Relatedly, we can also think in terms of people who have the temperament of the specialist, vs. those with the temperament of the generalist. The specialist wants to analyze, break down, and see the details. The generalist wants to get to the point, hear the final take-away, cut to the chase and see something start happening, and is usually impatient with or bored by the specialist within 30 seconds of his beginning to talk. It’s not a clear cut either-or as we all may have some tendencies in both directions depending on the topic. But most people do tend toward one of those more than the other. I also think someone can have *either* of those temperaments and be an intellectual. But the specialist’s temperament is more likely to lead more people to wrestle with complexity more often, IMO, and it seems to me that more intellectuals (and maybe artists?) are specialists by temperament (hence the ever-more-atomized specialization of PhD work, for example).

Memorizing arcane sports facts is actually not an intellectual activity, IMO. No more so than memorizing a ton of names, dates and places and the multiplication table. I guess it takes some degree of raw intelligence to memorize that much sheer data, but that doesn’t mean someone is thinking “intellectually” about the topic. The better sports-related analogy would be the sports fan who really wants to understand the X’s and O’s behind what she’s watching – to be able to appreciate the complex game of chess with move followed by countermove going on between the respective coaches at a level that most fans are oblivious to – vs. the fan who just wants to sit and watch the game and yell for her team to win with no deeper understanding of what’s going on beyond the very basics she was taught in grade school PE and is perfectly happy with that.

PastorMack – You are right the anti-intellectualism isn’t across the board in Christianity. But even in the evangelical circles where learning pseudo-science is intellectual activity, that isn’t even universally accepted. I recall being seen as elite and improper for attending the apologetics classes instead of the more emotional worship sessions or women’s bible studies. My friends called me a nerd, and the 5-7 of us doing the intellectual stuff were by far the minority (and I was always the only girl in those classes as well).

Andy – great points. We shouldn’t have to dumb things down to the lowest common denominator. Sometimes we have to be who we are and be okay with that.

David – fascinating question about people being intimidated by artists. I wonder though – has there ever been a time when artists were completely understand and accepted by mainstream society, or have they always stood apart in some sense?

Cassie – Thank you so much for responding here and for getting this conversation going in the first place. I think because I am not in the world of literary criticism, I didn’t automatically get your distinction that some people always separate form and content in art. I understand the need to do so at times, but I also naturally just assume that a full engagement of a text or work of art will have to involve an assessment of its content as well as its form. Perhaps I am just too pragmatic, but I see art as always doing something – be that conveying information or prompting a response – not just existing as an object that can be scientifically observed. In engaging art we cannot help but be a part of its function (whatever that may be), no matter how hard we would like to simply stand above it and critique its form. So that said, I believe we will always engage on some level the morality of a piece of art even if we simply are trying to engage the form. So sometime we need the ugly art to act as a mirror of who we are and to critique our very selves. It can be a glorification, or a condemnation, but will always be holistically engaged.

And I agree we should strive for humility in our intellectual pursuits. But when does love of knowledge and curiosity cross the line into pride. If I connect one piece of art to another and I feel the thrill of discovery – is that pride or joy? I think it is a fine line, and I am most concerned with the implications of the caution itself. It is too easy for others to accuse a person of pride when that person is simply finding joy in who God created them to be. Even if one isn’t elitist, they can easily be accused of being so and be forced to abandon who they are in order to dumb things down. Its reach the point where as Bill said, all our church art is propaganda. We have people heaping praise on Thomas Kinkade because they can easily understand him, and condemning anything more complicated as elitist. So while I understand for critique (especially in the academic world), I think it would be more helpful to call the church to be more intellectual than to caution people not to be prideful in intelligence.

Practically speaking, in developing commissioned artwork and design, I’ve found it helpful to cultivate a spirit of humility by trying to listen very carefully to others. Listening seems to garner respect and trust, which has resulted at times in more imaginative work.

I rather love the feeling when I understand a reference or a new layer that I would not have formerly comprehended. I am a teacher, so I really love seeing students when this happens.

It’s just like going back in your late twenties and reading a book you read in high school and loved. You still love it, but you understand it so much more deeply once you’ve gained years of experience and education.

I think if people would give things more of a chance and understand to the degree they can at the time, anti-intellectualism wouldn’t be a problem because we would all be as intellectual as we each can on our own levels and take a moderate amount of pride in testing our limits.

Can you tell I teach special ed?