[HPforGrownups] Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[annegirl11 at juno.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 112206

Nora:
> Studying art in the context of 'hey kids, draw this animal because 
> we're studying it in class' and, say, studying the aesthetics and 
> history and practice of drawing are profoundly different things.  

As I've said several times, the basis of my theory is that there is more
to the class than we read. Maybe they do study theory and aestetics. 

>  It is  an  interesting theory, but it doesn't address exactly what I
was 
> lamenting the loss of.

What I'm saying is that it's possible there isn't any loss to lament. The
humanities may be taught in a *different* but still valid and effective
way. 

When I was in school, two-a-week, one-half year music or art classes were
treated as cake classes compared to the more demanding core classes. If
Hogwarts does blend humantities in with the lessons in the core classes,
perhaps Hogwarts kids emerge from school more appreciative of the arts
than kids I went to school with, who viewed them as lesser disciplens
than "real" classes.

> Actually, it's a fairly canonical comment that most wizards have 
> absolutely no logic, at the end of SS/PS.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

>it's going to trip up your average student,  
> but not Muggle-raised Hermione. 

It's meant to trip up an adverage-intelligenced person (do we really
think Quirrel or Voldemort are geniuses?) but not above-intelligence
Hermione. Harry couldn't solve the puzzle, either. 

> Sure, people might be able to do that kind of big, flashy, ooh look 
> at that it's so COOL art.

I just meant that a wizard artist can use magic in their art. It doesn't
have to be flashy, just magic.

> The  argument is, perhaps, that in many cases, time-saving convenience 
> abilities do lead to a kind of laziness.

Or it can free up your skills to create something better (or just
*different*), because you don't have to spend so much time on the little
details. It must take a different kind of photographic eye to, without
notice, capture 5-10 seconds of a scene, getting subjects to show what
you want the photo to be about, and not seem random or extraneous. 

> when you can get 
> that close to real life, why bother developing anything else?

Muggle art can get close to real life, but they still develop other
things. We don't know what other kinds of art exist in the Wizarding
world except for the talking portraits. 

> isn't it  interesting 
> from a literary perspective that, even if it's 'actually' there, we 
> don't get shown these art/music/drama classes?  

>From a literary perspective, the books are about the wizarding world.
Throwing in random muggle things would muddle the world the author is
constructing. It's a kids' book: some things have to be clear-cut, like
the idea that the wizarding world is all-magic. It's more fun that way.

Aura

~*~
Well that's a horse of a different color.
Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone

________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!