Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
10-27-2004, 06:02 PM | #161 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,851
|
Quote:
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
|
10-27-2004, 07:00 PM | #162 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,159
|
My dear Fordim,
Quote:
These Marxists do tend to cross-pollinate. It is not only women artists whose work has been neglected by time and history. Throughout the ninetheenth century, Milton was regarded as the quintessential seventeenth century poet--the protestant rebel finding a chord of sympathy with the romantics and eclipsing more traditional poets such as Marvell, Herbert and Donne. It took the voice of a T. S. Eliot to bring back to the forefront of critical acclaim John Donne. Strangely now--or perhaps not--the memorials for both Blake and Donne lie in St. Paul's.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
10-27-2004, 07:12 PM | #163 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
...good art reveals Truth. |
|
10-27-2004, 07:54 PM | #164 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 10-27-2004 at 08:01 PM. Reason: Inappropriate example |
|
10-27-2004, 08:08 PM | #165 |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,685
|
You want good art?
Just take a look at those saucepans! Very nice!
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
10-27-2004, 08:22 PM | #166 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Fordim:
Thanks for the explanation of Althusser's views. A question, though: you said: Quote:
I must say that in any event I think I disagree with his view. I don't really hold with any philosophy of art that ascribes an integral role to the function of art in society. But I said enough about that in the ancient history of this thread. Quote:
The Saucepan Man wrote: Quote:
What I mean is: is a working definition of "good art" really necessary for the discussion in this thread to make sense? Of course it's an interesting question in its own right . . . Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether there is such a thing as "good art". I recall having a long debate about that in another old thread - perhaps I'll go and see if I can unearth it. Edit: The thread I'm thinking of was The Tolkien Template, one that bears quite a resemblance (and even a link) to this one. Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-27-2004 at 08:27 PM. |
|||
10-27-2004, 11:25 PM | #167 | |
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: abaft the beam
Posts: 303
|
Worms...everywhere!
Quote:
Perhaps a formulaic, poorly crafted work doesn't reveal truth as skillfully as the masterpiece of a greater writer, and perhaps a potboiler doesn't reveal a unique truth, but the fact that something could be said more eloquently, or has been said again and again, doesn't make it any less true. (Personal disclaimer: I am a professional in the performing arts, and I really take issue with the whole idea that there is some discernable boundary between what is art and what is "just" entertainment. I expect the same respect for my craft regardless of the nature of the work I'm performing. I think that when we begin to talk about the "real art" vs. "the stuff that fills the bookshelves," we're setting up a false dichotomy.)
__________________
Having fun wolfing it to the bitter end, I see, gaur-ancalime (lmp, ww13) |
|
10-28-2004, 02:50 AM | #168 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
|
What makes a work of art good? When someone says it is good.
And to explain further: More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded. Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
10-28-2004, 02:54 AM | #169 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,645
|
Regarding the test of time and art - often, there are fashions in art, which means that some old works of art no longer fit into later ideals. They therefore sink into oblivion for a time - or forever, if no one rediscovers them - and are lost, despite their intrinsic worth. There is one very notable example in music history; J. S. Bach* was considered old-fashioned by his own sons and their generation. Had not Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy rediscovered him many years later and brought his Matthew's Passion to public performance, who knows if we would be familiar with him today?
To connect this to Tolkien, Peter Jackson seems to have played a Mendelssohn's role in the revival of Tolkien's LotR; though it was never completely gone from bookshelves, it certainly was not at the forefront of attention for a long time... (*I know I'm not the only person who considers JSB the greatest genius in musical history - and that under most difficult circumstances. The fact that his sons were able musicians and composers, yet without his genius, shows that great art is not reproducable at will nor learnable as a trade, though both will and training are certainly necessary for the creation (sub-creation, if you will) of art.) PS - Cross-posted with Lalwendë, who also brings up the point of "perspiration" vs. "inspiration"
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
10-28-2004, 03:34 AM | #170 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,096
|
Books and fantasy and valid criticisms ;)
(Digressing a little, as I found saved the basis of an old post I had for this thread (2002!), added a little at the end and am posting it now.)
I imagine a pyramid representing the number of different book titles sold, with the base set in the past and the needle stretching past us into the future. The pyramid is also slanted as you look at it so that it comes from the past upwards into the future. This slant is to indicate an increased number of sales of books in total. More books are sold today than ever – yet fewer titles year on year. Naturally this decrease cannot have been going on forever, perhaps you can conclude that there is a cyclical pattern of increasing and decreasing numbers of titles sold. (On a side note, the UK has the most different titles published per head in the world. Can’t see it lasting long, though). The centre of gravity for this pyramid, that which keeps it narrowing into the point, is the market force, as determined by the best selling books. This process is augmented by the currently observed trend of consolidation among book chains, reducing choice for the consumer. The market looks to release books similar to those that do well – and why not? It’s only curmudgeons like myself who want a vast choice of titles…right? (It’s difficult to evade accusations of elitism on and from either side of the debate.) This trend of bookshop consolidation is likely to be turned on its head, beginning a new cycle. Why? The joy of the internet! The mighty web has injected a heady dose of choice back into the market. Obscure books are now readily available, and smaller independents have been thrown a lifeline, transforming themselves into online dealers of that which is tricky to find on Amazon. As mentioned above, it is easy to fall into melodrama. The world of books is a fairly ruddy one, just try and avoid those odious big shops with small ranges. Indeed, perhaps that’s the point; that it’s choice rather than a form of objective qualitative analysis for which we should be striving. I rather agree with Aiwendil above with a distaste for classifying ‘good art’; it is moreover in my opinion a phrase to be avoided, If, however, you take the possibly more accurate view – that there is no ‘art’, only the perception thereof, the argument glides into a smooth downward spiral that comes to rest on Descartes. Not of much benefit to a discussion, but the point being that it is impossible and perhaps unwanted to create hard and fast rules for perception for any more than one person. Choice, then. Let’s not dictate what should and should not be read, rather let’s question the uneven playing field for a wide range of books. I think this is what I was driving at in my last post on this thread, made with customary glibness, that it is the practical side of the argument that merits discussion. With this, I refer to the original discussion on fantasy books. To the wider discussion that has been happening on and off between some bright minds on this thread for a while, I will for now restrain myself to a rather facetious quotation from Auden: “Some books are undeservedly forgotten, none are undeservedly remembered.” Looks like we’re back to longevity equations.
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
10-28-2004, 06:34 AM | #171 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
|
Interesting post about book selling, Rimbaud!
I have to say, thank goodness for t'Internet when it comes to finding books. Several years ago, book prices were effectively 'fixed' in the UK. Then the government, in it's infinite wisdom , suddenly released retailers from the requirement to sell books at their Recommended Retail price (RRP). At the time, commentators said that market forces would inevitably mean that the big selling titles would get much cheaper, and the more obscure titles would see price rises. This has indeed proved to be the case. And in addition, chain bookshops do not seem to carry the range of titles that they used to. These chains have also proliferated, which is good if you are after something readily available, but if not, you are put in a bind. There are less independent booksellers these days, thus book buying online has become the only option for less profitable titles. I lke the fact I can get the latest Harry Potter in the supermarket for a knockdown price, but it's a bit annoying that in my whole city (a 500,000 poulation, including 50k students!) I have as yet been unable to find a shop to spend time in browsing Tolkien critical works. Let me drop in some praise here for two independent shops - The Whitby Bookshop and Broadhurst's of Southport. I've got no commercial interest, just they are fantastic shops.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
10-28-2004, 08:23 AM | #172 | ||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Tell me your truths and I'll tell you mine ...
Quote:
The reason that I asked is that assumptions are being made on this thread as to what is "good art" or "bad art". Who decides what is "good" and what is "bad" at any given time? Is it some cultural elite? Is it the majority of consumers (the popularity argument)? Or is it simply down to personal taste? I have a lot of time for the works mentioned in my previous post, and yet they certainly don't have mass appeal and there are many (probably the majority) who find them pointless and entirely devoid of merit. And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )? And, if so, who is to say what those truths are? In any event, surely the individual can simply enjoy art without having to feel that they have learned some basic truth. Or can simple enjoyment be classified as a basic truth of human experience? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, works of art can come to be regarded as good by a sufficiently large or influential section of society, such as they become generally regarded within that society as “good” (and this will change over time). That is not to say that only art which is popular is to regarded as “good”, but it is surely one determinant of quality. If the works of a particular author or artist or director are popular, then they must be doing something right. I would agree with Rimbaud concerning the desirability of choice. And I would say that there is a sufficiently wide range of shared tastes within our society to prompt the "producers" and those who market their "products" to give us a sufficiently tolerable choice. There may be those within society whose particular tastes are not catered for, but such tastes would surely be very eclectic indeed. Otherwise, while those who have less “popularist” tastes may need to search a little harder (whether that be by surfing the net, tuning into the right radio station, going to the right bookshop and so forth), that which they find to be “good” will generally still be there somewhere.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||||
10-28-2004, 08:44 AM | #173 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Those who neither believe in, nor pursue, Good or Truth, would say there are no such effects.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
10-28-2004, 09:34 AM | #174 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
10-28-2004, 02:25 PM | #175 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
I dare say "good art" is not nearly as subjective as has been asserted; certainly not completely subjective. Standards have always applied throughout the history of art. Cultures that have done art (which is probably all of them) have conformed to styles and standards. What kinds of standards? At least those of skill and beauty; or, when beauty was precisely that which was being rebelled against (such as early 20th century), then a vigor in ugliness was a kind of standard - because of the skill with which it was achieved.
The word "good" implies standards. If there is "good", there has to be "better" and "best". It's only in our own culturally and philosophically relativist era that standards of "good art" have become subjective. Tolkien found the relativistic tendencies in modern art and literature to be quite repulsive. He, being perhaps an extreme example, considered any literature in the English language that had been produced after 1800 (I think), not to be worthy of the term. 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. If one really believe that art is subjective, one cannot refer to any art as "good", etc. - it just is. .... which is untenable. |
10-28-2004, 06:13 PM | #176 | |||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Tar-Ancalime wrote:
Quote:
Lalwende wrote: Quote:
Estelyn wrote: Quote:
Insofar as you're saying that without the happy accident of Mendelssohn championing Bach, Bach would be unknown today - I must say that I doubt it. It need not have been Mendelssohn. Given time, I think it was very probable that someone would have rediscovered him. As a matter of fact, he wasn't ever wholly forgotten. Mozart, for example, knew and thought very highly of his work in the 1780s. I would say that it was almost inevitable that, given time, he would achieve the popularity he now enjoys. The Saucepan Man wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand, if you really want to say that art is subjective you cannot even claim that a Mozart symphony is superior to the noise I banged out of a piano when I was three. Now that's a coherent position, but I suspect that few people really agree with it deep down. Quote:
|
|||||||
10-28-2004, 06:59 PM | #177 | ||||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Quote:
But to answer your question: not at all. In fact, the 'believer'(Truth-seeker) should expect that in enjoying 'Good/True art', something is happening deep within the the 'non-believer' (Indifferent) that has, or might have, or hopefully will have, the effect of drawing him towards Good and/ or Truth (same thing, in the end)-- and in that the Truth-seeker would rejoice. In fact, the Truth-seeker may actually place a higher value on the Indifferent one's enjoyment, since the Truth seeker has hopes that the enjoyment may, in the end, have an eternal effect. Is a eucatastrophe-- a glimpse of Truth-- any less of a eucatastrophe if the person who gets the glimpse doesn't fully realise what he is seeing? I think it depends on the heart; and who can judge that? The glimpse of Truth may sow something transcendant in the soul that that does not come to fruition for many years. (Frodo's dreams of the sea come to mind.) On to Aiwendil's post: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 10-28-2004 at 07:18 PM. |
||||
10-28-2004, 07:24 PM | #178 | ||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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; 10-28-2004 at 07:30 PM. Reason: To add a further point |
||||||
10-28-2004, 09:54 PM | #179 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Mark12_30 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I must say, though, that I can't see how certain areas of aesthetics could be derived from "Truth", unless my understanding of the term is even less than I thought. In tonal harmony, for example, voices are not supposed to move in parallel fourths. Of course, sometimes this rule is broken, often succesfully, but in general it really does hold value - there is something displeasing about about parallel fourths, and they are often detrimental to the aesthetic value of a composition. Now if aesthetic pleasure really does derive entirely from Truth, there must be something "unTrue" about such a composition. So I ask: how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth? The Saucepan Man wrote: Quote:
|
|||
10-28-2004, 11:24 PM | #180 | ||
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,645
|
I'd like to toss a single crouton into this very mixed salad, one cut from a slice of Tolkien's own bread; this statement:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
||
10-29-2004, 02:58 AM | #181 | |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,096
|
Quote:
This position then followed, all that which one considers their own ‘taste’ is a process of individual and then collective aggrandisement. However; this argument falls down for me when we come to what I consider to be the crux: synaesthesia. We are all synaesthetes, to varying degree, and to my mind, it is this mingling of the senses, of which we understand very little, that shapes our initial response to everything. Our primitive receptors are fired off in unexpected, different and unique sequences by any number of ‘events’: a piano key, a leaf, my bathroom floor, the sound of the wind, your loved ones talking. As our synaesthesias are unique, so thusly are our responses. These miniature arts form our daily sensory symphony, and it is these hardwired responses to the individual stimuli of a whole work that are similar enough to create what has been termed above the 'relative invariance of the human mind' with regard to aesthetics, and separate enough for 'each wo/man to be an island'. It is for this reason that ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ can be misleading in this context, as subjectivity suggests an amount of conscious analysis non-commensurate with the truth of initial reaction. This gives us roughly 6,470,523,588 objective opinions, which I rather like. ~~~ * Not in agreement with Renaissance delineations in this quarter...
__________________
And all the rest is literature Last edited by Rimbaud; 10-29-2004 at 03:02 AM. |
|
10-29-2004, 03:28 AM | #182 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
10-29-2004, 04:06 AM | #183 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,096
|
Yes, exactly, that initial argument leads to subjectivity. I went on to say that we have an individual objective standard manifested as 'initial reaction' that is superseded only by deliberate thought - and that assessment itself is necessarily 'corrupted' by one's objective initial reaction. I suppose what I'm saying is that we all have a hard-wired reaction to things which tempers the way we consider them: to develop and/or counter these feelings does indeed require an element of conscious assessment. I deliberately circled around where this leads, as my feelings on it are ambivalent: but the view results in questioning the veracity of any reaction other than the primitive response.
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
10-29-2004, 04:46 AM | #184 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
10-29-2004, 05:05 AM | #185 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,096
|
Good point. And this was partly why I mention the synaesthete, although I did not explain myself fully. This intermingling of sensory data is accumulated through the years, different smells, sounds, textures. The links thus formed give us a detailed response pattern to any 'art' as all these little neurons fire off in response to this sensory memory and confusion of sight, smell, sound and touch. Obviously, this accumulated data is (wince) 'as unique' (stop wincing) as the form and level of synaesthesia and hard-wired reaction of each individual.
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
10-29-2004, 06:07 AM | #186 | |||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Aiwendil, I certainly meant no offense, and I apologize if any was taken. My point in using the term "Indifferent" was geared strictly towards the pursuit of Truth within the work of art. One viewer (Saucy's "believer") is actively seeking Truth as the art is considered. The other (Saucy's 'non-believer') is, as the art is perused, consciously indifferent to the impacts and effects of Truth on his enjoyment of the art. He ony cares whether he enjoys it or not. Hence, for that moment, regarding the connection between Truth and the art, he is Indifferent.
I prefer these words because there are plenty of 'believers in Truth' who don't expect it to shine through a painting at them. Nor do they expect to pick up a faery tale and experience a glimpse of evangelium. THey stand before a painting Indifferent to Truth, for **that** moment. Are their lives less rich for their lack of expectations? I cannot say, for the art may be working its transcendance on them unbeknownst to them.... like Frodo's dreams of the sea. That inner working is, I think, what Tolkien desired and expected. Difficult topic to discuss on the Downs. There is plenty of vocabulary that I have set aside. Saucie Quote:
Rimbaud: Quote:
I have never seen your bathroom floor. But if it is a thing of beauty-- perhaps on the level of showing the sheen on a single leaf-- why should it not be a work of art? There are many glorious mosaic floors in the world, and even some commercially available linoleum for which the original design work was very creative and tastefully done. Just because we find it mass-produced and available at Home Depot, does that mean we cannot allow it to affect our soul? And that comes back around to the consumerism thing, and popularity. If a thing sells well, is it therefore not art? Hardly a fair stance. Back to Aiwendil: Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 10-29-2004 at 06:33 AM. |
|||
10-29-2004, 06:49 AM | #187 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
10-29-2004, 09:14 AM | #188 | |
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: abaft the beam
Posts: 303
|
Quote:
What I'm trying to say, in my long-winded way, is that this "rule" about avoiding parallel intervals is a modern construct, placed on a particular style of art from the past. It's a style characteristic, not a decree from on high. The only way to violate it is to write a composition that adheres to the style in every other way, and also uses parallel fourths, which would stick out like a sore thumb in that context. The "rule" would be violated, but the work wouldn't somehow lose its relatipnship with the truth. Not even the historical truth of the style would be violated--the context of the rest of the composition would speak loudly enough, and the parallel fourths would sound out of place, just as they should in such a work. Which, I suppose, boils down to a restatement of what I was trying to say before--the craftsmanship (or, if you like, the degree of its adherence to a particular style) of a work has nothing to do with its ability to show us something about our experience. Reading this, it occurs to me--am I sidling up to a position that what makes good art is the degree to which it fits into a prevailing style? I certainly hope not! I'll have to think about that.
__________________
Having fun wolfing it to the bitter end, I see, gaur-ancalime (lmp, ww13) |
|
10-29-2004, 10:45 AM | #189 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
A work, then, could be aesthetically beautiful but, for one reason or another, not liked. Maybe there are non-artistic prevailing attitudes that disincline people toward the work (this I think is the case with many "serious" composers for a big part of the population). Maybe the work is not accessible for some reason (a novel written in Tocharian A could in principle be great, but only a few philologists would be able to read it). And I think there are a great many popular works of art that are not good, but are liked for non-aesthetic reasons - for a surprisingly large segment of the population, I think, musical taste is dictated by "image" rather than by the aesthetics of the music itself. Mark12_30 wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tar-Ancalime wrote: Quote:
|
||||||
10-29-2004, 01:24 PM | #190 | ||||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
|
Quote:
Quote:
To take a contemporary example, (so I can't be accused of being elitist ) let's look at music, and just because it was the first thing to come to mind, look at Gareth Gates. He has the right looks and image for a pop star, he sings beautifully, and he has been supplied with well crafted songs. All very aesthetically pleasing. Yet I would not say he is liked by music fans. What are they buying instead? A good comparison is the success of The Darkness, four fairly ugly blokes dressed like something from the early 70s and churning out old fashioned rock music. Not aesthetically pleasing at all, but a wider range of people like them. Quote:
Quote:
Before I start on a long essay about why some of my favourite bands are so ace, I'll round off by saying that what we like is strongly related to the shifts in our personal truth, and that our taste is not always, in my opinion, related to any concrete definition of good or bad art, but to what the influences of the world around us (media, friends, even people we want to irritate) thinks is good or bad. This is a good thing, as those who only consume the things in culture which they have been told are 'good' are rapidly going to become insular, locked in their high or low brow mindsets. Those who are willing to explore are going to find more enrichment. I hope this makes sense!
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||||
10-29-2004, 06:04 PM | #191 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
I'd like to start with a distinction regarding the word "good" in terms of "good art". There is moral good and aesthetic good. One can write a book that is morally bad but aesthetically good; or one that is aesthetically awful while morally good. A book could be both kinds of bad, or both kinds of good. I think the kind of "good" that is most germaine to this discussion is aesthetic good. Moral good in art is an additional issue that has so far, in my estimation, clouded the discussion.
Good art is art that is aesthetically pleasing. The viewer or reader may take pleasure in the beauty of the artwork itself, or may take pleasure in the skill of the artist having made such a pleasing work of art. Are there other aspects to aesthetic pleasure? I don't think so, and desire correction if I'm wrong. So good art is that which is aesthetically pleasing, whether due to skill in making, or in the beauty of the artwork itself. Does aesthetic pleasure vary by culture? Of course. So to that extent, good art is culturally relative. But that does not mean that there is not absolute standard. What it means instead, is that human perceptions and ability to reason, and cultural development, are finite and fallable, and will necessarily fall short of any ideal standard, be it a standard for beauty, or skill in realization. Not long ago, I asked myself just why it was that the form of a woman is so aesthetically pleasing to me. I was not satisfied with strictly gender related reasons. Indeed, gender relatedness begged the question! Why is it that most human males are absolutely convinced that they know a beautiful woman when they see one? How do they know? What is the standard? Is there a standard? Why, in short, do I say that the form of a woman is beautiful? I developed a personal aphorism. It goes like this: Beauty is being that which a thing was meant to be. This aphorism assumes a maker who designs, which is true of any art form. It also includes a standard for beauty, and thereby a standard for good art. It allows for negative expressions, such as a rebellion against beauty as a standard for good art, in that an artwork in rebellion of beauty can, in all its purposive ugliness, be in its realization of its goal, a thing of beauty. It also allows for a primary creator. So what? Assertions have been made that there is no absolute standard for good art, and mark12_30 and I have disagreed with that. The two of us are convinced that there is an absolute standard for good art. I say that that standard is beauty. Where does beauty come from? Did it just grow out of our evolutionary development? Or was it designed into us? Maybe the reality is that it was a combination of both design by the Maker, and evolution as the Maker's method. Or not. That's of relative unimportance in regard to "good art". Mark12_30 and I have stated the bases for our points of view. I would appreciate it if someone who holds to the "good art is a subjective, relative thing", would kindly provide a reasoned basis for such a position. Thanks! Finally, I do believe that there are valid criticisms of the genre, and that they have everything to do with the writer's efforts to bring beauty to his or her work of fantasy. Oh! And if I have missed someone's efforts to provide what I have here asked for, please accept my humble apologies and point me to the appropriate post. Thanks! |
10-29-2004, 06:44 PM | #192 | ||||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit, having cross-posted with lmp: 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; 10-29-2004 at 06:58 PM. Reason: Cross-posted with lmp |
||||||||
10-29-2004, 07:16 PM | #193 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Littlemanpoet wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Saucepan Man wrote: Quote:
Yes, people like different things. I offered some possible explanations that could account for these differences that are unrelated to aesthetic beauty (popularity, accessibility, etc.). Now, maybe these are enough to account for the variety of tastes and maybe they're not. But they do show that it is not simply differing standards of aesthetic beauty that result in different likes and dislikes. Quote:
You address this yourself at the end of your post: Quote:
|
|||||
10-29-2004, 07:29 PM | #194 | ||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
A man may paint the form of a woman, and achieve something merely impulse-driven; or, he may paint the form of a woman and achieve something transcendant. Luthien was a transcendant beauty. It doesn't make sense to me that her beauty appealed fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
||
10-29-2004, 08:08 PM | #195 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Aiwendil, I can only conclude that you and I differ only in our definitions. Yet again.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
10-30-2004, 03:10 AM | #196 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,645
|
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...
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
10-30-2004, 06:03 AM | #197 |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
beauty: trend vs friend
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.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
10-30-2004, 08:06 AM | #198 | |
Illusionary Holbytla
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,646
|
*Firefoot sticks her nose into this fascinating discussion, hoping that her thoughts are relevant.*
To quote my old sig: Quote:
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. Can goodness, beauty, and truth be defined, then? Individually, I would say yes. I can take my set of morals, values, and opinions and put them together to get my opinion of these things. But universally? Except in the most general sense, I don't think so. The human race is too vast and different for that. I think that most people would agree with Mark12_30's statement that good art reveals truth. But I don't think that the statement can be taken any futher than that, because each person's perception of truth is different. |
|
10-30-2004, 08:20 AM | #199 | |||||||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Lalwendë Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by littlemanpoet; 10-30-2004 at 08:33 AM. |
|||||||
10-30-2004, 10:32 AM | #200 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,645
|
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'!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|