Well, this is a good question! Not being sarcastic here. Yes, it would. I’m not a fan of anything he’s done recently, but when I went to watch Venom (a mistake), the only thing noteworthy from there was his theme song, which was, again, technically impressive and had said wordplay and all the hallmarks of a technically accomplished rap song. Even though, no, it wasn’t saying anything interesting compared to his stuff on Iraq. So I do think that if Cardi B were a master of the craft, I would listen to her music every now and then. Plain and simple, yes. This is why I occasionally check out Nicki Minaj, though she also overdoes ‘girl power’.
I get what you mean, and I can only say that technical proficiency has never been something that tipped the scales for me.
I mean, I will watch things out of curiosity that are technically proficient, but that never seems to be what turns something from art I dislike into art I like. A film with the longest continuous take might get me to watch it just to check out that take, but the long take wouldn't be the element that made it a "good movie".
I would penalise the child whose working out was correct but not the answer more than the child whose answer was correct but not the working out. I would take more points away from the child who made a mistake in his approach.
These two sentences are (accidentally--I'm sure the word "not" is just missing in one of them) contradictory. I think you are saying the child with correct methodology would get greater partial credit?
But here's a question: why does the child with the "correct" answer deserve any points? They stumbled into their answer through an arbitrary method that displays a complete lack of conceptual understanding of what fractions are and how to compare them.
But neither would get full marks, that would have only been possible if the craft/technicality/working out and the answer were correct. It’s actually a good example because in maths tests (in normal/traditional ones, that is), you don’t get excused for having the wrong answer of your working out is correct, you still get marked down.
So the idea that you don’t ‘get marked down’ for less impressive craft compared to another, more technically competent film, because you have the right ‘working out’ (a soul, a human-centric narrative about underrepresented groups etc) sounds like a field regressing to me.
Computational fluency and conceptual understanding are different mathematical proficiencies. What many people totally fail to understand about tests/assessments is that all assessment is aligned to a standard. Sometimes I score my students on computational fluency, and sometimes I assess them on conceptual understanding. Both are important. You aren't going to make it very far as a scientist if you are great at multiplying but don't know when to multiply and if you don't understand how it works (which enables you to spot errors).
To me, the "working out" in a movie is just the art of combining different elements. I strongly believe that a deep understanding of how elements can work together can more than make up for less technical capability. For example, there have been some really effective uses of non-professional actors. Are these people "good actors"? I would say no. But when used intentionally by a director, the produced effect can be more powerful than a performance by an actor who is technically more proficient in their craft.
I just have to keep going back to the idea that it's not about dismissing technical craft, but rather realizing that technical craft is only relevant insofar as it supports a greater purpose.
Well, see, this is where I see the issue. What on Earth do you mean by ‘soulless writing’ (at school, if I remember correctly!). ‘Soulless’ is not an objective metric. I think it is unfair to bring it into conversation. What about psychopaths? I’m dead serious - people/students who are neurologically wired not to feel. How are they supposed to put the emotion they don’t feel into their work?
They don't have to write with emotion. And I'm not marking students down on technical standards because they lack "soul."
But I get a lot of essays that look like this:
In this essay I will be telling you all about dogs and why they are the best pets. Dogs are the best pets because they keep you company. Secondly, dogs can teach you to be more responsible. Finally, dogs are the best pets because they are loyal and will protect you. In conclusion, dogs are the best pets because they keep you company, teach you responsibility, and are loyal and protect you. Thank you for reading my essay, I hope you liked it!.
Now imagine reading 15 essays like that in a row. These essays are, by technical standards, fine. But would you say it is "good writing"?
In my experience teaching writing (from opinion essays to poetry), students write more compelling work (as defined by my reaction, the reaction of their peers, and their own pride with their work and interest in refining it) when they begin with the "heart" of what they want to convey, and throw everything out there, THEN go back to refine the technical elements. Students who begin by trying to plug stuff into a "technically correct" formula often end up with essays like the above.
A simpler example. Let’s imagine that you have a foreign student. Say, from Italy. Say, they are fluent in English, native level.
They have to write an essay on the Irish play Translations by Brian Friel. They didn’t have a choice in the matter. This is a core text.
The thing is very heavy on the Protestant-Catholic/Unionist-Republican conflict in Ireland. Now, the student does all the possible reading, both what was provided and beyond. She knows the dates, the names, everything.
But she has never been to Ireland and cannot possibly appreciate, on an emotional or human level, what a HUGE deal the Irish conflict is to this day. Bit like Macron at G7.
So will you mark her technically excellent, well-researched essay, down because, I don’t know, she didn’t delve into the feelings of the characters deeply enough, or explain how the Irish conflict emotionally impacts her? Is her essay not perfect (not full marks) because she doesn’t feel anything when it comes to this conflict? Unlike her classmate who grew up in Northern Ireland? She had done her research but she feels nothing about these things and it comes through in her essay.
It isn't about the personal emotions that someone has about a text. Essays aren't meant to be "dear diary" moments. But where, ultimately, does a cookie-cutter piece of writing get you?
Now, if you are preparing for a career where unambiguous, well-researched communication is a necessity, no big deal.
But if you have someone working toward being a novelist, or even something like a regular columnist, it is a disservice to emphasize technical skill over the "art" of writing. Believe me: a child with great ideas and expression lacking in technical skills is much easier to help than a child who is technically proficient but lacking in originality/creativity. Just like a child who can multiply but doesn't know when they should use that operation is easier to help than a child who is basically a calculator but has no clue when to use each operation.
That’s fair enough, but someone else will say Moonlight left them cold emotionally and La La Land didn’t. Which is exactly why I’m arguing that whether something left someone emotionally cold or warm is not a helpful metric.
If 99 out of 100 people say that watching a film changed their life, not due to technical elements but because of the emotion it evoked, isn't that a helpful metric? Metrics are only relevant if they align with your stated purpose. I don't think that technical proficiency is the only stated purpose of rewarding films at the Oscars.
Yes, but I think what you’re describing is a bit of an ideal situation. From personal experience, including in education, I think shifting the emphasis away from one will mean less value/attention/importance is given to the other. The girl studying Translations will be disadvantaged if she is expected to add the human element/her emotional response into the mix and if she will be ‘marked’ on that.
Education always ebbs and flows in every way. Finding the right balance between emphasizing technical skill and conceptual understanding is always the fight. If you put all your energy into decoding, you get kids who can
read the text (we call this "word calling"), but can't say anything insightful about it. If you put all your energy into comprehension, you get strong thinkers who can't decode (and therefore can't really access text independently).
I personally don't mind the shift toward conceptual understanding (and trust me, there are PLENTY of technical standards in the Common Core). Calculators exist. I would rather have a child who understands when and why to use multiplication than one who is a great multiplier with pencil and paper. In the real world, the conceptual kid can just use a calculator. How is the multiplier going to do anything with themselves?
Anyway, this was truly very interesting, but I kind of think the topic has exhausted itself. Would be thrilled to keep reading, but think I’ve kind of articulated my side of it.
That's fine---it has been interesting.
Ultimately I think that I go back to one of the first things we talked about (we meaning most of the people on the first two pages), namely why the best route might be finding the critics/reviewers who seem to value what you value in criticism/reviews.