Summary and comparation of the two texts: <Reason Between Equals>by Jacques Ranciere and <Dear Colleague> by Robert Storr
<Reason Between Equals>by Jacques Ranciere
Jacques Ranciere think that we do everything under a supposition which is all intelligence is equal. But we couldn’t find evidence to prove it. The equality of intelligence is the common bond of humankind, it’s also the necessary and sufficient condition for a society of men to exist. We don’t know that men are equal or not, but we are saying that they might be which could makes a society of humans possible.
Even if each leaf is different, but a leaf is a material thing, while a mind is immaterial. In this way, superior brain are not men superior minds. He also gave another example: sometimes we will compare two children. We could see on do something (like walking or running) better than another one, then we would say that one is more intelligent. But actually our explanation is obscure. As we haven’t seen the fact that would be the cause of the first. We have given it a name but the name of a fact is not its cause. It’s impossible to break out of the circle. Jacques think sometime one person seems more intelligent because they could be more attentive to the environment and the situation around them. He think man is a living organization served by an intelligence. And intelligence is attention and research before being a combination of ideas. He also mentioned that an individual can do anything he want, which is maintained by the universal teaching with the value ‘the equality of intelligence’ – makes everyone to explore their power of himself when he judges himself equal to everyone else.
Besides, Jacques also mentioned the principle of verity, which is at the heart of emancipation experience. And speaking is the best proof of the capacity to do whatever it is.
<Dear Colleague> by Robert Storr
Robert hold the contrast opinion with Jacques. Unlike Jacques’ idea about the equality, Robert think that it’s unequal because the genius exists. Robert said the genius don’t need education and the students in the school are not genius as genius lack nothing! The idea of genius means the inequality for human being.
Besides, the text mentioned some big movements, like feminist movement in 19C, holds the idea that art school have played in modern art’s development. Robert also mentioned the big shift in art school and crisis of academy. He gave the example of Bauhaus in 19C, and Kunstakadenie in Dusseldorf, Nova Scotia College of Art, Disney-Linked California Institute of Arts in 20C, maintains that the rise of ‘ conceptual ‘ practices is crucial to the shift which were represented by these art schools.
Instead of mentioning the different ontologies and the shift of ontologies in different art school, Robert didn’t mention any particular personal ontology by himself, while the only one ontology in <Reasons Between Equals> I could find is that it mentioned some artist experience: we talk only about what we see, give a name to what we see – which means we could explain nothing. In this kind of ontology, we just could portray what we can see, we couldn’t portray the idea of the subject itself.
I also tried to answer the question which Neil put forward before: how contemporary art might be regarded as a form of knowledge?
Personally, I think art could be a form of knowledge which relfects the culture, society, ideology. It could contains a lot of information which relates artists’ particular experience, or understanding or reflection of culture and society in their personal perspective.
<Reason Between Equals>by Jacques Ranciere
Jacques Ranciere think that we do everything under a supposition which is all intelligence is equal. But we couldn’t find evidence to prove it. The equality of intelligence is the common bond of humankind, it’s also the necessary and sufficient condition for a society of men to exist. We don’t know that men are equal or not, but we are saying that they might be which could makes a society of humans possible.
Even if each leaf is different, but a leaf is a material thing, while a mind is immaterial. In this way, superior brain are not men superior minds. He also gave another example: sometimes we will compare two children. We could see on do something (like walking or running) better than another one, then we would say that one is more intelligent. But actually our explanation is obscure. As we haven’t seen the fact that would be the cause of the first. We have given it a name but the name of a fact is not its cause. It’s impossible to break out of the circle. Jacques think sometime one person seems more intelligent because they could be more attentive to the environment and the situation around them. He think man is a living organization served by an intelligence. And intelligence is attention and research before being a combination of ideas. He also mentioned that an individual can do anything he want, which is maintained by the universal teaching with the value ‘the equality of intelligence’ – makes everyone to explore their power of himself when he judges himself equal to everyone else.
Besides, Jacques also mentioned the principle of verity, which is at the heart of emancipation experience. And speaking is the best proof of the capacity to do whatever it is.
<Dear Colleague> by Robert Storr
Robert hold the contrast opinion with Jacques. Unlike Jacques’ idea about the equality, Robert think that it’s unequal because the genius exists. Robert said the genius don’t need education and the students in the school are not genius as genius lack nothing! The idea of genius means the inequality for human being.
Besides, the text mentioned some big movements, like feminist movement in 19C, holds the idea that art school have played in modern art’s development. Robert also mentioned the big shift in art school and crisis of academy. He gave the example of Bauhaus in 19C, and Kunstakadenie in Dusseldorf, Nova Scotia College of Art, Disney-Linked California Institute of Arts in 20C, maintains that the rise of ‘ conceptual ‘ practices is crucial to the shift which were represented by these art schools.
Instead of mentioning the different ontologies and the shift of ontologies in different art school, Robert didn’t mention any particular personal ontology by himself, while the only one ontology in <Reasons Between Equals> I could find is that it mentioned some artist experience: we talk only about what we see, give a name to what we see – which means we could explain nothing. In this kind of ontology, we just could portray what we can see, we couldn’t portray the idea of the subject itself.
I also tried to answer the question which Neil put forward before: how contemporary art might be regarded as a form of knowledge?
Personally, I think art could be a form of knowledge which relfects the culture, society, ideology. It could contains a lot of information which relates artists’ particular experience, or understanding or reflection of culture and society in their personal perspective.