I understand fully what you mean by the disciplines apparent acceptance of the. "scientifical" approach.. I have been directed to so called "papers" which frankly seem more akin to a high school project.
My background is in Engineering and Art.. (mid life crises) :)
So I kinda have a left brain, right brain problem. Or maybe it's an advantage.
Da Vinci seemed to manage OK.
Anyway I think it is fair to say that the study of fine art to masters level is a humanities discipline .
But even Fine Art. which may seem whimsical from the outside looking in. (I can assure you that it is not).. Seems to be a more pragmatic and structured.
An Egyptologist cannot be everything. Scientist. Engineer, Architect, Artist, Linguist, Historian .. No one single person could possibly ever achieve that ..
Perfectly understandable .. So why do they seem to try??
On the other hand I think we need to cut them a little slack. in that it is a whole culture that they are trying to study.. We wouldn't expect one academic discipline to unravel all of modern western culture.
I can see a 900 year old cathedral from my window .. now if I hadn't been told something about Gods and religion and Christianity and churches, I could spend a thousand years trying to fathom out what it was for and how it worked.
But I do have a problem with "Scientificalism"
Post Edited (04-Aug-14 17:10)