding to pull of a still life I don't consider you an artist.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Rory_B._Bellows

Something for you to chew on. I teach at a high school (I know we are talking about Uni here) but last semester we had a group of high ranking Australian teachers/administrators come to our district to learn how we as a district and teachers are teaching using technology, and our curriculum. Smartboards and such...most have never heard of them or seen them. After discussing with them about our (math) curriculum, alot of them said that what I was teaching in grade 11, was intro math in University in Australia. I have been told on numerous occasions that the Alberta curriculum is one of the most rigourous ones out there in the entire world. At many conferences (IB) I have been to with teachers from around the world, they are amazed at how dificult the Alberta Curriculum is.

Currently we have an exchange teacher from Australia teaching in our school and they routinely say that we have harsher standards.

Please elaborate on the statement on what you have heard about our education system.

Well if you are a teacher you take pride in the curriculum and academic standards in Alberta and that's fine. I said in my first post that what I know about NA education system is second hand but the things I have been told do not paint a pretty picture. And honestly, this thread doesn't either.

Two quick examples - someone said that they study for two degrees at two separate universities. Now this is ok if you are a/ a genius or b/ both schools have pretty damn low standards or c/ the course in question is something funny such as "communication." I know one guy who did his commerce and law degrees simultaneously but he's now running a multinational company so I think that's an exception. If someone can breeze throught two universities at the same time, well to me that speaks more about the academic requirements than the student in question.

The other example was that from someone's highschool class, 90% of students went to university. Again, as someone who's looking at it from the outside, to me it speaks volumes about the university, well I should call it a post-high school school, that'd be more accurate. Where are the requirements if anybody who has the brainpower to find the way to the campus gets in? Unless the university/faculty has a high drop out rate I'd say it's pretty pathetic when the post secondary education has been watered down like this.

[chid]

Originally Posted by driveway

I disagree. Being an artist doesn't require your ability to create something that most people can't - that's being a technician or a craftsperson. Being an artist requires three things:

Having ideas no one else has had, or coming up with new ways to present old ideas.

Actually following through on your ideas and doing them. It's all well and good to have an idea for a peice of art, but Marcel Duchamp's Fountain is art not because he was the first to think of calling an ordinary object art, but because he was the first to actually do so.

Actually living as close to your artistic ideals as possible. This is the hardest part of being an artist. You can't just paint a picture and call yourself an artist. You're a painter, sure, but probably not an artist. You actually have to comport yourself in day-to-day life in a way that compliments whatever conclusions you've drawn about life and choose to express through your art.

That's why Bruce Springsteen is an artist and Britney Spears isn't.

Yes it is about who does it first - but also about the context in which it is created. Sure two girls can eat ice cream until they puke and then eat their own puke but its where/why/how/. The act was done in the context of the artist community, not as some random act.

Sure anyone could nail a hole into a floor and CALL it art, but would it be?
Would that person have thought about the message/the intention/ or lack thereof? Context is key. When Duchamp placed a Urinal in a gallery it was completely shocking and its exactly what he wanted, people to wonder what Art actually is? If its in a gallery is it art?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Well if you are a teacher you take pride in the curriculum and academic standards in Alberta and that's fine. I said in my first post that what I know about NA education system is second hand but the things I have been told do not paint a pretty picture. And honestly, this thread doesn't either.

Two quick examples - someone said that they study for two degrees at two separate universities. Now this is ok if you are a/ a genius or b/ both schools have pretty damn low standards. I know one guy who did his commerce and law degrees simultaneusly but he's now running a multinational company so I think that's an exception. If someone can breeze throught two universities at the same time, well to me that speaks more about the academic requirements than the student in question.

Other example was that from someone's highschool class, 90% of students went to university. Again, as someone who's looking at it from the outside, to me it speaks volume about the university, well I should call it a post-high school school, that'd be more accurate. Where are the requirements if anybody who has the brainpower to find the way to the campus gets in? Unless the university/faculty has a high drop out rate I'd say it's pretty pathetic when the post secondary education has been watered down like this.

I thought you'd have some actual hard evidence, but all you have is hearsay?! Now I'm starting to wonder about Australia's education system.

I heard that only about 20% of students actually go to post-secondary and that the drop-out rate may be as high as 80% in some faculties.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by peter12

I thought you'd have some actual hard evidence, but all you have is hearsay?! Now I'm starting to wonder about Australia's education system.

I heard that only about 20% of students actually go to post-secondary and that the drop-out rate may be as high as 80% in some faculties.

What exactly in my first post on page 2, where I said "things I've HEARD" confused you?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

What exactly in my first post on page 2, where I said "things I've HEARD" confused you?

Generalities don't give you the ground to make objectivist claims/moralizing lectures regarding Canada's education system.