Re: Re revolution
- Dec 8, 2013 Expand MessagesView SourceBill: literary critics have to do the same. We don't have a body of descriptive work in our domain that is comparable to that available to Darwin in biology. So we've got to create that body of workI don't think my (or Bacon's) point has communicated to you or anyone else, although we discussed it some time ago..The opposite of "reading/ criticism/ consumption of the arts is writing/production of the arts.The revolution I am talking about is the same as Bacon advocated - then it was: get rid of people reading/consuming other books (wh. was what natural philosophers/Scholastics mainly did) and replace entirely with people going into the field, studying nature/the world directly - true scientists. In no science, do you have specialist critics or readers. You have only producers of knowledge and they, secondarily, criticise/test each others' works. In science, you don't put Einstein or Newton, before relativity or gravity. The equivalent now is get rid of arts critics and only have artists and focus on the various parts of the world they study not the work. Probably the majority of academics believe that the arts are, in one form or other, "fiction" not essentially scientific knowledge of the world. Eagleton, for example, thinks it v. hard (in After Theory) to explain why realism is the dominant and ever persistent form of literature.But science courses, treat the arts totally oppositely - as scientifically useful knowledge of the world. Thus courses in say Psychology, Psychiatry, Law, Sociology, Medicine increasingly use works of art, esp, movies to study their subjects. And they should - the arts are essential for them, and ultimately for the study of every part of the world. If you want to study, say, psychological types and disorders, or how people deal with and also contract certain diseases, you need the arts.