A picture is worth a thousand words.

So we have been discussing the downfall of the humanities and that books are in danger of no longer being read because our society demands quick, easy, available material. I agree, physically holding a book and reading it is a great experience but I also believe that photos and even movies can enhance that experience.

Take for example a non-fiction book that is about some historical past event. Its filled with facts, details, graphic descriptions, interviews...its really suspenseful and enjoyable to read. Take that same book, or just the event the book is based on and make it into a documentary. Now we have visuals, voices from people who were involved, other sounds such as gunshots, bombs and so on. It's so dramatic and awe-inspiring that we cannot look away.

So both the book and the documentary are gripping stories of something that has taken place, and both tell relatively the same story. Which would you prefer? I know many will say the book because nothing is like reading a book and how far into detail they can go, but I guess I'm a product of my generation in some ways because I would want to watch the documentary. I would do so for a couple reasons: 1) Visuals, 2)Visuals, 3) I probably don't have time to read the book with all the other work and stress going on in my life.

I admit if I had the time I would read the book eventually, but I still think that the ability to make movies about events (keep in mind I'm talking more about shaky-camera documentaries, not high-profile, major motion picture movies) is great because as many of us have recognized society doesn't want to/have time to read the book version so a larger audience is reached and did I mention all the visuals.


Look around washingtonpost.com under arts, there are lots of great photos and short videos that really speak to viewers if you know what I mean.

Dumb and Dumber

Have you ever picked up an old fairy tale book? If you have, did you remark upon anything different? I am not talking about the incredibly un-Disney like endings, but upon the diction used. I felt a drop in my stomach when I realized how much we have diminished our language.

The book industry is also in a crisis. People are leaning toward parking themselves in front of a television, or cruising the net, instead of setting down with a book. There is conjecture on whether or not we will even be using books in the next hundred years, considering everything is starting to be digitalized. A step in that direction can be found in new technology that resembles an ipod, except for novels. It’s probably better for our planet but I know that I would miss holding a book in my hand and turning the crisp pages.

Everything feels like it’s coming too fast and easy. Instead of actually reading “The Tragedy of Richard the Third”, why not just read the spark notes? Sure you wont get any of the lyrical value but I am sure you’ll be about to quote, “A horse, a horse! my kingdom for a horse.” I know that this entire post seems haphazard and misshapen, but I hope that I am getting across the general feeling that we are losing parts of our culture to expediency.

I guess I just want to leave you with this quote from Ray Bradbury, “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.”

Love Can Build A Bridge; So Can Set Designers & Engineers

After our class discussions and readings, I’ve been thinking recently about the bridges that have and haven’t been crossed by the science and humanities communities. Each community is so focused on their own issues – Nobel Prizes, vaccines, dissecting poems, and watching dance performances – that it’s very difficult for them to work together. There’s an obvious connection between math and music, English and science, and business presentations and theatre. Even though these connections seem obvious, many people are not willing to see the connections and make these connections work out for themselves (and in reaction to Fish’s blogs) or students.

These two cultures are evident to anyone involved in either. And not just in the university setting but also in high schools across the country where funding for the arts are trickling into football teams and too many computers. Anyone can easily see that the two cultures – humanities and sciences – are always in a constant battle with each other. This battle doesn’t help either group as no one gets the chance to learn from anyone. Yes – many people associate with being “left brained” and “right brained”, and granted, these brain associations do help define us as people – but we are able to cross these brain types. We, as humans, are able to think for ourselves. And we should be able to cross bridges. As college students, we are required to take General Education courses that cover both the humanities and sciences. These courses assist many students in seeing both cultures. However, is that enough?

Is having to take a course on technical theatre useful to a biology major? And on the flip side, is a biology course needed for someone studying English? The simple answer – is yes. These courses allow us to leave our university as more well-rounded individuals. But being well rounded isn’t the same as crossing the bridge between our cultures. These Gen. Eds. Cross bridges in a university community and, if taught properly, can inspire students to cross bridges in the “real world”. A place that could use more crossing and less burning.

Frying Fish

Profesor Stanley Fish's argument against the study of the humanities may have a good deal of logos, but I am not sure how I feel about his lack of ethos. To say I disagree with him on a few levels would be putting it nicely. It is interesting to me that despite his background, Fish makes his argument against the study of the humanities quite persuasively, in a matter-of-fact tone.

I would like to ask Stanley Fish what his definition of "worth" is. If studying the humanities is worthless because no movements or enlightenment comes upon society as a whole, or even on an individualistic level, I would like to ask what comes from the studying of mathematics then as well? I mean, who sits down and uses trigonometry everyday? Once a month? Or what about chemistry, physics, or even biology? Does the average American use that to change their lives or anyone elses for that matter? And since when did learning how to write and compose blogs, emails, proper papers, and such become worthless? One used to be considered educated when he knew Shakespeare and poets and the histories of other countries. When exactly did that change? What you have us study, Mr. Stanley?

Furthermore, I would just like to mention that nobody really wants to take advice from a hypocrite. If Fish is going to make his living and famous name from the very thing he later refutes, why on earth would anyone listen to the man? There seems to be some ethos lacking there.

The Uses of the Humanities

Stanley Fish, an academic humanist, makes a bold claim about the utility of the humanities. He argues that their main purpose is to provide individual pleasure. They don’t reform, they don’t humanize, and they don’t help us understand the meaning of life, Fish asserts, because if they did, your English, philosophy, music, and history professors would be among the best people on earth (and you already know that they aren’t!).

Is Fish right? Scholars of history make war, writers of novels commit crimes, and gifted creative artists lose their lives to drugs and alcohol. And yet, it was a pamphlet that helped launch the American Revolution, it was music that helped empower a generation to oppose the Vietnam War, and a painting like Picasso’s Guernica is considered a national treasure in Spain.

What do you think? Can training in the humanistic disciplines do anything more than give us individual pleasure?

J.