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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I feel that some of what Fish says is right. The wars and painters and artist have had a benefit on the world, but for the most part with the benefits, come a downfall.
Can training in the humanistic disciplines do anything more than give us individual pleasure? The easy answer is no. Having taken an art history class I now can tell you the difference between Impressionism and Cubism, will that do anything for me other than give me that knowledge that I can break out at a swanky cocktail party, hoping for sophistication. I love art, music and literature it affects me on a day to day basis. I can't claim the same for a mass group of people. I am not going to state that the humanities are necessary to a human's way of life. I only know that they are necessary to mine. In my opinion a political painting or piece of music are outlets we need, tiny lanterns to guide our way. It's the choice to follow the light that creates significance.
that sounded corny, I apologize!
My first impression is that Fish is wrong and that the Humanities do serve some larger purpose than to just bring pleasure to those who study this subject. He, however, makes a strong argument. It seems that because not everyone who studies art, literature, philosophy and so on is a good person that the Humanities don't serve any real purpose. But I want to hold onto my first thoughts and keep believing that the Humanities do teach and allow people to think and do offer something more than just pleasure.
To say that the humanities are simply for pleasure is to completely misread their intended purpose. The art forms of the humanities portray ambiguous messages and are in turn interpreted in whatever manner they please. This can lead to a tragic death of an artist or musician who takes the message to an extreme. But it can also lead to the rise of something great if the message is taken to the opposite extreme. The humanities therefore cannot be stereotyped as just pleasure because that is just plain pessimistic.
I don't agree with Fish, to say it kindly. The humanities are an expression of the human heart- so how exactly is this not important? How does that not help us understand human life, human though, human emotion? Do you think that the creators of a musical piece, be it Mozart or P-Diddy just simply came up with something like that because they felt like it, because it brought them pleasure? Maybe they were trying to say something...much like bloggers tend to do, only they type their opinions or attack another person's. Bloggers are still creating.
Another point- since when did the humanities stop mattering? A solid knowledge of literature was important last time I checked academic requirements.
I think Fish is a little too "all or nothing" in his article. Of course people that are highly involved in the humanities are not perfect- who is? Does that mean that any believer of any religion that messes up once in life rules out the meaning of religion? Or what about the President of the United States? What if he drives under the influence one night and kills someone? Does this make Presidency dehumanizing or unreforming?
Well I definately disagree with Fish. I can safely say from my own experience that, as a poetry/lyrical writer, writing is a way that not only helps me understand my own human condition, but it is so inspirational to read the writings of others and understand where they come from in life and in mindset. Furthermore, a specific band is what inspired my style of writing.
How would human beings express if the arts and humanities were not around? I believe the humanities are around for far more than pleasure; I believe the humanities also serve as a sort of healthy escape or ventalation. I know neither one of those reasons merits the study of them, but I do believe they have a significant role in human life.
Post a Comment