My Art Philosophy exam on Wednesday went quite swimmingly. I'm still on course for a first.Although it had not been a very good start to the day for me.
Dr Livingstone was in hospital for surgery. So I was kind of absentminded. Then I had to collect him late afternoon and made it just on time for my exam in the evening.
We got a text we had to pick apart and find statements about art and critique them if they were relevant to questions Art Philosophy has ever concerned itself with.
All of my fellow students started to scribble and jot down right away. I wasn't really concentrating and felt the exam was going to go down the pan. But then most of them, after about ten minutes into prep time, started sighing and moaning.
And then that's when I got cracking...
The text was written by
Quite a lot of the text did not actually deal with art. Albeit, not enough I thought I could discuss profoundly at the oral examination. I found some bits that had a Hegel, a Heidegger and Lacan type wording, but nothing much that was really challenging. So I tackled the other bits.
I went in for the kill. I went for the intellectually dishonest ad hominem attack.
I attacked some logical fallacies Professor of philosophy de Martelaere made. And I critiqued the faulty empiricism of the
My own Professor was very impressed. I hope she'll accommodate me the grade that accompanies the impression.
As you might have guessed from this rant I was quite chuffed with myself.
If you'll now excuse me, I'll have to move away from my computer and leave the room because I have to make room for my gigantic ego.
No comments:
Post a Comment