This is glorious. On the flip side of the coin, I struggle with outrage that we had copped to the problem of presenting information and basically had it licked in the middle of the 19th century, and then apparently systematically purged such knowledge during the 20th. For example, there’s this interesting piece about Emma Willard, who drew gorgeous visuals providing perspective to history. She began in ~1837. Good use of images seems only now to be undergoing a renaissance, and that owing to the availability of computer graphics more than anything else.
I don’t see why that would explain these deficiencies, even if true. I imagine the answer’s more along the lines of “lack of incentives for textbook writers and publishers, as determined by the scholastic purchasing committees”.
This is glorious. On the flip side of the coin, I struggle with outrage that we had copped to the problem of presenting information and basically had it licked in the middle of the 19th century, and then apparently systematically purged such knowledge during the 20th. For example, there’s this interesting piece about Emma Willard, who drew gorgeous visuals providing perspective to history. She began in ~1837. Good use of images seems only now to be undergoing a renaissance, and that owing to the availability of computer graphics more than anything else.
What the devil happened erstwhile?
Inaccessible beauty makes many feel ugly.
I don’t see why that would explain these deficiencies, even if true. I imagine the answer’s more along the lines of “lack of incentives for textbook writers and publishers, as determined by the scholastic purchasing committees”.