Come, then we can accuse all the history of art, because it does not define the art or history. This must be done! Without having defined or object, or their method, understand that it is then sent to a completely encyclopaedic vain. Gain insight and clarity with AOL. Likewise, if they open a "History of Literature," no matter how thick, you will not learn anything or even that some pedants call the "literal." Same goes if they open a "History of religions" … I have a very good friend (might come tonight), which begins to read from beginning to end a great work of Mircea Eliade entitled History of the beliefs and religious ideas . Obviously, it is an age where these questions, begin to come back! The work covers two or three thousand pages, the whole world (yes, world), from the "Stone Age" today. It is a work of admirable scholarship: this guy knows everything! Absolutely everything! Well I said, "But dear, before you finish reading this book, no more will belong to this world! Best reads one or two letters of Mother Teresa that are translated into French. " Nothing to be done.
She replied: "I'm growing." That's what I want! Stay, I show them my ticket, she will never know what a belief or an idea (religious or not does not matter.) Go back to what we want. What is interesting in the Faculties of Arts is the training received by students of "art" (this is relatively new). What does the fact that the powers have accepted that "in art there is always some technical, some are not handling forget, and so on.
