Blog

Connection (Synthesis) Table – Boyer, Scheuer/Ungar, Major

Project 2 – LIL 120  (Fall ‘21), Cripps

	Boyer	Scheuer/Ungar (yup. Revisit those dudes.)	Art & Design Major Reqs
Career/Tech v. Liberal Learn	–	“It is far wiser for students to prepare for change–and the multiple careers they are likely to have–than to search for a single job track that might one day become a dead end”.	Graphic Design for the Working World (Helps adapt and utilize major into more “Vocational” careers)
History/Tradition	“Overlooked in such debates was the fact that most disciplines that now have status within the academy–modern languages, laboratory sciences, for example–were themselves once considered too novel for the academy to embrace”.	“On the contrary, because of its inclusiveness and its respect for classical traditions, the liberal arts could properly be described as a conservative approach to preparation for life”.	Art in the Modern World (ARH 210) (Understanding History)
Social/Economic Implications	–	“Hard economic times inevitably bring scrutiny of all accepted ideals and institutions, and this time around liberal-arts education has been especially hard hit”.	Fundamentals of Web Design  (Maybe ties with communications due to social media today?)
Ethical/Moral Issues	(This one was difficult for me personally)	–	Exhibition Concentration Seminar (Questioning ethical values of personal styles and focuses)
Personal/ Social Development	“Professionals is almost every field–doctors, journalists, lawyers, …–once they begin to practice their craft, must respond to questions that relate not just to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the field, but to the ‘why’ as well”.	–	Studio Concentration Seminar (Honing personal skills & voice)
______________
______________
______________
______________

Learning Outcome 1 (Art & Design Media)

“Be able to determine and demonstrate concrete methods and processes for research and creation, or performance, in the arts. Accordingly, they will be able to demonstrate skill in graphic and/ or symbolic communication”. 

Boyer Pg. 224 (Mid-Bottom Paragraph) 

“We are confident that the goals of general education, when properly defined, can be accomplished through the major. The liberal arts and the useful arts can be brought together in the curriculum just as they inevitably must be brought together during life”. 

These two excerpts are similar because each speaks of understanding different concepts and skills within one major. In the Art & Design learning objectives, one isn’t just to create art, but also learn research, creation, communication, and performance skills as well. The Boyer quote agrees with this because he states that goals of general education, such as communication and research skills, should be connected and defined through a major. These texts show how to use a variety of skills and assist in allowing efficient use of said skills.

One main tension that Boyer discusses in this chapter of his article is regarding the usually hostile discourses between professors of the “Liberal and Useful Arts”.

“The amount of misunderstanding and hostility crackling between the ‘two cultures’ is amazing and, considering our liberal arts mission, probably destructive. Each side needs somehow to be convinced that they are working for similar objectives”.

Because of the divide between the liberal arts and other “practical” majors, teachers of these fields have become hostile and often argue regarding these subjects. An example of this would be a business professor making fun of a professor or students who engage in learning/ studying the arts or literature. While this is a huge issue, both sides are fighting for somewhat the same thing: success and purpose for students outside of college. The arguing side was most likely created due to the influx of business majors and expanse of business-related majors from 1970 – 1985. This is why back then business and “practical” majors were seen as more useful and needed outside of college, while in my opinion, we are switching back to needing more creative thinkers today.

“By an enriched major we mean encouraging students not only to explore a field in depth, but also to help them put their field of special study in perspective.”

The response or solution to this discourse would be implementing a more self-aware model of education called the enriched major. This would consist of students asking themselves questions regarding their major such as what is the history/ tradition of my major? What are the social and economic implications? What are the ethical and moral issues to be confronted? By asking these questions students become more aware of the components of the degree they may want to pursue, and instead of competing with general education; intertwining with it to become broadened and more efficient outside of college.

QCQ #1

“Hence, proposition 2: Traditional biographers seek to profile an individual and recapitulate a life story, but microhistorians, tracing their elusive subjects through slender records, tend to address themselves to solving small mysteries, in the process of which a microhistorian may recapitulate the subject’s entire life story, though that is not his primary purpose”. 

I just thought this was a very interesting and provocative way to view microhistory as a practice. I personally had never heard of microhistory and was very surprised that I hadn’t because I feel like the basis of it is very common in historical analysis. In my opinion microhistory is just as important as biography because it essentially is just a more detailed, less broad version. I think that teaching microhistory would be a very interesting class because the skill can be used in many ways. Instead of researching the entire journey of someone’s life, we can instead pick notable parts and really dig to get accurate and precise information, which sometimes a broad biography lacks. It also has loose constraints which is also interesting, for example you could do a microhistory of someone’s entire life if you choose to do so, it just being very labor intensive. This proposition also ties into learning more of a person’s culture while untangling the detailed “small mysteries”, which I think is usually not mentioned as much in broad biographies. I think overall microhistorians are needed and that this type of analysis could be used more effectively by the general public of academics and historians. My question is: What do you think the world would be like if microhistory was discovered/ invented a couple hundred years earlier? How would our historical literature be different?

QCQ #2

“The biography-loving public does not want to hear that biography is a flawed genre.”21 Whether it annoys their readers or not, microhistorians, too, like to discuss the rights and wrongs of burglary while jimmying locks. But they are equally likely to pretend they were never in the house in the first place or, if they were, that they had a badge and a search warrant”.

I thought this quote was very interesting and true to many practices today. Many public groups are not shy to assert this type of hypocrisy and get away with it. This is a great comparison of microhistory and biography because it’s a very real one, and can be seen very often in not just these practices. Many enjoyers of a certain topic would easily turn a blind eye to any negativity and jump to shielding what they enjoy instead. This is easy, but in the end will usually end up causing more harm than good due these flaws being evident but not analyzed. When a group of people enjoy something it’s easy to look at it with rose colored glasses and ignore any issues with whatever it may be. However, because we are human nothing is bound to be perfect; therefore this logic is flawed yet very common in my opinion. Also very common and said above is the way that historians are likely to try and cover it up afterwards, which shows some similarity between microhistory and biography. My question would be: Regarding the general public, what causes this compulsion to defend a subject so blindly that you become unaware of its issues, and why do biography and microhistory both share this? 

QCQ #1  (Quotations by William Hazlett)                            

“ ‘Why do we always read the accounts in the newspapers of dreadful fires and shocking murders?’ Because, he answers, ‘love of mischief, love of cruelty, is as natural to human beings as is sympathy”. Pg. 97 – 98

I think this snippet from the reading not only relates to media culture today, but also shows how humans process and relate to suffering. First off, he begins speaking about how we are drawn as people to view the more dreadful and violent murders, accidents, or tragedies when browsing the news. I feel that this is absolutely true, and it is often even exploited by media outlets. We are drawn to these topics out of curiosity, and news outlets have catered to this by looking for the most gruesome stories to garner attention. Like I said in a previous QCQ, there is usually not much happy news in my opinion besides maybe a break for the viewer to breathe, and these darker stories do catch our attention and keep us glued to the screen effectively. This is because (the author goes to say) we process tragedy and cruelty just as effectively as we process sympathy, making it easy to do so. My question is as follows: If we process sympathy much like cruelty, why are these darker explicit news stories more interesting to us?

QCQ #2

“Flooded with images of the sort that once used to shock and arouse indignation, we are losing our capacity to react. Compassion , stretched to its limits, is going numb”. 
This is an extremely interesting quote that I think is the truth of our time in many ways. There are many people who live in today’s competitive and merciless world who would fit this outline. Many people who have undergone trauma and are conditioned to violence, many of those who serve(d) in the military as well. This is fairly common today, yet is seen as outlandish and isolating by societal norms. We all do feel compassion and sympathy in some ways, unless you of course are born with an impediment such as sociopathy. However all these aspects of environment and upbringing that can cause this outcome aren’t enough. Today, the media alone can numb us to sympathizing with others. This quote in my opinion culminates a main theme of Sontag’s writing regarding media and photography. A general outcome of being exposed to these horrifying and gruesome images is becoming completely numb. In many ways this in fact hinders one’s ability to Regard the Pain of Others, and that is why it’s so interesting. My question would be: “With the world being normalized to this competitive mindset (especially in the professional world), what do you think society would be like if we all sympathized with one another or were all in a way empaths? Would the world be better or worse than it is now?

QCQ #1

“Of course the photographer saw it. And unless there’s been some tampering or misrepresenting , it is the truth”. 

I think that this quote explains media and imagery in a very efficient way regarding it in today’s society. This statement before any photo manipulation means were created is absolutely true, but it goes to say that “tampering” (even years ago) is very possible. Yes, to a degree an artist drawing from a photo reference that a photographer took is the truth, but today it’s harder to explain than that. Because of the influx of media and accessibility to photography, the truth has become harder and harder to grasp. Much like the overstimulation of news publication, now anyone can edit photographs – making many not trustworthy as a solid depiction of reality (as Sontag states “an era of digital photography and Photoshop manipulations”). This statement could very well be said at any time in history, but it does allow us to question: are all photographs in some way the truth? Is there any way for artists like Goya to know that they are truly depicting reality with the art?

QCQ #2

“New demands are made in reality in the era of cameras. The real thing may not be fearsome enough, and therefore needs to be enhanced; or reenacted more convincingly”.

This quote to me explains a very unhealthy habit that we as a people often take part in today, while unfortunately it is also fed into by news publishers and media. While in today’s world everyone searches so desperately for the real truth, we also need something that will surprise us. The excerpt above speaks about altering the truth to make it more fearsome – more interesting – in a way. This contradicts what we look for in the media, but we nonetheless eat it up and hunger for more unrealistic, and exciting media. Sometimes the truth is boring and it will be altered to draw public attention, numbers, etc. This is a very unhealthy way to approach the media because it adapts the public to unrealistic expectations. One of the great hypocrisies of the 21st century is this hunger for adrenaline increasing, unrealistic media, yet we all search for the truth just as much. So much is produced and published today that it makes me wonder: what if photo manipulation was never invented and how would this affect media outlets or the public? 

QCQ #1

“Men make war. Men (most men) like war, since for men there is ‘some glory, some necessity, some satisfaction in fighting’ that women (most women) do not feel or enjoy”. 

“That war is a man’s game–that the killing machine has a gender, and it is male. 

I Think that this quote(s) is interesting because it portrays how much our society has evolved from the 1800-1900’s. During the old times this quote would be very correct due to the fact that women weren’t even allowed to vote so much as fight in wars. Therefore since the beginning of humanity (atleast America), wars have been an activity by men, fought in by men, and won by men. This statistic is why today people find it so compelling to adopt a woman as a world leader or president of the United States. The fact that all of the great wars of our country were caused by men supports said argument. I think that back in the day this quote is very evident, and even some men today believe that this quote is ageless and true; however because we are in an age of change I believe that this may not be the future of our country. My question would be on the more philosophical side of things: why did this happen, and what do you think the world would be like if women originally fought in wars?

QCQ #2

“Wars are now also living room sights and sounds. Information about what is happening elsewhere, called ‘news’, features conflict and violence–’If it bleeds, it leads’ runs the venerable guideline of tabloids and twenty-four-hour headline news shows…”. 

This quote continues to finish a lengthy sentence but again in my opinion truly represents this “flow of information” that is evident in today’s news broadcasts. My whole life I’ve asked myself: “why is the news so depressing?”, and can finally answer the question. The news was created to know what is going on outside of your house, around the world. While good things or “boring” topics could be shown, the grimy and stressful ones garner more views. This was figured out very early and has now created a subculture today of the news being its own type of unenjoyable entertainment (In my opinion). From my point of view, happy news is shown–while extremely briefly–and is almost treated as a break from the dangerous and scary reality that lies behind the TV screen. News today is much less enjoyable than what it was created to be in the beginning, and I think that this quote demonstrates that. My question is as follows: Do you think the world would be a happier/ better place if the news was never invented? 

QCQ #1

“In our time, science and technology cannot play an integrating role, precisely because of the infinite richness of knowledge and the speed of its evolution, which have led to specialization and its obscurities”

“But literature has been, and will continue to be, as long as it exists, one of the common denominators of human experience through which human beings may recognize themselves and converse with each other”

I wanted to include two quotations that disagree fairly blatantly with one another and are placed right after eachother as well, because I think they both play a role in the value of literature. The first one states that technology and science cannot play an integrating role due to its evolution, which I agree with. Technology evolves so quickly, especially now it’s very hard for older generations to keep up with the current, but they can always talk about books and literature. Just the fact that the internet itself was created less than 40 years ago and already we have access to the internet, a camera, calculator, telephone, and messaging service in our pockets – is mind blowing. This is why generations are so split with the understanding of technology. We have some who are born knowing it, then others who were alive during its creation and have to adapt to a completely new world. However my question would be regarding the second quote: Wouldn’t utilizing technology (iPad or Laptop) to analyze and read text and literature – even writing – be considered integration of technology?

QCQ #2

“A person who does not read, or reads little, or reads only trash, is a person with an impediment: he can speak much but he will say little, because his vocabulary is deficient in the means for self-expression. This is not only a verbal limitation. It represents also a limitation in intellect and in imagination”

This statement is one that I personally disagree with, especially with a large chunk of my generation not reading as much as old ones due to the uprising of a plethora of modern pastimes. I don’t read many books. I truly enjoy creative writing, and enjoy reading novels that I’m interested in, but don’t very often. However I also do know how to read and write therefore am not a true representative to challenge this statement. I think that it is ludicrous to say that knowledge of literature limits expression and imagination. Expression can be described as feelings that you show and feelings can be described with words, but they don’t have to be. Many artists – for example Chella Man – produce extremely imaginative and expressive work, but are hindered by disabilities that can stunt or slow their literary understanding. Elvis Presley didn’t know how to read music, but could create it extremely captivatingly. In my opinion knowledge of literature is a vocally expressive impediment and one that regards vocabulary, but not creativity. My question would be: what is the explanation of visual artists that are dyslexic or don’t read literature creating expressive art? 

“They feel artistic value is not so intrinsic in the work as much as a function of when the stance of a certain artistic approach is introduced to the public. A brown painting exhibited today could appear to derive from an obsolete concern to everyone, but, if shown tomorrow, it could be called fresh and new”. 

I think that this quote pulled from the Exhibiting section of the article is very true to how genres of art change today. When in the past (1800’s – 2000’s) art genres that were popular would be almost set in stone, especially in the older eras where art was at its peak evolution. For example in the 1850’s during the revolution against romanticism, realism was created and was extremely popular during this time. Whereas today, so many styles of art exist and we kind of draw from the old ways in my opinion. The ancient eras of art can be drawn from for inspiration, but today’s “genre” is such an amalgam of techniques and styles that constantly change with trends. One year acrylic pouring could be trending and the next impressionism or abstract painting. 

Why do you think in today’s society this flurry of styles came to be, were these trends a byproduct of social media and the internet? 

“There has been futile debate about whether photography, film, television, advertising, or industrial design are complete arts or not.”

This quote from the Fabrication section of the article is just a very good conversation point when it comes to the age-old question, “What is Art”? I ask myself and friends this question often because I am someone who does personally view photography as a form of art in some ways. Composition and rules of photography make it more difficult to do perfectly and to master in my opinion. Of course there is a huge grey area, and the reason this argument exists is rooted in history that dates back to the invention of the camera itself. In 1888, when the first camera was invented, realism painters now had to compete with a machine to capture reality. This sparked the first argument of many, and created this issue of whether a photo is “real art”. I personally view both hyper-realism and photography lower than most genres of art because I enjoy viewing an artist’s unique view or vision on a subject when painting, sculpting, etc. When copying reality what makes you different from a camera? Sure technique is there and it can be difficult and time consuming, but most pieces made this way lack flair in my opinion. 

What is your personal opinion on this age-old argument, and how can you justify your opinion? Why or why not are these forms of media considered art in your opinion?

One of my short-term personal goals this semester/ year is to meet more new people on campus. This doesn’t mean ‘make friends’ with everyone on campus, but instead get to know the names of more of my peers and get to know them, which could in turn lead to friendship. I think this is a very important goal because especially for me last year, going to a smaller school during the pandemic; it was extremely difficult to meet a lot of people (I was mainly restricted by the schools population). A related passage from “Why do we need the Liberal Arts” in Scheuers’ article states “The overall goal is to foster vibrant and prosperous communities with broad and deep participation , in public conversations marked by fairness, inclusion, and (where critical thinking comes in) intellectual rigor”. This small quote is actually one of the reasons I picked UNE to transfer to. I enjoy small inclusive communities, but still want there to be a more diverse population than my old school, which I feel like UNE stands for in some ways.

One of my short term goals that could be considered long term is to learn how to utilize academic knowledge that I learn at UNE in the “real world” after college. I feel that in High School this isn’t as focused on, usually leading to students asking questions like “Well how can I use this math equation in my life after school?” and most of the time teachers can’t answer them. I feel that now we are following a looser curriculum and taking classes that we choose, this is much more important not just from a professional standpoint, but from one for the sake of learning itself, as well. The quote I chose is from the UNE Core Handbook under section III, “Created to provide a foundation in the liberal arts, the core reflects the values of the college and is designed to prepare students for living informed, thoughtful, and active lives in a complex and changing society”. This quote reassures me that we will be learning how to apply out academics learned at UNE, to the outside world and beyond.