|
This is actually a kind of funny little essay where I play with the idea of sentimentality as a flaw in works of art. I've been reading this little collection of essays on the subject out of a book called [/i]Arguing About Art[i] for fun. Some of the arguments in this collection are kind of silly about how they reach their conclusions. I thought I would write a little essay about it as well.
Basically I try to set this essay up as if it were a logical proof of sorts. I break my argument down into cases and "prove" them separately. I'm only quoting out of one book, so I just list the page numbers in my parenthetical citations out of laziness. I've also never cited a painting before so I probably did that wrong too but whatever.
I should say that although I do believe what I say in my conclusion, I would be the first to admit that the way I go about reaching it is a little quirky and probably unconvincing for most people
Just for fun though. Here it is:
Sentimentality in Works of Fiction
The discussion of sentimentality in art is one which revolves around the relationship between art and reality. One cannot discuss sentimentality without first considering truth and its place in art. Is the artist obligated to tell the truth? If an artist creates a sentimentalized portrayal of something, is this something to be criticized as a flaw in his creation? Certainly in the realm of non-fiction, it would be reasonable to expect that what an artist creates is true to reality. If he presents his work as fact, then he has an absolute obligation to tell the truth. In the case of fiction, this is not true. Fiction is by nature untrue and distant from reality. It is my intent to argue that because art belonging to the genre of fiction and fantasy are not intended to be true, the artist has no obligation to keep his art true to reality, and therefore sentimentality in such art is not a flaw nor is it to be criticized.
To start, it is necessary to establish a proper definition for sentimentality. Anthony Savile's definition of sentimentality in art is that it is an active false coloring of reality based on an idealization of its object with the goal of gratification or reassurance (338 and 340). This seems like a reasonable definition, and since Savile is the biggest opponent to my argument, I find it appropriate to adopt his definition for sentimentality. Savile claims that "sentimentality is always open to criticism. There is always something wrong with it." (337). This statement is certainly true for sentimentality in works of non-fiction. If an artist claims or presents his work as being true to reality, then any false coloring of reality or idealizing of its subject matter is a definite flaw in his creation. Actively spreading false information under the guise of truth is a morally objectionable offense and should be criticized heavily.
In the case of fiction, though, Savile's statement is false. Fiction and fantasy are by nature distant from reality. Thus, one should not expect any truth at all in a work of fiction. Consider the Raphael painting titled "St. George and the Dragon" (Raphael). This is certainly a work of fantasy, since dragons never really existed, and medieval knights never actually fought against any dragons. Using Savile's definition of sentimentality, it is reasonable to say that this painting is sentimental. Medieval knights were not all handsome, noble dragon fighters, and medieval combat was not as glorious and epic as such a painting would suggest. The knight in Raphael's painting is an idealized and falsely depicted version of what real medieval knights were like. Savile would surely claim that this painting is sentimental and therefore flawed. However, this is clearly a work of fiction. The knight in Raphael's painting is not intended to be an accurate representation of a real medieval knight. In the artist's fantasy world, dragons exist. If his fantasy world has dragons, why should it be strange for there to be a handsome knight on a beautiful white horse to slay the dragon?
There is nothing flawed or harmful about the inclusion of such a character in a fantasy world because it is understood to be fantasy. The artist has no obligation to paint an unsightly brutal killing of the dragon by an ugly, mean looking knight riding a tired looking horse as one might have found in reality. As long as his audience recognizes that his painting is a depiction of fantasy (evident by the existence of a dragon), it should do no harm to make his knight handsome and shiny.
Perhaps more importantly, a painting like this may not be as aesthetically pleasing if the knight were more realistic. It is unfair to suggest that an artist should sacrifice part of his aesthetic vision in order to avoid being sentimental. Above all, a successful painting has to look good to the artist, regardless of its subject matter. Achieving an aesthetically pleasing image will, more often than not, require some sort of selectivity in what aspects of the subject matter are actually shown, as David Pugmire suggests (354). If Raphael added even a small splash of reality to his painting, such as the addition of blood spurting from the dragon's spear wound, it would likely detract from the aesthetic excellence of the painting. If it is the goal of an artist to paint something beautiful, for example, then he should not have to worry about it being too beautiful so as to be criticized for its sentimentality. Ira Newman expresses this idea more succinctly when he says that falsification in art "is not a flaw when aesthetic values deserve placement above truth in a ranking order" (345). If an artist has to choose between avoiding sentimentality and completing his aesthetic vision, higher priority should be given to his aesthetic vision, and it should not be considered a flaw to make that choice.
But what of the audience in all of this? Art is not all about the artist, one might object; the effects of an art piece on its audience must also be considered. One of the perceived dangers of sentimentality in art, as Newman explains, is that falsified images in art could cause the audience to have a distorted view of the world if they mistake the falsification for truth (345). Is the artist at fault here? Closer examination of such a scenario is required for judgment in this matter.
When an artist creates a work of fiction in which some sentimental portrayal of its subject matter occurs, the impact of such falsification on the viewer can be broken down into three cases. The first case is one in which the viewer knows that the art work is sentimental or falsified based on his own real world experience which informs him of the falsification. In this case, no harm is done. The art cannot distort his world view because he knows better. In the second case, the viewer is unsure about whether or not the images presented in the art work are completely faithful to reality or not. Maybe he does not have enough real world experience with the subject matter to completely rule out the possibility that the artwork is truthful. Or perhaps he has a suspicion that the artwork is not completely accurate but he cannot say for sure. Regardless of the reason, the viewer in this case should be well aware of his ignorance. The fact that he is unsure about something should inspire him to do some research and better inform himself, as Newman suggests (346). If he refuses to do this and decides to simply accept the work of art as truth, then it is not the fault of the artist, but the fault of the lazy viewer. The third and final case, is the one in which the viewer completely believes that the falsified image in the artwork is true. Here, keeping in mind that the artwork in question is a work of fantasy, and that it is strange for the audience of such an artwork to be so completely fooled by it, we can be certain that the viewer is negatively influenced by the sentimentality in the artwork. The artwork does, in fact, distort his world view. This case is a bit more interesting, which is why I must break it down into two separate sub-cases in order to deal with it properly.
After being fooled by the falsified images in the artwork, the viewer will then be released into the world with poor information concerning its nature. Now, this person will either come to terms with reality, or he will not.
In the first case, the viewer will encounter the subject matter about which his knowledge is flawed. Through this encounter, he will learn that the information he gained from the artwork was (or at least that it may have been) false. Now, by simply encountering the subject matter in real life, his knowledge will be amended, and the harm that was done by the artwork will be nullified by his new life experience. Thus, the artwork never really did any harm, since the viewer never needed to know the truth until he actually found the truth. The only situation in which this is not true is if the viewer's ignorance causes him to make some kind of horrible mistake which causes a lot of trouble. However, if the information he is mistaken about is of such great importance, surely the viewer himself is responsible for properly informing himself of the truth.
In the second case, the viewer never encounters the subject matter in real life. Thus, he never learns the truth. This is not harmful, however, since he would only need to know the truth if he encountered the subject matter in real life. It is inconsequential then, that the misinformed viewer goes through his entire life ignorant of the truth, since he had no real use for the truth in the first place. One objection to this argument might be that the viewer could, as a result of his ignorance, fail to take action in situations where he should. If, for example, sentimental art somehow causes the viewer to be ignorant of the plight of poverty stricken families, then he may as a result not lend a helping hand to such families, whereas if he knew about their struggles, he would certainly help them. However, this would imply that the only exposure he had to the idea of poverty stricken families was through the piece (or even multiple pieces) of sentimental art that he viewed. If he had any other exposure to such knowledge, he would be compelled to find out more about the truth, since he would then have conflicting information. Now, this of course means that if the viewer was never exposed to the sentimental art, he would have no information at all about poverty stricken families, and therefore the same situation would occur as if he did see the art. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that art cannot be held responsible for the inaction of its audience.
I have exhaustively examined each case for the practical impact of sentimental art on the viewer and determined in each case that, as Newman suggests, the viewer's ignorance is his own responsibility. If the viewer is negatively influenced by sentimental art, then it is not the art or the artist that is flawed, but the viewer. Since the fault lies with the viewer for any harm done, we have no reason to condemn sentimentality in fictional art. Works Cited
Neil, Alex, and Aaron Ridley. Arguing About Art. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Raphael. St. George and the Dragon. 1505. ABCGallery, Washington D.C.. Web. 5 July 2013. <http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael15.html>.
Edit: Here is an example of sentimental art:
http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.catalog.web.tk.CatalogServlet?catalogAction=Product&productId=206223&menuNdx=0.5
You can see even in his description of his work that the artist is quite sentimental. Now, what I am trying to say is that there is nothing wrong at all with this kind of painting. I am arguing against those who would say these artworks are flawed because of their sentimental nature.
|
On July 07 2013 07:29 MichaelDonovan wrote: In the case of fiction, though, Savile's statement is false. Fiction and fantasy are by nature distant from reality. Thus, one should not expect any truth at all in a work of fiction. Consider the Raphael painting titled "St. George and the Dragon" (Raphael). This is certainly a work of fantasy, since dragons never really existed, and medieval knights never actually fought against any dragons. Using Savile's definition of sentimentality, it is reasonable to say that this painting is sentimental. Medieval knights were not all handsome, noble dragon fighters, and medieval combat was not as glorious and epic as such a painting would suggest. The knight in Raphael's painting is an idealized and falsely depicted version of what real medieval knights were like. Savile would surely claim that this painting is sentimental and therefore flawed. However, this is clearly a work of fiction. The knight in Raphael's painting is not intended to be an accurate representation of a real medieval knight. In the artist's fantasy world, dragons exist. If his fantasy world has dragons, why should it be strange for there to be a handsome knight on a beautiful white horse to slay the dragon? . This requires far more lip service than you've paid it here. These are not givens by any stretch of the imagination.
|
On July 07 2013 07:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 07:29 MichaelDonovan wrote: In the case of fiction, though, Savile's statement is false. Fiction and fantasy are by nature distant from reality. Thus, one should not expect any truth at all in a work of fiction. Consider the Raphael painting titled "St. George and the Dragon" (Raphael). This is certainly a work of fantasy, since dragons never really existed, and medieval knights never actually fought against any dragons. Using Savile's definition of sentimentality, it is reasonable to say that this painting is sentimental. Medieval knights were not all handsome, noble dragon fighters, and medieval combat was not as glorious and epic as such a painting would suggest. The knight in Raphael's painting is an idealized and falsely depicted version of what real medieval knights were like. Savile would surely claim that this painting is sentimental and therefore flawed. However, this is clearly a work of fiction. The knight in Raphael's painting is not intended to be an accurate representation of a real medieval knight. In the artist's fantasy world, dragons exist. If his fantasy world has dragons, why should it be strange for there to be a handsome knight on a beautiful white horse to slay the dragon? . This requires far more lip service than you've paid it here. These are not givens by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah I agree. I'm really just hoping my readers accept the definitions of fiction and fantasy that I am basing my argument on.
Fiction: Work of art that is not based on reality. Fantasy: Work of art derived from imagination (and therefore not tied to reality).
If those definitions don't please you then the rest of my argument won't either.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
It is a huge leap to go from defining fiction as being not based on reality (true, I suppose, perhaps not universally but easy enough of a basic premise to accept) to saying that "one should not expect any truth at all in a work of fiction." For the sake of argument I am willing to accept the first definition with relatively few complaints, but it is not at all obvious how the latter follows naturally.
I shall quote myself~~
In non fiction there are facts; in fiction there is truth.
|
On July 07 2013 07:58 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: It is a huge leap to go from defining fiction as being not based on reality (true, I suppose, perhaps not universally but easy enough of a basic premise to accept) to saying that "one should not expect any truth at all in a work of fiction." For the sake of argument I am willing to accept the first definition with relatively few complaints, but it is not at all obvious how the latter follows naturally.
I shall quote myself~~
In non fiction there are facts; in fiction there is truth.
Because fiction is not based on reality, it is not necessary for there to be any truth at all. There may be truth in some fiction, but fiction can exist with every statement about reality within it being false. Since it is not necessary for fiction to contain truth in order to be fiction, one should not expect there to be truth.
|
On July 07 2013 07:40 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 07:33 farvacola wrote:On July 07 2013 07:29 MichaelDonovan wrote: In the case of fiction, though, Savile's statement is false. Fiction and fantasy are by nature distant from reality. Thus, one should not expect any truth at all in a work of fiction. Consider the Raphael painting titled "St. George and the Dragon" (Raphael). This is certainly a work of fantasy, since dragons never really existed, and medieval knights never actually fought against any dragons. Using Savile's definition of sentimentality, it is reasonable to say that this painting is sentimental. Medieval knights were not all handsome, noble dragon fighters, and medieval combat was not as glorious and epic as such a painting would suggest. The knight in Raphael's painting is an idealized and falsely depicted version of what real medieval knights were like. Savile would surely claim that this painting is sentimental and therefore flawed. However, this is clearly a work of fiction. The knight in Raphael's painting is not intended to be an accurate representation of a real medieval knight. In the artist's fantasy world, dragons exist. If his fantasy world has dragons, why should it be strange for there to be a handsome knight on a beautiful white horse to slay the dragon? . This requires far more lip service than you've paid it here. These are not givens by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah I agree. I'm really just hoping my readers accept the definitions of fiction and fantasy that I am basing my argument on. Fiction: Work of art that is not based on reality. Fantasy: Work of art derived from imagination (and therefore not tied to reality). If those definitions don't please you then the rest of my argument won't either.
By those definitions aren't Fiction and Fantasy the exact same thing?
edit: above post helped me understand
|
I think the previous posters and you, the OP, have said as much but I'll try to expand a bit. Savile's premise, I think, is that in order for art to have an intelligible meaning, the art must in some way bear a truthful relation to this world. I'm not sure that St. George and the Dragon is a good example in this case because the existence of a dragon does not substantively change this world. The world the artist creates doesn't even have to be as our world is if it is different in a way that speaks to a truth in our world. If I think that John Gardner made a shitty world in Grendel that neither is like our world nor speaks to the truth in our world, then I might accuse him of being a bad metaphysician, but I don't think that makes him guilty of bad art.
|
On July 07 2013 09:17 Jerubaal wrote: I think the previous posters and you, the OP, have said as much but I'll try to expand a bit. Savile's premise, I think, is that in order for art to have an intelligible meaning, the art must in some way bear a truthful relation to this world. I'm not sure that St. George and the Dragon is a good example in this case because the existence of a dragon does not substantively change this world. The world the artist creates doesn't even have to be as our world is if it is different in a way that speaks to a truth in our world. If I think that John Gardner made a shitty world in Grendel that neither is like our world nor speaks to the truth in our world, then I might accuse him of being a bad metaphysician, but I don't think that makes him guilty of bad art.
What Savile says is that sentimentality (anywhere) is always a flaw. It is never a good thing to be sentimental.
|
On July 07 2013 07:29 MichaelDonovan wrote:
To start, it is necessary to establish a proper definition for sentimentality. Anthony Savile's definition of sentimentality in art is that it is an active false coloring of reality based on an idealization of its object with the goal of gratification or reassurance (338 and 340). This seems like a reasonable definition, and since Savile is the biggest opponent to my argument, I find it appropriate to adopt his definition for sentimentality. Savile claims that "sentimentality is always open to criticism. There is always something wrong with it." (337). This statement is certainly true for sentimentality in works of non-fiction. If an artist claims or presents his work as being true to reality, then any false coloring of reality or idealizing of its subject matter is a definite flaw in his creation. Actively spreading false information under the guise of truth is a morally objectionable offense and should be criticized heavily.
Let's take a look at Savile's definition, particularly the first sentence: Firstly, let's not fall into the trap of objecting to the "coloring" too much. Asking for an artist who doesn't color is like asking for a newsman without bias or trying to make an argument without rhetoric. Form and function are interconnected in art.
As for "active", I know that the majority of people operate under the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an evil liar, but actual lying with regard to art must be a contradiction. The art is part of them and you can't lie to yourself. Any misrepresentation must be unconscious and thus this admonition would not register. Likewise, you cannot tell someone to stop idealizing something if they are not unaware that they are idealizing it. I fear that one interpretation of this definition lapses into psychologism where your own prejudices are the only standard of who errs into sentimentality.
What then are we to make of this definition and warning? If I were to substitute Oscar Wilde's opinion on sentimentality, I would say that the error comes from inserting yourself too much into the art. By losing your distance, you break the effect of the art and create something vulgar. With these observations, I must conclude that Savile might be making a plea for self-awareness or maybe condemning self-indulgent writing.
|
On July 07 2013 10:13 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 07:29 MichaelDonovan wrote:
To start, it is necessary to establish a proper definition for sentimentality. Anthony Savile's definition of sentimentality in art is that it is an active false coloring of reality based on an idealization of its object with the goal of gratification or reassurance (338 and 340). This seems like a reasonable definition, and since Savile is the biggest opponent to my argument, I find it appropriate to adopt his definition for sentimentality. Savile claims that "sentimentality is always open to criticism. There is always something wrong with it." (337). This statement is certainly true for sentimentality in works of non-fiction. If an artist claims or presents his work as being true to reality, then any false coloring of reality or idealizing of its subject matter is a definite flaw in his creation. Actively spreading false information under the guise of truth is a morally objectionable offense and should be criticized heavily.
Let's take a look at Savile's definition, particularly the first sentence: Firstly, let's not fall into the trap of objecting to the "coloring" too much. Asking for an artist who doesn't color is like asking for a newsman without bias or trying to make an argument without rhetoric. Form and function are interconnected in art. As for "active", I know that the majority of people operate under the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an evil liar, but actual lying with regard to art must be a contradiction. The art is part of them and you can't lie to yourself. Any misrepresentation must be unconscious and thus this admonition would not register. Likewise, you cannot tell someone to stop idealizing something if they are not unaware that they are idealizing it. I fear that one interpretation of this definition lapses into psychologism where your own prejudices are the only standard of who errs into sentimentality. What then are we to make of this definition and warning? If I were to substitute Oscar Wilde's opinion on sentimentality, I would say that the error comes from inserting yourself too much into the art. By losing your distance, you break the effect of the art and create something vulgar. With these observations, I must conclude that Savile might be making a plea for self-awareness or maybe condemning self-indulgent writing.
I do not think that the majority of people operate under the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an evil liar. I don't know why you say that but I can't agree.
I think the contradiction you try to point out with lying in art is kind of odd. The art being part of the artist seems like a strange thing to say, first of all, and I'm not sure I'm convinced of that.
Second, if we grant that the art and the artist are the same entity combined as you posit, there's still a problem with the following statement which says that you can't lie to yourself. You can definitely lie to yourself. It's just that you can't trick yourself into believing the lie. So if you think of lying in art as lying to oneself, it's definitely possible. The artist would just know that it's a lie. That's where "active" comes in. If the artist is being dishonest in his art and knows that he is being dishonest, this is what we call an "active" false-coloring.
However, I must also object to your assertion that if art is part of the artist, then lying in art is lying to oneself. If "art" is a subset of "artist", and the art is lying, then it just means that the artist is lying. To whom is the art/artist lying? To the audience of the art, I suppose. But I don't see how the art being part of the artist means that when one of those lies it is lying to itself.
|
There's two ways to look at it: The art and the observer and the art and the artist. Of course, the art is separate from the artist because he cannot control how the observer interprets it. If the observer deviates, however, too much from what the artist intended then that must be a defect in either the artist or the observer. Nevertheless, the art is autobiographical to the artist in some way. Even if the artist were to try to make a complete lie, that lie would still be reflective of the artist.
As for lying, we have to assume that the person is acting in good faith. If someone is actively lying, then they aren't making art but only being a demagogue. If your objective is to be a demagogue, then asking them to please stop lying won't be an effective plea.
|
I'm not even clear how true and false are being used here. Even a photograph is an imperfect representation. And is the purpose of art supposed to be to reveal truth? Are gratification and assurance not goals of art? If they are, then it would seem that art that isn't sentimental (using his definition), is always flawed.
After being fooled by the falsified images in the artwork, the viewer will then be released into the world with poor information concerning its nature. Now, this person will either come to terms with reality, or he will not.
In the first case, the viewer will encounter the subject matter about which his knowledge is flawed. Through this encounter, he will learn that the information he gained from the artwork was (or at least that it may have been) false. Now, by simply encountering the subject matter in real life, his knowledge will be amended, and the harm that was done by the artwork will be nullified by his new life experience. Thus, the artwork never really did any harm, since the viewer never needed to know the truth until he actually found the truth. The only situation in which this is not true is if the viewer's ignorance causes him to make some kind of horrible mistake which causes a lot of trouble. However, if the information he is mistaken about is of such great importance, surely the viewer himself is responsible for properly informing himself of the truth.
In the second case, the viewer never encounters the subject matter in real life. Thus, he never learns the truth. This is not harmful, however, since he would only need to know the truth if he encountered the subject matter in real life. It is inconsequential then, that the misinformed viewer goes through his entire life ignorant of the truth, since he had no real use for the truth in the first place. One objection to this argument might be that the viewer could, as a result of his ignorance, fail to take action in situations where he should. If, for example, sentimental art somehow causes the viewer to be ignorant of the plight of poverty stricken families, then he may as a result not lend a helping hand to such families, whereas if he knew about their struggles, he would certainly help them. However, this would imply that the only exposure he had to the idea of poverty stricken families was through the piece (or even multiple pieces) of sentimental art that he viewed. If he had any other exposure to such knowledge, he would be compelled to find out more about the truth, since he would then have conflicting information. Now, this of course means that if the viewer was never exposed to the sentimental art, he would have no information at all about poverty stricken families, and therefore the same situation would occur as if he did see the art. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that art cannot be held responsible for the inaction of its audience.
Does simply encountering something in real life give you its "truth"? Let's say I've never seen a dog before in my life, only pictures of them. I then encounter a dog and it happens to be missing a leg and eye. If encountering the subject in real life gives you its truth, it would be reasonable to conclude that dogs are actually three-legged and one-eyed, and that all the pictures I'd seen were idealized. Or perhaps a flower with # of petals would be better example.
|
On July 08 2013 01:58 Mothra wrote:I'm not even clear how true and false are being used here. Even a photograph is an imperfect representation. And is the purpose of art supposed to be to reveal truth? Are gratification and assurance not goals of art? If they are, then it would seem that art that isn't sentimental (using his definition), is always flawed. Show nested quote +After being fooled by the falsified images in the artwork, the viewer will then be released into the world with poor information concerning its nature. Now, this person will either come to terms with reality, or he will not.
In the first case, the viewer will encounter the subject matter about which his knowledge is flawed. Through this encounter, he will learn that the information he gained from the artwork was (or at least that it may have been) false. Now, by simply encountering the subject matter in real life, his knowledge will be amended, and the harm that was done by the artwork will be nullified by his new life experience. Thus, the artwork never really did any harm, since the viewer never needed to know the truth until he actually found the truth. The only situation in which this is not true is if the viewer's ignorance causes him to make some kind of horrible mistake which causes a lot of trouble. However, if the information he is mistaken about is of such great importance, surely the viewer himself is responsible for properly informing himself of the truth.
In the second case, the viewer never encounters the subject matter in real life. Thus, he never learns the truth. This is not harmful, however, since he would only need to know the truth if he encountered the subject matter in real life. It is inconsequential then, that the misinformed viewer goes through his entire life ignorant of the truth, since he had no real use for the truth in the first place. One objection to this argument might be that the viewer could, as a result of his ignorance, fail to take action in situations where he should. If, for example, sentimental art somehow causes the viewer to be ignorant of the plight of poverty stricken families, then he may as a result not lend a helping hand to such families, whereas if he knew about their struggles, he would certainly help them. However, this would imply that the only exposure he had to the idea of poverty stricken families was through the piece (or even multiple pieces) of sentimental art that he viewed. If he had any other exposure to such knowledge, he would be compelled to find out more about the truth, since he would then have conflicting information. Now, this of course means that if the viewer was never exposed to the sentimental art, he would have no information at all about poverty stricken families, and therefore the same situation would occur as if he did see the art. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that art cannot be held responsible for the inaction of its audience. Does simply encountering something in real life give you its "truth"? Let's say I've never seen a dog before in my life, only pictures of them. I then encounter a dog and it happens to be missing a leg and eye. If encountering the subject in real life gives you its truth, it would be reasonable to conclude that dogs are actually three-legged and one-eyed, and that all the pictures I'd seen were idealized. Or perhaps a flower with # of petals would be better example. Well the truth you would find is that not all dogs have 4 legs and 2 eyes. If you look at a bunch of photographs of happy looking children and then see an unhappy one in real life, the truth you would find is that not all children are happy. It would be silly to see an unhappy child and assume that all are unhappy and that the pictures of them are all idealized. If you want to jump to that conclusion then that's your own fault.
As for whether or not gratification and reassurance are goals of art, it depends on who you ask. Some artists would say that art should never be used for those goals. At the very least we can say that not all art should have those goals, right? Like maybe some art does, but in order to be art, it is not necessary to have those goals. And in that case, the statement "any art that isn't sentimental must be flawed" can't really be true. But in the end it doesn't matter either way. The flaw in sentimentality is the false coloring. The goals of the false coloring are how we distinguish sentimentality from other forms of inaccuracy. That's why your photograph example doesn't really work. A photograph may be imperfect, but as long as those imperfections don't have the goal of gratification or reassurance, it's not sentimental.
|
I think this attack on sentimentality is, whatever its merits, ill-placed, considering all the other problems present in writing. This exaggerated sentience is if anything a reflection of our own emotive capacities. What is clear is we can no longer have the kind of personal reverence for the fictitious as had been available in the more poetic ages. In ancient times, the Greek rhapsodic reciting Homer, would regularly fall into violent convulsions, while the Celtic and Teutonic bards exercised an almost shamanistic influence over their communities. Even in Mark Twain's day, we had his accounts of the Burghesses of Bavaria drift into a flood of tears through a performance of Wagner. Given the deterioration of common sensitivities, I would not worry too much about the flourishes of artistic falsehood.
|
On July 08 2013 05:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: I think this attack on sentimentality is, whatever its merits, ill-placed, considering all the other problems present in writing. This exaggerated sentience is if anything a reflection of our own emotive capacities. What is clear is we can no longer have the kind of personal reverence for the fictitious as had been available in the more poetic ages. In ancient times, the Greek rhapsodic reciting Homer, would regularly fall into violent convulsions, while the Celtic and Teutonic bards exercised an almost shamanistic influence over their communities. Even in Mark Twain's day, we had his accounts of the Burghesses of Bavaria drift into a flood of tears through a performance of Wagner. Given the deterioration of common sensitivities, I would not worry too much about the flourishes of artistic falsehood. Yeah, I mean, look at the painting that I added to my OP at the end. Does that seem like a flawed work to you? Would you say its sentimental nature detracts from its value as a work of art? I don't think so.
|
On July 08 2013 06:09 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 05:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: I think this attack on sentimentality is, whatever its merits, ill-placed, considering all the other problems present in writing. This exaggerated sentience is if anything a reflection of our own emotive capacities. What is clear is we can no longer have the kind of personal reverence for the fictitious as had been available in the more poetic ages. In ancient times, the Greek rhapsodic reciting Homer, would regularly fall into violent convulsions, while the Celtic and Teutonic bards exercised an almost shamanistic influence over their communities. Even in Mark Twain's day, we had his accounts of the Burghesses of Bavaria drift into a flood of tears through a performance of Wagner. Given the deterioration of common sensitivities, I would not worry too much about the flourishes of artistic falsehood. Yeah, I mean, look at the painting that I added to my OP at the end. Does that seem like a flawed work to you? Would you say its sentimental nature detracts from its value as a work of art? I don't think so.
I don't know that it's flawed, but it doesn't excite me. I confess to having a very crippled suite of aesthetic sensitivities myself, and my critical faculties are merely an iron crutch. If I can't grasp at meanings, symbolism or contexts, I have very little to say.
Earlier I might have fancied myself writing a novel some time in life, but now, reviewing all my own shortcomings, and recollecting everything I hate about modern literature, it's impossible not to come to the conclusion that it best be not attempted, for my own peace of mind.
|
On July 08 2013 06:46 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 06:09 MichaelDonovan wrote:On July 08 2013 05:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: I think this attack on sentimentality is, whatever its merits, ill-placed, considering all the other problems present in writing. This exaggerated sentience is if anything a reflection of our own emotive capacities. What is clear is we can no longer have the kind of personal reverence for the fictitious as had been available in the more poetic ages. In ancient times, the Greek rhapsodic reciting Homer, would regularly fall into violent convulsions, while the Celtic and Teutonic bards exercised an almost shamanistic influence over their communities. Even in Mark Twain's day, we had his accounts of the Burghesses of Bavaria drift into a flood of tears through a performance of Wagner. Given the deterioration of common sensitivities, I would not worry too much about the flourishes of artistic falsehood. Yeah, I mean, look at the painting that I added to my OP at the end. Does that seem like a flawed work to you? Would you say its sentimental nature detracts from its value as a work of art? I don't think so. I don't know that it's flawed, but it doesn't excite me. I confess to having a very crippled suite of aesthetic sensitivities myself, and my critical faculties are merely an iron crutch. If I can't grasp at meanings, symbolism or contexts, I have very little to say. Earlier I might have fancied myself writing a novel some time in life, but now, reviewing all my own shortcomings, and recollecting everything I hate about modern literature, it's impossible not to come to the conclusion that it best be not attempted, for my own peace of mind. Why not write a novel which breaks away from all the things you hate about modern literature? Shortcomings can be mended, after all. It's not even necessary to publish it or let others even read it if you just want to write a novel for yourself.
|
Because skill in any art cannot be reached by trying to avoid landmines. Many admirable writers have many weird, idiosyncratic, almost embarrassing traits in them. On the other hand, the critic's faculties for observing error and fault rarely lend themselves to the qualities of a superb performer. It is very rare that ages which have a strong theory of art, produce any good art themselves.
In my view, if you cannot write eloquently "from the gut," if you do not have this native and irresistible impulse to wield your pen, that's when art becomes reduced to...well, an art.
|
On July 08 2013 08:57 MoltkeWarding wrote: Because skill in any art cannot be reached by trying to avoid landmines. Many admirable writers have many weird, idiosyncratic, almost embarrassing traits in them. On the other hand, the critic's faculties for observing error and fault rarely lend themselves to the qualities of a superb performer. It is very rare that ages which have a strong theory of art, produce any good art themselves.
In my view, if you cannot write eloquently "from the gut," if you do not have this native and irresistible impulse to wield your pen, that's when art becomes reduced to...well, an art. Fair enough. I'm sure you've put a great deal of thought into this. I just hate to see people hold back from doing what they want in life.
|
|
|
|