Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
10-30-2004, 05:10 PM | #201 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
Mark12_30 wrote: Quote:
Estelyn wrote: Quote:
Mark12_30 again: Quote:
Littlemanpoet: Quote:
|
|||||
10-31-2004, 01:16 PM | #202 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||
10-31-2004, 02:50 PM | #203 | |||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
Muse versus Amuse
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
10-31-2004, 03:50 PM | #204 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
Littlemanpoet wrote: Quote:
Edit: Also, that derivation of "amuse" is simply not correct, according to the OED. Last edited by Aiwendil; 05-27-2015 at 06:56 AM. |
||
10-31-2004, 06:18 PM | #205 | |||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
But, even assuming the existence of a Designer, then surely there is still scope for subjectivity in assessing the quality of art. I accept, in this scenario, that art which goes against the will of the Designer will, objectively, be "bad art". But, excluding such material, that still leaves a wide range of art on which different people can have widely differing opinions. Is it not therefore the case that this Designer intentionally invested us with sufficient free will to allow us to be able to determine for ourselves, on a subjective basis, which is "good" and which is "bad"? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 10-31-2004 at 06:20 PM. Reason: typo |
|||||
11-01-2004, 02:35 PM | #206 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
|
Quote:
Some things which I enjoy others may find aesthetically displeasing and 'bad', and I myself would agree that these things are definitely not aesthetically pleasing, as most would define that quality. But I do not find these things to be 'bad' in any way. In fact I would not like them if I did not see some 'good' in them. One of those 'good' things being that they stimulate my mind, or enable me to feel some kind of visceral pleasure. I consider to be 'good' (in fact marvellous) some bands/artists who, among other things, variously play down- tuned guitars, shout through megaphones, have narrators instead of singers, write songs about anti-depressants, etc., just about anything which by any definition could be called non-aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy these things with the same level of pleasure which I get from 'things' (for want of a better word) more widely accepted as 'pleasing'. By the same token, I can find pleasure in driving along a perfectly smooth, wide and empty road through a beautiful landscape. Yet the paradox is that this very road has spoiled that beautiful landscape. This hypothetical road is not aesthetically pleasing, but it is also 'good' to me. I could sit and look at one of Damien Hirst's installation artworks and while I would say, yes, it is not aesthetically pleasing, it gives me the pleasure of mental stimulation and so is 'good' to me. Enjoyment is vital, I find, to us considering any work to be good. If we do not get any enjoyment out of it, then it is bad. This enjoyment might include laughter, a sense of recognition, learning, catharsis, adventure, understanding, the sensation of freedom, or simple joy. If we do not find enjoyment in one of its many forms, then what do we find? Boredom. Books are a particularly good example of this - they take a lot of investment from us in terms of time, and if we are gaining nothing from that book then we are not enjoying it, in other words, it is boring, and we consider it 'bad'. Yes, it's annoying when we hear people dismiss books we hold dear as 'boring'. A young person might openly say something is boring, while a critic will express the concept of their finding something 'boring' in a rather long-winded way! I do get the feeling I might have to explain some of this further...
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
11-06-2004, 07:15 PM | #207 | ||||||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
is language a disease of myth, or the other way around?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
11-07-2004, 12:07 PM | #208 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
All that the "endurability" test really indicates is that a large section of society values a particular work of art over an extended (possibly limitless) period. It does not say anything about the objective quality of the art because (in my opinion) there is no such thing. Different societies, and different sections within an individual society, may favour different (and possibly diametrically opposed) styles of a particular art form over an extended period. Which is right and which is wrong? And there will be individuals within society who do not regard a work of art which has stood the test of time as being particularly good. Are they wrong? For example, the works of Dickens have stood the test of time, but I do not like them. They do not appeal to me. Am I wrong? I do not happen to think that I am. I cannot (and do not) accept that my opinion in this matter is uninformed, unexamined or the result of imperfect reasoning. But neither do I accuse those to whom Dickens' works appeal of being guilty of such things. I simply put it down to personal taste.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
11-07-2004, 08:29 PM | #209 | ||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dickens as good art and Dickens appealing to your tastes, are two separate issues. Surely you can acknowledge something as good art while not liking it particularly well. For example, I know that Mahler's music is good, but I don't particularly like it. Last edited by littlemanpoet; 11-07-2004 at 08:34 PM. |
||
11-07-2004, 09:17 PM | #210 | ||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Littlemanpoet wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, I'm sorry if I've misrepresented The Saucepan Man's view - but in any case, the sentiment thus expressed does defend relativism against the kind of argument made by littlemanpoet. |
||||
11-08-2004, 08:11 AM | #211 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||
11-09-2004, 06:56 PM | #212 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
Aiwendil and SPM, your logical abilities surpass mine; I fear that I have lost the thread of the argument somewhere between linguistic premises and broader points. Suffice it to say that amusement and wonder appear to be mutually exclusive. If someone finds something amusing, that someone will not view that something with a sense of wonder. I'm thinking that wonder and inspiration seem to be linked. Terry Pratchett's and Piers Anthony's fantasies (I have only read the latter's Xanth, of the two), are amusing (from what I've been told regarding T.P.), but do not evoke a sense of wonder. The ability to be amused by something that evokes a sense of wonder in others, seems to indicate a, perhaps, condescending view of the something. Such as Lord of the Rings.
Suffice it also to say that it is clear that neither the two of you nor I are going to modify the stance of the other(s) in regard to that which constitutes good art. I do notice, however, that our friendly debate has begun to remind me of that classic philosophical battle between nominalists and universalists. I am a universalist, and you two seem nominalist in your arguments. Feel fere to take a look at this: http://www.comm.uiuc.edu/icr/about/news and click on the "Dr. Clifford Christians receives award" item, if you care to. Last edited by littlemanpoet; 11-09-2004 at 07:00 PM. |
11-09-2004, 07:57 PM | #213 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Littlemanpoet wrote:
Quote:
About amusement vs. wonder: I agree that we're probably at an impasse, but I think it might be worth saying a little more here. You argue that amusement and wonder are "mutually exclusive". Now I disagree with this, but I do agree with the weaker statement that amusement and wonder are distinct. They are certainly different entities, and no one can doubt that there are amusing things that are not wonderful and wonderful things that are not amusing. They are, I think, distinct types of enjoyment. Thus, I enjoy Duck Soup and I enjoy The Silmarillion, but I find the former amusing and not wonderful and the latter wonderful and not amusing. But it is another thing entirely to say that amusement and wonder are mutually exclusive or antithetical. In some contexts, they are. In a work like The Silmarillion just about any real humor would feel out of place. But there is humor in, for example, The Lord of the Rings. Does that detract from its wonder? When I read: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-11-2004, 08:34 PM | #214 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
My opinion is that Tolkien designed the hobbits as figures to amuse the reader. Amusement involves belittlement; hobbits are diminutive. The only times we read of hobbits with wonder are when Bilbo is first introduced in The Hobbit, in which case he newness outshines his silliness, or when one of the hobbits surpasses his hobbitness.
I think that this tendency in the fantasy genre to shoot for amusement instead of wonder, is a criticism worth leveling at both writers and their publishers. The publishers can hardly be blamed if they're getting nothing better. The writers who are getting published may not dare to attempt wonder, since it is very difficult to achieve consistently; or perhaps they don't really understand what wonder is about. All guesses, of course, but isn't that what this thread is all about? |
|
|