The Tolkien Template - Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Ai! Ai! Cut off....I was censored by Morgoth no doubt. *sigh* I will attempt what Feanor could not and remake my argument. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

My question, then, is this: what do you mean when you say that "the quality of Michelangelo's perspective is probably better"? Clearly, you do not mean that Michelangelo's answer is closer to the truth, because you claim there is not objective truth. So in the absence of an objective truth, how do you define the "quality" of one's perspective? In what way can one view be better than another?

You are confusing two different things here. While there is no objective truth about art, there can be, in my most humble opinion, a somewhat objective truth about opinions on art. Michelangelo's opinion would carry more weight because of his awareness in the art form. He achieved this awareness by his experiance, etc etc. My truck driver's highest achievement in art is a sign he made for the Redskins game that said "THE HOGS RULE". No doubt there are truck drivers that are well versed in art, but for argument's sake mine isn't. Surely you can see the point I am trying to make. Each person's opinion is sovreign for themselves as to what they think is good or bad in art, literature, etc. But when comparing one opinion to another, there are things a person could look at to see which they might lend more weight to. Mike's arguments may sway me more than the truck driver's.

Note: I would add that the published author also has superior writing skills, but if you insist that there is no objective measure of the quality of art, then "superior writing skills" is placed in the same situation as a "better" view).

There are obective portions to writing: grammer, spelling, and punctuation. For non-fiction I would add content. For fiction content = the story, the part that is the artwork of the author. We are, of course, talking about the story portion right now, the part that we have agreed is for the purpose of entertainment. (I don't really like where this is taking me but I press on.) Using Jordan as example -again only because I have seen him vilified in the Downs- he has entertained tens of thousands of people. I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses. I do not advocate that anyone abandon thinking for themselves, but it does make some sense.

But if you assign any value to this, then you are essentially saying that popularity is what determines how good a work of art is.

It sounds crazy to me too. More precisely I am saying given the absence of objective truth about a given work of fantasy fiction, the closest thing may be the aggregate subjective view of those who have read it.

Still, this is a whole lot of nothing. The "aggregate view" is meaningless next to your own educated opinion. To be educated in a work of fantasy fiction you must, at the least, read it. So my argument comes full circle: keep an open mind and go read stuff even if you think Tolkien right now sits at the right hand of God as the Muse of Fantasy and no one will ever measure up to him. To quote my earlier post:

At the bottom line openmindedness is the point of my argument. There is worthwhile material in the fantasy genre that does not have Tolkien's name on it. Today's authors do not deserve to be so harshly critisized for being influenced by the father of the modern incarnation of their art form.

From the Silver-Shod Muse:

The thing to do when you’re filled to the brim with the Tolkien Influence is to go to his sources and generate your own creations. Norse mythology isn’t a bad place to start at all. Really, any mythology is great. It is in mythology that one finds the beginnings of the Truth that makes brilliant fantasy.

I completely agree with this. Add to that going to the Tokien mythology, for isn't that what he was trying to make, a mythology belonging to Britain? For us today, Tolkien is part of the mythology we would use as source material.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Aiwendil]

You are confusing two different things here. While there is no objective truth about art, there can be, in my most humble opinion, a somewhat objective truth about opinions on art.

I see. Your claim, then, is that I have confounded the quality of art with the quality of one's opinion regarding art. The former, you say, is entirely subjective, the latter "somewhat objective". "Somewhat objective" is, however, a very vague and slippery term. I will not say that it has no meaning (I think it has), but I don't think it can be applied very well to a person's opinions about art. You are willing to say that Michelangelo's opinions are objectively better than the truck driver's (without the qualifier of "somewhat"). It therefore seems to me that your position is that opinions about art can be objective. I don't see where the "somewhat" comes in, or even what "somewhat objective" might mean in this case.

I'm also still not satisfied with your definition of "better" when it comes to people's opinions. You say that:

Michelangelo's opinion would carry more weight because of his awareness in the art form. He achieved this awareness by his experiance, etc etc.

By what standard is Michelangelo's opinion better (or does it "carry more weight") than the truck driver's? It is clearly not that Michelangelo knows what good art is any better than the truck driver (because in your formulation, there is no such thing, objectively). If I am interpreting you correctly, your answer is along these lines: that Michelangelo's view is superior because he has given more thought to art, or has had more experience with it, etc. However, without an objective standard, what use are thought or experience? If the truck driver can produce a work of art that is objectively equal to Michelangelo's (because there is no objective value at all), why does it matter that Michelangelo has given it more thought or had more experience? How can objective value derive from consideration of, or experience with, purely subjective things? We can take this one step further: suppose the truck driver has produced dozens, even hundreds of these signs for Redskins games. Suppose they are typical of such things. Suppose they are not the sort of pieces that might end up in a museum. Suppose, even, that they are crude and vulgar (note: I have nothing against truck drivers, and am merely taking this example to an extreme). Suppose that this truck driver has spent as much time on these signs as Michelangelo did on his works. The truck driver's opinion is that is that his signs are better than, say, "David". Michelangelo disagrees. Now, if awareness, experience, and the like are what determines the quality of an opinion, we must consider the two evenly matched. The (I admit, increasingly hypothetical) truck driver is supremely aware of his own art form. He has had an immense amount of experience with it. He has thought about it constantly, on his long cross-country trips. His opinion must be as good as Michelangelo's, following your criteria. Or: suppose we compare this fellow to Leonardo da Vinci. Now, Leonardo spent a great deal of time on artistic endeavours, but he also devoted much of his attention to other things - science, invention, etc. It is reasonable to stipulate that the truck driver has devoted more time to his "art" than Leonardo has to his. In this case, the truck driver's opinion must be better than Leonardo's.

There are obective portions to writing: grammer, spelling, and punctuation. For non-fiction I would add content. For fiction content = the story, the part that is the artwork of the author.

Unless, however, you are willing to say that the quality of a piece of writing is a function primarily of grammar and the like, the point is moot. The art, as you say, lies not mainly in these, but in the story (and I would add style, characterization, etc.).

I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses.

I don't like this conclusion very much either, but I think it is whither your line of reasoning leads, unless you abolish objectivity altogether (which I don't think you really have).

To be educated in a work of fantasy fiction you must, at the least, read it. So my argument comes full circle: keep an open mind and go read stuff even if you think Tolkien right now sits at the right hand of God as the Muse of Fantasy and no one will ever measure up to him.

There is a big difference between reading something and liking it. I think that the majority of people who speak ill of Robert Jordan have read him, with, I hope, an open mind; indeed it seems likely that this experience is the foundation of their dislike for him.

I do agree that an open mind should be maintained. If, however, you have experienced a work of art and hold a negative view of it, there is nothing wrong in saying so. Note that I have nothing particularly against modern fantasy authors; while I think that none of them comes close to Tolkien, I have actually enjoyed Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan.

[Cúdae]

I think it's a question of whether an individual in our "instant" society is motivated to invest the toil and effort to produce a work as brilliant as LOTR, not whether anyone alive not is capable of it.

Very, very good point Greyhavener! Unfortunately, you are all too correct. Many people do not want to put the time and the blood, sweat, and tears into something to make it worthwhile and amazing. Even in simple things, like homework for instance, some people do not want to put effort into it because "it takes too long." Personally, when people say something like that to me, I get very agitated with them. I have little patience for people who think that everything must be done quickly. I will admit that I like things to go quickly, but I do not like it at all when people will not put time and effort into things that require time and effort.

In the world today, there is a huge number of people who are wonderful writers. They could be the next Poe, the next Shakepeare, or the next Tolkien. But a vast majority of them want to get "out there" and "make a name" for themselves. They have the abilities to create something wonderful, but they do not have the patience to work at it for umpteen years. So maybe all this "instant" stuff is a good thing, but if it is affecting us-- all of us-- to the point where we cannot even think about working at something for sixty years, then maybe it isn't so great as it is made out to be. Just a thought.

On the discussion of whose opinion is better: Michelanglo's (sp?) or the truck driver's, I would say neither. A person must, as a person, decide upon what they think themselves. They might be influenced by the opinion of Michelanglo--but what if they have never heard of Michelanglo? Then how would one's opinion be influenced? If someone knows little about art, he may be inclined to agree with Michelanglo out of trust in a famed artist's ideas. Or he may go with the truck driver's ideas because he can relate to a common man better.

And for those people appalled by my school board: They have read Tolkien, which prompted them to ban all his works from school grounds. I have recently found out that they plan to cut Latin next year. Wonderful, is it not, that so many of the programs that promote knowledge of kinds other than computers, math, and science are demolished today because of our technological society?

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I knew I was going to get in trouble by saying “somewhat”. Cudae deftly stated what I had in mind when I made that qualifier:

If someone knows little about art, he may be inclined to agree with Michelanglo out of trust in a famed artist's ideas. Or he may go with the truck driver's ideas because he can relate to a common man better.

The call on which opinion weighs more lies with the individual. I said “somewhat” because different people will value different things. It may not matter to someone that Michelangelo was steeped in art for his lifetime. I am not saying Mike’s opinion is better in the sense that it is closer to an objective truth. I am saying better in the sense that it was created from better origins. The construction of Mike’s opinion came out of his awareness, which in the subject of art, is greater than the truck driver’s. Who would honestly say they would ever weigh the truck drivers opinion on art above Michelangelo's?

However, without an objective standard, what use are thought or experience?

Thought and experience are what an opinion is made of. In this instance I take experience to mean “to interact with”. A person experiences a work of art by seeing it or reading it or whatever, thinks about it, and forms an opinion. Maybe that person turns to sources with opinions he/she considers to have authority on the subject in order to help form an opinion, or maybe they don’t. Opinions are formed without objective standards all the time.

“What’s your favorite color?”
“Blue.”
“Why?”
“Uh…….”

How about we turn this around? You demostrate to me how art is objective.

Cudae, that all sounds pretty horrible. Am I right in guessing you go to a private school? I think it is important to experience works of art and literature that a person doesn’t like or disagrees with just as much as ones they do like. The more exposure a person gets the more aware they become, and the better (I use that words just to twit Aiwendil [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) formed their opinions are.

There is a big difference between reading something and liking it. I think that the majority of people who speak ill of Robert Jordan have read him, with, I hope, an open mind; indeed it seems likely that this experience is the foundation of their dislike for him.

Of course, I agree with the difference and I also think you are probably right about the Barrow-Downers who do not like Jordan. There are a lot of well formed opinions in here. But I think saying "I don't like Jordan's work" and saying "Jordan is a bad writer" are two different things.

I like Terry Brooks too, obvious Tolkien influence and all. His earlier work though, not so much what he is turning out lately.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Aiwendil]

I know that I may seem to be picking at insignificant points and generally being quarrelsome. I can't help it; it's my nature. I think I understand what you're saying, and I am actually in agreement with your main original point: open-mindedness. Nonetheless, I still disagree with most of your general discussion of art. Forgive me if I seem over-contentious.

The call on which opinion weighs more lies with the individual. I said “somewhat” because different people will value different things.

Very well. However, I don't think that what you've just described is really objective at all. It seems to me to be entirely subjective, based on which "different things" the "different people" value. One's opinion is then only "better" with regard to another individual; it is not universally better. If you want to elevate that diverse subjectivity of opinion into an objectivity (which I'm not sure whether you want to do), the only way to do it is to say that the popularity of an opinion makes it better.

I am saying better in the sense that it was created from better origins.

Now you revert to the objective language. As you may have guessed, I take issue with your term "better origins". Better how? This language seems to be inconsistent with what you said before, that "different people will value different things" - unless you ammend it to ". . . it was created from origins that the individual in question values more" (because the same opinion can be valued differently by different people).

Of course, the upshot of this is that if I don't value Robert Jordan's opinion, then, to me, my opinion is superior to his.

Who would honestly say they would ever weigh the truck drivers opinion on art above Michelangelo's?

Well, you get this extreme result only because you've taken an extreme example. It's not inconceivable that a person could value the truck driver's opinion more. Certainly if we take a less extreme example, like Robert Jordan vs. an average nerd, there are people who would value the latter's opinion more.

Thought and experience are what an opinion is made of.

Yes, but if there is no objective value to art, why are thought and experience objectively valuable in judging art?

And you still haven't responded to my hypothetical scenario - the truck driver who spends all his time on crude and vulgar signs. What would your analysis of his opinion be?

How about we turn this around? You demostrate to me how art is objective.

I don't know that I can. I don't have a proof of art's objectivity from first principles. What I do have is a consistent theory of objective art. I think a consistent theory of subjective art is also possible, but I think that your formulation is inconsistent in that it mixes contradictory subjective and objective traits.

Actually, my belief about art is a little more complicated than simply saying that "art is objective". Obviously, art is not an inherent quality of the universe; it is on some level invented by humans. I would define art as aesthetic beauty, and beauty is (according to Aquinas) "that which pleases the senses" ("senses" here meaning "apprehension", not just the five physical senses). So on some very deep level, art is subjective. However, I think that there is a nearly objective implicit consensus on what is aesthetically pleasing. "Good" art is that which is the most aesthetically pleasing. However, there are other factors that interfere with a person's ability to assess the aesthetic beauty of a work of art. These are things like accessibility, reputation, and familiarity. These contribute likings or dislikings for works of art that are not based on aestheticism, and since these factors vary significantly from person to person, while aestheticism is nearly objective, they introduce an apparent subjectivity into considerations of the quality of art.

Just so that I don't appear hypocritical: by "nearly objective" I mean that the range of subjective aesthetic standards is extremely small. This is a postulate, and I of course cannot prove it.

But I think saying "I don't like Jordan's work" and saying "Jordan is a bad writer" are two different things.

According to your opinion, you would be compelled to say that the statement "Jordan is a bad writer" is meaningless. There's no such thing as one, in your view. Just as an exercise: would you accept the statement "I think that Jordan is a bad writer?" If so, I don't see how you can object to the voicing of that thought: "Jordan is a bad writer." The "I think" is necessarily implied, since I am the one that's speaking.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I think part of the problem here is my inability to adequately express my meaning, not an inordinately contentious attitude on your part.

You are right. What I say in describing a better opinion isn’t objective. But it does tie in to what I suggested may be the closest we can get to an objective truth about art. To quote myself:

I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses.

What the consensus view names a better opinion is perhaps as close as we can get to an objective view. You said something similar:

If you want to elevate that diverse subjectivity of opinion into an objectivity (which I'm not sure whether you want to do), the only way to do it is to say that the popularity of an opinion makes it better.

In the aggregate opinion, the individual personality disappears, eliminating subjective bias.

the truck driver who spends all his time on crude and vulgar signs. What would your analysis of his opinion be?

Now, if awareness, experience, and the like are what determines the quality of an opinion, we must consider the two evenly matched.

In your example I would not consider Michelangelo and the profane sign constructing truck driver evenly matched. In my subjective judgement of their opinions Michelangelo’s diversity of experience, as well as his universal acclaim would make me lend more credence to his thoughts on art. Let’s say you polled 100,000 people and the majority thought the same thing regarding Mike’s superiority in art matters. Within that subset of 100,000 people, the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view. Popularity rules. Makes me sick somehow. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] For art, I can deal with that though. If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art. If no one “votes” for it, it has failed to move anyone. Art that does not produce a reaction of some kind is pointless, yes? Well, no the art could still serve a purpose for the artist alone. Hmm……I can just see the whole can of worms opening up here.

. However, I think that there is a nearly objective implicit consensus on what is aesthetically pleasing.

Unless I misunderstand you, I am saying the same thing. I accept the word “nearly” because unless someone took the consensus of every human being on the earth whatever subset was sampled could have a described bias (cultural, regional, etc.).

According to your opinion, you would be compelled to say that the statement "Jordan is a bad writer" is meaningless.

Again, with the disclaimer that Jordan is our stand-in: “Jordan” = any one of many authors. The statement is not meaningless, but it is false. Jordan has entertained tens of thousands of people. If we used the group of people who read fantasy fiction in the United States to form a consensus, a lot of them are voting Jordan to be a good writer as reflected in how many books he sells. I hesitate to say the majority because I can’t back that up but I would guess it is true. In the search for an objective opinion on whether Jordan is a good writer, and accepting my idea that the consensus subjective view forms the nearest thing to an objective opinion, the result is that he is a good writer, regardless of whether I personally like his stuff or not (fact is, I don’t like some of his latest stuff much at all).

There is a subtle difference between stating the fact “Jordan is a bad writer”, and stating the opinion “ I think Jordan is a bad writer.” In reality, the second statement is saying, “Jordan’s work does not entertain me,” while the first is saying “Jordan’s fiction does not have the ability to entertain anyone”.

I challenged you to convince me that art is objective because I think it is an impossible task……and I would like to find out if it really is impossible. This just came to mind…..the only way I can see art being objective is if it is inherent to the universe. The way it could be inherent is if the Universe has a Creator and that Creator imbued the creation with His/Her own sensibilities in the realm of art. I do personally believe in God, so I guess from that standpoint I’d be willing to accept that an objective truth for art does exist.

While it may exist, what does that mean in practical terms for us? If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist. Perhaps the way in which the objective standard is revealed is in the collective consensus view.

[Kalessin]

An interesting exchange [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ... on a subject which has inescapably philosophical resonance - regarding the attempt to quantify external or objective truth, from Platonic essences to Cartesian dualism, and so on.

Keneldil, you said -

In my subjective judgement of their opinions Michelangelo’s diversity of experience, as well as his universal acclaim would make me lend more credence to his thoughts on art.

Let’s say you polled 100,000 people and the majority thought the same thing regarding Mike’s superiority in art matters. Within that subset of 100,000 people, the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view.

Popularity rules. Makes me sick somehow. For art, I can deal with that though. If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art. If no one “votes” for it, it has failed to move anyone. Art that does not produce a reaction of some kind is pointless, yes? Well, no the art could still serve a purpose for the artist alone. Hmm……

Your first point is accepted. We are always entitled to choose who and what to believe (or not), simply because we are always in a position to do so.

But I can't help feeling that "the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view" is neither an a priori, inherently self-evident statement OR an a posteriori statement that can be verified by experience, observation or reference to the outside world.

Why does the collective subjective view necessarily become an objective consensus? If 10,000 people say that day is night and 10,000 people say that night is day, does that mean there are two equally valid objective "consensuses" (or consensii, or consensae etc. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img])?. Or if 10,000 say that God is female and 3 say that God is male, is the female assertion automatically an objective consensus?

"Popularity = Good"? Well, good is, in a precise sense a 'moral' term, and subject to relativism wherever it is used. An efficient machine-gun might be described as 'good' ... it's normally only the judgement as to why something is or is not good that allows one to agree or otherwise. If quality is simply a synonym for popularity, then 'good' is actually an unnecessary term.

Surely the real point is that, whether by way of human psychology, or some other factor/s, we are at least predisposed to attempt to rationalise our own intuitions or sympathies into something that we feel has external validity, hence the irreconcilable polarities of critical opinion. Why does this happen? Hume, for one, postulated that we can't empirically prove that the moon will still be up there tomorrow, but we inevitably turn observed conjunction into expectation, assumption, and a collective acceptance of the uniformity of nature.

The attempt to assert objectivity in art criticism is as much part of human nature, and yet the notion that popularity is an indication of quality is not meaningful. To measure aesthetic quality requires aesthetics. To assert beauty requires a conception of beauty. There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

I'm probably being pompous and pedantic (hmm, I think so), but as an old-school romantic idealist I am determined to confront the utilitarian principle as an affront to the incalculably diverse and meaningful expression of humanity that we call art! Nothing pompous (or even grammatical) about that, huh [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

You also said ...

If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist

This is perhaps a kind of existentialist viewpoint, but the argument itself doesn't really follow - just because it's impossible for us to discern an objective truth, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or should be discounted. Mediaeval surgeons may have been unable to discern genes, but we would not say genes did not exist, nor that (in hindsight) genes did not have practical significance or effect despite the absence of knowledge.

Where I agree with you wholeheartedly is that it is probably impossible for two views passionately held in opposition to each other to be reconciled by reference to qualitative terms that can be applied equally by both arguments! I could say that John Coltrane's melodies were subtle, polyrhythmic and suffused with spiritual intent, and that this is why his works are masterpieces, and you could say that Mozart's compositions were the same, only more so [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] and so on.

But ... we can change our minds!!! Finally, a Tolkien reference [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] - I waded through about half of Lord of the Rings when I was in my teens, and found it tiresome, dreary and uninspiring. At that time I was a passionate lover of fantasy and science fiction, and a voracious reader of a range of literature. Yet I re-discovered Tolkien a few years ago and found the work gripping and powerful. Did objective truth change? By definition, not at all. Was Tolkien more popular, and therefore better, when I picked him up recently? Probably not. But I had changed, and have and do accept that such changes are always possible and indeed inevitable.

Thanks again, Keneldil, for such thought-provoking and articulate posts on this topic. And apologies to Aiwendil for succumbing to temptation, I fear we will soon be knee deep in irreconcilable argument again [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img].

Peace.

Kalessin

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I appreciate your kind words. I will try to clarify my point, if I can.

Why does the collective subjective view necessarily become an objective consensus? If 10,000 people say that day is night and 10,000 people say that night is day, does that mean there are two equally valid objective "consensuses" (or consensii, or consensae etc. )?. Or if 10,000 say that God is female and 3 say that God is male, is the female assertion automatically an objective consensus?

My ideas have been oriented toward art throughout this discussion. I did not give any thought to how they might apply outside that territory. Tunnel vision perhaps, but not necessarily damaging to my argument.

While I appreciate the examples, I question their relevance. Day and night are definitive (simplifying it to light=day, dark=night, ignoring dawn and dusk). They are objectively described. It is not a matter of opinion. As to the question of God’s gender, some would argue that is also not a matter of opinion. Those who accept the Bible as definitive have their proof. Those who do not accept the Bible as proof could be said to have a different God, and therefore comparison is apples and oranges. Still, I see the point you are trying to make. Problem is, I don’t think you can make it using issues that are subjective, as art is.

In art (setting aside for now my “standards imbued by a Creator” idea) we have something that I argue is subjective. My statement about the collective subjective view was perhaps it is the closest we can get to an objective standard for art, not that it formed a purely objective truth. I do not know how to more clearly state this point:

In the aggregate opinion, the individual personality disappears, eliminating subjective bias.

The attempt to assert objectivity in art criticism is as much part of human nature, and yet the notion that popularity is an indication of quality is not meaningful. To measure aesthetic quality requires aesthetics. To assert beauty requires a conception of beauty. There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

I wish this were true. I fear you give human beings more credit for being free thinkers than we deserve. Advertising works precisely because what you are saying is false. What is popularly seen as beautiful does indeed come to define beauty. Popularity provides the concept of beauty that gets asserted (to pirate your sentence). This is somewhat of a tangent however. I think the word “beauty” inadvertently crept into this discussion. “Beauty” is an even more subjective term than “good”. A work of art may not be seen as beautiful, and yet still be considered a good, perhaps for it’s ability to evoke emotion, etc.

You say the attempt to place objectivity (truth) in art is human nature (I agree- emphasizing “attempt" ). To place an idea as objective truth is to say it works for everyone, just like 2+2 is 4 for everyone. If it is works for everyone, is it not popular? Popularity is the only indication of quality in art that can exist outside the individual in some semblance of objective form.

Looks like I talked myself out of thinking art is purely subjective. The subjective turned objective view, or whatever you want to call it, operates at the group level. I could make this post even longer talking about how the group in turn affects the individual, but I’ve wasted enough of your time already. I don’t usually engage in this sort of hair splitting, even though it is fun. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

This might be the worst kind of hair splitting because I don't know that I am trying to prove anything worthwhile. People should try to resist the influence of the group opinion and truly decide for themselves, impossible though that may be.

EDIT: Seems like I can never make a post without having to edit it at least one time.
[img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

We seem to have two discussions running here. Please excuse me for coming into the middle of this and referring back to Littlemanpoet, Greyhavener and Cudae's posts.

I agree with Greyhavener and Cudae. It is as much a matter of will and perspective as access to knowledge. Yes, education is certainly more widespread than ever. My father was a factory worker in Detroit, and I went on to scramble my way through to a doctorate in history. But I still have reservations about the kind of education that is accessible to us today. Cudae has made this point better than I ever could:

Wonderful, is it not, that so many of the programs that promote knowledge of kinds other than computers, math, and science are demolished today because of our technological society?

Littlemanpoet, I think I have strong personal feelings about this because I was on the losing end of battles in both history departments and library book funding committees when I tried to protect the scanty funds earmarked for humanities and the classics, only to see them siphoned off into projects of dubious benefit whose only advantage was that of being glitzy and 'modern."

[Cúdae]

I believe I have found one truth of all art of all kinds: Art must cause the an opinion in the onlooker, reader, etc.

I would like to see if anyone thinks this entirely true or entirely wrong or somewhere in between. I was reading someone's post up there (I think it was Kalessin's) and it just seemed to suddenly make sense. What do you think of it?

[littlemanpoet]

Sharon, I understand and sympathize with you. If only there was a way to curb the power of the market forces at work in all this, but we live in the country we live in, and the student-product is the all-important commodity in today's people-market. Talk about an impersonal machine! As true as this is, I still think that someone may come who can surpass Tolkien while being indebted to him.

Cudae: I suggest replacing the word "opinion" with "reaction" - that reaction may be reflection, it may be purchase, it may be the forming of an opinion, or it may be an attempt at art. I suppose I can't deny that everyone will probably have an opinion about a given work of art, and to that extent I suppose you're right, but I think there's more to it than that, I guess.

[Aiwendil]

Keneldil:

What the consensus view names a better opinion is perhaps as close as we can get to an objective view.

Okay. That I can accept as a self-consistent and workable view of things, even if I disagree with it.

In the aggregate opinion, the individual personality disappears, eliminating subjective bias.

Does it? I think there is an important but subtle distinction to be made here. You can on the one hand say that the aggregate opinion constitutes a nearly objective standard of art, and then impose that standard on individual subjectivity. In that case your original individual subjectivity more or less disappears, surviving only insofar as it affects the aggregate opinion. Or you can merely say that the aggregate opinion is simply a matter of the popularity of certain subjective opinions. In the first case, you essentially have an objective standard of art, and it makes sense to say that Michelangelo's opinion is better than the truck driver's (because it is closer to the aggregate opinion); but you must also acknowledge that one work can be better than another. In the second, you would have to admit that Michelangelo's opinion is no better - simply more popular; but you would also get the result that it is meaningless to say that one work is better than another.

I agree with neither of these views, but either one constitutes, I think, a cohesive theory. An amalgamation of them in which you can call one person's opinion 'better' but you cannot call any work of art better than any other is, I think, not a cohesive theory.

In my subjective judgement of their opinions Michelangelo’s diversity of experience, as well as his universal acclaim would make me lend more credence to his thoughts on art.

Now we're talking about meta-subjectivity! It's interesting (and correct) that you call your judgement of the two opinions subjective. So you might value Michelangelo's opinion more, but does that make it better or only better to you? Of course, on the meta-level, we have all the same questions we have on the base level: is there an aggregate opinion regarding Michelangelo's opinion? If so, does the popularity of his opinion make it better (in a manner analogous to the popularity of a work of art making it better)? Etc.

If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art.

Your realize, I hope, that this criterion necessarily leads to the conclusion that, say, Britney Spears is better than Mozart. I personally find that conclusion to be quite unacceptable.

Unless I misunderstand you, I am saying the same thing.

I think our difference lies here: I called the concensus "implicit". You, I think, would call it "explicit". That is, if I understand you correctly, you would say that the quality of a work of art translates directly or nearly directly into how many people favor or would "vote" for it. The near concensus lies here (though I would point out that there seems to be anything but a near concensus in terms of what is good). In my view, there are factors that interfere with a person's opinion between the state of inherent concensus on what is aesthetically pleasing and the actual expression of the person's views. For example, there are many who like various modern pop singers due to the image associated with those people rather than due to a pure aesthetic appreciation of the music. My contention is that if all such factors - a work's or artist's image, reputation, accessibility, etc. - were stripped away, then there would be something close to a concensus. Of course, this cannot actually be done, which makes the near-objective standard of art very difficult to actually articulate.

The statement ["Jordan is a bad writer"] is not meaningless, but it is false.

First, note that the statement you just made is equivelant to saying "Jordan is not a bad writer". So the nature of the statement "X is a bad A" is such that the negation of the statement is equivelant to "X is a good [= not bad] A"; merely the opposite opinion. So literally, the content of your above statement is that Robert Jordan is a good writer. Second, you're statement forces you into the position that popularity is what determines an objective standard of art. If you really believed that the quality of art is subjective, you would not be able to say that such a statement, a mere statement of an individual's opinion, is false.

Things make a bit less sense when we substitute "any writer" for Robert Jordan (though indeed that was the initial meaning). Would you say that any statement "X is a bad writer" is false? If so, you are merely saying either that all writers are good or that "good" and "bad" cannot be used to describe writers at all. Perhaps that last is what you mean; I suppose that would be workable. But I don't think that's what you mean, because later you indeed say that Jordan is a good writer.

There is a subtle difference between stating the fact “Jordan is a bad writer”, and stating the opinion “ I think Jordan is a bad writer.”

I simply don't see how this could be. If I make any statement of fact, it seems to me that that is equivelant to my stating that I think that fact is true. If I say "Jordan is a good writer" that must mean that I think Jordan is a good writer, unless I am lying.

Perhaps you mean to make this distinction: on the one hand one can say "X is a good writer"; on the other hand you can say "the writing of X pleases me". I don't think this distinction is valid either, to tell you the truth, but I can see how you could arrive at it if you believe that the objective standard of art is popularity.

This just came to mind…..the only way I can see art being objective is if it is inherent to the universe.

Well, I don't think that art is inherent in the universe. I think it is a concept invented by humans. But, then, as I said before, I don't think that art is literally objective - I think that there is a nearly objective implicit concensus on what is aesthetically pleasing. That shifts the question from a physical one to a psychological/neurological one. I think that humans are similar enough that what is aesthetically pleasing to one, once all interfering factors are removed, will be aesthetically pleasing to another.

Kalessin:
So, we meet again. Actually, though, I think I agree with you on several points in this discussion. Anyway:

But I can't help feeling that "the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view" is neither an a priori, inherently self-evident statement OR an a posteriori statement that can be verified by experience, observation or reference to the outside world.

I sort of agree. "Sort of" in that I think the collective subjective opinion does constitute an objective standard - but it's an arbitrary objective standard. We could create an objective standard in which the quality of a work of art is proportional to the number of letters in its title. This would be a completely workable standard, but it would of course be absurd.

If 10,000 people say that day is night and 10,000 people say that night is day, does that mean there are two equally valid objective "consensuses"

In such a case, no one would suggest that the concensus view is the objective truth - the objective truth is that which is obtained through observation, clarity of syntax, etc.; when it comes to art, such tools do not avail us. Nevertheless, your example points to an important fact: in any evaluation, there is the possibility of error. So if we say that quality is indicated by popularity, we must mean that it is not the actual attributes of the work of art that determine the quality - otherwise, we would need to take some account of the error that people can make in assessing that quality.

Well, good is, in a precise sense a 'moral' term

I disagree. Surely there are two definitions of good - there is the moral good and there is the functional good. A machine gun that fails to work is functionally bad - but it may be morally good.

Surely the real point is that, whether by way of human psychology, or some other factor/s, we are at least predisposed to attempt to rationalise our own intuitions or sympathies into something that we feel has external validity

Is it? I think Keneldil and I would agree that there is no external objective standard for art - I acknowledge that art is a human invention. My contention is, rather, that as an invention it has a precise enough implicit definition that there is an objective standard.

There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

I agree.

I'm probably being pompous and pedantic

No need to apologize. I've been known to be pompous on occasion, and I actually take an almost perverse pleasure in pedantry.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is perhaps a kind of existentialist viewpoint, but the argument itself doesn't really follow

What you quoted from, I believe, Keneldil, is reminiscent of the uncertainty principle, and so it's a bit surprising that I disagree with it. But the fact that we do not know something does not mean that it does not exist. So I agree with Kalessin here.

But I had changed, and have and do accept that such changes are always possible and indeed inevitable.

In my language, the interfering factors surrounding your appreciation of Tolkien had altered (decreased, I should say!) and as a result your assessment of LotR's objective quality had changed. I know that this is not how you would put it.

Again Keneldil:

While I appreciate the examples, I question their relevance. Day and night are definitive

I agree. But, as I said above, I think that Kalessin's example does expose the possibility of error, which it seems needs addressing in your theory.

Those who do not accept the Bible as proof could be said to have a different God, and therefore comparison is apples and oranges

I don't think so. If they really had "a different God" that would mean that two Gods exist. What they have is a different opinion about God.

What is popularly seen as beautiful does indeed come to define beauty.

Does it? Can popularity really change the nature of beauty, or does it merely change what people believe beauty to be? Still, I take your point that popularity can be taken to constitute a conception of aesthetics.

A work of art may not be seen as beautiful, and yet still be considered a good, perhaps for it’s ability to evoke emotion, etc.

I disagree. Isn't the ability to evoke emotion part of beauty? I think perhaps that we have syntactical differences here in our definitions of beauty.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I think there is an important but subtle distinction to be made here. You can on the one hand say that the aggregate opinion constitutes a nearly objective standard of art, and then impose that standard on individual subjectivity. In that case your original individual subjectivity more or less disappears, surviving only insofar as it affects the aggregate opinion.

That is a very good point. I was struggling with that idea while writing my last post and couldn’t come up with a succinct way to say it. Thanks. Is it the death of subjectivity then? Hmm...perhaps so, but only a death so far as a “nearly” objective standard can kill it. Kind of a vicious circle: aggregate subjective opinion = quasi-objective opinion which in turn affects the individual subjective opinions, thereby abolishing pure subjectivity. My theory is starting to sound like sophistry, not sound reasoning.

The aggregate opinion is constantly changing. That doesn’t seem to lend itself to objectivity. In the Victorian era, portly women were considered the standard of beautiful for women. Obviously that is no longer the standard for beauty today.

So what do you get when you add a bunch of subjective opinions together then? Just an aggregate subjective opinion? Now we are back to no objectivity in art. Too bad you don’t want to argue for objectivity, might help clear this up some. I stated the individual personality disappears in the aggregate opinion. I can’t come up with anything wrong with that. If the individual personality disappears, doesn’t subjectivity disappear also, and leave objectivity of a sort?

Anyway, to other issues:

In the first case, you essentially have an objective standard of art, and it makes sense to say that Michelangelo's opinion is better than the truck driver's (because it is closer to the aggregate opinion); but you must also acknowledge that one work can be better than another

Better in terms of the group. As I have said, I think this semi objective thing operates only on the group level (which in turn operates on the individual...aaahh my head [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] ). At the individual level you are always going to find those who do not conform, and you cannot tell them that their opinion is not just as valid as anyone else’s, or any group’s for that matter. Kinda seems to make the whole thing moot doesn't it?

Now we're talking about meta-subjectivity! It's interesting (and correct) that you call your judgement of the two opinions subjective. So you might value Michelangelo's opinion more, but does that make it better or only better to you? Of course, on the meta-level, we have all the same questions we have on the base level: is there an aggregate opinion regarding Michelangelo's opinion? If so, does the popularity of his opinion make it better (in a manner analogous to the popularity of a work of art making it better)? Etc.

Meta-subjectivity...fabulous. The problems are consistent at each level. So to simplify perhaps we can do away with opinions, opinions on opinions, and go back to considering only art itself? As if that makes it any easier. The solution (if there is one) should lend itself to all levels.

Your realize, I hope, that this criterion necessarily leads to the conclusion that, say, Britney Spears is better than Mozart. I personally find that conclusion to be quite unacceptable.

That made me laugh out loud. Right there is enough to throw this whole thing in the trash. Way back when I fomented this mass of verbiage I said I didn’t like where it was going. There is something wrong with my premise.

There is an assumption made by the statement “individual personality disappears becoming an objective consensus.” It assumes that there will in fact be some kind of consensus. That must be false. If it were possible to poll all of humanity no doubt opinions would be scattered, presenting no majority. You could probably identify trends based on social, cultural, regional, etc. factors. Perhaps within those subsets some kind of group objectivity exists.

. If I make any statement of fact, it seems to me that that is equivelant to my stating that I think that fact is true

Thinking something is true and having it actually be true are two different things. Stating an opinion that is thought to be true is not the same as stating a fact. I guess my point in that section of my last post boiled down to this : how can someone say that a writer who has entertained (entertainment being the purpose of fiction) thousands of people is bad? A person could say “I don’t like his stuff,” and be fine. I’m saying a person cannot say “He is a bad writer,” and be making a legitimate, factual statement. There is proof to the contrary. There truly is a difference between saying “I THINK Author X is a bad writer,” and “Author X is a bad writer.” The difference is in putting forth the one as an opinion, and attempting to put forth the other as fact. When you say “2+2 = 4” you don’t say “I think 2+2=4.” Maybe I need to be slapped with the semantics stick here.

Well, I don't think that art is inherent in the universe.

This is a whole different can of worms. In order to accept my rudimentary idea (I haven’t thought much about it in order to flesh it out) you’d need to accept that the universe has a Creator. Without having that much common ground it would be impossible to convince each other of anything.

I think that humans are similar enough that what is aesthetically pleasing to one, once all interfering factors are removed, will be aesthetically pleasing to another.

Maybe that is what I have been trying to say all along. That idea would fit with my “inherent in the universe/ imbued by a Creator” idea.

There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

How does it not? I am forced to quote myself again:

I wish this were true. I fear you give human beings more credit for being free thinkers than we deserve. Advertising works precisely because what you are saying is false. What is popularly seen as beautiful does indeed come to define beauty. Popularity provides the concept of beauty that gets asserted

But the fact that we do not know something does not mean that it does not exist.

I went beyond simply not knowing. I said if the standard was impossible for us to discern then for all practical intents and purposes it does not exist. When I said “impossible to discern” I meant literally impossible. Not merely beyond our reach at the present time, as in Kalessin’s examples to the contrary.

I don't think so. If they really had "a different God" that would mean that two Gods exist. What they have is a different opinion about God.

Who’s to say two God’s don’t exist? No…I’m kidding, I’m not trying to start that argument up here. Within the framework of two people discussing that issue, there would need to be common ground to start from. If the Bible is accepted as that common ground, then the issue is concluded and is not a subjective point. If the Bible is not accepted, then basically the two people are talking about two separate concepts of God and are therefore arguing apples and oranges. My point in that part of my post was that Kalessin’s examples to the contrary were not truly subjective ones and therefore could not be used in comparison with the issue of art.

Can popularity really change the nature of beauty, or does it merely change what people believe beauty to be? Still, I take your point that popularity can be taken to constitute a conception of aesthetics.

What is beauty if not the conception of aesthetics? I reiterate my example way back at the beginning of this post of the Victorian standard for a beautiful woman.

[Cúdae]

littlemanpoet: I could replace "opinion" with "reaction" if that was what I wanted to say. But since that would form a different idea, I cannot.

I suppose I can't deny that everyone will probably have an opinion about a given work of art...

You can't deny it and that is exactly my point. An opinion could be so small, so slight, that it could easily be overlooked or mistaken as a reaction to something. In this case art is the "something." An opinion is what inspires the reaction to purchase, say, a print of a painting. An opinion is what causes the reflection. An ordinary person could read the Hobbit and hate it. But then he has reasons for hating it, whether he knows it or not. If he knows it, he has reflected on it. Maybe not reflected in the sense that he sat down and said to himself, "I hated this book because it did not capture my imagination, it bored me, it was too this, not too much that, etc..." But perhaps he quickly "reflected" on it and came up with, "This book was boring." Or, his subconscious reflected on it and backed up the opinion formed. He knows he doesn't like the book, he just cannot bring the reasons to mind.

You could argue that reflection is needed before opinion because one would need some type of basis for that opinion. But look at it this way, someone goes to an art museum and looks at a painting by van Gogh. Immediately, he dislikes it. He has not reflected on it yet, but his opinion is there. Again, you could argue this by throwing my own words back at me with the idea of "subconscious reflection." So, let's take another example. Someone looks at the same painting by van Gogh from down the hall and also dislikes it immediately. This person has not taken the time to walk up to the painting, as the other person obviously had. Therefore, the opinion probably came faster to this person than the other. I understand that you could argue this too, but I will present another idea.

Another idea is that opinion and "reflection" cannot exist without one another. In this idea, very fast subconscious "reflection" is needed. It presents the idea that reflection can come first or opinion can first. Or they can occur simultaneously.

Hopefully this has explained why I did not use "reaction" but chose "opinion" in my last post.

[Aiwendil]

The aggregate opinion is constantly changing. That doesn’t seem to lend itself to objectivity.

It could still constitute a time-dependent but otherwise objective opinion; but then you'd have to accept that it's possible for a good work of art to become bad. If you think, as I do, that the quality of a work of art is a characteristic of that work, then you cannot accept that a work could be good at one time and bad at another, without the work itself having changed at all. So popularity cannot then be the objective standard for the quality of art.

Too bad you don’t want to argue for objectivity, might help clear this up some.

Well, I've already sort of outlined my ideas. I have no hard proof that art is objective, but I could make an argument of sorts. First of all, I find a few things unacceptable:

1. That there is no such thing as a bad or good work of art.

2. That someone's professed liking of, for example, a modern pop singer over Mozart can make that pop singer's music better than Mozart's, even for that person.

3. That the quality of a work of art can depend on anything other than the characteristics of that work of art.

I cannot prove that these three things are not true; but I accept as axiomatic that they are false. This leads in a fairly straightforward manner to objectivity.

Another argument: it is possible to construct sophisticated models that describe art and then predict what will be pleasing and what will not. For example, traditional music theory predicts that, in general, ending a piece with a perfect cadence will be pleasing and ending with an imperfect cadence will not be - and it is correct. There are situations where ending with an imperfect cadence may be pleasing, but such instances are exceptions within the theory and predictable by the theory. The theory is not complete, of course, but it is succesful. The fact that objective theories can be set up to judge works of art I take as evidence that there is an objective standard of art (though a full description of it would be extremely complex).

I stated the individual personality disappears in the aggregate opinion.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that in formulating a popular standard, individual opinions tend to be negligible? If so, I don't see how that implies that the popular standard must be at all right.

Better in terms of the group. As I have said, I think this semi objective thing operates only on the group level

Okay. But the point is that you must accept the same level of objectivity for the quality of an individual's opinion as for the quality of a work of art. If A's opinion is better than B's and A favors work X while B favors work Y, it follows that work X is better than work Y. This is assuming for a moment that X and Y are the only works of art that exist; otherwise it gets a bit more complicated - but the point remains the same. Which is: you cannot say that there is objectivity of opinion but not of works of art, or vice versa.

At the individual level you are always going to find those who do not conform, and you cannot tell them that their opinion is not just as valid as anyone else’s, or any group’s for that matter. Kinda seems to make the whole thing moot doesn't it?

It makes the whole thing subjective, if you say that everyone's opinion is just as true.

The problems are consistent at each level. So to simplify perhaps we can do away with opinions, opinions on opinions, and go back to considering only art itself?

Agreed.

That made me laugh out loud. Right there is enough to throw this whole thing in the trash. Way back when I fomented this mass of verbiage I said I didn’t like where it was going. There is something wrong with my premise.

In my humble opinion, yes. I hope we can all accept the following axiom: Mozart is better than Britney Spears.

It assumes that there will in fact be some kind of consensus. That must be false. If it were possible to poll all of humanity no doubt opinions would be scattered, presenting no majority.

Well, you could still simply (in theory) integrate the subjective opinion of every human being concerning the quality of each work of art and get some answer. Then we'd have to invent popular aesthetic calculus as a branch of socio-mathematics (I guess we'd have to invent socio-mathematics too). But it could be done in theory. I think the problem with the theory is not merely one of measurement; I think it is deeper than that. Simply: I don't think that there is a direct relation between popularity and quality.

Thinking something is true and having it actually be true are two different things.

Yes, but we're not talking about things actually being true. If I say statement X, that doesn't necessarily mean that X is true. Anything that I say is only my best understanding of truth. If I say X, that is equivelant to my saying "I think X". It is not equivelant to X actually being true.

Stating an opinion that is thought to be true is not the same as stating a fact.

Isn't it? I don't see a distinction. If I say "Tolkien is a better writer than Jordan" I am stating an opinion, one that I believe to be true. If I say "The sun is yellow" I am also stating an opinion that I believe to be true. I am only quite a bit more sure about the latter (though I can never be absolutely sure about anything other than that I exist). Anything I say can automatically be prefaced by "I think that . . . " simply because I am the one that is saying it.

how can someone say that a writer who has entertained (entertainment being the purpose of fiction) thousands of people is bad?

Easily, unless that person believes that popularity constitutes an objective standard that then enforces itself upon individual opinions.

A person could say “I don’t like his stuff,” and be fine. I’m saying a person cannot say “He is a bad writer,” and be making a legitimate, factual statement.

The only difference between saying "I don't like his stuff" and saying "He is a bad writer" is that a person can be a good deal more sure about the former. Either one can be prefaced "I think that . . ."

When you say “2+2 = 4” you don’t say “I think 2+2=4.”

Essentially, you do. This is a simple example, so it's of course very, very unlikely that you are wrong. But the possibility exists. All you are really saying is that you think 2+2=4. That this is the case can be seen by considering that there is a near-continuum of complexity from such simple operations to things like surface integrals and differential equations. Clearly, when I give the solution to a complicated differential equation, I may be quite insecure about it being right. The insecurity is simply far less for simple arithmetic.

Note that none of this has much to do with actual fact. We have touched little or not at all upon the question of whether, for example, Robert Jordan is a bad writer. The question is whether it is valid to make such an evaluation.

This is a whole different can of worms. In order to accept my rudimentary idea (I haven’t thought much about it in order to flesh it out) you’d need to accept that the universe has a Creator. Without having that much common ground it would be impossible to convince each other of anything.

Agreed.

Maybe that is what I have been trying to say all along. That idea would fit with my “inherent in the universe/ imbued by a Creator” idea.

Hmm. Then has this whole discussion been pointless (it's been fun, at least)?

How does it not?

I think the burden of proof lies with you on this one. How does popularity automatically translate to quality?

I said if the standard was impossible for us to discern then for all practical intents and purposes it does not exist. When I said “impossible to discern” I meant literally impossible.

Something can be literally impossible to discern and still exist. For example, it is literally impossible for me to know the exact number of humans alive at any moment; first, there are huge numbers of people dying and being born all the time; second, I do not have the means to travel across the world counting people within a time frame that would provide anything like accuracy, nor the resources to persuade a sufficient number of other people to aid me. But at any given instant, there is a precise integral number of human beings alive; there is no quantum effect on such a scale (and even if there were, it is not the cause of my inability to know).

[littlemanpoet]

Cudae: You state your case well. Makes sense to me. I'm just as interested in the mind-grid a person brings to a work of art that leads to whatever opinion he/she makes of it. I know that I have given inadequate attention to some brilliant works of art because they didn't appeal to me personally, while other works, not brilliant, but not bad either, spoke to me; captured my imagination - they were able to link onto something already present in my mind-grid. So why am I interested in this? Perhaps it has something to do with why people can't get past Tolkien imitation?

[Cúdae]

littlemanpoet: I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by mind-gird, but I am guessing it is similiar to a frame of mind.

So why am I interested in this? Perhaps it has something to do with why people can't get past Tolkien imitation?

Maybe people cannot get past Tolkien imitation because they are expecting Tolkien imitation and therefore find or make the Tolkien imitation for themselves whether it exists of not. By find I mean that a reader could find clear Tolkien influence because he was looking for it or even if he was not looking for it and it suddenly occured to him. By make I mean that a reader who is expecting or looking for Tolkien imitation would be able to take a simple thing, a gold wedding ring for instance, and see it as an imitation. Whether the wedding ring was meant to be an imitation or was simply just background in a story doesn't matter. The reader who is expecting and/or looking for imitation will see it as just that.

An examply of this would be the first time I read the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander (for those who haven't read those books, there are Tolkien influences right down to the very ending, but with many original ideas of the author's own) I was not expecting any Tolkien imitation at all. And I didn't find any. Later, I reread the books expecting to find some Tolkien influenced elements. I found more than a few. When I didn't expect any, I didn't see any. When I did, I saw most of them.

[Kalessin]

Littlemanpoet - your insightful posts here lead me to wonder if we are trying to have it both ways when review the genre post-Tolkien? If a work is derivative or referential, we rightly criticise it as a pale imitation of the 'real thing' ... yet if a work does not follow the 'Tolkien template', we say it fails equally by not meeting the criteria of the master's work. Perhaps we are being a little possessive, or protective, or elitist ... bear in mind I speak as one who does NOT think LotR is the best book of the 20th century, for what it's worth, but I've been crucified elsewhere for that particular heresy [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. I know that you are passionate about writing, and a great encourager of aspiring writers ... but do you think we are making the mountain higher than it actually is?

Aiwendil, bearing in mind my inability to conclusively prove the existence of anyone else, I think that I can have a personal objective standard of art, and that any agreement (or convergence) with another is more a matter of luck than any insight into Platonic forms [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. Ok, I'm joking.

In your excellent post, you said -

Another argument: it is possible to construct sophisticated models that describe art and then predict what will be pleasing and what will not. For example, traditional music theory predicts that, in general, ending a piece with a perfect cadence will be pleasing and ending with an imperfect cadence will not be - and it is correct. There are situations where ending with an imperfect cadence may be pleasing, but such instances are exceptions within the theory and predictable by the theory. The theory is not complete, of course, but it is succesful. The fact that objective theories can be set up to judge works of art I take as evidence that there is an objective standard of art (though a full description of it would be extremely complex).

I am not so sure that a sophisticated model that predicts what will be pleasing or not is a good thing. It sounds to me as though the record company releasing music by Britney Spears is obviously in possession of such a thing. And I still haven't quite reconciled the semantics behind "I like something therefore it is good".

Your example of perfect cadence illustrates my point. Traditional music theory perhaps, but only in relation to the diatonic tradition. If you factor in musical theory appropriate to classical Indian raga, or African pentatonic composition, or Balinese gamelan, and so on ... which is more valid? I agree that the presence of form in all musics can be cited as evidence of at least a predisposition to the concept of aesthetic objectivity - but the diversity of those forms, and their equal theoretical depth and worth do not give us the security of a commonsense objectivity.

My feeling is more that we are in the grip of an exquisite contradiction. That music, and indeed all art, is recognisable and knowable through understanding or invocation of a universally comprehensible terminology (composition, counterpoint, harmony, rhythm and so on), yet our emotional experience is subject to a level of cultural, social and psychological variables that make it intensely personal (and thus unique). The terms in which we can describe and understand are indeed universal ... but our experience is not.

This may sound like a reduction to subjectivity, but that is not my intention. I believe that aesthetic theory is worthwhile, but that the worth of art is a reflection of the intent, content AND the experience of the audience. If I prefer Steve Reich to Mozart, it need not mean that I necessarily think Mozart is a worse composer, nor equally that my understanding of aesthetics is flawed. The line of absolute external objectivity in art is one where you end up painting yourself into a corner, and saying "well, because this (let's say Britney) meets the precise set of laws required to be good, I am compelled to like it. If I do not like it then it does not meet those laws. If you prefer something else (say, Wagner) you are wrong, because only I truly understand the laws and the proof of that is that I do not prefer Wagner to Britney".

The lack of such external validation, in the presence of universal contingents, as always presents a certain irreconcilable tension. I contend as ever that such dichotomies are inherent in the human condition, of which art is such a fluent manifestation.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[Aiwendil]

Looks like it's going to be "The Nature of Art: Aiwendil vs. Kalessin, part III".

Anyway:

I am not so sure that a sophisticated model that predicts what will be pleasing or not is a good thing.

Surely the question is not whether it is a good thing; it is whether it can exist.

It sounds to me as though the record company releasing music by Britney Spears is obviously in possession of such a thing.

This is completely different. The model of "art" that they possess does not predict what will be good art; it predicts what will be popular. There is no reason to assume that what is popular is good, and I have never done so.

And I still haven't quite reconciled the semantics behind "I like something therefore it is good".

I've never said "I like something therefore it is good"; in fact, I've said rather the opposite. To make an analogy: suppose I measure the mass of an object on a balance. If I said "The balance reads 5 grams, therefore this thing has a rest mass of 5 grams," I would be reversing the causality. Properly, I should say "The object has a rest mass of 5 grams, therefore the balance reads 5 grams." In this simple case, there is really no distinction between "reading, therefore mass" and "mass, therefore reading". But suppose the balance were incorrectly calibrated, or suppose it was made in an environment with a different gravitational acceleration. Then the five gram object might produce a reading of, say ten grams. The object has not changed; whether we think its mass is 5 or 10 grams does not affect its actual nature. Suppose two people perform the measurement, one with a correctly calibrated balance and one with an incorrectly calibrated one. They get results of 5 grams and 10 grams, respectively. It is to be expected that a contention arises between them, and each argues his or her position. They might invoke other, cruder methods of measurement, real or fictitious: "Look, it sinks in water, so it must be heavy"; "It looks just like another 5 gram object"; "It's square, and square things are always 10 grams." They might eventually agree that they simply have different subjective opinions about mass, or that a real determination is impossible. However, nothing changes the fact that the object is 5 grams; certainly the fact that one person (honestly) believes it to be 10 grams does not change its mass.

Now (obviously), the object = art; the mass = the quality of the art; the observers = us; the scales = our innate evaluation of what makes good art; the appeal to cruder measurements = hypotheses about popularity, comparison with other works of art, etc.; the poor calibration of the scale = factors such as reputation, accessibility, and familiarity that interfere with our ability to assess the aesthetic value of art.

That's a lengthy analogy, but I think it demonstrates pretty well my views on art. So, just because a person thinks a work of art is good (or weighs ten grams), that doesn't mean that it must be good. That person's assessment may be inaccurate for any of various reasons (i.e., the person's scale is poorly calibrated).

Sorry for the length of that analogy. And so far, I've only tackled your first three sentences!

Your example of perfect cadence illustrates my point. Traditional music theory perhaps, but only in relation to the diatonic tradition. If you factor in musical theory appropriate to classical Indian raga, or African pentatonic composition, or Balinese gamelan, and so on ... which is more valid?

This is what I was getting at when I said that, for example, an imperfect cadence is justified in certain circumstances. A complete theory of art would be able to explain under what circumstances an imperfect cadence will sound good. Similarly, a complete theory of art would take into account Indian ragas, African pentatonic scales, and so forth. Diatonic theory is certainly not a complete theory of music. But it is a succesful theory, within limits. To make another (briefer) analogy, Newtonian mechanics is not a complete theory; in very high-velocity cases it is wrong. A more generalized theory, though (like general relativity) encompasses both the low-velocity and high-velocity scenarios. Thus, a complete theory of music would encompass all music that is aesthetically pleasing. Note that I do not think a complete theory could ever be formulated; music (or any art) is far too complex and the theory would be impossibly complicated.

The terms in which we can describe and understand are indeed universal ... but our experience is not.

This actually makes some sense to me. However: don't the terms in which we describe art arise from our experience? If our diverse experiences are not at least very similar, how could a common understanding of form, and specifically, of good form arise?

This may sound like a reduction to subjectivity, but that is not my intention.

Yet it certainly does in some sense lead to subjectivity. This only works if you accept (which I think you do) the disconnection of quality from experience. But this inevitably leads to the conclusion that the quality of art has nothing to do with how deeply it moves a person, or what that person's subjective reaction to it is; it depends only on some objective standard that cannot relate to experience (because experience is subjective).

The line of absolute external objectivity in art is one where you end up painting yourself into a corner, and saying "well, because this (let's say Britney) meets the precise set of laws required to be good, I am compelled to like it.

No. If you don't think something is good, but a certain formulation of the "laws of art" say that it is good, then either: 1. the formulation of the laws is incorrect or incomplete, or 2. there are interfering factors that prevent you from liking the work. Just to show how 2 might work: suppose I'm miserably ill the first time I hear the album Kind of Blue. My subsequent dislike for the album may have little or nothing to do with my liking/appreciation of its aesthetic qualities; I may dislike it for non-artistic reasons. (Note: I don't really dislike that album, in fact it's among my favorites).

If you prefer something else (say, Wagner) you are wrong, because only I truly understand the laws and the proof of that is that I do not prefer Wagner to Britney".

Your example seems to be aimed less at the idea of "laws of music" than at the irrational behavior of a hypothetical person. First of all, the laws of music would never say that Britney is superior to Wagner. Second, your hypothetical person is using circular logic: A is true because A predicts B and B is true because B predicts A. That person's formulation of the laws seems to be arbitrary. Third, the person assumes that the laws are fully known, which they can never be.

[Cúdae]

Since we are getting into the ideas of music, I am going to add my own little piece of knowledge.

A few years ago when my youngest cousin was diagnosed as autistic, I learned a lot about why music appealed to her. Music one of the most mathematically dependant forms of art on earth. One can argue that drawings need to be mathematical as well, but that is not so obvious. In any case, music needs algebra to some extent. x+y must equal x+y. In music, equality in notes and measures is what helps to make it more pleasing to the ear. For instance, in most compositions, every measure of music has the same time (such as 4/4 or 6/8, etc.) and this results in a balance that is distintly heard. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but when the balance is not there, you know it. Have you ever been listening to a song on the radio and suddenly it slows down or speeds up without warning? That is clear imbalance. Usually, I find the imbalances to be far more subtle.

Would this provide ground for an arguement saying that because something as dependant on mathmatics as music might be imbalanced in the math field of itself that it is generally regarded as "bad?"

But where does Tolkien fit into this?

Do readers regard Tolkien as a master, if not the master, of fantasy writing because his stories balance out? Do they balance out in the sense that they have a beginning that begins in the past of his created world and because they have an ending which ends in the future of his created world? Are they balanced because the beginning (speaking of the creation story in the Silm) was not measured in time as we know it and because the future extends indefinitely? Does this make what Tolkien wrote balanced and therefore has set a standard for all other writers to achieve the balance in their own work? Can this balance be what makes something seem "good" to the general population of readers, onlookers, etc.?

[Kalessin]

Aiwendil, your reply illustrates perfectly the dichotomy I attempted to explain earlier, and my particular way out of it (or through it, or behind it etc. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). In Tolkien's works we have something that is arguably either popular or good, and naturally wish to settle the question.

It seems to me as though this debate engenders two antithetical arguments - one, that there is an absolute objective truth of art (even if it is so complex and multi-faceted that we cannot fully conceive it) in which aesthetic qualities can, in theory, be empirically measured as accurately and reliably as various physical properties (as in your analogy). In this way it is possible, if difficult, to say with certainty that something is 'good', on the basis of measurable factors that it possesses. We can of course choose to like it or not, but it's quality is objective and unarguable. This, I think, I something close to your position.

The second argument is that we cannot possibly come to an objective statement about a work of art, because our individual experience of it is a completely integral part of its properties. In this way, art that is popular can to some degree at least be deemed 'good' because of the pleasure it brings to a larger number of individuals than other art. But equally, as far as the individual is concerned, they need not necessarily accept a collective consensus and can simply maintain their own valid, subjective experience of any particular work.

My position is that both of these arguments co-exist and are meaningful - not because the world of logic has gone mad, but because we are human beings and what we are talking about is art (in other words the world of logic has gone mad [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).

It is as inappropriate to apply the theories of physical science to art, and all the terminology that surrounds art, as it is to simply say that that if a thousand people like Britney and one likes Mozart, then Britney must have more merit. As I said, the expression of art, and our experience of it, is one of contradiction, duality, of inarticulacy, of emotion codified in abstract language. Cudae's point about the (often over-emphasized) mathematical aspect of music illustrates my point. Music could equally be seen as languistic, a form of abstraction - but one that remains rooted in the physical, in the senses we use to perceive it. You could say that if art is a language, some speak it more eloquently than others, and you could cite the rules of grammar ... but as we all know there is more to good language than grammar. It is not correct grammar that gives language conviction, passion or even imagination. What linguistic rules can be applied to decide whether something is imaginative? Or, more pertinently, that something will excite the imaginations of the audience?

I see it as a contradiction - that, clearly, works of art have qualities, that we can all recognise as inherent to art (even if we disagree about which art most exemplifies them), and which to some degree we can quantify in terms of aesthetic theory. Yet that at the same time, intangible or variable factors ARE part of the meaning of art as well, which make the subjective experience valid - remember, your relationship with a work of art can almost be like a private conversation ... the amazing thing is the artist made up his/her contribution without knowing what you were going to say! And I accept this contradiction as a means by which I can exercise both critical judgement and maintain a personal experience. As a musician, I would be gratified if my audience received my work in the same way (as long as they like it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).

As far as the passionate debate about Britney vs Mozart goes, I can only say that I am reminded of famous conductor Thomas Beecham's quip when asked "Have you heard any Stockhausen?", to which he replied "No, but I believe I may have trodden in some."

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[Cúdae]

The balance I spoke of in my last post needs something to illustrate it better than music and Tolkien. Maybe some van Gogh and a book regarded as not as great as Tolkien's? And perhaps I could throw in some grammar?

Let's take balance in a book first. I am going to use the example of the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander (with all due respect to Mr. Alexander and his writing). Generally, these books are not regarded as great as those by Tolkien. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which being the clear Tolkien influences, but I am only going to deal with the balance. In these books, the past (the history of Prydain, of Taran, of Dallban, etc) is indefinite while the future (Taran lives happily ever after basically and the impression that Prydain has few troubles afterward) is definite. This creates an affect something like x=y in mathematics. While in Tolkien's books, both the past and the future are indefinite- x=x.

Now I'm going to use the paintings of Vincent van Gogh as an example. He is an artist much loved, studied, and looked up to in many countries. His paintings are balanced. What is on one side is balanced by something on the other. Or, what is presented is balanced by something (opinion, reaction, etc.) in the viewer's mind. An example would be his painting Starry Night. The stars in the sky balance on another out. The deep colors are balanced by the opinion (be it good, bad, or indifferent) or reaction in the viewer's mind to those colors. The swirly, dark, castle-like thing on the left hand side is balanced by the sky opposite it. This all creates a balanced effect of something like x+y+z=x+y+z.

Now let's go to grammar! Correct sentence structure with a subject and a verb is balanced. Example: He ran. He is the subject which is balanced by the verb ran. The sentence is correct grammar. Take this sentence for a more complicated example: The rabbit scampered across the road. The subject rabbit is balanced by the verb scampered. The two words the are balanced by each other and across and road balance each other.

If that made any sense whatsoever, it will be a miracle.

...remember, your relationship with a work of art can almost be like a private conversation ...

Alright, so again I can put into action my balance idea. You can see a painting and dislike it because it does not balance in your mind and/or on the canvas. You can walk away from a private conversation feeling as though something is missing because the conversation took an unbalanced turn or maybe because the conversation ended without definition. This means that you relationship with art that does not please you can be very like to that of a conversation that ends without definition. Or it can be very like to seeing a painting which does please you and walking away from a conversation feeling very satisfied.

Logic hasn't gone anywhere, it is merely a different branch of logic that is used in art forms.

[Aiwendil]

Kalessin:

In this way it is possible, if difficult, to say with certainty that something is 'good', on the basis of measurable factors that it possesses. We can of course choose to like it or not, but it's quality is objective and unarguable. This, I think, I something close to your position.

It is indeed my position if one alteration is made: I would not say that we can "choose to like it or not"; our liking of something is a function of the things inherent quality as well as interfering, non-aesthetic factors.

The second argument is that we cannot possibly come to an objective statement about a work of art, because our individual experience of it is a completely integral part of its properties.

It seems to me that for this argument to be true, one would have to accept either of the following axioms: 1. that individual human beings are so dissimilar in their basic nature that there is no common standard of aesthetic beauty that can be appreciated by all or 2. that non-aesthetic factors should be taken into consideration when we evaluate the quality of art.

I refuse to accept axiom 2. If it were true, then, for example, Britney's "image" would have to be considered to increase the quality of her "art". Axiom 1 I can accept; I do not personally believe it, but I admit that it is a realistic possibility. In any case, this view amounts to saying that art is subjective.

It is as inappropriate to apply the theories of physical science to art, and all the terminology that surrounds art, as it is to simply say that that if a thousand people like Britney and one likes Mozart, then Britney must have more merit.

I disagree. While of course we cannot apply specific physical theories to art ("if this book moves close to the speed of light, it will have better characterization!"), we can treat art in a precise and rational fashion. The fact is that experiencing a work of art amounts to making an observation or measurement of it. If art is objective, then there is room for error in this assessment.

but as we all know there is more to good language than grammar.

That there is more to good language than grammar certainly does not necessitate that good writing is not objective. If there is an objective "theory of writing" it is certainly far more complex than simple grammatical rules.

Yet that at the same time, intangible or variable factors ARE part of the meaning of art as well, which make the subjective experience valid

There are two things here that I fail to understand. First, what are "intangible or variable factors"? If they are the aesthetic factors that vary from person to person, then it seems art is ultimately subjective. If they are merely factors that we do not understand, that means that art is still objective, but we do not fully understand the objective standard. Second, what do you mean when you say "make the subjective experience valid"? Do you mean that there are two standards by which art can be judged - objective (by inherent qualities) and subjective (by individual reaction)? If so, then a great deal of confusion has arisen from the conflation of the two meanings of "quality" - objective and subjective. Or do you mean that there is a sort of subjective fuzziness or uncertainty around the quantitative, objective value of a work of art?

Cudae:
I certainly agree that balance is an important component of aesthetics. Your example concerning the mathematical nature of music is, I think, very pertinent. It is also an excellent example in that it demonstrates the way in which complexity operates in seemingly dry, mechanistic systems. Beauty in music is a perfect example of an emergent property in a complex system. Many no doubt are dismayed by attempts at the "reduction" of creativity into mathematical concepts. I, on the contrary, find the emergence of beauty, emotion, and intelligence from purely mathematical or quantitative systems to be inspiring.

However, I don't think that balance is the only, or even necessarily the primary, criterion for aesthetic beauty. There is something to be said for imbalance as well - the unexpected accelerando toward the end of Beethoven's 5th symphony, the startling plot twists of Hitchock's Vertigo, the disparity between the in-depth and the summary chapters of The Grapes of Wrath.

This creates an affect something like x=y in mathematics. While in Tolkien's books, both the past and the future are indefinite- x=x.

I'm not sure I understand you here. What do x and y represent?

[Kalessin]

Cudae

Sorry to be so argumentative, I really do appreciate your posts and your thoughtful exploring of these fascinating issues - but the attempt to reduce (or reappraise) music as a mathematical form is one I would take issue with (surprise [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Again, this process is applied almost exclusively to western classical music (which indeed was initially based on a series of theoretical strictures - just as with painting), and it presupposes that music is - like mathematics - a cerebral and linear activity.

Now, music is indeed cerebral at times, and often linear, but it is far more than that. A true, holistic view of music is one that accepts its physicality - it is produced physically, by action, and the action and physicality is a reflection of the artist. For example - two scientists can formulate a logical theory, and might each begin with a series of the same simple equations (rather like a chess game, perhaps). But the equations will always look, and mean, the same thing. On the other hand, two singers may sing the same piece, but the difference is obvious. Music is personal, physical AND cerebral - it is communal and individual. It predates logic and western mathematical systems by thousands of years. It is universal to humanity. The attempt to reduce the greater to the lesser is only meaningful in relation to specific periods, or compositions, which in themselves represent a small fraction of music.

You could perhaps argue that aspects of music can infer certain mathematical properties, I could go with that, but I think anything more definitive is necessarily a reduction that is rooted in mind-body dualism.

Aiwendil

... the fact is that experiencing a work of art amounts to making an observation or measurement of it.

I think this is perhaps the nub of our debate. Basically, I don't think this is the primary case - in effect the element of measurement or 'neutral' observation is not necessarily as important or meaningful as all the aspects of experiencing a work of art. You could argue that everything we do is simply an act of perception, and define that perception as 'measuring or observation', but you are still arriving at a particular notion of empiricism by inductive reasoning. It's like saying 'receiving' is the same as 'counting'.

Anyway, I enjoy the fact that we disagree on such fundamental principles and I am always agreeably challenged and stimulated by your articulacy, knowledge and robust references. My position, of rationalising a co-existent contradiction, is precisely that - a contradiction, and such I can only justify it by refuting the axioms on either side and if necessary, resorting to wordy mysticism [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Since we both unquestionably have staying power in these kind of debates, let's temporarily get back to Tolkien and the origin of our particular debate - that in order to make judgements about the succesors to Tolkien, a conception of why Tolkien is good - or those successors inferior by comparison (or inherently so).

If, without getting too technical, it's possible say that Tolkien is both popular and good (whether or not the two are related), the question is how a writer can succeed in his footsteps without either being derivative or imitating, or on the other hand self-consciously avoiding anything that could be seen as Tolkeinesque influence or resonance.

My personal feeling is that perhaps we can or should look outside the accepted genre for examples of literature that carry the torch of mythology and folklore, yet does not simply become a dry academic exercise in philology. And perhaps that we think even more laterally ... for example, some modernity is essential and inevitable, just as in its way LotR is also clearly a 'modern' work. Is it absolutely essential that a worthy successor to Tolkien must refer to specific mythic archetypes - or perhaps attempt an equally eclectic mix of references? Or has it been possible to create a mythology for the 20th (and/or 21st) century?

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Cúdae]

Aiwendil:
You are correct about something to be said for the use of imbalance as well. But the imbalance is not exactly an imbalance if it was intentional. The imbalance is balanced by the reaction of the listener, the reader, etc. to the imbalance or the imbalance balances itself out with a beginning and an end to or in the imbalance. (I truly hope that made sense...I am confusing myself.)

To answer what x and y stand for, I merely meant that they were different from each other, as in something like 12 is not equal to 15.

Kalessin:
You are correct that the process of breaking down music to mathematics is almost exclusively applied to western classical music. But, you used the word almost. Western classical music is most often the music broken down because it is the music that the balance can most easily be seen in. But, I firmly believe that it is possible to find a balance in any music from any time period. Now, I know you are going to argue with me about what I am about to say: Everything and anything can be broken down into balanced mathematics and everything and this goes for all art forms. Whether I, or anyone else, has the mathematical knowledge to do this is an entirely different story. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Music is personal, physical AND cerebral - it is communal and individual.

Alright, I won't argue with that, but if my theory of math being the basis for everything works then that means that the deepest emotional feeling has some mathematical root. This root may prompt the person to compose some music that is based on the math that they subconsciously know. Don't ask me how, it merely seems to fit. I'm not that great of a math student to figure it all out. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

It predates logic and western mathematical systems by thousands of years.

Maybe. Maybe not. Did ancient peoples refer to adding something to another thing as addition? Even though they did not, it does not mean that it did not exist. Also, one of the earliest forms of counting was the beat of a drum- music. Also, I don't think I understand you in one aspect: Western mathematical systems would be what? Is subtraction any different in Europe than in China? Am I going to find that in Saudi Arabia, 5-3 does not equal 2, but 4?

I can easily agree with you on the fact that music is universal to humanity- it is one of the few. But, then I can go right ahead and add: Mathematics is universal to humanity. As I said before: Subtraction in Asia isn't going to be any different than subtraction in Europe. It may have a different name, a different number system, whatever. But when you take 2 sticks away from a pile of five sticks, you are going to have 3 left.

I recognize the need to make something very clear very quickly. Balance is <u>not</u> sound in music. It can be, and very often it is, but is not always. What sounds balanced to one person may not for another.

...the question is how a writer can succeed in his footsteps without either being derivative or imitating, or on the other hand self-consciously avoiding anything that could be seen as Tolkeinesque influence or resonance.

Perhaps the secret to a writer succeeding in Tolkien's footsteps is the idea that to avoid anything Tolkienesque the writer must stop trying to avoid being Tolkienesque. In other words: Maybe for a writer to succeed and to be seen as original he needs to leave the idea of self-consciously avoiding Tolkien influences. He needs to stop thinking of Tolkien and think of his own knowledge and draw conclusions from that rather than another writer. If you tell yourself not to think of Tolkien's works, you are thinking of Tolkien's works in the process.

Is it absolutely essential for a worthy successor to Tolkien to refer to mythic archetypes? Of course not, that is a sure way to get this author rstuck in the mud of Tolkien-influence. A better way to go about the idea might be to appeal to the reader's sense of judgement, of fairness, of unfairness, and of heroism. To take the reader's mind and appeal to the judgement of good vs. evil or of fair vs. unfair is to use mythical motifs in a way that is not clearly mythical. To create a mythology for the 20th and/or 21st centuries would be a feat indeed since what is usually thought of in mythology has virtually disappeared. But it would not be impossible to take modern events and make them mythical. To exalt heroes of wars and to condemn enemies who are thought of in a certain world culture to be "evil" is not as hard as it seems.

[Aragorn Husband of Arwen]

As I don't have time to read everyone's post, I'll just write what I thought after reading the first couple.

First off, mythology and folklore in my opinion is based off of history, just twisted around. We take something that has happened, and are inspired by it. Our society as a majority, by not reading and learning from history, are repeating it. Those who do not read and learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we don't read history we cannot be inspired by it. Many mythology stories written now are just stupid or poorly written.

Because of our society trying to remove itself from religion, many of the mythology books I've flipped through are almost santist in proporation.

But, there is always hope, as there are many not well known books out there, not as well written as JRR Tolkien's LOTR, not even close, but still good. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

This is all just my opinion, not to offend.

[Aiwendil]

Kalessin:

but the attempt to reduce (or reappraise) music as a mathematical form is one I would take issue with

First of all, as I said before, I diasagree that treating music mathematically is a reduction. Second: at some basic level, music must be mathematical. The universe is mathematical; at some very fundamental level, music can be described through wave mechanics.

For example - two scientists can formulate a logical theory, and might each begin with a series of the same simple equations (rather like a chess game, perhaps). But the equations will always look, and mean, the same thing. On the other hand, two singers may sing the same piece, but the difference is obvious. Music is personal, physical AND cerebral - it is communal and individual.

But the differences between two performances of the same piece are surely quantifiable. One performer crescendos more quickly than the other; one tongues the triplets and the other slurs them; etc. These are mathematical, measurable qualities.

However, a performance of a piece of music certainly exemplifies certain emergent properties - properties of a complex system that are inherent in the fundamental mathematics, but not of the same kind as the fundamental mathematics. For example, the rules of chess form a complex mathematical system. Chess strategy is an emergent property of that system; it is derived from the mathematical fundamentals, but it more than the mathematical fundamentals. I would say that emotion, personality, and so forth are emergent properties of music - contained in the quantities but greater than mere quantities.

Basically, I don't think this is the primary case - in effect the element of measurement or 'neutral' observation is not necessarily as important or meaningful as all the aspects of experiencing a work of art.

I did not say that the observation must be neutral. Even if the observation is tinged with subjectivity, it is still at some phase a measurement. The act of experiencing a painting necessarily involves measuring the wavelengths of the various colors and the sizes of the various shapes. But, taking what you said more broadly, I think you do have a point. I still insist that all experience of art involves measurement, but I concede that one's experience cannot be treated simply as the measurement of a single quantity.

Since we both unquestionably have staying power in these kind of debates, let's temporarily get back to Tolkien and the origin of our particular debate

Agreed. By the way, I have also thoroughly enjoyed this and other debates we have had, however unwilling we each seem to be won over by the other's arguments.

the question is how a writer can succeed in his footsteps without either being derivative or imitating, or on the other hand self-consciously avoiding anything that could be seen as Tolkeinesque influence or resonance.

I don't think that it is impossible for a writer to achieve a great work by imitating Tolkien; but it is very unlikely. I believe the main problem is this: Tolkien's work was great because he to some extent believed what he wrote. He did not, of course, believe that the events in his works literally took place; but he believed that his mythology was consistent (physically, psychologically, and theologically), and that it in some way reflected truths about our world. The problem, then, is that the imitators attempt to write the same sort of stuff, but without that belief. I do not say this to disparage the imitators. The fact is that the fantasy genre is defined by Tolkien's beliefs - beliefs with which not a great many people are in complete agreement. Also, most writers today are not inclined to invest this kind of belief in their works, even if it were possible. Tolkien was one of few authors who felt that the story he was telling was important in itself. He wrote neither to convey some message beyond his story (as "literary" writers do) nor to appeal to lots of people and sell millions of books (as mass-market authors do). Yet he was successful in creating a work with both literary significance and mass appeal.

I'm rambling, and without any clear purpose. I suppose my main point an author is more likely to create a great work if he or she is interested in the story as a story (rather than as an allegory or as a step toward profit), and if he or she believes that the story is on some level "true" (or at least consistent with the author's beliefs and way of thinking).

Cudae:

But the imbalance is not exactly an imbalance if it was intentional.

This entails a very broad definition of "balance" - but I understand your point.

but if my theory of math being the basis for everything works then that means that the deepest emotional feeling has some mathematical root.

With this statement I am in perfect agreement.

[doug*platypus]

I think that Fantasy as a genre has bred a lot of terrible writers. It seems that in order to write Fantasy you don't need to be able to write at all, just have an imagination. For anyone who has read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the situation seems like it was in the Orwellian future, where books are churned out of a machine, all vastly similar but with just a couple of minor differences between each one. A lot of Fantasy (and Science Fiction) is almost Mills and Boon level. I'd tend to agree that this flooding of the market with garbage is supported by publishing houses with low standards. Also by readers of Fantasy themselves. They are usually great readers, and always on the lookout for good new books and stories. Placing quantity before quality is apparently the world of Fantasy books does business. It's all about the bottom line.

[littlemanpoet]

Kalessin the Eldest:

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Greetings again. Forgive my dilatory response. I have been reading LeGuin again lately, and so have finally rediscovered the source of your moniker. Excellent choice!

(I) wonder if we are trying to have it both ways when review the genre post-Tolkien? If a work is derivative or referential, we rightly criticise it as a pale imitation of the 'real thing' ... yet if a work does not follow the 'Tolkien template', we say it fails equally by not meeting the criteria of the master's work. Perhaps we are being a little possessive, or protective, or elitist ...

To answer your query, I had not felt that I had raised the mountain too high. Thank you for pointing out the distinction. I have been uneasy with the idea of a Tolkien template having a tyrannous effect on the writing of fantasy, and had been considering saying so earlier. If a Tolkien template was considered essential to writing fantasy, we would have no EarthSea series by LeGuin.

I grant you that LeGuin may be a better writer than Tolkien, as writers go. The breadth of her imagination rivals his, as well, it seems to me. His linguistic abilities far surpass hers, and the richness he is able to bring to Middle Earth, through this, seems to go beyond LeGuin's, just because he had more of the best kinds of tools at his disposal. She is not done writing yet, so we shall see.

I love EarthSea. I love Middle Earth more. Perhaps it IS because I came to it so young. Perhaps it's because of its consonances with my faith, compared with that of EarthSea. There is something gritty about EarthSea, an earth-boundness, that I really enjoy about it. And yet... I do not call it inferior, just not quite as pleasant to my taste as Tolkien.

I've spent a good 8 months reading unpublished original fantasy now, some of it incredibly good, some of it incredibly rookie, and I have great hopes for the future of fantasy. I think the key lies in the writer of fantasy being true to her/his own vision, and true to the craft of writing. Nevermind a template, be it from Tolkien or LeGuin or Asimov, or R.E. Howard. Write what's in you to write, and learn to do it as well as you can.

[ January 01, 2003: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Cúdae]

Hmm... I have not read 1984 or anything written by LeGuin and probably will not be able to for a while judging by the pile books beside me. I cannot comment on those, but I can comment on some other things.

This thread is called, "The Tolkien Template- Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore" and I am unsure of how to go about the idea presented there alone. But, in my opinion, Tolkien has carried on the torch and passed it on to the fantasy writers of today. But the vast majority of them have taken the torch and promptly dropped it and watched its flame die out in the sands of Time.

There are some who have taken the torch and nutured its flame and fed it with more and their are some who have done their absolute best to feed the flame and there are undoubtedly some who are waiting eagerly for the day when the torch will be in their hands and they too can keep the flame alive.

But all that is dampened when you look at the fantasy authors who have disgraced the name of the fantasy genre and ruined mythology and folklore and who have tried to blend Tolkien's style of writing with Ray Bradbury's use of figurative language and wrapped it all up in some stinking tortilla of something kind of like mystery. In other words, taking some good stuff, putting it all in one place and stirring up the wrong way. In my opinion, people see this as what fantasy is now. I see this as what fantasy has become.

So, how will the torch of mythology and folklore be passed on? How will its flame even be kept alive? A few authors can hold back the flood for a little while, but even they will fall to a strong tide of unoriginal, poorly written, and generally boring fantasy if it keeps coming. Good luck to us all, the authors who want to nuture the torch's flame and feed it with their own writings.

[littlemanpoet]

A very well stated post, Cudae. In another thread, I can't remember which one (valid criticisms?) I presented an analogy of high mountains each of which represented a source of story; from them spout springs, pure and either hot or cold, and the streams of pure story pour down the mountains. One such mountain is "Norse mythos & Germanic languages"; another is "Celtic mythos"; another is "Hebrew mythos"; and so on. Some writers draw the water for their "soup of story" from streams high up in the mountains. Further downstream, the streams mix in confluences, where the water drawn is not quite as "pure". From such lower foothills one might say that Robert E. Howard drew his fascinating mix of sword and sorcery genre; from higher in the mountains, Tolkien drew Middle Earth. Many of our modern writers seem to be drawing their water from rather close to the mouth of the Hudson, so to speak. Each writer is free to draw her/his water from whatever point she/he wishes; let the reader beware of the landscape from which the particular book's soup of story was concocted. It would help if the publishing industry had a better understanding of these distinctions, but they apparently don't - so the reader must beware. Please do realize that reader tastes do run the gamut, and there are a lot of readers who actually like New York Harbor water for their soup. Believe it or not. You, Cudae, might dislike it, and I bet I probably do, too, but that's because we have climbed to the heights whereas some readers have never been there, or, perhaps, have become so used to the briny, polluted waters down on the seaboard, that they actually cannot stomach the pure, refreshing waters near the springs.