> if you don't fully understand something, that makes studying that thing that isn't fully understood
I can't speak for WB but I think the point is that even the art professors and art experts also "don't fully understand" it either. If it's the "blind leading the blind", how do we measure the value of _formal_ classes?
(Self) study of art is great. I think we can agree. But why is _formal_ study in a very expensive _formal_ classroom better? Are there any studies of improved brain performance or expanded lateral thinking that's specifically correlated back to college art classes?
>I can't speak for WB but I think the point is that even the art professors and art experts also "don't fully understand" it either. If it's the "blind leading the blind", how do we measure the value of _formal_ classes?
Sorry, I made an edit after the quote, which I think makes my argument way more clear.
I'm suggesting that there is value to studying a thing where nobody has the right answer.
The professor doesn't have the right answer, either, but the professor does have a set of methods, tools and traditions for studying those problems for which society doesn't have the answers.
I can't speak for WB but I think the point is that even the art professors and art experts also "don't fully understand" it either. If it's the "blind leading the blind", how do we measure the value of _formal_ classes?
(Self) study of art is great. I think we can agree. But why is _formal_ study in a very expensive _formal_ classroom better? Are there any studies of improved brain performance or expanded lateral thinking that's specifically correlated back to college art classes?