On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Don't forget the original topic-matter was a > pair of quotes condemning all "analysis" - at whatever level.
Analysis isn't painting or writing because ... well, it's a different thing. I greatly dislike someone telling me how I will--or should--feel when I [see a movie, read a book, meet a person, etc.] at a later time. I think your objection to "theme" lessons is akin to this. I will say that in undergraduate school, studying for a BA in English, I did get caught up in Formalist criticism and, at one moment during my senior year I found that I couldn't decide whether Shakespeare was better than Bacon! I suddenly realized I had driven myself down a critical blind alley in which techniques and method overtook purpose and more of the other stuff in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy! > Analysis of a > text can be very salubrious when it's done with an eye to seeing how the > author's intended EFFECT can be made more likely or cherishable. I very much > hope that's what you do as a teacher, and that you don't dwell on the > student-painter's "theme" or "meaning". I think a teacher's paramount responsibility consists of three things: introducing students to new stuff, instructing students in useful skills and techniques that will be beneficial later, and showing student show to approach things critically--intellectually, emotionally, self-referentially. Analysis serves this last purpose, and it's salubriousness isn't achieved by revealing how the author's intended effect can become more likely, but by making the means and mechanism more clear to the student. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
