Re: artlangs as engelangs

Hallo!

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:40:37 +0100, And Rosta wrote:

> andrew, On 18/07/2007 04:54:
> > I did wonder, at one point, if the definition of an artlang is
> > essentially an engineered language with a subjective set of aesthetics
> > as its criteria.  But that's just silly!
It is indeed silly.  You cannot objectivize subjective
aesthetic criteria.  It has been tried in the past; at best,
it stifles artistic creativity because artists timidly avoid
trying out new ideas, at worst, it leads to book burnings and
death camps.

> It must be possible in principle for some artlangy design criteria
> that are in some sense 'subjective' to nevertheless be explicit and
> 'objectively' assessable (where 'objective' means at least 'subject
> to intersubjective agreement); and in such a case the conlang could
> be viewed as an engelang. But it would seem perverse -- contrary
> to the spirit of art -- to assess a work of art in terms of how
> successfully it achieves its stated goals.
How do you objectivize subjective criteria such as "beauty"?
Who is to decide what is beautiful and what is not?  This is
dangerous territory.  Surely, we do not want anything like
a "taste police" as in the Third Reich or the USSR under
Stalin.  Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, and de gustibus
non est disputandum.

It is difficult enough to operationalize such criteria as
"ease of learning", "concision" or "computer tractability";
but trying to objectivize criteria such as "beauty" only
leads to totalitarianism and stifles individual creativity.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:51:34 -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On 7/19/07, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
> >  But it would seem perverse -- contrary to the spirit of art --
> > to assess a work of art in terms of how
> > successfully it achieves its stated goals.
>
> Funny, that seems like a perfectly reasonable way to assess a work of
> art to me, well within the spirit of artistic endeavors.
Agreed.  However, such an assessment is still subjective, and
others may legitimately arrive at different goals.  If an
abstract painting is titled "Bathing Venus", you can of course
shake your head and say, "I don't see any bathing Venus in that
painting"; but you can just as legitimately "read" the painting
in a less obvious way as a symbolic representation of some
aspect of the idea of a "Bathing Venus".  And perhaps the artist
just wanted to parodize the overused topic of a "Bathing Venus".

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:56:19 +0100, And Rosta wrote:

> Mark J. Reed, On 19/07/2007 23:51:
> > On 7/19/07, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
> >>  But it would seem perverse -- contrary to the spirit of art -- to
> >> assess a work of art in terms of how
> >> successfully it achieves its stated goals.
> >
> > Funny, that seems like a perfectly reasonable way to assess a work of
> > art to me, well within the spirit of artistic endeavors.
>
> Works of art usually don't have stated goals. Even when their
> authors do state their goals, I, like most people, would see
> that as extrinsic to the work of art. It's true that a lot of
> conceptualist avantgardist contemporary art is now almost
> mandatorily accompanied by a statement by the artist of what
> the work's goals are, but that really just underlines what
> bullshit and aesthetically bankrupt shite that variety of art is.
I think you are too harsh on that kind of art.  Granted, some of
that work may be aesthetically bland, and goal statements made
by the artists often try to gloss over that.  But that doesn't mean
that such art is "bullshit and aesthetically bankrupt shite".
By making such statements, you assume the role of a totalitarian
"taste police".  We do not need something like that.  We have had
that in the past, and we have seen where it leads to.  Do you want
that back?

> I, like most people, assess works of art according to how they
> delight me, how they move me, how they transport me, how profound
> they are, what insights they give me, and so forth.
So do I, but I am always aware that my assessment of art is
entirely subjective, and I don't expect others to get at the
same conclusions.  I respect people who like art I don't like
and dislike art I like.  I even respect people who disapprove
of my work, as long as it does not turn into personal attacks.
It is absolutely OK to me if one says "I don't like Old Albic";
it is also OK if he says why he doesn't like it; it is not OK,
however, if someone says, "Your conlang shows that you are
a bag of shit".

>       To the limited
> extent that academic criticism assesses works of art, the assessment
> is done by criteria similar to these, and without reference to
> stated goals.
Academic criticism of art is pretty much an arcane art to me
to which I have little access, and I don't really care about it.
There are many instances where I found a piece of art moving
of which the academic pundits said it was kitsch, as well as
the opposite case of a work gaining lots of academic applause
while my own reaction on it was "So what?"

Conclusion: Certain criteria just refuse to be objectivized.
And that makes the difference between an artlang and an engelang.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

Replies