There is indeed something to be said if not to be vividly and strongly argued about the gradual disappearance of expert knowledge in the arts, as interdisciplinarity and crossing of borders between areas of study that were previously firmly disparate, are fashionable tendencies of the contemporary academic circles. In a live and continuous debate, Prof Adrian Monck and Simon Woodroffe went head to head with AC Grayling and Stephen Bayley over the question, 'Is the Renaissance scholar dead?' (Guardian, April 10, 2008). Apart from the simple minded dichotomy between practical knowledge that contributes to the advancement of the economic machine of nation-states, and the theoretical knowledge that aims to develop culturally engaged members of society, there is the question of who exactly can be this Renaissance scholar. Who has access to these two extremes of the polarity? And are we forever doomed to dwell between these two edges of the line without ever being able to bring them closer or even in a meaningful dialogue? Why should we ever argue for either practical and arguably technological and scientific knowledge or for theoretical and philosophical knowledge very specific to an area in which very few others would be ever interested? Certainly, both are quite useful in their own right but they remain rather entertaining, even sad at times, if isolated from each other. One would have assumed that we have moved away from such hiatus and that theory and practice are interchangeable – or at least ought to be – otherwise they remain empty signifiers; the first cynical and the latter romantic, both masturbatory practices of old men.
