Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Back to my main point. There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.
|
lmp, I'm still pondering the ramifications of this-- especially in light of some of Aiwendil's points. I think I agree with you; but I'm wrestling with those standards.
At the risk of creating a maelstrom, I will say.... ---- nah. Maybe I'll PM you instead.
No, doggone it, I can do this.
It all goes back to
Tolkien's concept of "sub-creation"-- which is done,
according to Tolkien, in *honor* of the Creator because we are made in His image.
(And to that I hold... )
That in my opinion is the final standard, and will be the standard to which the Truth-seeker will adhere **to the degree which he understands it himself**, which comes back around to both a cultural and a heart issue. To the degree that the artist is capable (here we have a heart-judgement which only the Creator is capable of)-- is this sub-creative work in **honor** of the Creator? If it is, it will ultimately be judged as Good. It will to some degree draw those who enjoy it to the Truth, because, being made in honor of the Creator, it will reflect Truth to some degree.
Back to your point about cultures: each culture reflects what revelation of beauty they have. Rohan reflects horses, elves reflect trees and stars. So cultural standards differ. And when cultures merge, some understand the other's sense of beauty and some do not. I'm not quite sure where this goes yet. But in the end, it's a heart issue, of that I am certain; and a work made as a sub-creation to reflect the Creator, which causes in the enjoyer the faintest glimmer of transcendance-- Tolkien's
evangelium-- will meet that standard.