Arts emergency - help needed

[woolymonkey]

Dear wonderful, erudite friendslist, especially Eng. Lit. graduates, artists and musicians,  And artaxastra,

I think I'm going to apply to tutor a course which could be summed up as Everything About All of the Arts Ever.  The job spec requires me to know about: (take a deep breath)  "history, art history, philosophy, classical studies, history of science, religious studies, music and English".  Also, "to teach ... a wide range of arts and humanities subjects, some of which may be outside your own specialism".  Phew!

It's possible that ALL these areas are outside my specialism, but I'm hoping no-one else is going to offer more than patchy knowledge and bluff, just like me.  Feel free to suggest on any of them, but there are three where I could especially use some help:

1. English lit - especially The Great Novels.  I'm OK (for bluffing purposes) on lit theory, analysis, that crap - it's just that most of the "literary" texts I know are in French or German.   Great excuse to catch up on serious reading, but where do I start? (Not Shakespeare or Chaucer - I've actually studied them!)  Also, is there a really basic bluffer's-guide-style overview of English lit that would help me slot what I read into a neat sequence of movements and periods?  To recap: I can do the fancy stuff and the Big Questions (tragedy, irony, deconstruction, that jazz) but I'm embarrassingly lacking in basic knowledge.

2. Art history.  On this one, I confess total ignorance and lack of ability.  Unable to process pictures without lots of words.  Please help!

3. Shostakovich.  His string quartets are a set work.  I think I hate Shostakovich.  He's the reason I keep having to switch off Radio Three.  Please persuade me he's wonderful!

And a bonus question for artaxastra:
What's a good, factual book for learning about Cleopatra - not just her life but how she's been understood and portrayed since she lived?

All suggestions welcome.  I have good library access, so old and obscure books or journals aren't a problem - in fact they're a plus because I can read them for free.

Thanks in advance!

Comments

[smtfhw.livejournal.com]

Sounds like, if you don't already have it, you may want to get your hands on this...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Guide-Literature-English/dp/0521831792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207733170&sr=8-1

And this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Story-Art-E-H-Gombrich/dp/0714832472

On the question of Shostakovich, I can't help I'm afraid. You either do or don't like his work...

[woolymonkey.livejournal.com]

Those look useful - thanks! I'll see if there are other suggestions, and go browse the bookshops, but it's great to have a benchmark. The art book especially looks like just the thing to stop me panicking and running out of the shop screaming "I don't know where to start!"

[smtfhw.livejournal.com]

I particularly recommend Gombrich for that... it was the book that was forced on me when I needed to look at the history of art as part of my degree course.

[ladymoonray.livejournal.com]

Ooh, are you going to teach AA100? Tony's thinking of applying for that one, though I've been trying to talk him out of it because I think it'll be too much of a shock going from level 3 to level 1.

Re Shostakovich; the best advice I can give you is to listen to the string quartets. Just listen to them, before you do any reading about them, and especially before you listen to any other Shostakovich. I find his work particularly variable, and if you hear something that's awful to your ears, it could put you off the whole thing. ISTR the string quartets are not awful (to me) so hopefully you'll think they're OK too!

Also, I second the recommendation for the Cambridge Guide. I haven't seen the English Lit. one but we have some of the others, and they're pretty good reference works.

[woolymonkey.livejournal.com]

How did you know?!?! :)

What Region would Tony be applying for, if he does? I really want Cambridge, but there are probably more jobs going in London...

Any chance you could recommend a decent budget recording of the Shostakovich? So I can be sure that's how it's MEANT to sound... My CD collection is very thin for the whole period between Schubert and Rolling Stones.

[ladymoonray.livejournal.com]

If Tony goes for it I expect he'll apply to Region 13, just because he usually teaches for them. I don't know if he'll do it, though, because there are some classics courses he'd rather teach.

It's not very cheap, but the Borodin Quartet box set will be as good as it gets, and it does work out a lot cheaper than trying to buy each piece separately. The Brodsky Quartet set is cheaper, and might be OK, but I've never heard them.

[woolymonkey.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I can see I'm going to be spending a small fortune with amazon just to apply for this job.

[porridgebird.livejournal.com]

I am an uncultured and uneducated dweeb, so I can't help you much.

But Shostakovich... yes, string quartets. May I recommend #8 (which can still make me cry my eyeballs out). Learn about the guy and what was going on in his head, that's what did it for me. Seeing the quartets peformed live helps too.

Good luck!

[woolymonkey.livejournal.com]

Great! I'll start with 8. Thank you.

You might be uneducated in the sense that no-one else has done the educating, but you can write, you make great pics, and you run one of my favourite websites. You ARE 21st century culture in the making!

If I'm lucky enough to get this job, I promise to work in at least one mention of fanfic and/or Pirates at some point.

[justawench.livejournal.com]

I am uneducated, too. We don't go in for that fancy book-learnin' here.

My main reaction to the question was Shosta-who? That's probably a bad sign.

The only advice I had was re: art history - find a book that starts with cave paintings and ends with modern art and breaks down the symbolism (diagonal compositions = dramatic!) into easily digestible chunks. Then read from it. :D However, I see someone's already weighed in with an actual recommendation.

[woolymonkey.livejournal.com]

Hey, I don't know that much about you but I wouldn't call someone with your obvious historical and costuming knowledge uneducated!

Seems to be this job spec is looking for people who have fancy book learning in one or two of the fields and an ability to bluff about things they don't really know. I don't think that's a very useful definition of education, and anyway, the students might be better served by having several tutors with different specialisms, but that's not for me to call. The course looks like a lot of fun to teach because I'd be learning stuff I don't know instead of just going over stuff I do.

I'm looking forward to getting stuck into that art history book, but my other job has suddenly got busy so it'll have to wait.

[teenybuffalo.livejournal.com]

Are you looking for exposition from us, right here, or recommendations of books? I have a wide but erratic interest in art, and could tell you a bit about the Pre-Raphaelites or recommend a couple of books and schools of painting.

Here is a 1066 And All That look at the history of English painting:

There were the Elizabethans who stood stiffly and had no shadows on their faces. Then there were the Jacobeans who had giant ruffs and giant pants, and in the early 1700s there were family groups in three-cornered hats, floofy men's wigs and long thin dresses for the women. And some pretty horses by Stubbs, and a picture of a zebra. The Classical Age all read Pope and had beautiful, delicate white hands with pointy fingers. They draped swaths of silk around themselves and stood near marble pillars. Then Romanticism hit, and men wore long pants and their hair whipped around wildly as if in a gale. The women wore white nighties or historical costuming. William Blake made some engravings of people bugging their eyes out. (Jolly good, too.) After that nothing interesting happened until the Pre-Raphaelites, who all painted mediaeval knights, Renaissance murderers, horny shepherds, and big chubby women with lots of hair and fancy barrettes. They did such finely detailed backgrounds that your eyes can pick out every tiny little blade of grass in the lawn behind the hero. Edward Lear, who was not just a limerick-writer, painted some fantastic pictures and he tried to be a Pre-Raphaelite but he couldn't stand the strain of painting every leaf on every tree. They (the P-R.s, not the trees) lasted till the 1880s and then the rot set in (Joseph Mallord William Turner helped the rot set in by painting splotchy pictures of steamers and railway trains and murky sunsets earlier in the century) and we had Impressionism and Pointillism and God forbid Abstract Art and the whole world of painting went to heck in a handbasket.

[woolymonkey.livejournal.com]

Thank you! The 1066 guide to painting is great. Everything (and I mean everything) I already knew but could never remember or get to hang together. And now it's funny and memorable. I shall stroll round art galleries sounding informed.

When I posted, I was looking forward to a quiet week or so to curl up and get to grips with The Whole of World Art. That's on hold now due to a sudden need to understand German documents about car repair software but I'll be getting back to it when I can.

Thanks for your help - it's much appreciated.