Functional Illiteracy

I'd point out exponents are even useful in art.

Try calculating the size of parts of a 3d art installation or the necessary internal structure design of it without mathematics.

It was a reference to Monk.

Back on topic.

Deboss: The point of a work is the entertainment value it brings. The message and themes are just things to ignore to get at the part worth reading.

I think this may be the most anti-intellectual thing I've ever read on this forum.

And?

Well, you can't read a piece of art (unless it's printed music).

"Oh look, a pretty painting." So, what bearing does functional illiteracy have on whether or not a painting, scupture or stuff like that has any value or not? An illiterate person can still find value in those things, and a proficient literate person may not, and everything in between.

edited 9th Jun '11 11:41:37 AM by pvtnum11

@pvtnum: the overall point was that without the ability to recognize symboluism and deeper themes than "lol explosions", you're essentially functionally illiterate.

I disagree. I like to go "lol explosions", but would you say that I'm illiterate because of that? No, that's Guilty Pleasures of Stuff Blowing Up.

Can you understand the dosing instruction on a bottle of NyQuil? Calculate a tip? Understand a form well enough to fill it out, and do so legibly? Determine the correct amount of change to feed a parking meter based off of the length of time you wish to park there? Understand a past-due notice you got in the mail? Read a news article?

If you can't, then despite being able to read "See Spot run", scrawl your name and add up 2 plus 2, you are functionally illiterate.

That's what I'm talking about; Quantitative, Prose and Document Literacy - can you do basic math, basic writing and basic reading, and at what skill level.

How does art factor in to those? This is about being a functioning illiterate, not about being uncultured. Deboss can desire that all works of art to DIAF all he wants.

Like and lacking are not the same thing I do believe.

"How does art factor in to those? This is about being a functioning illiterate, not about being uncultured."

There was a debate about removing the classics from the English curriculum, and whether that would help or hinder the development of literacy. It sort of degenerated into a discussion about the value of art in general.

I'm also not so certain the two are unrelated. Understanding Frankenstein or A Tale of Two Cities might not require the exact same skills as understanding your tax return or a contract, but surely they are related?

You are also forgetting, not all forms of communication are text. Visual symbols are pretty big part of the world, and you need to be able to read them (Most obvious form is road signs).

That's not even beginning to go into advertising in it's many forms...

: A kid, and some basic understanding of human mind, and basic ability to just read would be able to decipher both of them.
And the said kid would still be functionally illiterate.
Because A is A, and a long string of things will always have the same implication if you are reading a book(you start to spot the pattern somewhere)

We already had an OTC on what being cultured means and what benefits it had. I know this because I started it, I don't know if it's still open.

The only thing you need to know about advertisements is how to ignore it.

"The only thing you need to know about advertisements is how to ignore it."

Theoretically advertisements could introduce you to products you wouldn't have known about otherwise. For example, if you like to go to the movies but don't keep up with the latest in film ads can be a good way of finding something you might like. Besides that ignoring advertisements is difficult, and the techniques used to weed out the bullshit in advertisements are the same used to weed out the bullshit in any argument.

You want this then.

There are legal advertisements which can be important to read.

: Information is not advertisement, if we are nitpicking.

Except they are. Legal advertisements. It's how they are noted in my local paper, and found in several legal codes.

You may want to actually check on the meaning and etymology of a word BEFORE you nitpick, because this time you are wrong, as advertisement does not cover just commercial operations.

: Legal == Court.
Or are you using some obscure dictionary?

: Beyond I am right, and you are wrong? I already added the disclaimer "if we are nitpicking", so why are you still spamming?

: I also disagree with that definition.

edited 10th Jun '11 9:48:04 AM by del_diablo

Is there something you're trying to express?

Edit: But you aren't right, you are mistaken. Why you are accusing me of spamming, I don't know, if you don't feel a need to continue a conversation you can stop on your own.

edited 10th Jun '11 9:50:05 AM by blueharp

"Legal" doesn't always mean anything to do with a court, because there are laws that aren't virtually ever taken to court, such as ones about the definitions of terms the state uses to refer to the means with which it relays information.

If there's a state-funded ad on TV about the dangers of drunk driving or why you shouldn't sell booze to underage teens, it counts as an advertisement, just not a commercial one (and thus you can't call it "a commercial".)