[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the more money a society has, the more artists, philosophers, writers, and thinkers it's able to afford. the renaissance exploded in a handful of italian city states for a reason-- they were fucking loaded. same thing with athens. the enlightenment was propelled by the rise of capitalism that was fueled by gold and silver from the americas, as well as the slave trade. wherever you find intelligence , there is money backing it up.

I just quoted this paragraph but your post as a whole raised some really important issues that I think most reaonable people would find really hard to argue against.

I remember a while back someone - I think it was you - linking an article from (I think) the New Yorker, about the fate of the arts in the recession. It seemed to be suggesting that the arts will have to rethink its reliance on the very corporate funding that has traditionally supported it.

This would obviously require the arts to undergo a huge internal re-think as to what they're for and how they can function in that role. While I obviously find that task daunting, I also think it's now absolutely necessary and might ultimately prove quite positive (a point T&B made in an earlier post, which I agree with). Not only are the arts clearly unable to function in the way they've become accustomed for so long, there's a good argument to say that's probably no bad thing.

[Lurker]

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/events/public_show.php?id=1476

[Glice]

As in, 'is there a text in this class?' Good old Stan.

No, but seriously, I've recently come around to the idea that good old Fisho might seem a bit way out, but his stuff on performative readings is pretty crucial. I'm not saying 'is this a book?' sounds anything like interesting, but, well, it could be.

[Lurker]

I've not heard of Stanley Fish before.

It doesn't look like something I'd be interested in going to...but then is absolutely no description of what is going discussed. There's no indication of in what the question is being asked. Is it an historical account of the existence of books? Something more theoretical? Or merely a lesson for people who are excessively illiterate?

[Glice]

Well, it's a provocative title with a view to getting people into a conference. I end up at a lot of conferences, and you'll find that the more ambiguously-titled ones tend to get more people in. A friend and I were talking about heading a conference titled 're-imagining postmodern wallpaper', just to see how many people we'd get.

However, knowing a bit about the sort of department that is, and the fact he's a lit/ crit theory sort, it'll definitely be something relating to Stanley Fish or the vogue for books 'disappearing' in crit theory. Which is a fine theory, except when anyone thinks it actually means something more than 'Dickens isn't very good'.

[Lurker]

Really? I suppose that sounds likely.
Haha, you really should do that! I'd go to that.

You're probably right.

[Glice]

You're very passive for someone on the internet, you know that?

[Lurker]

In what way?

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Lurker

In what way?

For starters you've not once called anybody a cunt.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Pookie

For starters you've not once called anybody a cunt.

Fuck you!

[Lurker]

Yeah, I'm probably too nice to people.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Fuck you!

See, that just came across as cute. Something about his greying nutsack would've been much more piquant.

[space]

the only one in this entire thread that isn't a cunt is demonrail, and I only say that because he loves my mom.

and by loves my mom, I mean, with his penis.

CUNTS, the lot of you.

[Glice]

I told you already:

 

[Rob Instigator]

when "education" becomes solely the means by which future employment is determined, the schools become plebe factories. US universities graduate hundreds of thousands of "business" majors. None of them have any fucking clue how to run a business.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

anyway, somewhere in the book (i confessed to having skipped parts) he talks about training in "useless" professions as a sign of status. the more money a society has, the more artists, philosophers, writers, and thinkers it's able to afford. the renaissance exploded in a handful of italian city states for a reason-- they were fucking loaded. same thing with athens. the enlightenment was propelled by the rise of capitalism that was fueled by gold and silver from the americas, as well as the slave trade. wherever you find intelligence , there is money backing it up.

And in each case, I would argue that the sum body of theory in those times was also neurotic from an outside prospective. Indeed, I believe that one needs to detach oneself from reality in order to reconsider and represent the world in a new, relevant understanding. It's not so much that intellectuality *improves* humanity but, I think, that humanity requires intellectuality. If intellectualism is so connected to wealth, as you say and I don't doubt, does this make the case that an era of poverty is less "bullshit" and then better that regard? I don't think so. I've never lived in a dark age but I think the lack of artists, philosophers, writers, and thinkers (or, rather, lack of their presence in society as they are there, just not funded) leads to confusion, dejection, and dogma.

So, in my largely unqualified opinion, I don't think critical theory is responsible for this in anyway exceptional.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

And in each case, I would argue that the sum body of theory in those times was also neurotic from an outside prospective.

well, sure--- the hatred of michelangelo for his patron the pope was legendary-- naked bodies on the sistine chapel-- the horror!-- socrates being forced to drink hemlock-- etc-- sure, art science and philosophy have always been "neurotic", but also "honorific", i.e., "my stable of great minds is bigger than yours"

Originally Posted by pbradley

Indeed, I believe that one needs to detach oneself from reality in order to reconsider and represent the world in a new, relevant understanding. It's not so much that intellectuality *improves* humanity but, I think, that humanity requires intellectuality.

well, sure, we'd be living in caves otherwise.

Originally Posted by pbradley

If intellectualism is so connected to wealth, as you say and I don't doubt, does this make the case that an era of poverty is less "bullshit" and then better that regard? I don't think so.

neither do i! i think i'm not being clear here-- you seem to think that i believe that all intellectual activity is bullshit-- that's not what i meant at all.

i do think that legions of academics in recent decades have indulged in excesses brought about by the mindless following of intellectual fashions, and thus lost a good amount of influence and relevance in society at large.

i'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater though. I know in spite of the overabundance of shit disciplines there is some great work happening in places, necessary work, important work, which unfortunately is being obscured by the charlatans.

Originally Posted by pbradley

I've never lived in a dark age but I think the lack of artists, philosophers, writers, and thinkers (or, rather, lack of their presence in society as they are there, just not funded) leads to confusion, dejection, and dogma.

we've lived through the bush presidency; and a future of sarah palin and fox news is as close to the dark ages as i can imagine, so yes,

Originally Posted by pbradley

So, in my largely unqualified opinion, I don't think critical theory is responsible for this in anyway exceptional.

critical theory is responsible for losing the support of its patrons, whoever they were. perhaps retaining that support would have required a betrayal of its own principles, perhaps the loss of support was deserved, perhaps whatever critical theory does is not relevant to its receiving patronage or support-- i am not qualified either but as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, so i'm going to say it's not just "them" that fucked up and it's time for academia to do some soul searching (i meant to respond to demonrail's post about the arts but i'm running out of time).

look, demonrail's original blog link (necessary agitation) points out to this:

"Many have already rightly spoken in outrage that Middlesex’s renowned philosophy department is to be closed. The department is the home of our finest hub of continental philosophy and political theory in the UK. During the recent Haiti quake, Professor Peter Hallward was the number one commentator from a critical perspective in the news, reminding the viewers of both the history of U.S. intervention and disempowerment of the people by multinational agencies such as the UN. "

You see the Haiti quake comes up first? It's how they say "we are relevant to society". It's true, but I'm thinking-- too little, too late. In this day and age the humanities need good PR very badly, because "Joe the Plumber" doesn't think they are important. And neither that John McSame, who decried the use of science to... save money! (see: bear DNA study). Yeah, basic science gets fucked in the ass by dunces too, it's not just the humanities

Anyway, gotta go make dinner but I DONT HATE THE HUMANITIES. i do feel betrayed by academia though.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i do think that legions of academics in recent decades have indulged in excesses brought about by the mindless following of intellectual fashions, and thus lost a good amount of influence and relevance in society at large.

critical theory is responsible for losing the support of its patrons, whoever they were. perhaps retaining that support would have required a betrayal of its own principles, perhaps the loss of support was deserved, perhaps whatever critical theory does is not relevant to its receiving patronage or support-- i am not qualified either but as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, so i'm going to say it's not just "them" that fucked up and it's time for academia to do some soul searching (i meant to respond to demonrail's post about the arts but i'm running out of time).

Then I don't see how your historical perspective implicates critical theory in any exceptional manner. Socrates decried sophistry for many of the same points but the philosophers who were included under it have been valuable. What makes this a develop of "recent decades" rather than a common and necessary trait? You mention intellectualism being a result of wealth so does intellectualism always bring it upon itself during impoverished times by simply being itself?

You speak of patrons but you don't know who they are so I don't know how this is relevant. What patrons? I was under the impression that universities funded their departments from tuition and the like rather than wealthy private interests. Could you explain to me the role of patronage in contemporary the university system?

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by pbradley

...sophistry...

You use the word "sophistry" an awful lot. That's just something I've noticed.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Glice

...sophistry...

You use the word "sophistry" an awful lot. That's just something I've noticed.