Difference between revisions of "329--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(JWDrury) |
|||
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
==JT Newcomb== | ==JT Newcomb== | ||
A professor in another class suggested this week that the number of things that everyone is expected to know is diminishing while the volume of things available for people to know is rapidly increasing. He made this observation concerning what you can learn in a history class. "Reel Hollywood" and "Slaves on Screen" seem to suggest that movies have taken a role long held by written documents, acting as a means to educate (in a loose sense of the word) an audience in history. I contemplated connection between these two ideas while I read. Perhaps movies are now a necessary part of our education, because we do not have the time to study many events in greater detail. What would a typical American know about the fight for Scottish independence without seeing "Braveheart"? What a person knows after seeing that movie may not be completely accurate, but they've at least received a crash course. Besides, "Reel Hollywood" argues that historians can skew the details of the past as effectively as any director... Furthur, if movies do now act as part of our education, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do we need movies because there is more to know and less detail we are required to, or is there more to know and less detail that we are required to because we are gaining our knowledge from movies? - JT Newcomb | A professor in another class suggested this week that the number of things that everyone is expected to know is diminishing while the volume of things available for people to know is rapidly increasing. He made this observation concerning what you can learn in a history class. "Reel Hollywood" and "Slaves on Screen" seem to suggest that movies have taken a role long held by written documents, acting as a means to educate (in a loose sense of the word) an audience in history. I contemplated connection between these two ideas while I read. Perhaps movies are now a necessary part of our education, because we do not have the time to study many events in greater detail. What would a typical American know about the fight for Scottish independence without seeing "Braveheart"? What a person knows after seeing that movie may not be completely accurate, but they've at least received a crash course. Besides, "Reel Hollywood" argues that historians can skew the details of the past as effectively as any director... Furthur, if movies do now act as part of our education, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do we need movies because there is more to know and less detail we are required to, or is there more to know and less detail that we are required to because we are gaining our knowledge from movies? - JT Newcomb | ||
| + | |||
| + | JT's comment got me thinking about the fact that college courses in themselves are "crash" courses in whatever we are studying. With the exception of our theses or a very well honed schedule, we receive bits and pieces of history each semester. Much like a film, if our interest is sparked, we must go outside of the original material to find out more. Perhaps this is just one way that society sees education now. -- Amanda Russell | ||
