That said, it still wasn't how I'd choose to spend my time if I had a choice in the matter. The topic this year was Salons and the culture that surrounds them. I watched two salons, the first and the final and felt that both times, the speakers got held up on small facets of the topics and didn't fully embrace the conversational style.
In the first salon, the conversants discussed the intersection of religion, art and science. The moderator showed an depiction of a genetically altered mouse that is used in cancer research, but showed it with a slightly human form and a crown of thorns adorning its head. It was depicted in a strange standing/sitting position in a box (?) surrounded by viewing holes with many human viewers looking in on the scene. I thought that the image didn't really serve to establish a good starting off point in the conversation, or at least it wasn't one which tickled my fancy. Despite all my criticism, there were aspects about the salon I did enjoy. Jonah Lehrer was witty and informative in his response about where our morality comes from. If only I could say the same for all the conversants, some of whom seemed merely to enjoy hearing themselves speak.
By the time the second salon rolled around on Friday, I'd had lots of time to talk to others about the salons and realized that my issues with the salon were not unique. Many others talked about the forced nature of the salons in comparison with a conversation. I thought there was too much of a desire to maintain good relations with everyone, which resulting in no one expressing anything that would step on the toes of others in the salon. The second salon was about arts, ethics and public policy, and was just as interesting as it sounds (not). This conversation seemed especially forced, and I later learned that some of the conversants had been given an order in which to speak. My biggest problem with this salon was that it got hung up on discussing funding for the arts, which I feel is important but doesn't nearly encompass the broad scope of topics from which the conversants could have chosen.
Again, let me state that I feel this year was an immense improvement over last year's symposium, and I appreciate the exploration of salons and what they can offer a learned society. I just don't feel that what I saw was an adequate representation of the power of conversation and how it can actually help one realize how they truly feel about a particular issue or topic. I must not be the only one who has engaged in a conversation thinking one thing only to emerge on the other side holding completely different opinions. I didn't see anything of this nature occur. Also, I had a problem with the introductions for each person as they seem to have been unnecessarily lengthy (I can express my precise sentiment in our next meeting).
All in all, this Brown Symposium was not as good as my first two, but wildly better than my third (last year's). It gives me hope that the next couple of years will be even better, especially with Dr. G's year approaching!
Au revoir,
Brady
No comments:
Post a Comment