The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-30-2004, 05:10 PM   #201
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2004, 01:16 PM   #202
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Pipe Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Lalwendė: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 Lalwendė 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.


Quote:
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.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2004, 02:50 PM   #203
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Tolkien Muse versus Amuse

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2004, 03:50 PM   #204
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
But one could use the word "enjoyable" instead, which would refer to the object.
The only problem with "enjoyable" is that I still think I want to refer to a specific category of enjoyment - not sensual pleasure; I would not call eating candy the enjoyment of art. "Aesthetic" seemed to be a reasonable counterpart to "sensual" to me. At any rate, it seems pointless to go on about a definition that apparently only I am interested in.

Littlemanpoet wrote:
Quote:
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.
One cannot transmute a linguistic argument into a broad sociological one, much less a metaphysical one. The derivation of the word "amuse" simply cannot prove anything about the relation of humor to art in a broader sense.

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.
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2004, 06:18 PM   #205
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
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.
I can see no difficulty with regarding "the art of amusement" as an art form in itself. Of course, one cannot really compare different forms of art, save in very limited respects. So, one can little more compare a Monty Python film to a Fellini film than one can compare it to a painting by Renoir (I would say "no more" rather than "little more", but they are rendered in the same medium, which allows for some limited comparison).


Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
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.
Well, then we are left with two different opinions, neither of which can, ultimately, claim to be fact. Your argument assumes the existence of a Designer, which cannot be proved as a matter of fact (but is rather a matter of faith).

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:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
This time, it's not moral versus artistic, but good as pleasure-providing versus good as of high quality.
And "high quality" is judged by what standard? I do accept that the individual may make a distinction personally between art which is merely "enjoyable" and art which they consider to be "high quality". In both cases, they consider the art to be "good", but they may well accord more value to that which they perceive as "high quality". The assessment is still, however, a subjective one in my view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
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.
So, to your mind, it was "bad art" (and, from your description, I would probably agree with you). 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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
The only problem with "enjoyable" is that I still think I want to refer to a specific category of enjoyment - not sensual pleasure; I would not call eating candy the enjoyment of art.
There are no doubt many top chefs who would disagree with you that the inspiration of sensual pleasure cannot be considered an art form.
__________________
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
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2004, 02:35 PM   #206
Lalwendė
A Mere Boggart
 
Lalwendė's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
Lalwendė is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.Lalwendė is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Lalwendė: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 Lalwendė 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.
As something I have said is being used in a debate, I thought I ought to clarify some points I have made.

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!
Lalwendė is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2004, 07:15 PM   #207
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Tolkien is language a disease of myth, or the other way around?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2004, 12:07 PM   #208
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Silmaril

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
But we can understand that however honestly they hold their opinion, it could still be wrong.
And so the discussion becomes cyclical. Wrong by what or whose standard? By insisting that there are works of art which are, from an objective standpoint, "good" and those which are "bad", you allow no possibility for individual (and valid) variations in taste. Taken to its extreme, this would suggest that, ideally, we should all assess the merit of art in an identical manner. Which would surely produce a very dull society.

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!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2004, 08:29 PM   #209
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Tolkien

Quote:
The Saucepan ManTaken to its extreme, this would suggest that, ideally, we should all assess the merit of art in an identical manner.
Of course there are real variations in taste. I acknowledge that personal tastes vary from person to person. Such extreme identicality can only exist in theory, that is, in one's personal fancy; not in reality.

Quote:
The Saucepan Man 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.
Yes, true, but favour and acknowledgement as something as good art are two different things. There is, and has been for millenia, consistent and wide agreement as to what constitutes good art. If you consider the millenia of those in the past who have agreed that a work of art is in fact not good, then you are either better at judging such things than millions of people in the past, or you are guilty of chronological snobbery, to use a term from C.S. Lewis. That is, "if".

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.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2004, 09:17 PM   #210
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Littlemanpoet wrote:
Quote:
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.
One can certainly make a linguistic argument to establish a psychological point about human views of metaphysics (which is what, in my understanding, Barfield's argument is). One could even, in principle, start with linguistic premises and arrive at a metaphysical conclusion (though I cannot think of an example and I don't know whether any exist). What I said (or meant to say) is that one cannot make a purely linguistic argument with a linguistic conclusion and then simply transfer that conclusion onto another plane. The derivation of the word "amuse" may say interesting things about human views of humor - and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I find the information contemptible or uninteresting - but it does not by itself establish any broader point about the nature of humor or art, or of their relation. As I think you agree:

Quote:
Whereas it cannot "prove anything", the derivation is still there, and therefore that derivation is part of the history of that word.
I certainly did not mean to question (and don't see that I did in any way question) the argument of Tolkien and Barfield that, as you say:

Quote:
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".
Littlemanpoet also wrote:
Quote:
If you consider the millenia of those in the past who have agreed that a work of art is in fact not good, then you are either better at judging such things than millions of people in the past, or you are guilty of chronological snobbery, to use a term from C.S. Lewis.
I do not mean to speak for The Saucepan Man, and I hope he'll forgive me for jumping in here. But I think that the view of art which is in question here, one which I almost agree with, could be clarified succinctly with regard to this point: it is not a matter of saying "this is bad art; those people in the past who liked it were wrong". It is rather saying "it is meaningless to say simply that a work of art is good or bad; we can only say 'I like it' or 'I dislike it'".

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.
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2004, 08:11 AM   #211
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Of course there are real variations in taste. I acknowledge that personal tastes vary from person to person. Such extreme identicality can only exist in theory, that is, in one's personal fancy; not in reality.
But you are saying that some tastes are "wrong" whereas others are "right". This necessarily implies an ideal (albeit a theoretical one) in which all tastes are identical. For me, the theoretical conclusion belies the unsatisfactory nature of the reasoning that leads to it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Surely you can acknowledge something as good art while not liking it particularly well.
I would put it rather that I can acknowledge that many others consider it to be "good art" without regarding it as such myself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
I do not mean to speak for The Saucepan Man, and I hope he'll forgive me for jumping in here. But I think that the view of art which is in question here, one which I almost agree with, could be clarified succinctly with regard to this point: it is not a matter of saying "this is bad art; those people in the past who liked it were wrong". It is rather saying "it is meaningless to say simply that a work of art is good or bad; we can only say 'I like it' or 'I dislike it'".
Yes. That's more or less it in a nutshell. Although one cannot ignore the fact of a work of art having an enduring and widespread appeal. As I said above, I may not like the works of Dickens myself, but I have to acknowledge the fact that they are generally viewed within society as being "good art". But that is not the same as saying that they have an inherent and objective "goodness".
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 06:56 PM   #212
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Tolkien

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.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 07:57 PM   #213
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Littlemanpoet wrote:
Quote:
I am a universalist, and you two seem nominalist in your arguments.
Well, I'm certainly a nominalist when it comes to philosophy of lanugage and metaphysics, at the least. I think you may be right that there is a universalist/nominalist division here. Unfortunately, the link you provided doesn't seem to work.

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:
"Eavesdropping Sir? I don't follow you, begging your pardon. There ain't no eaves at Bag End, and that's a fact."
. . . I am amused. When I read:
Quote:
Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.
. . . I'm filled with wonder. The two can coexist within the same work without working against one another. There are, in fact, certain works of art where, I think, amusement and wonder coincide or become one. The example that comes immediately to my mind: Dr. Strangelove, a movie that is simultaneously very funny and frighteningly serious.
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2004, 08:34 PM   #214
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Pipe

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?
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:51 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.