Re: Art History Debates

grapesmoker <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:37:43 -0000

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, shamsoftabriz <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> I'm also an art history person (going for ye olde Ph.D.).  It's 
> frustrating for art history specialists (glad to see there are 
more of 
> them out there in QB-world!) to have to deal with other players 
saying 
> that (*perhaps* Cindy Sherman..there is some disagreement on this 
> appearently) is 'too difficult' to ask about.  The reasoning 
usually 
> given comes down to 'I am relatively well-educated.  I haven't 
heard 
> of her before.  Therefore, she is too difficult.'  Well, imagine 
if 
> the same test was used to determine if science questions were too 
> difficult.  What if the relevance and acceptability of science 
> questions were determined by whether or not non-science 
specialists 
> have heard of something.  There would be a lot less stuff that 
ONLY 
> scientists or people taking upper-level courses were able to get.  
Now 
> I'm not advocating that...I think the canon should always be 
> expanding, and I have no trouble not getting something that 
science 
> people seem to think is relevant and important to ask about.  I 
just 
> wish art historians didn't have to deal with the hypocracy...say, 
> someone thinking Cindy Sherman (just using her as the running 
example 
> here) is too tough while some 
> ultra-obscure-I-can't-even-remember-the-answer-because-it-seemed-
so-di
> fficult physics topic gets by because of the ultra-orthodox 
> hard-science lobby.  I think hard science is fine as long as it's 
> important and relevant to the field from a specialist's point of 
view. 
> The same should be the case in all subjects, including art 
history.  
> So, yeah, if you want to be hard, just be hard in a uniform and 
fair 
> way...that's my $0.02.

I feel compelled to speak out on this subject.

1) What "ultra-orthodox hard science lobby?" In case you haven't 
noticed, there are not that many science players in qb. Most qb 
players are humanities majors, and even those of us who are science 
majors usually get most of our points from humanities stuff. I know 
that I personally score about twice as many points from humanities 
questions as I do from physics questions, and I know this is true 
for most science players on the West Coast. It's just that physics 
is two tossups and two bonuses per packet if I'm lucky. Fortunately, 
I don't limit myself to just knowing physics.

2) There's a fundamental difference between the sciences and the 
humanities with regards to the difficulty of each one. The fact is 
that if you're a science student, it's much easier to learn a little 
history and read some literature and become a good humanities player 
as well than to do the reverse. I obviously speak for myself here, 
but having never studied biology or chemistry at an advanced level, 
questions on those subjects are usually just so much white noise to 
me. I would imagine the reverse is true for someone whos studies 
biology when they hear physics questions. Facility in the humanities 
bespeaks a broad education; facility in the sciences is indicative 
of a good knowledge of a narrow range of subjects. Therefore, it's 
perfectly fine to write harder-than-average science questions 
because once you get beyond the very basic concepts, you really do 
need a specialized education to know more than that. However, 
questions about modern art historians are not fine because the range 
of humanities subjects is so broad that a well-rounded person can be 
expected to know about artists and architects in general, but 
shouldn't be expected to know about modern art historians. There's 
so much general knowledge which can be asked about in the humanities 
that you would do far better to try to exhaust that canon before you 
go delving into the obscurata that come with specializing in the 
field.

Jerry