<p>I'll admit my own ignorance. I understand the definition of research, which I guess should answer some of my questions, nevertheless I'll still ask them.</p>
<p>In looking at the research being done by humanities professors(say literature, or even philosophy), what I don't understand is why there is so much emphasis on looking into the past and writing about the past, vs. writing new literature, and new philosophy. I understand how in art history it makes more sense to talk about past artists and works, so as to present new work or "research" on history, but why does that apply to other humanities? Why does it seem like most of the research always is in conversation with the past, so as to prove fallacies, to prove a point, when if the authors of those past works were alive, or if they had well documented every little insignificant thing about their work, the research would thus seem unnecessary.
In looking at science, and medicine, research seems to be progressive and tends to move forward, vs being overly concerned with say the technique used by X doctor, or how Einstein, or whatever inventor created said invention, etc.</p>
<p>Why is their such emphasis on documenting or critiquing the history of the humanities vs advancing/creating the humanities?</p>
<p>Because the humanities is qualitatively a subjective discipline. No two people will ever come to agreement on 100% of all subject matters–these differences in normative ideas are why there are so many arguments.</p>
<p>In science, you can advance the discipline because there are laws governing phenomenon (thus results are objective and reproducible). You build upon an additive science.</p>
<p>In the humanities, you can’t build upon something that isn’t exactly additive. Philosophies are dictated and molded based on context, which can be hard to pinpoint without hindsight. Once a bigger picture begins to clear up, researchers can start to place famous people and their works into their respective contexts and scrutinize from there.</p>
<p>Also, researchers really can’t look into their contemporaries–it’d be exhausting to the entire field since how do you know if an idea, practice, or person is really going to be significant in the future. If you follow every possible lead, you’ll be hitting too many dead ends.</p>
<p>Lastly, a Ph.D. does not teach you how to form philosophies or how to produce quality “literature”. The toolset that doctoral training provides you is specialized to do research and to analyze works. There are many instances of doctorate-holders who do produce original works and are famous for it, but that’s not what the Ph.D. is designed to train one for. Being able to critique an idea in a constructive manner is different than being able to create and propagate such ideas–if that makes any sense.</p>
<p>Note: I am not in humanities, but this is what I’ve taken from the field in my time on this forum.</p>
<p>I’d like to add that “advancing the humanities” is the job of artists and performers, not academics. Once an artist has challenged the mainstream and has made her/her mark, usually over a lifetime, then the academic can look back and place that innovation in the context of the times and begin to outline the impact of the work. Let’s take a writer who creates a volume of influential work over the course of four decades. Until the next generation begins writing, and the next, there’s no way of telling how important the first writer’s work really was. After all, literature is like science in that it builds on what went before. Unless others build on what that writer accomplished, then his/her value in the canon is minimal. The job of academics is to determine the context, the impact, the biographical details, etc. that gave rise to the importance of the works. During the writer’s lifetime, of course, he/she will have given interviews, written letters (email!), associated with other artists, maybe even written a memoir – all tools that future academics can access during their research.</p>
<p>I completely understand and agree with what has been written above. It is common sense. I think Art History and Art is an example of this. An art historian, or someone who studies art history in graduate school, researches it, and/or teaches it, doesn’t have the skills to produce art, the way someone who studies art does.</p>
<p>Using the above distinction of the artist vs art historian, I guess what confuses me is (my wrong assumption?) that to create “art”(and actually move and progress the “art” world), the best persons suited in doing so would appear to be the persons who understands art history at the level of a graduate school education. I (wrongfully) assume art historians would have the perfect solution in using the tools(if they knew how to use the tools) to best depict historical references, moods, emotions, symbols, etc in a work of art more successfully than the “artists” who may simply just be creating, and may not really understand what references(including culture, history, other artists) he or she may be making with their work. Otherwise, it can seem like historians(or “researchers”) could be giving credit to works, and “artists” that really didn’t have much to say. The ones that are giving a voice to the “artists”, and thus are choosing the “artists”/“masters” are those that may be reading too much in between the lines, when in reality, those lines may have not been intended or created</p>
<p>On second thought, the art history/artist example may not be the best, especially if we try to apply the above to say writing literature/philosophy. </p>
<p>
The other point I am trying to make is that the job of the academic could be avoided, or could cease to exist, if the artists were educated in the subject matter to the level of a graduate school education, so that it would no longer be necessary for academics to come in to fill in the gaps, or for them to “create” fill ins for gaps that really where never there. </p>
<p>There would no longer be uncertainty about what is a symbol, what the symbol means, etc… if those who really understand literature, art, philosophy, etc also left their work with their “history” so as to prevent researchers or whoever from misinterpretting their work, or recreating it into something it is not. </p>
<p>In regards to advancement of the humanities, I do understand that the humanities do have to do with the “voice” of the creator. However, in looking at the history of literature and philosophy, works have generally had some sort of direction be it in style, discussion of life/human experience, themes, etc. It shouldn’t take decades to pass to nitpick the voices of the time.</p>
<p>I guess I just don’t understand why someone who presumably loves, say reading literature, would want to spend their time doing things that have nothing to do with what you get out of literature. Researching(looking through information, just to argue a point, that will always be an assumption because the artist/writer/creator isn’t usually there to confirm the information), just seems like another skilled job. Or someone who loves philosophy, would be more concerned with looking for fallacies or arguing what the another philosopher has said (i think this is what is being down now vs. what is being done in the literature fields and “researching”). Aren’t these educated individuals dying to have their voice heard on what they think is important vs having their voice heard on what others have written/created? Why a PhD in a specific field, if at the end of the day your job will generally be research, and you won’t directly benefit from the satisfaction of the action of researching, vs say actually studying and learning the history of said field, and thus pushing that history with your contribution? I guess more simply put, why study to “tell me what you find” instead of “tell me what YOU have to say”. Afterall, those admitted to top grad schools, obviously have the skills to “say something”. If grad school, is about researching, then why not simply create a school of research that pushes skills and ways of researching to the point where X grad in researching can research any subject presented before them, after all it won’t be any different from the status quo where their “voice” isn’t heard, so much as “tell me what you find” is what is important.</p>
<p>To be able to research a subject, you need thorough knowledge of that subject - what research has been done before, where the gaps are, the best methodologies for that field, etc. It is simply not possible for any person to become an expert in everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because “what you have to say” about a given work is totally subjective and meaningless unless supported by textual and historical references that link the work to the purported interpretation. Only by linking one’s argument to facts does one create a compelling and publishable piece of research that goes beyond mere opinion and is a substantive work of analysis.</p>
<p>Or, in short: in graduate school, you learn to test your opinions, finding them either supported or unsupported by the facts.</p>
<p>A graduate education is not nearly enough training to become an ‘expert’ at anything; it takes academics entire lifetimes to be at the top of their field, even when the field is a microscopic facet that only a handful of people are interested in. </p>
<p>Also, how does one “advance” art? Art, by nature, is subjective. Are you suggesting there’s a way to cardinally improve art just because you have knowledge of art history and critique?</p>
<p>You are making assumptions that are usually false:</p>
<p>– that cutting-edge and influential art can be manufactured
– that academics and artists share the same skill sets
– that the greatness of art rests in proper education and not in the artist’s unique way of looking at the world
– that the artist can objectively measure his own impact
– that the direction of art can be predicted</p>
<p>Artists are generally more interested in creating, and academics are more interested in understanding. Intent (the part that the artist is aware of) is only part of the importance of any given work. </p>
<p>Your stance that the artist is the only source of understanding of his work is a common but naive one. Since much happens on the subconscious level, an artist sometimes cannot see what he has done. Listen to any interview of a living writer or performer soon after he has offered the work to the public. When the interviewer points out a particular interpretation, you can hear the pause in the conversation that indicates that the artist has not thought of this before and yet he agrees with it. The artist is often not fully aware of the influences, recurring motifs, etc. of his own work. And he may not be fully honest in public, hiding the private angst and situations that the academics expose.</p>
<p>And therein lies the fundamental irony of humanities research. On the one hand, you say that humanities is akin to science in that it builds upon past work; on the other hand, you say that advancing and building upon the humanities is not the job of academics. Yet the fact is, advancing and building upon the sciences is the job of science academics. So why not in the humanities as well? </p>
<p>To be sure, I agree that expertise in any particular narrow field - whether it be creating or understanding a particular genre of literature - can take a lifetime to master. Yet the same could be said of scientists. An expert in non-equilibrium thermodynamics is clearly going to share very little in common with an expert in optical physics, yet they may work in the same department and even have offices next to one another. Both would be expected to be advancing science as part of their jobs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the truth is, formal humanities research - and to be fair, much (probably most) of social sciences research - is heavily laden with subjective opinion as well. It may be an erudite opinion that is supported by facts and analysis, but it is subjective opinion nonetheless. As a case in point, how many published literary theories have been later found to be definitively falsified, such that the community of scholars agrees that they are false and should no longer be built upon? Granted, certain literary theories may become dormant, but that’s not the same as falsification for they continue to remain viable, waiting to be revived if and when another group of scholars decides to resurrect them. In contrast, it’s surely safe to say that medical science is not going to revive the Four Bodily Humors or the Vital Essence Theory. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the risk of possibly putting words in liek0806’s mouth, I believe one of his concerns - and certainly mine - regards the social value of humanities research. I know this is going to sound confrontational, and I don’t mean it to be, but I continue to ask: how does humanities research actually aid society? As mentioned above, and in stark contrast to the humanities, academic scientists actually advance the state of science. But humanities academics do not actually advance the state of the humanities. So what exactly do they contribute? </p>
<p>To be clear, I don’t dispute the social value of artists, writers, and others who actually produce new pieces of art. They are advancing the humanities by producing creative works that contribute to the cultural capital of mankind. My question is regarding humanities research. </p>
<p>To put the issue differently, if we didn’t have scientists, then our scientific knowledge base would not increase. We would not continue to grow the baseline information upon which to innovate and build cutting-edge discoveries such as cures for diseases, faster/smaller/cheaper computers, viable renewable energy sources, and the like. But artists and writers would presumably continue to generate new creative works even without humanities academia. Our cultural capital would continue to improve.</p>
<p>Nor, as far as I know, is the production of creative works accelerated by humanities academia. Humanities academia in its present form - with formal university academic departments that grant PhD degrees - has existed for only a few centuries at most. One would then think that we ought to be living in the most creatively productive period in history (as measured by great works per capita). But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Arguably the most prolific flowering of Western art happened during the Renaissance - long before formal PhD programs in art history were created. Shakespeare is widely recognized as the preeminent figure in English Literature, yet he completed his body of work without the benefit of a community of humanities researchers to critique his work. </p>
<p>Nor is it clear that we need the modern form of humanities research to identify creative works that stand the test of time. While Shakespeare was not the revered figure during his lifetime that he is now, his scintillating reputation was cemented by the scholarly analyses of Samuel Johnson and Edmond Malone, neither of whom were in academia. Chaucer’s artistic reputation was considerable even before his death. Even Van Gogh - the archetypal example of the artist who dies in obscurity only to achieve posthumous recognition - had his reputation revived by Albert Aurier, Octave Mirbeau, and Roger Fry who were not solely art scholars/critics but were also artists themselves. </p>
<p>The upshot is that I am still entirely unclear as to what social value is served by separating the advancement of humanities from the understanding of humanities, when no such separation exists within the sciences. That understanding doesn’t seem to clearly translate into either an acceleration of humanities productivity or even a greater ability to recognized unappreciated past works. For those who want to prove me wrong - by all means, name as many examples as possible of artists/writers who were formerly obscure but today have a stellar reputation that can clearly be traced to the impact of modern-day humanities academia in rediscovering and rehabilitating their work.</p>