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

341–350 of 359 posts

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

#341

Post by matthiasv »

the_af wrote: post #271
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…

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.

I have the same feeling always, so for my upcoming trip to Amsterdam and a visit to the Rijksmuseum I vibed https://rijksmuseum.matze.lol to concentrate on something I _want_ to see.

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

#342

Post by jimbokun »

> But if someone had outfitted me appropriately, if they warned me that you have to bring one of those crank-up flashlights and you might have to shimmy through some narrow antechambers and spelunk through some flooded passageways, but that eventually you would reach a room full of untold riches—well, maybe I would have actually tried.

No the author wouldn't have.

He wasn't ready yet as a teenager to understand what he understands now.

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

#343

Post by spunkycomics »

horsawlarway wrote: post #223
SamBam wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely think that the vast majority of English teachers have had experiences like this. It's what made them become English teachers. Then, with all the best intent in the world, they try to explain to their students "Look, you don't get this, this fat book is transcendent if you can just sit with it and understand it! I, too, used to think that English class was just stupid words that they force you to read, but…

I think this is one of the more important points in this thread. The problem is that too many pieces require experiences that the majority of the classroom just doesn't have. It's not that students don't venture far enough into the cave to find the treasure, it's that the treasure literally isn't treasure to them yet. The venturing that needs to happen for them to find the treasure isn't time spent in the material, i…

This is tough, because as this newsletter gets at - sometimes things will simply smack you in the face. The only way to get that underlying experience is through experiencing more.

My two favorite books I read in high school were "The Crucible", and "The Sun Also Rises". Neither had an ounce of relatability to my life, I had no prior experience that should let me connect with a disillusioned generation of WWI vets or puritans scared of the woods. But I did have a phenomenal AP Lit teacher that conveyed the context enough for me to have a starting point and then get lost in the characters and environments and let the quality of the work carry it from there. I found Gatsby less appealing, but at least two of my friends fell in love with it that year. No book is going to do it for everyone, especially in a class like that where the point is working your way through cultural history.

I think you nail it with the range of teachers being the crux. There's just so much riding on whether or not you really connect with a teacher's way of conveying excitement or not.

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

#344

Post by bluGill »

encomiast wrote: post #287
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…

Possibly the best thing about Washington D.C. is that the National Gallery of Art (along with, I think, all the Smithsonian) is free. This means you just take a casual stroll through without any of the pressure of having spent a sizable sum like you might to visit a place like the Art Institute in Chicago. In Chicago a visit is an event, you need to see the Seurat, the Grant Wood, etc. You've spent money and you need…

Many museums have a membership. For one price you can visit the museum any time you want. I strongly recommend everyone do this for all their local museums. It changes the experience when you don't feel bad about wasting the admission because you only have an hour. Particularly small local museums where spending all day isn't worth it, but if you have to pay admission you feel compelled to spend all day to get your money's worth.

Some of them also include reduced price admission to others of the same time. My local zoo isn't very big, but the membership means half price admission to a very good zoo just a couple hours away. My local science museum got me free admission to many other science museums and children's museums. My local historic farm got me into a lot of interesting historical sites. Be sure to understand what you get and take advantage of it on vacations.

I strongly recommend you get the version that lets you bring two guests. When my parents or some other friend from out of town comes to visit we have something interesting to show them (and if they are not having fun we can leave early).

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

#345

Post by azath92 »

encomiast wrote: post #287
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…

Possibly the best thing about Washington D.C. is that the National Gallery of Art (along with, I think, all the Smithsonian) is free. This means you just take a casual stroll through without any of the pressure of having spent a sizable sum like you might to visit a place like the Art Institute in Chicago. In Chicago a visit is an event, you need to see the Seurat, the Grant Wood, etc. You've spent money and you need…

For those of us on the other side of the ditch: all museums in London are free. and I would echo the sentiment that it makes exploration of them less of a completionist activity to "get your monies worth" and more of an enjoyable forey into a rich space.

Its literally a paradigm shift.

Also almost all commercial art galleries are like this, obvs for other reasons. The gallery district (google art galleries then wander those streets, chelsea is the most established) in NYC is an amazing place to spend a day wandering around seeing amazing art. my uncle who teaches art introduced me to it and i try to spread the word.

Free art for any reason is amazing.

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

#346

Post by dreamcompiler »

matthiasv wrote: post #341
the_af wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have the same feeling always, so for my upcoming trip to Amsterdam and a visit to the Rijksmuseum I vibed https://rijksmuseum.matze.lol to concentrate on something I _want_ to see.

The Rijksmuseum has a very nice shop too. It's a great place to wander and discover and you can browse it without paying museum admission.

https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/visit/practical-info/shop

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

#347

Post by smattiso »

encomiast wrote: post #287
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…

Possibly the best thing about Washington D.C. is that the National Gallery of Art (along with, I think, all the Smithsonian) is free. This means you just take a casual stroll through without any of the pressure of having spent a sizable sum like you might to visit a place like the Art Institute in Chicago. In Chicago a visit is an event, you need to see the Seurat, the Grant Wood, etc. You've spent money and you need…

I lived in DC for a couple of years and I felt exactly the same. I try and carry that same mentality to all museums now, paid or unpaid. No research, no expectations, wander around and let yourself be surprised, leave when you’re bored. It’s a lot of fun.

Although it is hard to do when you’ve paid 50 bucks for a ticket and you know there is “just one more” ultra-famous piece on the other side of the museum and when will I really be back in (Amsterdam, Paris, etc)?

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

#348

Post by nickff »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #83
NobodyNada wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same experience reading A Midsummer Night's Dream in high school -- I could follow the story, but it was a slog to get through and I didn't understand what was supposed to be so great about it. Then I saw an actual performance of the play recently, and it all clicked. It was just as understandable as any contemporary film, and easily one of the most fun and entertaining stories I've seen.

I gave up trying to read plays shortly after school. There's no point to me, they are supposed to be performed. I still think it's worth studying some of the more famous ones in school, but any study should absolutely involve actually going to see the play at some point.

You'd probably be in a better place to understand the scripts now, having seen more performances, for whatever that might be worth. That said, I personally don't read scripts, and have not done so since I was last required to in high school.

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

#349

Post by ninjahawk1 »

luipugs wrote: post #261
ninjahawk1 wrote: post #245

The thing about treasure is that you often have to find it for yourself, it can be hard to find, butt when you do find it you get some legendary booty. The thickness of some caves in terms of genuine girth is truly something to marvel at.

You could say it is asstounding.

Asspounding even.

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

#350

Post by cwnyth »

PsylentKnight wrote: post #236
cwnyth wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Shakespeare was not "plain" even in the 16/17th century. It wasn't archaic, but it was far, far from plain. The same is true for a lot of great literary works, even recent ones. Many great works have a lofty diction, which is easy to lampoon when inferior works veer into purple prose, but when it works, really elevates language.

True. But I think you can agree that the (now) archaic language and cultural context that would have been common knowledge back then gives an extra layer of difficulty over the already poetic/literary nature of the work Watching Shakespeare has a similar feel to me as watching cartoons in Spanish as an intermediate Spanish learner. I can understand a lot of it. But I have to use so much of my brain power interpreting…

Yes, no disagreement there. Some things would have been more commonly said or just common knowledge, but I only wanted to push back on the idea that Shakespeare's writing was just how people talked back then.
Post reply on HN