Today we continued our discussion on Rousseau and the Discourse of Arts and Sciences. Rousseau claims that the Arts and Sciences spring from an evil origin and that they would not even exist if people didn’t have the leisure time or luxury to pursue them. Like customs, propriety, and manners, Rousseau says the Arts and Sciences are bad because they are insincere and stop people from following their own genius, that is it stops people from creating or doing something new and interesting. Consequently, people do not follow their genius, become mediocre and never reach their full potential. This is harmful because essentially everyone has the capability to reach their own genius and when people restrict themselves and follow convention they destroy an endless amount of possibilities. For example, at some point in time someone or some group of people starting using a language and prior to this time it had never been done before. We discussed in class how the concept of language is an inconceivable creation so the fact that we have language today proves the vast extent of people’s genius.
We also touched on the Arts and Sciences in an academic setting. Professor Harwood said that if a person is good enough to study the Arts and Sciences then that person doesn’t need someone to teach him or her the Arts and Sciences. The question that then arose from this is why would you go to a college to study the Arts and Sciences? The answer should be because your genius leads you to college, that you have a passion for a particular subject and want to learn more about it and therefore go to an establishment that will provide that for you. I feel like this is especially relevant to Rhodes students because it is a liberal arts college. For example I am personally drawn to studio/art history and I like learning about artists who were revolutionary; we also covered this in class how a successful artist (as in one who makes money/receives commissions) is on the whole a bad one because they are doing something conventional whereas an artist doing something new and experimental dies poor when they were the better artist because they were following their own genius. Although I am learning that breaking the convention is revolutionary and in effect good I am also being restricted by a lot of convention in my classes as far as curriculum goes..
Basically I want to know what are some thoughts on how the Arts and Sciences taught in an academic setting are beneficial or harmful? Or what are the consequences of people either using or rejecting their personal genius?
I say it can go either way. I came to Rhodes for a couple of reasons (but none of which were to simply learn or follow my genius). I came to college to one day get a job, to experience the college life and to follow cultural norms (it is expected that we go to college). However, I do not know if I even know what my passion would be so I am simply following the traditional role because it is what is expected. Long story short, I think that it depends on the individual and whether they benefit from the arts and sciences taught in an academic setting. The only benefit I can see of people following there own personal genius is that they will most likely be happier people. I honestly see no other benefit to not following traditional roles than that. It would be ideal if everyone was passionate about what they do but that is often not the case. We live in a society where wealth and income defines our worth as a person. It's sad that this is the case but I feel like it will probably never change
ReplyDeleteI think the Art and Sciences are extremely beneficial in academics and school. I do agree that many people go to college in order to make money and get a job, but we also go to college to figure out what we want to be in life. We may discover through learning about Arts and Sciences what are passions in life are and what are genius is. People may never follow their genius if they are never exposed to it, and college is a place where we encounter a range of Arts and Sciences.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I wish this were the case, I definitely did not come to college because I have some crazy desire to keep learning. I feel like most everyone gets wrapped up in this whole idea of just going through the motions ( going to school, getting a job, settling down etc. . . ) and I do understand where Rousseau is coming from. Just going along with what society tells us to do rather than following our own interests and passions is never the right choice. This really becomes apparent when you hear those stories about the person who went to law school ( or something similar) to get a good job and make money, and they end up realizing they absolutely hate their job and it was a terrible decision. So i understand what Rousseau is trying to get across in that we need to break from the norm. However, I also think that going along with society isn't as terrible as he makes it out to be. If I didn't go to college, I would probably have no way of knowing what my passion is. I would probably end up working a job and living at home rather than finding out how I can tap into my own genius. So ultimately, going along with the norm by going to college and being taught the arts and sciences, I believe, to a degree, is helping me find my passion.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you were to trace back the true reason that most of us came to college, the real answer is to survive. Having a high paying job gets you money, which you then go on to spend on food and other necessities we need to make it through the day. Beyond that, we don't only want to survive day to day, we want to live like kings (or queens) and have whatever we want, when we want it. It is inherent in the idea of going to college that you are going to learn, which is why it is so far in the back of our minds. The knowledge we learn is then applied to our daily lives. What this says is that we are creatures who value the future greater than the present. Eg, we go to college so that we can make use of our knowledge and make money; we make more money and save some so that in the future we can retire and still live comfortably.
ReplyDeleteTo relate back to something you said about language Rachel, I am currently in intro Anthropology, and we learned about something called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. It basically states that we are incapable of knowing something that cannot be explained through language. There was an example given in the article about a man who worked at a factory. He was one of those smokers, and one day he was enjoying a cigarette when he disposed of the butt in a gasoline barrel that was labelled empty, but he still blew up. Why is this? It is because there may be no more gasoline in the barrel, but the fumes are still present inside. We do not have a word to describe something as being empty but still having something in it. This almost attacks the empiricist view that we know anything that we can perceive by the senses. If you took a whiff of that barrel you would smell it, but because our language does not clearly define it we cannot understand it without deeper thinking.
I wanted to go to college to learn and refine my skills. I'm passionate about art, and my dream is to sell my work for a living. I know this isn't practical right out of college, if at all, so I want to go into advertising. So I know what I want to do with my life, and I suppose Rousseau would say that I'm following my genius.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering why Rousseau paired the Arts with the Sciences. At first, these seem like complete opposites. But the more I thought about it, I realized that the two areas of study are related. Both are based on experimentation and invention. The whole point of Art is to create something new, and Science is all about research, finding solutions to problems, and discovery. I never thought the two could be related, especially since I am a failure at anything science-related.
Hm, I guess I came to college in order to get a job but because that job is what I would love, and what I'd be good at. I continuously have the debate with people over why I do not consider myself an artist (I do not, even though I dabble in artistic expression), and it's because I consider myself an art historian. People often tell me to give myself more credit, however, I'm in no way ashamed or insecure about not being an artist. Whenever it comes up, I generally reach the point where the other person realizes that it is their societal priming that causes them to assume I don't see myself as an artist because I don't see myself hip and cool enough where, for me, it's simply not my "genius." (oh, and I happen to think art history IS hip and cool and that it's vastly cooler to carry my gigantic Dada book around than pose with a sketchbook, but I digress). I guess my point is just that I agree with Rousseau pretty fundamentally.
ReplyDeleteAs to the question of arts and sciences being connected, I think it's more a matter of conceptual similarity than thematic similarity. I think he who wears paint splattered clothes when he's better suited to accounting and the doctor whose parents forced him into the profession even though he'd rather compose music are enemies or morality in the same manner. Really what passion could you follow that wouldn't be considered an art nor science?
When we first began reading Rousseau, it seemed as though a world were everyone followed his or her genious would be one where super trendy hipsters ruled. I found it kind of contridicting, since "hipsters" in my opinion conform more to society than anyone else. They seek to brake the mold and in doing so conform to society by trying to break its mold. But thinking this genious is a grave mistake. Rousseu never says that following your genious means being awkwardly different, no it means following your passions, and if your passions lead you to a lifestyle that doesn't exactly break the mold that's fine.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to myself, I believe I am following my passion. Although I am at college like almost every other twenty year old I know, I am doing what fascinates me, studying language. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think Roussseau has a problem with people who fit in with society, but a problem with people who allow society to determine who they are.
In response to Rachael, I'm passionate about art as well, and have many, many times been asked why I'm going to a liberal arts school instead of an art school. But for me it was more about learning about EVERYTHING that I could, so that I would have this vast knowledge to pull from in order to better produce my art. I think that people often think that when artists "follow their genius" they must choose this certain path through art school and internship and whatnot, but what no one ever sees is that artists pull inspiration from the world, from learning. Every artist before has pulled from precedent, from what they learn. Art is stealing from the world around you.
ReplyDelete