Artworks embody experience, emotion and thought. Experience, emotion and thought may be more or less fine, beautiful, subtle, complex, intense, radical and so on, and these differences are reflected in works. Individual taste will be more or less cultivated.

WHAT was actually learned? The difference between good and evil? Human nature? How to fake (not) your death so you can elope with your 13 year old girlfriend that you have known for 3 days?
— ZhouBoTong

It’s convenient to pass off ‘Romeo and Juliet’ this way, it helps your argument. What could be taken from the play, if you bothered is: ideas about male honour, public order, the individual against power institutions, religion, public order, love, violence and death, and love and violence. — Brett

Ok. I believe I could find nearly every one of those themes in the Transformers series — ZhouBoTong

You’re being a bit tricky there. I didn’t say you wouldn’t find those elements in The Transformers. It was in reply to the scathing comment on your idea about the contents of Romeo and Juliet.

But you’re helping me with one thing. I prefer the elites to you and I’d rather the elites pushing their ideas down my kids throats than your ideas on art.

Are they helping the average person find art that moves them? I would say no. They are just searching for like minded individuals to join the elites. Same way a Star Wars fan wants to entice more people to his (I would add or her, but not likely, hehe) side so they can all bash the Lord of the Rings together. How many people become life-long readers of Shakespeare (or anything) after high school English class? — ZhouBoTong

I'm a bit sheepish doing this, but I wanted you to see why I'm so passionate about this. How important it is to me. And not just me. Lots of other people feel the same way about sharing their experiences with others.

A couple of years ago, I read "Titus Groan" and was knocked off my horse. After all these years I am amazed when I find a book that moves me as much as it did. I gave it to a lot of people that Christmas. Because if is such a daunting book, I wanted to tell them why I gave it to them, so I wrote a review on Amazon and gave them a link. If you want to read it, here it is.



This says exactly what I want to tell people about the book. What I want them to know. Now, they can read it or not. I don't really care, although I love it when someone tells me they enjoyed something I recommended.

You’re being a bit tricky there. I didn’t say you wouldn’t find those elements in The Transformers. It was in reply to the scathing comment on your idea about the contents of Romeo and Juliet. — Brett

Wait what? My whole point is that all art contains the elements found in Shakespeare. When I say "Shakespeare sucks" I mean "I don't like it". Not "it is worse than Transformers". That is the whole point of the thread. And of course you prefer the elites, they agree with you?

But you’re helping me with one thing. I prefer the elites to you and I’d rather the elites pushing their ideas down my kids throats than your ideas on art. — Brett

I would ask your kids what type of stories they like. Then pick books with valuable lessons that also contain the types of stories your kids like.

Do you really believe that there are no real differences in quality between comparable things? That some movies, food, TV programs, paintings, photographs, novels are not better than others? That it's all just a matter of preference? — T Clark

Yes, and I couldn't be more certain of it.

I can recognize the difference between what I like and what is of high quality. — T Clark

The only way that something like that can make sense is that you're making a distinction between what you like and what other people like. It would make zero sense to say, "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it."

I'm a bit sheepish doing this, but I wanted you to see why I'm so passionate about this. How important it is to me. And not just me. Lots of other people feel the same way about sharing their experiences with others.

A couple of years ago, I read "Titus Groan" and was knocked off my horse. After all these years I am amazed when I find a book that moves me as much as it did. I gave it to a lot of people that Christmas. Because if is such a daunting book, I wanted to tell them why I gave it to them, so I wrote a review on Amazon and gave them a link. If you want to read it, here it is.

Six stars. Eleven stars. 432 stars. Tedious and bleak and beautiful. Funny and moving. Wonderfully written and very, very, very slow. Then suddenly, disorientingly sensual. Gormenghast the castle – miles long; dank, moldy, full of hundreds or thousands of unused rooms packed with useless and peculiar things. A tower where the death owls live. A giant dead tree with painted roots growing out the side of the castle. Lives ruled by inflexible, all-encompassing, oppressive, and unrelenting tradition. Gormenghast the land – always raining, too hot or too cold. Gormenghast the mountain – the peak always hidden by clouds.

The people - Lord Sepulchrave, 76th Earl of Groan, Countess Gertrude, the wonderful, pitiful twins Ladies Cora and Clarice Groan, Mr. Flay, Dr. and Irma Prunesquallor, Swelter, Nannie Slagg, Sourdust, Barquentine, Keda, Rottcodd, Pentecost, The Poet. The Grey Scrubbers. The Mud Dwellers who live outside the castle and spend all their time making beautiful carvings, most of which will be burned. The best of which will be placed in a museum that no one visits. And stuborn, 15-year-old, clumsy, and maybe doomed Lady Fuchia, whom I love with all my heart. And nasty, scheming, capable, admirable, and maybe evil Steerpike. And 1 1/2 year old Titus – 77th Earl of Groan. Everyone; almost everyone; odd, eccentric, and unhappy.

The plot doesn’t matter – for what it's worth, there is Titus' birth, scheming, betrayal, murder, suicide, a deadly knife fight, bodies eaten by owls, endless ceremonies, drunken revelry, and a toddler standing alone on a raft in the middle of a lake in the rain. The writing, the place, and the people do matter. The words grabbed me by the neck and forced me through the slowest, hardest sections. It felt like the hood of my jacket had gotten caught in a subway door and I was being dragged down the platform. I love this book.

This says exactly what I want to tell people about the book. What I want them to know. Now, they can read it or not. I don't really care, although I love it when someone tells me they enjoyed something I recommended. — T Clark

I don't have a problem with any of that. And you are a stylish writer, almost poetic.

But I am not sure how much it addresses the questions I posed in the passage you quoted?

I need to soften my language but aren't you just searching for like minded individuals that share your joy of a certain work?

Oh, and you questioned who "they" was that kept telling my tastes were bad. "They" (that I have a problem with) is our education system. "They" is also everyone in this thread (but I have no problem with them, they are keeping me engaged in this thread :grin: ) that will not even attempt to defend Shakespeare; they just say it is is a given that it is better and I am an idiot for thinking otherwise. Or the assumption that I just don't know what I am talking because I haven't read Shakespeare (this thread suggests to me that I have read more Shakespeare, more recently, than they have).

Finally, I typed a long response to one of your previous posts, then felt unsure and deleted it. I will go back and re-read to see if I have anything of value to add (unlikely, hehe).

I think I also have about 3-4 pages of posts to catch up on.

Yes, and I couldn't be more certain of it. — Terrapin Station

Then we likely don't have anything useful to say to each other in relation to aesthetics.

The only way that something like that can make sense is that you're making a distinction between what you like and what other people like. It would make zero sense to say, "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it." — Terrapin Station

I said "I can tell the difference between what I like and what is of high quality." For example, I have loved Goetzes caramels since I was a kid. Have you ever had them:



They are the most god-awful candy possible, except maybe jujubees, twizlers, dots, lik-em-aid, those disgusting wax lips, those sickening wax bottles with sugar water in them, etc. etc. It's like eating sweet plastic.

I didn't say "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it." or anything like it.

I need to soften my language but aren't you just searching for like minded individuals that share your joy of a certain work? — ZhouBoTong

Well, no. I'm trying to give people who aren't familiar with the work a chance to experience it. I'm trying to share my knowledge and taste with them. I am offering something to them. I'm looking for like-minded individuals. In reality, the connection doesn't get made a lot of the time, but when it does, it's extremely gratifying for both people involved.

Oh, and you questioned who "they" was that kept telling my tastes were bad. "They" (that I have a problem with) is our education system. — ZhouBoTong

As I said in one of my earlier posts, maybe one of the differences between you and me is how long I've been out of school. Anyway, once you're out of school, "they" won't be able to bother you anymore. Did you think school was supposed to be wonderful and fun? No, it's work.

I think my writing style may come across as angry. I'm not. Just interested and enjoying myself.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, maybe one of the differences between you and me is how long I've been out of school. Anyway, once you're out of school, "they" won't be able to bother you anymore. Did you think school was supposed to be wonderful and fun? No, it's work. — T Clark

Thanks. I am 37. I teach.

This is an example of the "elitism" I was referring to (I forgot people hate being called "elite" and it may have somewhat de-railed the thread). Notice that I must be a child if I have the opinion that Shakespeare does nothing for me while Transformers can entertain me for a couple hours.

And yes, I get that for most of you, 37 is still a child. Different type of "elitism", haha.

I'm looking for like-minded individuals. In reality, the connection doesn't get made a lot of the time, but when it does, it's extremely gratifying for both people involved. — T Clark

They are like minded BEFORE they read the book. You are recommending it hoping that some will like it, then you have new bosom bodies. You seem to have admitted the second part.

They are the most god-awful candy possible — T Clark

This example highlights the problem. What makes candy "good" is that a person likes it. Are we judging candy by its health value?

I said "I can tell the difference between what I like and what is of high quality." — T Clark

If we are talking food in general, then I can say (sort of) "I like candy, but fresh broccoli is of higher quality". However, if we are talking about candy, the most important "quality" of candy is that it tastes good and brings pleasure to the eater. In which case, how could there be an objective measure of quality?

I like Hamlet because the character, Hamlet, is so sensitive and thoughtful. I think his fatal flaw was indecisiveness. I can relate to this. He was also kind of experimenting with his behavior to try to figure things out and it ended up driving him mad when at first it was an act. This along with the poetic language of the play make it my favorite play of all time. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, but I loved his portrayal.

Now, I am also a fan of The Big Lebowski. Lower brow art, but still very high quality in my opinion.

Shut the fuck up, Donny. :lol:

V.I. Lenin! Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!

Yeah, well, uh, you know, that’s just like your opinion, man. :cool:

It’s obviously difficult to state what is good and what is poor art. Issues of subjectivity are impossible to argue with. And we seem to have, somehow honed in on Shakespeare, which is fine.

You feel that films like The Transformers cover similar aspects to Shakespear’s plays and that they can be just as valuable for students to study as Shakespeare. That maybe true, though I would also add in a very simplistic fashion. But that’s okay, it’s an action film, that’s the genre it works in. But to regard teaching Shakespeare at school as the elite forcing it down students’ throats is probably inaccurate.

First of all ‘The Tempest’, for example, is a play, it’s also poetry and it also has themes, etc. Being a play means that students have a script to work with, all they need is some open space and they can actually produce and take part in the play. They can’t do this with a film. There’s no room for interpretation in ‘The Transformers’, all they can do is watch it passively and then write an analysis of it.

Shakespeare’s plays offer a lot more to the students in terms of study than the Transformers can. I could list those differences but I’ll wait to see if it’s necessary. Of course it seems tiresome and boring to them because they have to make an effort to connect, but as a teacher you would recognise the whole area of ‘The Zone if Proximal Development’ here and the importance of setting work that stretches their abilities. There just seems to be a lot more in terms of teaching studying Shakespeare than ‘The Transformers’, hence it’s regular appearance in the curriculum.

Thanks. I am 37. I teach. — ZhouBoTong

If you're 37, why are you still letting "their" opinions bother you?

What makes candy "good" is that a person likes it. — ZhouBoTong

Obviously, I don't agree. I don't think there's any way for us to get past this disagreement.

If you're 37, why are you still letting "their" opinions bother you? — T Clark

"Bother" might be a bit strong. I am just debating the merits the same way I might question Idealism or Donald Trump. I think I write very literally, but somehow it seems to come across as angry - sorry.

What makes candy "good" is that a person likes it.
— ZhouBoTong

Obviously, I don't agree. I don't think there's any way for us to get past this disagreement. — T Clark

Any chance (by the way, I do understand this has likely gone as far as it can...and yet I persist :grimace:) you care to lay out the objective measures of what makes candy good? I am not even exactly sure what we are disagreeing about.

But to regard teaching Shakespeare at school as the elite forcing it down students’ throats is probably inaccurate. — Brett

There is very little art taught in schools anymore. The only art that is still taught is Poetry and Literature. And it is taught A LOT. Why? What gives these art forms more value than painting, sculpture, music, movies, or television? I get that writing can often communicate more than painting or sculpture, but not movies or television. Why not replace half of the literature component with film and television? We can explore all of the same themes and learn similar lessons while keeping students more engaged. But there is another type of elitism in school that suggests reading is a more important skill than listening to words (and I would agree in 4th grade, not so much in high school).

but as a teacher you would recognise the whole area of ‘The Zone if Proximal Development’ here and the importance of setting work that stretches their abilities. There just seems to be a lot more in terms of teaching studying Shakespeare than ‘The Transformers’, hence it’s regular appearance in the curriculum. — Brett

You are largely correct here (sorry, I mean I mostly agree - this may be an example of me writing with a crappy tone - in this case it reads like I am an authority of some sort and I am not trying to represent that). And yes, even I will admit that there is PROBABLY more to analyze in a Shakespeare play than a transformers movie. But there is still plenty to analyze in a Transformers movie. And when you talk Zone of Proximal Development, do you think Shakespeare wrote his books for teenagers? I would guess adults. This is how we end up with Animal Farm being taught to 8th graders that have never even heard of the Russian Revolution.

The second point is that I consider student boredom and general dis-interest to be one of the major problems in education (Shakespeare and the arts is just one of my minor beefs). I think forcing a 14 year old to read Shakespeare is just asking for pain (for both teacher and student).

Shut the fuck up, Donny. :lol: — Noah Te Stroete

Damn. That whole scene is just gold. And you forgot, "Nobody f***s with the Jesus!"

There is very little art taught in schools anymore. The only art that is still taught is Poetry and Literature. — ZhouBoTong

I don’t know where you come from but that is not the case where I live.

But there is another type of elitism in school that suggests reading is a more important skill than listening to words (and I would agree in 4th grade, not so much in high school). — ZhouBoTong

Which is why studying Shakespeare as a play works so well.

Damn. That whole scene is just gold. And you forgot, "Nobody f***s with the Jesus!" — ZhouBoTong

Very well versed in Dudeism, I see! Kudos!

Personally, I didn’t find anything off-putting in your tone in any of your posts I’ve read. You seem like a very reasonable person. Not sure why you keep apologizing. Stop it! LOL

If people don’t understand you, then fuck ‘em.

I tend to agree that Shakespeare shouldn’t be taught in general education high school classes. It’s too advanced linguistically for many, and it just discourages them from learning. It should be taught as an advanced elective class in high school as preparation for college, though, I think. I can see Zhou’s point.

Art is still taught at my children’s schools. Sketching, painting, pottery, sculpture, etc. If Zhou is teaching at a school that has eliminated art for budgetary reasons, then he probably isn’t teaching a lot of privileged kids. If that’s the case, then the kids he is teaching probably have greater problems than deciding which Ivy League school to apply to, and they would be better served with a curriculum that engages their sensibilities than further stressing them out with something as remote to their daily lives as Shakespeare. Get kids to love learning first in an environment where they feel safe instead of intimidating them with all that “Get thee to a nunnery” and “slings and arrows” and “contumely” nonsense. If they begin to love learning by teaching them the sociology of Seinfeld, then maybe they won’t be so intimidated by the more esoteric teachings. Some might want to take Shakespeare as an elective then. It serves no purpose to force them to endure it if they can be better served by topics more germane to their lives.

Just for those elitists trying to paint anyone who doesn't think Shakespeare is objectively brilliant as uneducated, or inexperienced in the 'great bard's' works, here (if I've done the link right) is an MA graduate in Shakespearen Studies, explaining why he thinks the plays are deeply flawed.

I don’t think the argument is that he’s objectively brilliant, just that his plays are still worth being used as a subject of study in school.

I would argue that on most objective measures some works of art are better than others. For example, some works of music are more complex if you want to define complex as meaning a piece has rhythm, beat, melody etc. You can argue that the objective measures we currently use are meaningless or insignificant to you, but art is made popular if it is loved by most people, so it is your job to try to convince people that the media you prefer is better on some measure .

I don’t think the argument is that he’s objectively brilliant, just that his plays are still worth being used as a subject of study in school. — Brett

What about "deeply flawed" plays would be still worth studying in school?

Deeply flawed in what way?

Deeply flawed in what way? — Brett

Did you read the article?

No.

I didn't say "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it." or anything like it. — T Clark

Sure, so as I said, "The only way that something like that can make sense is that you're making a distinction between what you like and what other people like."

with the caramel example, there must be something you like about them (obviously, since you say you like them), and either you weight that aspect more heavily than the aspects you don't like, or the aspects you're presenting as undesirable are really more of a report of other persons' preferences.

They can’t do this with a film. There’s no room for interpretation in ‘The Transformers’, all they can do is watch it passively and then write an analysis of it. — Brett

It's actually really easy to get film scripts. If you want the students to be able to create something they can do that with a script just as they'd do it with a Shakespeare play.

When I was in elementary school, our music teacher had us put on Broadway shows a couple times per year. I was always involved with the music side of that. So that's another option.