Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

experimental-history.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 360 posts

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#271

Post by the_af »

jameshart wrote: post #188
hibikir wrote: post #152

The anecdote about the garden of earthly delights is going to be relatable even for art students. I've met art teachers that ended up "trapped" in Madrid by the Prado Museum: A green, American future Ph.D student that was heading to Greece to specialize in old greek art. But instead of flying straight there, they stopped at Madrid to see the Prado, and were never able to leave. Changed their direction immediately, an…

Totally. The right way to approach an art gallery is definitely just to walk round until something hits you. Most astonishing time that happened to me was a wall-sized Rothko that just floored me, in a way I never would have expected a slab of color to. Dali’s La Gare de Perpignan stopped me in my tracks too. Rarely been as stunned by more famous works as when I got blindsided by something that leapt out and said ‘lo…

I wish I could do this. In general, in museums I always feel compelled to go through all the exhibits my time allows, when clearly some of them capture my attention and others are just filler. But I would feel guilty "wasting" my time with the piece that caught my attention.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#272

Post by the_af »

exmadscientist wrote: post #18

> Why this word, this scene, this character, and not some other one? The "why this not that , even when it looks like that would do just fine" style of differential analysis is an exquisitely powerful analytical tool. Asking this question is probably the single most powerful method I know of to generate deep thought, in absolutely any aspect of life. If you haven't tried it... go for it! (Sample question: why'd I cho…

I agree with your sentiment about ranking -- the gamification of art is pointless -- but I'd go even further: often you won't agree with yourself from the past about a book or movie! Sometimes you just need to be in the mood for a work you previously considered average to really hit you. Other times you revisit music that felt really powerful in your youth, but hearing it again only evokes a mild nostalgia and a feeling of "why did I ever like this?".

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#273

Post by 11101010010001 »

forgotmypasswor wrote: post #234
jameshart wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally. The right way to approach an art gallery is definitely just to walk round until something hits you. Most astonishing time that happened to me was a wall-sized Rothko that just floored me, in a way I never would have expected a slab of color to. Dali’s La Gare de Perpignan stopped me in my tracks too. Rarely been as stunned by more famous works as when I got blindsided by something that leapt out and said ‘lo…

^^ this. I was never an art person and then one day I felt like I was just punched in the face when it hit me. It's not like "I like this, it's interesting", it's like " Oh. That."

the punched in the face expression is strange here. I get it but I also presume that you have never been punched in the face much like you never connected (that's the word you are looking for, also a boxing term) with art.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#274

Post by mayoff »

exmadscientist wrote: post #18

> Why this word, this scene, this character, and not some other one? The "why this not that , even when it looks like that would do just fine" style of differential analysis is an exquisitely powerful analytical tool. Asking this question is probably the single most powerful method I know of to generate deep thought, in absolutely any aspect of life. If you haven't tried it... go for it! (Sample question: why'd I cho…

Robin Hobb (a very successful fantasy author) rates books on Goodreads. To her, anything over one star is a good rating. Even two stars means she liked it.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/25307.Robin_Hobb

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#275

Post by rdiddly »

exmadscientist wrote: post #18

> Why this word, this scene, this character, and not some other one? The "why this not that , even when it looks like that would do just fine" style of differential analysis is an exquisitely powerful analytical tool. Asking this question is probably the single most powerful method I know of to generate deep thought, in absolutely any aspect of life. If you haven't tried it... go for it! (Sample question: why'd I cho…

I love it because it put something into words that I was thinking about the last season of the show Succession. All I could say before being armed with this, was something along the lines of it feeling like it was suddenly "all over the place."

This guy's blog is great by the way, I went and subscribed.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#276

Post by kstrauser »

11101010010001 wrote: post #273
forgotmypasswor wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^^ this. I was never an art person and then one day I felt like I was just punched in the face when it hit me. It's not like "I like this, it's interesting", it's like " Oh. That."

the punched in the face expression is strange here. I get it but I also presume that you have never been punched in the face much like you never connected (that's the word you are looking for, also a boxing term) with art.

You should also go apologize to your English teacher.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#277

Post by kccqzy »

fluoridation wrote: post #238
kccqzy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At their young age, it typically takes children the ritual of performing arithmetic algorithms at least several dozens of times if not a hundred times to get them to understand and internalize the algorithm itself. You can't actually teach the algorithm itself because they haven't studied basic algebra yet, so the only approximation is using the algorithm on multiple numbers. Then afterwards just give them a calculat…

>Then afterwards just give them a calculator. If problems were properly designed the students shouldn't even need calculators. In math the specific numerical value of a result is far less important than how it relates to the inputs. Raw calculation doesn't develop the intuition of when one operation is more appropriate than another.

Absolutely not. Properly designed problems involve numbers that simulate the real world (Benford’s law). Specifically choosing numbers that are easier to compute mentally or by hand would lead students to doubt themselves whenever they encounter something difficult to compute, so you can consider that either cheating or giving them undue psychological stress.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#278

Post by Calazon »

deaton wrote: post #206
kstenerud wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideally, a good English teacher will explain these things A high school English teacher won't have time for that. There are standardized tests to pass. The American civil war was about slavery. That's all you need to know.

The civil war was, in fact, about slavery. FAQ: "No it was about states rights" States rights to? Allow slavery. "No states rights to decide for themselves" About? Slavery. "No it was freedom of association" Why did they not want to associate with the abolitionist president? Oh right. "It was about economic issues" Like... "It was about agriculture" With labor provided by _____

My understanding is the Confederacy did not give its states the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery, and did not give its states the freedom to decide whether or not to associate with each other.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#279

Post by Brian_K_White »

andai wrote: post #256
Brian_K_White wrote: post #211

Do you not think those teachers all failed Lockhart's Lament? Sure you were too young to appreciate great literature natively. That is simply a function of the human condition. You were not failing at anything, no matter how great the great things actually were that you did not appreciate. There should be like one of the responsibilities of adults is to show kids what's actually so great about greatness. There can ev…

It's a sales problem. "Why should I care about this in the first place?" It doesn't necessarily have to be for something, but if you can't communicate any value, then... yeah... the results speak for themselves. One of my favorite thing about getting older is finally learning answers to questions I was asking high school teachers. (e.g. applications in math class... though to be fair, I had the same problem in underg…

Most such things I ever grew to appreciate, happened from some sort of example case that doinged me on the head, and then I recognized how the principle applied elsewhere. Then the understanding of the principle itself was just part of my understanding of life and the world after that.

It would seem that the job of a teacher is to understand this themselves, having once been a child themselves or at least having had experience with kids in their own training even if they themselves were a different kind of kid, and to actively construct scenarios that teach concepts to kids who are not already aware of them or believe when things are simply stated at them.

Simply telling a kid something is approximately useless. If you want them to understand it, you have to understand them, and arrange for them to walk through some process where they end up arriving at the understanding "on their own".

I'm sure it's not easy but my own job is not easy either, but that just means it's a job that has to be done and doesn't just do itself, not that it's not doable.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#280

Post by akoboldfrying »

Fantastic writing. I didn't want it to end. It's the warmest and loveliest defence of its core idea that I've ever come across, and likely ever will. The humour in particular -- it's disarming, pitch-perfect in making a case that (ETA: in lesser hands would be) beset on all sides by self-seriousness.

And yet... I'm not persuaded. I think its stance is completely understandable, and plausible, and wrong. Not about everything -- I agree 100% that thickening an idea (great metaphor!) makes it more valuable to others, and that the work involved in the thickening process itself is valuable to the artist. But I think this piece is wrong about what I take to be its core idea: That art has inherent objective value about which we all ought to agree. In the words of the author: That a particular cave has treasure or not, independently of the explorer.

I say instead that it is enough to treat art the same way as we treat modern human relationships: If two people have a bad relationship, it doesn't have to be that one (or both) of them is a bad person. It can simply be that those two people are not a good match for each other. The explanation can be a predicate on two people rather than on one. Similarly, there doesn't have to be a total order on the set of pieces of art -- or even a partial order. I believe that the only reasons to think that there should be are ultimately rooted in either ego ("I feel smart/cultured/a sense of mastery by liking the 'right' things") or tribal belonging ("I feel a comforting sense of inclusion by liking the 'right' things").

This "purely subjective value" idea has always been a deeply unpopular view for "cultured" people to hold, and nowadays that's also true of the general public in regard to AI-generated works. It is called philistinism, and a person who holds it is properly called a philistine. As jarring as the label is, I would encourage anyone exploring this idea not to stop thinking there -- but to keep going, and consider the implications of both it and its opposite. Perhaps, like with the similarly jarring term "Luddite", people will take another look and decide that it is not something to be written off immediately.

Post reply on HN