Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[The Saucepan Man]

Aiwendil, I can only conclude that you and I differ only in our definitions. Yet again.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Aiwendil's mention of the music of P.D.Q.Bach (pseudonym of Peter Schickele), in contrast with the music of J.S.Bach, makes me want to clarify the difference between enjoyment and aesthetic beauty. I definitely enjoy the former's parodic music, but a good deal of the humour involved is based on the fact that it is not aesthetically pleasing, though it is composed with skill and for the purpose of producing the effect which it does, successfully so! Mostly, it plays with the standards of beauty of that musical age, interspersing jarring elements that emphasize the difference. I chuckle over those pieces, but I am not deeply moved by them in the way that I am moved when I hear and play J.S. Bach's music.

To bring that point back to Tolkien, the same thing applies to parodies of his work; I can enjoy them tremendously, when they are well-done, and there is certainly an element of skillful use of language in those that are well-written, but beautiful? I don't know...

[mark12_30]

As an aside somewhat unrelated to the current flow of discussion:

I think the desire to share beauty and to share art is pretty normal and natural. To share a joy with a friend is a big deal. There are few near me who love Tolkien as I do. When I do have a moment of 'Tolkien-sharing' with someone local, it's a high point of my day, often remembered with pleasure afterward. There is a bonding involved in being able to say to a friend, "Doesn't this ROCK?" and have the friend reply, "Yeah, it really does."

It's also part of the learning process to have one's eyes opened to beauty by someone else. "Uh, it rocks? Really? Why?" "Because....." "OOOOOH!" Another bonding moment, recalled fondly thereafter.

However, at some point, the desire to belong seems to trump the desire to share real beauty, and that's where trendsetting seems to come in, and elitism, and all the rest.

In modern day, it gets more complicated than that. Many folks on this board are on the younger, newer end of Snowdog's Scale of Tolkien Fandom. For them, the PJ-driven trend introduced them to what the geezers have loved for so long. So to call something 'trendy' as a form of insult doesn't hold water either. Some trends are good (or have good aspects) even if they're a bit stormy at their peak.

It just bothers me to hear something ridiculed for the sole reason that it's a trend; something is cheesy and lame just because it can be purchased at Wal-Mart or Home Depot. "It's a trend-- good!" turns to "It's a trend-- Bad!" without any examination of the inherent virtues or flaws of the thing.

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: I'm afraid the truth is that there's no more than a genetic program at work there. Aesthetic beauty, I think, is quite different from this (or - a useful definition of "aesthetic beauty" would be quite different from this). Aesthetic beauty appeals to the rational mind; beauty of that sort appeals fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

I disagree with your "no more than a genetic program" point. Such an assertion necessarily begs the question, "where did the genetic programming come from"? Which is answered (at least for me) in my little aphorism, beauty is being what a thing was meant to be: there is a maker/designer behind the genetics.

I think that any human's first response to art is not rational. ("Irrational" has connotations I'd rather avoid.) The individual's need to make sense of her world brings about the rational attempt to explain the first response .... within the work of art ... which is projection, isn't it? (uh oh) Thus aesthetics could be construed as the rational attempt of the appreciator to explain something within the self that connected to the work of art. Jungian. Tripe? No. It simply explains (to me) the subjective part of aesthetics, since in our modern age, aesthetics is done by individuals more so than ever.

The Saucepan Man:The fact remains that there will be works that some people find aesthetically beautiful and others don't.

Well, of course. Which has as much to do with exposure and education as personal taste. Just as striking as the wide variety of individual points of view on beauty, is the universal agreement among all humans as to what constitutes beauty.

The Saucepan Man:I can think of works of art which I don't find aesthetically pleasing, but which nevertheless stir such a reaction within me that I would (subjectively) class them as "good".

I attempted to account for your objection by including the rendering as well as the art itself. As Estelwyn aptly illustrates in her distinction between J.S. Bach and "P.D.Q. Bach".

Lalwendë

Lalwendë ... judgements on whether art is good or bad are made by those 'professionally qualified' to do so, not by the consumers.

It has been my experience that market forces typically trump professional judgments. This is best seen in the movie industry. I've watched some movies that were classed as real stinkers by the elite, and they were really quite good, as well as popular (since they did well in the market). And I've watched movies that were proclaimed brilliant, and found myself faced with postmodern tripe that was so disgusting and/or absurd that it could have been grist for C.S. Lewis's mill in his writing of The Abolition of Man. Market forces do more to decide what's good or bad art than any other force in our day.... sad to say? At times, yes.

Sometimes too much exposure breeds contempt, which is the problem with critics. They're so deep into their art form that the tried and true is for them merely boring. I wonder how much this affects our discussion of the fantasy genre?

Lalwendë:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.

No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendë is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.

Firefoot:If there is something that one person thinks to be beautiful, but everyone else in the world thinks it is not, does it make the thing any less beautiful to that one person? If that is what the one person truly thinks, then no, it doesn't. So is it beautiful or not? Most people would say no, but as long as the one person thinks so, that thing must hold some element of beauty.

With your "no, it doesn't", you suggest that the one person is right just because the one person holds an opinion of any kind, as to beauty. It could just as easiliy be because of individual human fallibility, failure of education, and/or misperception.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'd like to add another point to the discussion of recognition and appreciation of beauty - that of acquired taste. Whether it be a fine wine, a new style of music, or a type of literature previously unfamiliar, each of us has to learn to enjoy some things that would generally (by experts in their fields) be considered aesthetically pleasing. We do not start out with the same level of enjoyment that we develop through experience and training. I know that I learned to appreciate the beauty of Medieval madrigals and (some ) early 20th century symphonic music through my college education in music. We develop and refine our tastes during the course of our lives, by exposure to new forms of art or variations of old ones.

For this reason it is good to share opinions with others, to test our own opinions for their worth and to be willing to give something new a chance before judging it to be the 'good', the 'bad', or the 'ugly'!

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Aiwendil, I can only conclude that you and I differ only in our definitions. Yet again.

If there's one thing that generates more needless debate than any other, it surely is differing definitions. Glad we straightened it out, though.

Mark12_30 wrote:

It doesn't make sense to me that her beauty appealed fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

Well, it does make sense to me. I fear that if we go down that road we'll drive the thread completely off topic, though.

Estelyn wrote:

Aiwendil's mention of the music of P.D.Q.Bach (pseudonym of Peter Schickele), in contrast with the music of J.S.Bach, makes me want to clarify the difference between enjoyment and aesthetic beauty. I definitely enjoy the former's parodic music, but a good deal of the humour involved is based on the fact that it is not aesthetically pleasing, though it is composed with skill and for the purpose of producing the effect which it does, successfully so!

Apparently, I am using "aesthetic beauty" more broadly than you. In my view, humor is aesthetically pleasing in its own way. But this is a mere matter of definition or convention. If I had a better term, I'd use it. The only trouble with "enjoyment" is that it refers specifically to the reaction of the audience, whereas beauty refers to the object itself.

Mark12_30 again:

It just bothers me to hear something ridiculed for the sole reason that it's a trend; something is cheesy and lame just because it can be purchased at Wal-Mart or Home Depot. "It's a trend-- good!" turns to "It's a trend-- Bad!" without any examination of the inherent virtues or flaws of the thing.

A good point. There's certainly nothing wrong with popularity - in fact, in my view, good art will most likely become popular sooner or later. The only point of my trend-bashing is the fact that a lot of bad art becomes popular too.

Littlemanpoet:

I disagree with your "no more than a genetic program" point. Such an assertion necessarily begs the question, "where did the genetic programming come from"? Which is answered (at least for me) in my little aphorism, beauty is being what a thing was meant to be: there is a maker/designer behind the genetics.

Going down this road will definitely drive the thread way off topic.

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: One cannot transmute a linguistic argument into a broad sociological one, much less a metaphysical one.

Regarding a metaphysical, in his Poetic Diction, Owen Barfield, close friend of both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, does precisely that. He shows how the process of distinction that has been going on for years in language (whether Greek, Latin, English or other) has had both the salutary effect of development of knowledge, and the unhappy effect of divorcing our understanding of concepts from their concrete origins. In other words, we think about metaphysics in certain ways because of what has happened to our speech patterns. The same is true of sociological, or any field of knowledge, precisely because it must make use of the language. Tolkien is known to believe that our language is less good than it used to be precisely because of this development of language. I do not do justice to Tolkien's nor Barfield's thoughts on this. I recommend a reading of Poetic Diction.

Aiwendil: The derivation of the word "amuse" simply cannot prove anything about the relation of humor to art in a broader sense.

Whereas it cannot "prove anything", the derivation is still there, and therefore that derivation is part of the history of that word. That most people are unaware of that, is precisely the disease that Tolkien saw with the language as it is now. People have forgotten where the words they use come from. It is always this way. Whereas it has been said that "myth is a disease of language", Barfield and Tolkien would more likely say that "language is a disease of myth".

The Saucepan Man: Of course, one cannot really compare different forms of art, save in very limited respects.

Quite. The very limited respect was what I had in mind.

The Saucepan Man: ...we are left with two different opinions, neither of which can, ultimately, claim to be fact.

I have been attempting to show just how much of that which is simply assumed to be fact, is no more than opinion; such as the popular understanding that opinions in themselves, by virtue of the fact that they are held and aired by someone, are valid for that person just because she or he has them. Nonsense. Opinions can be uninformed (in which case they're ignorant), unexamined (in which case they are mere prejudice), examined and still wrong (in which case they are the result of imperfect reasoning), or true as far as they go but missing useful information, or just maybe, accurate.

But that's just about opinion. Subjective versus Objective is a distinction which, like all distinctions, does just as much harm as good. Whereas the distinction has value, there is just as much value (ane maybe more) in transcending the duality. Can you look past the distinction to the unity that used to be what was known?

The Saucepan Man: ..."high quality" is judged by what standard?

By the standard of that which endures. Such as Tolkien's LotR. It is standing the test of time. So did Dickens. And Sir Walter Scott. And Shakespeare, etc.

The Saucepan Man: But there will be others who consider it to be "good art". They might even consider it to be "better art" than the works of Tolkien. You and I may disagree with them, but we cannot deny their honest and genuine reaction.

But we can understand that however honestly they hold their opinion, it could still be wrong.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The Saucepan Man:The fact remains that there will be works that some people find aesthetically beautiful and others don't.

Well, of course. Which has as much to do with exposure and education as personal taste. Just as striking as the wide variety of individual points of view on beauty, is the universal agreement among all humans as to what constitutes beauty.

Well, I would say that exposure and education goes towards making up personal taste. Otherwise I would agree with what you say, with the substitution for "significant degree of" for "universal". But the impression as to what is "good" or "beautiful" is still a subjective one, even it is one on which the majority agree. Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Lalwendë:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

Quote:
The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.

No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendë is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.

Surely if someone finds something "enjoyable", it is "good" in their mind? I define "aesthetic beauty" more narrowly than Aiwendil, but I agree that the physical composition of a work of art is not necessarily the only element which influences the individual's assessment of its quality.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The only trouble with "enjoyment" is that it refers specifically to the reaction of the audience, whereas beauty refers to the object itself.

But one could use the word "enjoyable" instead, which would refer to the object. So, a person could say "I found that piece of music enjoyable" just as one could say "I found that piece of music beautiful". They might mean the same thing with both sentences or they might mean something different. Both would indicate to me, however, that they found it to be "good". And, while they are undoubtedly referring to the object (the piece of music), the reaction is a subjective one on their part.

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: Apparently, I am using "aesthetic beauty" more broadly than you. In my view, humor is aesthetically pleasing in its own way.

I was recently listening to a tape on Tolkien, from Mars Hill, and an incidental remark came up that the words "amuse" and "muse" are related as opposites. "Muse" is a source of inspiration. "Amuse" is, literally, "no muse"; that is, not inspiration, but the displacement of inspiration. Thus, amusement was originally understood to be the opposite of creativity, hence, of the process of art. Of course, time has worn its typical ravages upon language, and now we talk about the art of amusement. This is just one more instance that bears out Tolkien's view that language has become less able to do its job as it has developed, contrary to what is generally believed to be true about language.

The Saucepan Man: Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder.

I love it when someone uses this aphorism, because it is assumed to be an obvious truth whereas it is no such thing. Rather, it belies the whole philosophy of the human subject as the arbiter of truth (and beauty). This aphorism grew out of humanistic renaissance philosophy, not out of some inherent understanding of reality. Obviously, the aphorism suggests that beauty is relative, whereas no such opinion can claim to be fact. By contrast I would suggest that "Beauty is in the eye of the Designer", who designed both human ability to perceive beauty, and beauty itself.

The Saucepan Man: Surely if someone finds something "enjoyable", it is "good" in their mind?

"In their mind" is an important qualifier in your question. You are implying the subjective, with which I disagree. But yet another distinction is necessary regarding the term "good". This time, it's not moral versus artistic, but good as pleasure-providing versus good as of high quality. So I would say "yes", anyone will find a work of art that is enjoyable to them, as "good as pleasure-providing". But that does not necessarily carry over to "good as of quality". I relate instance after instance, from parents' enjoyment of children's simple performances, to Monty Python's tongue-in-cheek Arthurian tale (which is a-musement, by the way) to a third rate love song or poem that, though awful, a given person finds enjoyable at a certain time in his or her life. Good? No, not as art. Enjoyable? Certainly.

Which brings me to a recent abortive attempt at fantasy reading, which happens to bring this thread right back to its auspicious origins: I recently attempted to start reading the novel, "Kingdoms of Light" by Alan Dean Foster. I should have been suspicious when the jacket revealed that a wizard's pets were going to be the protagonists of the story. I tried the first chapter anyway, and was disgusted by the sheer awfulness of the writing. Everything was in cartoonish overload, outlandish and full of stock nonsense. I felt insulted. It was as if this writer, who has written over 70 novels, decided that he "knew what that kind of reader liked", and threw together this mishmash that fairly insults the reader. I can't say any more good or bad about it, as I stopped reading in disgust. So, not enjoyable. Maybe he was trying to be a-musing. I could believe that.