We all want to belong. In spite of our desires to be 'unique' we harbor the very human need to be part of something. In essence, we want to be accepted for who we are. Our culture has pushed this 'acceptance' trend to the breaking point. No matter the idiosyncrasy, no matter how damaging the behavior may be to others, the rights of the one will always outweigh the rights of the many. The psychological hunger to be accepted has turned into legal mandate. As long as someone has the strongest groups and lawyers behind them, they can force their lifestyle and beliefs on all of us. Call it art, call it expression, you can do anything with the right preamble.
Tarleton State University in Texas is about to stage a play in which Jesus is portrayed as "the King of Queers". The Son of God kisses Judas at Pilate's 'senior prom' and performs a same-sex marriage for two of his all gay disciples. Stories like these are not uncommon. The homosexual community has sought acceptance for decades by staging things just like this, the difference: they're now trying to rewrite history to get their message across.
The past few years have seen the advent of a disturbing trend. If you want to get your stake in the American freedom of expression, you exploit people and things that can't defend themselves. You use the liberal tactic of cleverly worded speculation to impart what you believe on figures in history who are long since gone and have no way of refuting your claims. Revisionist history has been smearing upstanding figures for years. They reject reality and substitute what supports their beliefs. While a little skewing of reality is fine in fiction and art, it's not fine to use skewed reality as fact in the teaching of children or the establishment of history.
Not to be left out from the cash-cow that is revisionism, homosexuals have jumped in with both feet. Did you know that half of our forefathers had covert homosexual affairs? We all know Jefferson had children with a slave girl; but did we know that he was really bisexual? Lincoln was a tortured gay man. He only married Mary because it was what was expected. One of the most recognized and respected people to ever walk this earth, Jesus, was really gay. He never married, hung out with a troupe of guys all the time, wore those smart dresses; he was gay. Why not? The logic is so completely flawed. In order to support their theories, people string together unrelated and irrelevant facts. They arrange things in such a way that the casual, ignorant observer may actually believe them. The duping of fools is something far more dangerous in the long run than honestly championing your cause.
Not only is this play an example of pure propaganda and the use of subjective fiction as a means to purvey a truth, it's a blatant smear on a faith that billions treasure. True to the current American socialistic agenda, Christianity is fair game for slander. No one fears upsetting a Christian because we are a non-violent religion. Christians won't retaliate for a simple jibe by strapping themselves with explosives and taking out a city block. They are notorious for mercy and oddly enough, for acceptance. Perhaps that's why Christians are so easy to attack. And though there is nothing concrete in the factual accounts of Jesus to prove he wasn't homosexual, there is certainly nothing to prove that he was. Established history has held that Jesus, the Holy Son of God, was if anything, asexual.
History is history, but thanks to the fact that hindsight is 20/20, we know some things to be irrefutably true. No matter how hard the revisionists may toil, they can't change what's written in stone. To even attempt such a thing only cheapens their cause. There is no validity in a belief or lifestyle that is wholly supported by conjecture. If you really want to get people's attention, tell the truth. No one does that these days.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Friday, March 26, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
To Thine Own Self Be True: Respecting Talent in Art
"...there is that quite numerous breed who would like to be artists—that is, long to be something more than to do something—and lacking the talent or the capacity for work and self-discipline exacted by traditional art, find in modernism the perfect answer to their prayers—an easy path to the attention they crave." —Thomas Maitland Cleland, "Progress" in the Graphic Arts
God Bless America and Her Allies by T. M. Cleland
Cleland, known to most as T.M. Cleland, was an American graphic artist and publisher. He saw this country in the heyday of capitalism, shiny with promise. He began his work in the early 1900's and continued until his death in 1963. He was an opinionated man with an eccentric working style. But he knew talent when he saw it, talent and hard work. He knew that craftsmanship and art went hand-in-hand. The above passage, from his 1948 address in Chicago hints at what was to come in the art world and this country as a whole. The paradigm was shifting from hard work to high-brow play and entitlement. The right-wing world of blood, sweat, and tears was now a left-wing paradise of beatnicks, art-o-philes, and posers. Art was no longer a livelihood, art was a hobby, a cheap and easy way to 'express oneself.' Anyone with the courage to misrepresent their abilities was given acclaim, acclaim that should have belonged to the hardworking craftspeople.
Cleland was a perfectionist craftsman. He was a dealer in clean lines and geometric certainty. He saw modern art, especially modern design, as an aberration. Modern art was loose, messy, and lacked proof of genuine talent. His opinion was one of a laborer, someone who's livelihood depended on the respect his art could garner him. In a time when art was becoming more of a fad than a livelihood, he had every right to be protective.
People don't magically develop the ability to recite a long line of prime numbers or paint a perfectly accurate portrait unless they're the victim of some sort of horrid injury to the brain. A spin of the genetic roulette wheel imbues us with certain abilities. If someone wants desperately to be a surgeon, they go to school, do the work, and find out whether they have the skill or not. They learn whether they're fit to be a surgeon hopefully before they get their hands on a live patient. Would you want someone messing around in your body cavities with a scalpel if they didn't have the talent or skill? No, you wouldn't. So why is it acceptable for people who can't draw, paint, design, or sculpt to use 'expression' and 'interpretation' as crutches to encroach on the respect owed to those who are naturally talented? Like it or not, aside from basic functions, humans are not all given the same talents.
From an early age, we learn to incorrectly define the term 'art.' Art can be anything, produced by anyone, even animals. It has been said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but even then, there are universally accepted 'fundamentals' of art that we should not ignore. As children, we scrawl poorly conceived representations of things and when we show off our 'masterpiece' we're met with standing ovations. The praise happens every time, no matter the quality. This reinforcement makes it easy for us to ignore the fundamentals. Why bother with something if it isn't necessary for success? Society's belief that self-esteem is better than self-realization tells us we can do anything, natural talent notwithstanding.
Author Andrew Klavan wrote in a blog post recently, "sacking the Pantheon doesn’t turn barbarians into gods." Creating a mess and calling it art doesn't make the creator an artist. Screeching out of key and calling it a song doesn't make someone a real singer. The reality show American Idol sheds light on this theory by showing us the difference between real vocal talent and a weightless, animalistic need for attention. Though this is an accurate comparison to my argument, visual art remains a playground for just about anyone who wishes to play. Conversely to singing, visual art fosters the belief that the less talent you have, the more you thumb your nose at convention, the more success you will have.
The rift between craftsmanship and art grew wider as people began to lose their individuality and feel more entitled. The ability to express themselves in their own way withered and they searched for what they thought would be an easy way to stand out. The all-too-human desire to be 'noticed' crossed paths with the arts and usurped the trail. Art, being always viewed as subjective, had little chance of fighting back against those who would abuse it. People just shrugged off the talentless examples as 'subjectively acceptable' and moved on. A craft which was once a way of simply making a living became a pretentious means of self-promotion and hollow praise.
I do not say any of this to be an elitist, rather, I speak as one who respects the niches in life to which we all belong. A poem I read as a child states, "If you is jes' a little tadpole / Don't try to be a frog, / If you is jes' the tail / Don't try and wag the dog." Being an individual doesn't mean you seek out the laurels of others and snatch the crown from their heads. We all have things that make us special, things we are inherently blessed to accomplish. All subjectivism aside, there are those who will always execute their craft better than others. The true path to fulfillment is not in doing passably what others do best, it's doing what you do best exceptionally well.
"Art was once the business of artists and not of writers and was taught to artists by other artists and not professors; and it's rather wholesome definition seems to have been—before anything was said about "art for art's sake"—the doing of anything, from ploughing to painting especially well. Craftsmanship was not suspect or thought to be ruinous to individuality—or perhaps individualities were not so feeble then that they could not survive the rigors imposed by craftsmanship. I do not know when the term "fine art" was invented and the breach between it and craftsmanship began to widen, but I have come to believe that it was a sorry day for both. For then, it seems to me, the spirit of art departed from its body and the body began to decay and the spirit to wander aimlessly in space." —Thomas Maitland Cleland, "Progress" in the Graphic Arts
God Bless America and Her Allies by T. M. ClelandCleland, known to most as T.M. Cleland, was an American graphic artist and publisher. He saw this country in the heyday of capitalism, shiny with promise. He began his work in the early 1900's and continued until his death in 1963. He was an opinionated man with an eccentric working style. But he knew talent when he saw it, talent and hard work. He knew that craftsmanship and art went hand-in-hand. The above passage, from his 1948 address in Chicago hints at what was to come in the art world and this country as a whole. The paradigm was shifting from hard work to high-brow play and entitlement. The right-wing world of blood, sweat, and tears was now a left-wing paradise of beatnicks, art-o-philes, and posers. Art was no longer a livelihood, art was a hobby, a cheap and easy way to 'express oneself.' Anyone with the courage to misrepresent their abilities was given acclaim, acclaim that should have belonged to the hardworking craftspeople.
Cleland was a perfectionist craftsman. He was a dealer in clean lines and geometric certainty. He saw modern art, especially modern design, as an aberration. Modern art was loose, messy, and lacked proof of genuine talent. His opinion was one of a laborer, someone who's livelihood depended on the respect his art could garner him. In a time when art was becoming more of a fad than a livelihood, he had every right to be protective.
People don't magically develop the ability to recite a long line of prime numbers or paint a perfectly accurate portrait unless they're the victim of some sort of horrid injury to the brain. A spin of the genetic roulette wheel imbues us with certain abilities. If someone wants desperately to be a surgeon, they go to school, do the work, and find out whether they have the skill or not. They learn whether they're fit to be a surgeon hopefully before they get their hands on a live patient. Would you want someone messing around in your body cavities with a scalpel if they didn't have the talent or skill? No, you wouldn't. So why is it acceptable for people who can't draw, paint, design, or sculpt to use 'expression' and 'interpretation' as crutches to encroach on the respect owed to those who are naturally talented? Like it or not, aside from basic functions, humans are not all given the same talents.
From an early age, we learn to incorrectly define the term 'art.' Art can be anything, produced by anyone, even animals. It has been said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but even then, there are universally accepted 'fundamentals' of art that we should not ignore. As children, we scrawl poorly conceived representations of things and when we show off our 'masterpiece' we're met with standing ovations. The praise happens every time, no matter the quality. This reinforcement makes it easy for us to ignore the fundamentals. Why bother with something if it isn't necessary for success? Society's belief that self-esteem is better than self-realization tells us we can do anything, natural talent notwithstanding.
Author Andrew Klavan wrote in a blog post recently, "sacking the Pantheon doesn’t turn barbarians into gods." Creating a mess and calling it art doesn't make the creator an artist. Screeching out of key and calling it a song doesn't make someone a real singer. The reality show American Idol sheds light on this theory by showing us the difference between real vocal talent and a weightless, animalistic need for attention. Though this is an accurate comparison to my argument, visual art remains a playground for just about anyone who wishes to play. Conversely to singing, visual art fosters the belief that the less talent you have, the more you thumb your nose at convention, the more success you will have.
The rift between craftsmanship and art grew wider as people began to lose their individuality and feel more entitled. The ability to express themselves in their own way withered and they searched for what they thought would be an easy way to stand out. The all-too-human desire to be 'noticed' crossed paths with the arts and usurped the trail. Art, being always viewed as subjective, had little chance of fighting back against those who would abuse it. People just shrugged off the talentless examples as 'subjectively acceptable' and moved on. A craft which was once a way of simply making a living became a pretentious means of self-promotion and hollow praise.
I do not say any of this to be an elitist, rather, I speak as one who respects the niches in life to which we all belong. A poem I read as a child states, "If you is jes' a little tadpole / Don't try to be a frog, / If you is jes' the tail / Don't try and wag the dog." Being an individual doesn't mean you seek out the laurels of others and snatch the crown from their heads. We all have things that make us special, things we are inherently blessed to accomplish. All subjectivism aside, there are those who will always execute their craft better than others. The true path to fulfillment is not in doing passably what others do best, it's doing what you do best exceptionally well.
"Art was once the business of artists and not of writers and was taught to artists by other artists and not professors; and it's rather wholesome definition seems to have been—before anything was said about "art for art's sake"—the doing of anything, from ploughing to painting especially well. Craftsmanship was not suspect or thought to be ruinous to individuality—or perhaps individualities were not so feeble then that they could not survive the rigors imposed by craftsmanship. I do not know when the term "fine art" was invented and the breach between it and craftsmanship began to widen, but I have come to believe that it was a sorry day for both. For then, it seems to me, the spirit of art departed from its body and the body began to decay and the spirit to wander aimlessly in space." —Thomas Maitland Cleland, "Progress" in the Graphic Arts
Monday, March 8, 2010
Of Ropeless Jumps and Scoreless Games
Like crude oil, self-esteem is a hot commodity; heady, pricey, and oftentimes untapped. Used correctly and responsibly, it can make things a lot better. But used unwisely or too liberally, it will cause trouble for yourself and everyone around you. Over the decades, we Americans have become just as obsessed with self-esteem as with the black gold that fuels our life. We cultivate it in ourselves and our children until it grows into a creature from "The Little Shop of Horrors," ready to devour everything in its path.
Cultivation of belligerent self-esteem starts with the belief that everyone should be equal. This socialistic mantra has trickled down from on high, causing us to do ridiculous things like jumping rope with no rope and not keeping score at childrens soccer games. After all, keeping score is harmful to the self-esteem of every child except the ones who score. We can't have little Timmy walk off the field crying because he didn't put the ball in the goal now can we? Parents extend their praise for just about everything from good behavior to scrawled crayon drawings far past the realm of realistic acclaim. Punishment is deferred in favor of bargaining, "If you promise to be good for an hour, I'll give you a treat!" To a developing mind, this fosters the belief that almost anything can be gained with the right amount of manipulation.
When I was a child, we jumped rope with real ropes. Some children weren't too good at it, some fell on their face, but having everyone be equal at jump rope wasn't really the goal. We kept score when we played games. There was disappointment, but that's the way life is. To lie about it would do more disservice to the child in the long run. When I misbehaved, there was no bargain. I wasn't lured with candy or toys to be a 'good girl' no, I was punished. And there is no better way to learn a lesson and learn it good than to have it taught by a swat on the behind. Conversely, I was praised when what I did was actually good. The talent which I rely on today to make a living was carefully monitored and encouraged by those around me, not by empty praise for every drawing, but by honest, constructive criticism. When I accomplished something exceptional, I was treated with exceptional praise, but if what I did was just okay, the response was just okay.
We're treading dangerous waters here. When children are coddled and propped up on undeserved laurels, when reward is given for nothing, those children grow up to be entitled adults. The trickling down that caused parents to over cultivate self-esteem is trickling up to curse our society with raging narcissists. They see themselves worthy of all sorts of things based on very little effort. Self-esteem is important, confidence is key to success, but such things can not be gotten by rights of breathing. We must stop lying to ourselves and to our children. We must know the limits of self-esteem just as oil has its limits. A child may be abysmal at jumping rope, but stellar in chemistry. This does not mean we let the child jump without a rope just to save their self-esteem. And certainly, we don't allow the other children to cheat off of this child's chemistry exam so they will feel just as apt in chemistry.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. had it right in his short story Harrison Bergeron. Humans are only equal in that we are all human. We were all meant to be something, to do something, and by unjustly shoring up our weaknesses, we tear down what makes us great. Self-esteem is best used conservatively and for its intended purpose. No one wants a vehicle to use too much fuel and when an engine uses too much oil, there's something terribly wrong. Humans have fought and died over oil and believe it or not, they've done the same due to self-esteem. In the long run, conservation of both is best.
Cultivation of belligerent self-esteem starts with the belief that everyone should be equal. This socialistic mantra has trickled down from on high, causing us to do ridiculous things like jumping rope with no rope and not keeping score at childrens soccer games. After all, keeping score is harmful to the self-esteem of every child except the ones who score. We can't have little Timmy walk off the field crying because he didn't put the ball in the goal now can we? Parents extend their praise for just about everything from good behavior to scrawled crayon drawings far past the realm of realistic acclaim. Punishment is deferred in favor of bargaining, "If you promise to be good for an hour, I'll give you a treat!" To a developing mind, this fosters the belief that almost anything can be gained with the right amount of manipulation.
When I was a child, we jumped rope with real ropes. Some children weren't too good at it, some fell on their face, but having everyone be equal at jump rope wasn't really the goal. We kept score when we played games. There was disappointment, but that's the way life is. To lie about it would do more disservice to the child in the long run. When I misbehaved, there was no bargain. I wasn't lured with candy or toys to be a 'good girl' no, I was punished. And there is no better way to learn a lesson and learn it good than to have it taught by a swat on the behind. Conversely, I was praised when what I did was actually good. The talent which I rely on today to make a living was carefully monitored and encouraged by those around me, not by empty praise for every drawing, but by honest, constructive criticism. When I accomplished something exceptional, I was treated with exceptional praise, but if what I did was just okay, the response was just okay.
We're treading dangerous waters here. When children are coddled and propped up on undeserved laurels, when reward is given for nothing, those children grow up to be entitled adults. The trickling down that caused parents to over cultivate self-esteem is trickling up to curse our society with raging narcissists. They see themselves worthy of all sorts of things based on very little effort. Self-esteem is important, confidence is key to success, but such things can not be gotten by rights of breathing. We must stop lying to ourselves and to our children. We must know the limits of self-esteem just as oil has its limits. A child may be abysmal at jumping rope, but stellar in chemistry. This does not mean we let the child jump without a rope just to save their self-esteem. And certainly, we don't allow the other children to cheat off of this child's chemistry exam so they will feel just as apt in chemistry.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. had it right in his short story Harrison Bergeron. Humans are only equal in that we are all human. We were all meant to be something, to do something, and by unjustly shoring up our weaknesses, we tear down what makes us great. Self-esteem is best used conservatively and for its intended purpose. No one wants a vehicle to use too much fuel and when an engine uses too much oil, there's something terribly wrong. Humans have fought and died over oil and believe it or not, they've done the same due to self-esteem. In the long run, conservation of both is best.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tenure: A Death Knell for Education
At any stage in life, getting an education is a tricky thing. How people learn differs so, it's difficult to get just the right mix of methods to make it work. In such a volatile world, nothing should be left to chance, nothing taken for granted. Above all, teachers should never miss a beat. Like surgeons guiding the lifeblood of the future, they should be masterful and attentive. But those traits have been neglected in so many instances, allowed to atrophy and die if they ever existed at all. From early education to higher learning, a pedagogical rite of passage has brought teachers down to the realm of mediocrity and thus doomed their students to frustration and failure. This rite of passage of which I speak is tenure.
Just as we trust doctors to our health and peacekeepers with our safety, we trust teachers with our education. They are the leaders on our journey. You want a leader to be knowledgeable, flexible, and attentive. You hope that no matter what comes along, that leader will remain strong. Challenges won't break them and accolades will not soften their drive. But tenure is something that can not only ease a teacher's intensity and passion, but can allow poor educators to remain in the classroom, doing decidedly more harm than good.
If a doctor hasn't studied trends in medicine in decades and trembles uncontrollably should they be allowed to treat patients? If a lawyer knows little of the law and even less about upholding it, should they be allowed to sit as a district attorney? If a professor has a poor track record in the classroom and rarely shows up for class, should they be allowed to continue teaching? The answers to these questions as stated may be blatant, but the last question sheds light on a harsh reality. There are teachers out there who have lost all respect for their field because they have been given a pass to behave as they wish. Their tenure allows them to be lax in their own learning and lax in their teaching. They flit from class to class in an indignant huff, ready to clock out as soon as possible because they know, no matter what they do, tenure keeps them safe from all punishment.
Rare indeed is the teacher who's skill is unchanged by tenure. I recognize there are those who excel with such an honor, but when people abuse a privilege, there should be consequences. I attended a private religious-affiliated university. I was lucky to receive many scholarships so a great deal of my tuition was paid for, but my heart goes out to those who feel they've wasted their own money to pay for lackluster education. The professor in my chosen major was a tenured professor who wanted nothing more than to be as far away from work as possible. When he did show up, he was short in knowledge and even more inept in the skill of sharing it. Had it not been for my independent nature and that of some of my classmates, no one with that degree would have found employment. Those who succeeded made their own way, but those who required more attention from a teacher, failed miserably. And that is truly the face of tenure, students left to fend mostly for themselves because lazy teachers no longer care to run the race. They're left holding the bill for an education they did not receive.
Unions, tenure, and social programs have destroyed the pride of work. People do only what is required for employment security or government money and nothing more. I saw this behavior first hand; I was a victim of it. The professor is still employed and likely still as abysmal as before. With the price of education soaring, he's wasting even more hard-earned money. No one wants to fight the hard fight to remedy the situation. We must not allow these abuses to continue. We must take a larger role in the education of those who will hold the future and find the lacking accountable. Those who no longer wish to do their jobs and those who don't have the skill to begin with must be dismissed. Teachers light a path in the darkness, but those who care not to ignite their lamps risk losing their followers in the chasm of confusion. If they teach only failure, the students will learn only failure. We must expect excellence in education and we must not stop until we get it.
Just as we trust doctors to our health and peacekeepers with our safety, we trust teachers with our education. They are the leaders on our journey. You want a leader to be knowledgeable, flexible, and attentive. You hope that no matter what comes along, that leader will remain strong. Challenges won't break them and accolades will not soften their drive. But tenure is something that can not only ease a teacher's intensity and passion, but can allow poor educators to remain in the classroom, doing decidedly more harm than good.
If a doctor hasn't studied trends in medicine in decades and trembles uncontrollably should they be allowed to treat patients? If a lawyer knows little of the law and even less about upholding it, should they be allowed to sit as a district attorney? If a professor has a poor track record in the classroom and rarely shows up for class, should they be allowed to continue teaching? The answers to these questions as stated may be blatant, but the last question sheds light on a harsh reality. There are teachers out there who have lost all respect for their field because they have been given a pass to behave as they wish. Their tenure allows them to be lax in their own learning and lax in their teaching. They flit from class to class in an indignant huff, ready to clock out as soon as possible because they know, no matter what they do, tenure keeps them safe from all punishment.
Rare indeed is the teacher who's skill is unchanged by tenure. I recognize there are those who excel with such an honor, but when people abuse a privilege, there should be consequences. I attended a private religious-affiliated university. I was lucky to receive many scholarships so a great deal of my tuition was paid for, but my heart goes out to those who feel they've wasted their own money to pay for lackluster education. The professor in my chosen major was a tenured professor who wanted nothing more than to be as far away from work as possible. When he did show up, he was short in knowledge and even more inept in the skill of sharing it. Had it not been for my independent nature and that of some of my classmates, no one with that degree would have found employment. Those who succeeded made their own way, but those who required more attention from a teacher, failed miserably. And that is truly the face of tenure, students left to fend mostly for themselves because lazy teachers no longer care to run the race. They're left holding the bill for an education they did not receive.
Unions, tenure, and social programs have destroyed the pride of work. People do only what is required for employment security or government money and nothing more. I saw this behavior first hand; I was a victim of it. The professor is still employed and likely still as abysmal as before. With the price of education soaring, he's wasting even more hard-earned money. No one wants to fight the hard fight to remedy the situation. We must not allow these abuses to continue. We must take a larger role in the education of those who will hold the future and find the lacking accountable. Those who no longer wish to do their jobs and those who don't have the skill to begin with must be dismissed. Teachers light a path in the darkness, but those who care not to ignite their lamps risk losing their followers in the chasm of confusion. If they teach only failure, the students will learn only failure. We must expect excellence in education and we must not stop until we get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)