i am troubled by pete's signature (academia nuts)

[Pubrick]

because i agree  

"...for academia is the death of cinema. It is the very opposite of passion."

--werner herzog

also i'm conflicted about it. i think academia can be mediocre, but no more than passionless cinema. am i misunderstanding herzog's statement,  is he negating all institutional intellectual pursuits? is he talking strictly about the community which imposes a standardized form of learning or ppl who study at the institutes as well? it would help to see the quote within its original context.

i wouldn't mind a life as an academic, i've considered it as a way to avoid getting a real job. worked for malick right?

apart from JB, is anyone else undertaking -- or has undertaken -- tertiary education other than to study film? there are so many film school threads, but no "actual university for actual learning" threads. depending on responses, this can either be a signature or actual-learning (academic) discussion thread, or both. but mostly i wanna know what herzog meant..

[cine]

hey pubrick, maybe stop posting your personal thoughts.

[pete]

I just got my own Herzog on Herzog book and it's pretty clear.  he thinks films are like circus acts, they're results of physical efforts and should literally come from the hip.  they're the medium of the illiterate.  they're not supposed to be about thinly veiled ideologies.
he distrusts goddard, for example.  he actually said "Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good kung fu film."  this is a guy who's travelled to and island where the volcano's about to erupt to make a film.  he's been through civil wars, famine, cannibalism...etc. just to make his films.  he doesn't not believe in filmmakers as "Artists" in this day and age, but more like artisans.
I dunno, the book is huge.  the imdb page has a lot of good quotes though (which inspired me to get the book):

http://imdb.com/name/nm0001348/bio
and more recently
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050828/PEOPLE/50828001

I dunno, I got a bachelor's in film and took some graduate-level courses in film and, just like how Freud says sex in dreams is not really sex in real life--films in academia are not actual films.  we're not talking about discussing a film critically like we do here on xixax, we're talking about mostly writers who write just to prove that they're more knowledgeable about the films than the filmmakers who made them.  we're talking about concluding that incest is at the root of every horror movie made.  logic has become somewhat of a religion in the land of scholars and academics--it's the only common currency, and quite understandbly so.  but alas, logic is not a belief, it's just an approach, a method to draw conclusions (by linking facts together).  with enough imagination, free time, footnotes, and career incentives, people can dedicate books and conferences to draw any conclusion they want about any film.
and in the end, it just seems very petty and pointless, this film academia.  unlike other fields such as economics or sociology or even visual art, the growth of the film academia has grown so out of proportion with the growth of film industry (and I use that term extremely loosely) that it's become this very petty, self-referencial group of people all saying pretty much the same thing.  they're very rarely insightful an their voices are very rarely heard by anyone other than their colleagues, which renders their existence and their profession in this world kinda useless.  virtual impacts are fun for a little bit (like me right now), but to dedicate your life to it is kinda embarassing.  I hope God agrees with me.

[ono]

My interpretation of Herzog's statement is that cinema should not be used to express ideas, not to create essays, but rather to evoke some sort of emotion.  Academia can't do that.

So there's your answer, that's what he meant, in my opinion.

It reminds me of Greenaway.  Been reading up on him a bit lately, because I watched a bit of Tulse Luper (never did finish it though).  Greenaway is all about using the cinematic medium differently.  His films are like essays, though, stripped of emotion, and concentrating on information.  At the same time, they are rich and colorful -- a very interesting juxtaposition.  He's said that cinema is dead -- an idea I disagree with -- and the CD-ROM is the next step.  It is a medium that allows user interactivity and a branching off instead of the linear path film limits one to.

I disagree with Herzog and his thinking that film has to be a circus act.  It can be.  But there's nothing like a film that has some thought put into it.  What is Eyes Wide Shut, if not an essay on marriage and fidelity?  Still, though, Herzog's personality makes any opinion he presents compelling and somewhat valid, and definitely makes that book worth checking out.

You have a point, pete, about the whole film intellectual thing.  Most film criticism isn't criticism, as godardian is fond of pointing out.  I still love Ebert, but not as much as I used to.  He doesn't really tickle my brain anymore.  I know godardian is critical of him, and I know his reason (and maybe if I say his name a third time, he'll appear... godardian?  no?  dammit.).  Anyway, there are critics worth reading, and they're nowhere to be found in academia.  Sontag is one, if I recall correctly.  Ted G (hi cine), off of IMDb, is my favorite.  Every single review of his I've ever read has had something to offer, has made me think about film in a whole new way, because of his approach to the matter.  His theories may come totally out of left field, and may have no correlation with what the filmmaker has in mind, but he approaches film as art from an academic standpoint, and his writing is so rich, you can actually feel new wrinkles forming in your brain from the experience of reading his work.

As for the other tangent about academia, I recently finished a bachelor's degree in communication studies.  And the work world is life-sucking torture.  Very depressing for anyone with any sort of ambition, and I don't wish to get attached to that any time soon.  It's an existential thing, I think.  My plan in college was to simply get a degree.  That it was for communication studies, the closest thing my school had to film, was incidental, though really, no other subject interested me enough to where I could survive through four years of it (well, only two, really, once the core stuff is out of the way).  I learned way much more on my own, reading books, and reading Xixax, than I could ever in a classroom.  Colleges don't work like that.  You have to take an interest in whatever it is you're doing to excel in it, and the way material is presented in most colleges tends to kill some of the interest.

So my plan is to stick to academia for a while, as you've thought of doing.  I'm going to work, and write, and make a film in my spare time with money from my job.  Prolly DV, as 16mm or whatever is too much overhead for the way I like to work.  Yeah, I realize you get more attention if you shoot on film, but if the script is good, and the production values are there, people will take note.  This is just a foot-in-the-door, calling-card sort of thing, and though I'm not gonna kid myself too much, there are a lot of decent DV films out there.  Then after that, more academia: either a masters or doctorate, depending on who will take me.  Probably a masters in some sort of film study.  Then, I can teach film if I don't succeed in making them.

I was so burnt out on school during my last year.  It was invigorating, but really, looking back on high school, I've been burnt out since then, always thinking that there should be some better way than how colleges do it.  Self-education is rewarding.  Academia can be in small doses.  But most people haven't figured that one out yet.

[Ghostboy]

Herzog's quote, I think, is very true - although I also think it is important to be very considerate of academia, as there is a lot that can be gained from it. As a filmmaker, I've come to realize (at this point, although I know I'll continue to come to realization that may change this realization in the future) that it's important to be able to shoot from the hip. All the times I've tried more formal approaches to filmmaking, I've been dissatisfied. When I improvise, so to speak, the results are more honest, the product better overall, and lo and behold, the formal aspects show up anyway, completely unplanned. It's the nature of art.

I think it's important to distinguish between criticism and criticial study - while not mutually exclusive, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably when they shouldn't be. The difference between them can be illustrated by onamataviva's disenchantment with Ebert in favor of writers like Sontag.

What Pete said, about how the growth of film studies in proportion to the films themselves, is also true, but consider that films is still an art form barely out of its infancy, and film criticism of a serious sort is only fifty or sixty years old, at best. It's still finding its footing. Superfluous interpretation will always be an issue, but I think a stronger, more definitive concept of film studies will eventually emerge.

In one of my classes right now, we're analyzing Dante line by line, and one of the thing the professor said yesterday is that we're not discovering anything that hasn't been discussed ad inifitum before - and yet it's still exciting to find correlation and meaning within the text, because it is, in fact, there. This is true of film, too - of any artform, really. In the case of the Divine Comedy, centuries of critical discussion has not defused the excitement of studying the work on an extremely close level.

It's the same with film; the approach to studies may be refined, but the thrill of academia, and the satisfaction it can provide, will not become dismissable.

Onamataviva, your thoughts on education called to mind one of my favorite (and most inspiring) Kubrick quotes:

"I never learned anything at all in school and didn't read a book for pleasure until I was 19 years old...I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker. "

Specifically that last sentence.

[Pas]

Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker. "

Specifically that last sentence.

I agree so much in theory. The problem is that kids are not interested in learning to read or count or whatever, and if they never learn, they will never discover any interest. The fear is inherent because nobody has a passion for the early stages of knowledge, yet they are absolutely necessary to discover other academic passions.

exemple : a friend of mine was a real math buff. He was going to do an engineering degree. He hated french so much. All we did was grammar and orthograph. Then in college he had to take a course in redaction. He loved it and is now studying to be a journalist and he wants to work for scientific magazines and stuff.

He learned french out of fear and it's now it's main interest.

[Gamblour.]

A few things:

First off, Ono, Ted G has a site, didn't know if you were aware of it: www.filmsfolded.com.

Secondly, I can't really work this into an argument so here's a Herzog quote that I love and another quote that I'm not sure where it came from:

"Your film is like your children. You might want a child with certain qualities, but you are never going to get the exact specification right. The film has a privelege to live its own life and develop its own character. To suppress this is dangerous. It is an approach that works the other way too: sometimes the footage has amazing qualities that you did not expect."

(paraphrased) "If you want to criticize a film, make another film." I have no idea who said this, but I love it.

I don't like criticism in the overdone written form, the kind Pete talks about. The only true way to talk about films is similar to what Ghostboy says, by sitting there and discussing it. I've gotten more out of open discussions in class, than by reading some goddamn obtuse paper. Reading these people is like wading through bricks, so I just don't do it anymore if it's assigned. The film's right there, it's saying all it needs to say.

I've said it before, but I've ruled out grad school because i feel i could put that money towards actually making a film. I would love to start up a production company with my friend who goes to a school in Savannah, mostly because we have drastically different backgrounds now, his is in production and mine's history and theory/criticism. We both have a lot to learn from each other, like the one time he said at his school he'll "never have to know who that guy [we were talking about Buster Keaton] is." That made me sad, but I didn't dismiss it because he's probably learning more about the craft than I have.

To tie this back to Herzog, I disagree that academia is the death of cinema, but I do think it's a carcinogen. From ono's interpretation, I think cinema should be used as an essay and to evoke emotion, much in the same way literature does. It can be intellectual and/or emotional. Why would one want to limit the medium? They're both stimulating, I think we take Herzog too seriously.

[pete]

goddard said that second line about the best way to criticize a film is to make another one.  that's a cool dare and all, but I'm so not into films about films, on any level (except those 80s hong kong chopsocky movies when in the period of 5 years every stunt team is trying to outdo each other in crazy stunts).
however, I don't think that's what herzog meant.  that line is also from his book--but I know he's been re-interating the same points over the last three decades when confronted by the media.  he was talking about editing in the first quote--about after shooting, he must forget everything he did and had in mind during the shoot in order to edit, that's the ruthlessness an editor must have.
herzog does have a very specific way of viewing the cinema, but it all makes sense, and though that's not how I operate at all (I'm very logical when writing a script, basically everything is structured like a farce with the buildup and the payoff...right socket?) it really is what I aspire to.  I realize that most of my favorite filmmakers--Jackie Chan, Christopher Doyle, Parajankov, David Gordon Green, Gobahdi, even Stephen Chow, are all quite visceral and love to script things as shooting goes along and improvise that way...I don't think that means it's counter-intelligence, but I think the act of filmmaking ie. capturing something that's happening in real time, can be better served through this "visceral" approach (not that there is an amazing separation between what is "visceral" and "cerebral"), but the whole "essay" approach popularized by Goddard just seems a lot less soulful, and I can usually tell between films that are meant to be intellectual and films that are meant to move.  Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" I think is the only one that has both aspects perfectly balanced.

[Pubrick]

thanks all for the replies. it cleared up the herzog quote and more, but now i'm confused about other things.

moving this to News & Theory cos no one here goes to college/university for anything other than Film School. feel free to continue the discussion in the new location.

[Ghostboy]

moving this to News & Theory cos no one here goes to college/university for anything other than Film School.

I'm going for English Lit. But I agree with the move.

[matt35mm]

moving this to News & Theory cos no one here goes to college/university for anything other than Film School.

Well, I do (Philosophy)... or, I will when I leave for college tomorrow (ah!)

My feeling is that academia is a good place to start, but not to work from.  It takes a lot of time and effort to get to a place where you can work from the hip and not end up with total crap.  But those that try to make "rules" about this art form are just being ridiculous.

I am annoyed with the people who just grab a camera and start shooting.  That might sound great and passionate, but the end result is crap.

Perhaps there's a difference between "academia" and what I mean.  What I mean is that some serious, serious studying is required.  However, I feel that learning about film in a class is not so great (and if that it all that is meant by academia, then I agree with Herzog's quotation).  This is why I'm not very interested in majoring in film (even though I am enticed by the prospect of watching movies for credit).

I also believe in studying to be technically well-skilled, because amatuer movies with crap sound and picture turn me off.

But one must remember at all times to work from the heart, and realize that there is no one way to do anything--as long as the end result works.

"Academia" is mainly only dangerous in that it produces students, and not artists.

I'm not really making great points here, and I'm rambling a bit.  If you'll remember, I'm moving tomorrow, I've been packing, I'm tired and nervous, and so I'll talk to you guys later.

[socketlevel]

I am annoyed with the people who just grab a camera and start shooting.  That might sound great and passionate, but the end result is crap.

Perhaps there's a difference between "academia" and what I mean.  What I mean is that some serious, serious studying is required.  However, I feel that learning about film in a class is not so great (and if that it all that is meant by academia, then I agree with Herzog's quotation).  This is why I'm not very interested in majoring in film (even though I am enticed by the prospect of watching movies for credit).

couldn't agree with you more on your first statement.

most people think the best way to learn about film is simply done by watching films.  true, but this must be done with a critical and analytical eye.  so in essence, i agree with the fact that someone could teach themselves the grammar of moving images.  it's really like any occupation;  for example, if you take out enough law books from the library,  you could write your bar exam and still become a lawyer.  being able to practice law is a license like anything else.  you can also teach yourself to drive a car and you don't need to go to school for it.  it's just not the standard.  a very small percentage of the population is capable of being self taught, while others need school to teach them the fundamentals.  I must say I am thoroughly impressed by the first group, because they show a higher level of autonomy (something that i strive for).

the problem arises when the next group of individuals (those people inspired by these self taught filmmakers) go "fuck, if tarantino and PTA did it, then i don't need that shit!" and they're saying this not because they have the ability to teach themselves and work better by that method, but rather, it's because they're lazy bastards who just want to pick up a camera and start shooting without any thought put to pre-production.  also the story of the guy who didn't need film school is a great sound bite because it veers from the norm.  they sensationalize that anomaly of education independence and project it as the "everyman" approach.  a cinderella story in which anyone reading it gets to feel like they could be that guy.  there are so many other factors but the lazy group only ends up thinking they naturally have the same innate talent and ability.  some do, but not nearly close to a fraction of a percent.

However, i don't think it makes you any more of a genius by being self taught.  look at spike lee, Scorsese and countless others that make brilliant films who all came from academia.

more on point with Herzog, i dislike over analysis of a film as much as the next guy.  it's pretentious and shows insecurity of one's own creativity, and i think that's what he's talking about...

                   Good taste is the defense of the uncreative,
                   and the artist's last ditch-stand.

...but at the same time, some analysis is needed.  and i've been prone to be as pretentious as the next guy because i want to sound like a professional on the issue/film.

i've always thought the practical aspects of filmmaking (camera, lights, shots etc.) teaches you the grammar of the tangible and the theoretical represents the infusion of themes into the script.  one without the other is not complete within itself.  the lack of this synergy is a surefire recipe for disaster.

i've always really liked how on this site people gave their scripts for one another to read.  it educates us on the follies of narrative and plot like any kind of screenwriting class.  that is academia, because we're learning shit from each other and trust the opinions of others who love the medium.  education and the subjective word academia comes in all shapes and sizes, and is very important.

-sl-

[Gold Trumpet]

Since this topic is so old, I cannot directly reply to anyone. Who knows if what anyone said here is still believed by them, but I'm sad I missed this topic. It's an excellent one. I'll just make a general statement instead.

First off, I don't believe academia is essential for all filmmakers. Most up and coming filmmakers I know want to film personal stories. They have ambitions to stylize their work in the shadow of their favorite filmmakers, but they still want to tell their own stories. They do not have serious ambitions to make films that compare and contrast different cinemas and histories. All they want to do is develop a good understanding of the approaches to the filmmakers they like. You can read general criticism and watch a lot of movies to achieve that. The major questions for these filmmakers is how good they are as a filmmaker, storyteller and commentator on life. That isn't something you find in a class or a "how to" book.

But, academia is essential to film as an art. Academia is prevalent in every other major art and has been the reason that many of them have carried over to still have resonance today. People over estimate the value of public perception for doing this, but it's academia. The value of thought and the relationship a work of art has to theoretical ideas gives it a better chance to carry over into the next century and still be meaningful. That's true because theories develop and advance, but many new films and works of art are still being looked at under some very old terms of critical thinking. The fact that many films are able to be understood in the context of how other arts is being judged is what is making it be considered a legitimate art form. Of course the details of how films are judged is different, but there are basic theoretical similarities.

Bernard Shaw said a work of art was only meant to be meaningful to the public for a hundred years. I think that basic idea has a special relationship to film. Films like Casablanca and It's A Wonderful Life are considered classics, but will they be as acclaimed as they are today in 500 years? The reason these movies still survive has more to do with public sympathy and memory, but generations of people are dying and the next generations are being further removed all the time. The disparity will only continue to grow. The chance that these movies drop off the face of the movie world becomes even more likely considering numerous films are made to replicate the emotions in those films. The newer films will have a better chance to carry over because they will be made for that generation and time period. This also takes into account many accomplished dramas and independent films. They too have as many things about them that are just made for the time period that can later become irrelevant.

If a filmmaker does open himself up to academia, he can make films that are conscious of the history of art like other artists have done. In literature, James Joyce's Ulysses will survive until the end of the novel itself does. Not because it was just the best work of its era but because it had the greatest structural innovations ever found in a novel. It's not studied for what it had to say about Joyce the man or his time period, but for its revolution to the novel. Academia is the main area for study of an art. Most filmmakers aren't interested in those details, but some are. Many of those filmmakers were prevalent in the 1960s and still making films in different pockets around the world. The filmmakers ambitious to make their films studies of its own art.

That being said, it's a crap shoot what films will be truly remembered. Not all good films by filmmakers conscious of film art will be remembered and not all films made for public emotion will be forgotten, but luck will have more to do with that process. By true remembrance I mean the films that can be easily identified by everyone as a known film. But, great works by filmmakers who are ambitious to challenge the bounds of their art will help forward ideas for future filmmakers and film artists. Even if God doesn't exist, Robert Bresson gave himself an everlasting life with the books and articles he wrote. He will always be studied and known. And a film like Citizen Kane has no chance to be forgotten.

I also hate that quote by Werner Herzog. It is stupid because it makes the word passion resonate only to emotion. As I figure, passion has as much to do with the mind as it does the heart. Does Werner Herzog believe filmmakers who aspire to make academically sound films are passionless? Hans Jurgen Syderberg makes films that are tough for everyone relate to, but he attacks his subject with as much fervor as anyone else. He just so happens to have an academic brain and relates his subject back to its theoretical and societal roots.

People want to pigeonhole films by saying the methods of their favorite filmmakers is the only way to make a great film, but there are many ways to make a great film that involve both logic and emotion. Academia is helpful to understand many different filmmakers and films. It also isn't reducing some films to look at them from an academic perspective. For many great filmmakers, that was the intention in the first place.

[pete]

But, academia is essential to film as an art. Academia is prevalent in every other major art and has been the reason that many of them have carried over to still have resonance today.

really?  I haven't seen too much academia in miming, comedy in general, clowning, acrobatics, choreographed fighting, and street performance in general.  there must be scholars dedicated to each of these disciplines, but I don't believe academia had much impact on their popularity.  I also don't believe it decides the importance of art in the public sphere.
now is the hard part, part of me really believes that academia is a detractor for the cinema, except I don't really know how to coherently argue it, it has been a long day today, I got heckled a bit while in a dress chaperoning children for halloween, just experienced a 5.6 earthquake at home, and found out robert goulet had died.  so here we go, norman mailer said in a recent interview about his critics that made life-changing impact on him, he said the best ones were like titans to him but they were also unequivocally his peers.  I don't believe film academia has this type of relationship with the filmmaking community.  It seems almost entirely one way and does not offer much to filmmaking or even film watching.  maybe academia's limit is popular entertainment or even sub-popular entertainment or anything market-based, and cannot engage with those who don't participate in academia (ie. the less educated).  now, as for death of cinema, I will attempt it with this: those who associate with film academia, a world almost completely disassociated with actual filmmaking, stands little chance when the filmmaking world/ real world do not materialize through the ways assumed by the academia.  I have rarely read essays that take the basic physical obstacles into regard when discussing film.  in this way it is different from academia in painting or architecture (but very similar to economics).  the study of film doesn't have to cause cinema much damage, but how it is studied right now proves to be a great hindrance to a great many impressionable but potentially talented filmmakers.  unless they have perfected a theory for people giving a shit, figuring out a movie based on passive observations will always be an extra backwards hurdle.

I'm not sure where my point is in the next paragraph but I'll start it up anyways, maybe it'll lead to something.
I'll also take an asshole like Von Trier, who is a filmmaker's theorist, over an asshole like Godard, a theorist's filmmaker, any day.  One of the two devises theories from making his movies and the other is generally the opposite, respectively.  von trier's filmmaking led him to his silly experiment, which resonated around the world beyond anyone's expectation.  both of them have made a dent in filmmaking, and godard's is way bigger and more significant.  however, I think dogme95 is more interesting and engaging to filmmakers, because his take of the filmmaking process is very physical.  he's still an asshole though.

[Gold Trumpet]

really?  I haven't seen too much academia in miming, comedy in general, clowning, acrobatics, choreographed fighting, and street performance in general.  there must be scholars dedicated to each of these disciplines, but I don't believe academia had much impact on their popularity.  I also don't believe it decides the importance of art in the public sphere.

Those fields have areas of discussion, but the fact they aren't established in academia takes nothing away from the importance that academia has to other arts like literature and theater.

I don't believe film academia has this type of relationship with the filmmaking community.  It seems almost entirely one way and does not offer much to filmmaking or even film watching.

First, you forget academia does have subgroups for cinema that do specialize in how people watch films. They are communications based and relate back to numerous theories that involve social theories and such. It shows how far the study of film has grown.

Second, you're relating too much of your argument on your personal preference. The films you like and want to make have little to do with Marxist or Constructionalist theories, but other films by other filmmakers do. Those filmmakers take regard of those theories. The fact they do doesn't demote what they do on screen.

now, as for death of cinema, I will attempt it with this: those who associate with film academia, a world almost completely disassociated with actual filmmaking, stands little chance when the filmmaking world/ real world do not materialize through the ways assumed by the academia.  I have rarely read essays that take the basic physical obstacles into regard when discussing film.  in this way it is different from academia in painting or architecture (but very similar to economics).

Why do you care if academia is interested in the filmmaking process or not? I think since academia isn't making condemnations of filmmakers for using the wrong camera or set up, it's a non-issue. Obviously you have no interest in the academic world. That is your deal. Some filmmakers do and realize the development of a theory in their work is different from physically making the film. It's two different processes.

the study of film doesn't have to cause cinema much damage, but how it is studied right now proves to be a great hindrance to a great many impressionable but potentially talented filmmakers.  unless they have perfected a theory for people giving a shit, figuring out a movie based on passive observations will always be an extra backwards hurdle.

Seems like some muddled sentences, but academia is suppose to make people care about what it has to say? Academia is at fault for most people's non-interest in it? I say people have different interests and whether people like academia or not is just personal interest. Nothing more. 

I'll also take an asshole like Von Trier, who is a filmmaker's theorist, over an asshole like Godard, a theorist's filmmaker, any day.  One of the two devises theories from making his movies and the other is generally the opposite, respectively.  von trier's filmmaking led him to his silly experiment, which resonated around the world beyond anyone's expectation.  both of them have made a dent in filmmaking, and godard's is way bigger and more significant.  however, I think dogme95 is more interesting and engaging to filmmakers, because his take of the filmmaking process is very physical.  he's still an asshole though.

See, I don't know why you prefer Von Trier over Godard. I have to imagine it's because Dogme's naturalistic approach is more relevant to your methods of filmmaking. So again it just seems like a personal choice for you. I'm not finding a real argument. I think your dislike of academia is just based on personal bias. I said academia isn't for every filmmaker, but it is essential to film as an art form. If you deny the legitimacy of academia to having any importance then you disregard large portions of accepted thinking into literature and theater. It becomes a Charles Bukowski argument for saying something is too educated. He didn't believe in legitimacy of a writer unless he emotionally connected to them. That makes art meaningless because someone can get away with saying anything.

I'd be open to arguments against academia, but I see long posts that profess personal interest over actual arguments. Academia isn't for most people so it's more likely to get condemnation instead of indifference. If academia isn't for you then it that's fine. It doesn't make anyone smarter. It's just hard to disregard the long history of academia to other arts and the good it has done for those arts.