It is always nice to hear you talk or read your words. Your eloquence could only be contrasted by Ben's directness in the following post. This contrast is what interests me and I don't want to hide these thoughts away in a comments section--especially since this blog seems to be fading out of the school's memory.
I didn't feel good after reading your post. Honestly I never expect to feel good after reading things online; but I had high expectations given that the author is the chair of the program that has been so affected by the events of last week. There are a couple of points in your entry that stick out among a sea of pretty words.
1. "The events of the past semester gave us all the opportunity to contribute, argue and debate within a public forum. I for one was rather surprised at the lack of penetrating questioning and significant observations from the audience at these events"
-I don't think, that as an educator, you can make an observation like this without acting or having acted upon it. If you see silence within your department, what have you done as a leader to institute discourse? I feel that if the forums and opportunities that you reference were understood as such, there would be no anonymous posters. An outsider's interest or surprise is not the type of position you should feel comfortable taking in your capacity as an educator and chair. If your kids are too quiet, then there is obviously a problem that they haven't been able to work out themselves. What type of institutional measures are you planning to take in order to avoid another semester of silence? Or do you stand by your statement which would now lend it with a quality akin to: "you should've taken your chance when you had it so don't complain."?
2. "It is only when oneself can produce a body of work that contributes significantly over a sustained period of time that one dares to criticise without substantiation."
-I don't agree with this statement given the speaker and the context. Criticism is serious work don't misunderstand me and unsubstantiated arguments made by flyer don't count; but I think there is a large gap between the criticism coming from a group of 18-25 year olds and that of an established group of professionals and academics. As an educator, you must have that in mind and be concerned with teaching the skills and creating the opportunities to bridge that gap. Why would you state that discourse in our environment would be limited to those who are most able to participate? Can't we leave presuppositions like that to forums outside of the school? There needs to be a vein of the oldest saying in education, "there is no such thing as a dumb question", running through all approaches to discourse at an institution of learning-especially given the immediate educational environments of most of the students coming into the school. Only with some sort of graduated system in place could you ever hope for students to make that move from talking and opinion to real discussion and exploration on a discursive level.
I'm really disappointed in those statements, as I understand them, being the first voice from AIADO as involved in this forum and I invite corrections and clarifications.
Isaac Smith
BFA, year 4
AIADO
3 comments:
Isaac draws attention to Hennie's point:
"It is only when oneself can produce a body of work that contributes significantly over a sustained period of time that one dares to criticise without substantiation."
This point of Hennie's strikes me as dangerous, because I do not think there can truly be any parameters regarding whether what oneself produces is, in fact, a significant contribution through a body of work, and also, because it seems to preemptively denounce those who would dare to criticize without meeting these amorphous criteria.
In other words, this is a subjective matter.
Critiques are like works in the sense that both communicate ideas.
I understand that some people have produced a body of unsubstantiated criticism (which is work, is it not?) which, they then believe justifies their unsubstantiated critiques.
To be very blatant: The market does not always work.
The rise of these people is a mystery we do not know about as opposed to some justification of their positions.
The critique is the work and, it should be substantial.
Criticism, this important work, without honesty, is always nothing but an atrocity.
The substantive nature of a criticism can be hidden (like substantive parts of buildings), and the very function of criticism, it could be argued, is to search for substantiation.
Thus, anyone honest should dare a critique
I believe one can not be justified (substantiated?) by works alone.
Age and experience do not excuse us from the need to substantiate our critiques.
Dare to criticize openly and honestly.
Hennie, maybe your point is that substantiation of criticism can lie in a body of work.
But, how else to determine how well substantiated is a body of work and thus any criticism belonging to it than with honest criticism?
The only way to do this is with openness and honesty, sharing; we do not need unsubstantial critiques from anyone, body of work or not.
We can not decide beforehand what is substantial and what is not.
We must hear the critique.
So, in a nutshell, honesty is the only way a critique is substantiated.
Post a Comment