Perhaps Michael Polanyi would not dispute that:
"Uncritical imitation" was not the goal of the academy system." -- in either the time of Reynolds or the time of Conger. But still, his theory of knowledge would seem to apply to education in a wide variety of arts in a variety of cultures -- from bass fishing to guitar playing to Asian brush painting -- and he would have been likely to apply it to modern medical research (his own field of expertise) "By watching the master and emulating his efforts in the presence of his example the apprentice unconsciously picks up the rules of the art, including those which are not explicitly known to the master himself. A society which wants to preserve a fund of personal knowledge must submit to tradition." ************************************************************** "Uncritical imitation" was not the goal of the academy system. In fact, it was just the opposite; i.e, critical imitation. I suggest the Discourses of Sir Joshua Reynolds, particularly his Discourse (talk to the students of the English Royal Academy) "On Imitation". It was the same in the French Academy. Those people were not dummies. The academic system is greaty misunderstood. If it was really as bad as later revisionists said it was -- to establish contrasts with the early modernist artists -- there would never have been a striking abundance of excellent "academic" painters, particularly before 1850. Jacques L. David is the usual scapegoat for the horrors of the academic system even though he was a superior artist in every way, and an early academic. He should be compared to his contemporary, Goya, and not to the hacks of the post-1850 years -- mainly those who went the route of fantasy and mawkish nostalgia/ideals in an ever increasingly brutal, violent, material, realist, culturally diverse, and cynical worldview. Those artists became more and more skilled and less and less in touch with their actual world-reality while those in touch could barely keep up with a rapidly changing world. The Impressionists seemed to have struck a balance, and now, in retrospect, were far more conservative than they were made out to be --and not so different technically from David and Goya. WC --- aesthete aesthete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: burningthron [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:23:02 +0000 > > To: aesthetics-l @mh.databack.com > > Subject: taste > > > > > > > And ... I think it's one of the things that an art > teacher does -- teaching > > the student to see the way he does -- without even > opening his mouth to > > explain anything. > > > - An art which cannot be specified in detail cannot > be transmitted by > prescription, since no prescription for it exists. > It can be passed on > only by example from master to apprentice... You > follow your master > because you trust his manner of doing things even > when you cannot > analyse and account in detail for its effectiveness. > ich are not explicitly known to the master > himself.By watching the > master and emulating his efforts in the presence of > his example, the > apprentice unconsciously picks up the rules of the > art, including > those wh These > hidden rules can be assimilated only by a person who > surrenders > himself to that extent uncritically to the imitation > of another. A > society which wants to preserve a fund of personal > knowledge must > submit to tradition. > > Polanyi > _____________________________________________________________ Love tea? Click and drink in fine teas from around the world. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijlgNeORK2uQQN4G9BCxwtlst i3KPAO0uaOmwizi6p9qyCbFy/
