Re: Lighting Some Flames: Towards conlang artistry

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Jesse Bangs wrote:

> It should not need to be proved that some art is better than others.  If
> we as conlangers wish to gain acceptance for our art, then we need to
> acknowledge this and allow for the judgement that some conlangs are
> better than others.  We need a serious body of *conlang criticism*.
> Currently, this is almost entirely lacking on the Conlang list.  When
> someone posts texts or grammatical sketches, the responses are generally
> entirely congratulatory, or they are concerned only with correcting
> technical errors or confusions within the grammar.  Often there are no
> responses at all.  While technical accuracy and consistency are
Isn't that the truth.

> important, it's outrageous that this is where our critique stops.  We
> need to move beyond the foundation of technical accuracy and allow for
> the artistic analysis of our conlangs.

>   *  Naturalness, as the name implies.  We prefer languages that resemble
> natural languages, that could fool a linguist examining them into
> thinking that they actually existed somewhere on the globe.  Auxlangs and
> philosophical langs are anathema because their very nature goes against
> this value.
Pleh.  Arbitrary criteria.  Why should the natural be more beautiful than
the artificial?  Shit, the word art *comes* from the same root as the word
"artificial!"

>   *  Complexity and completeness.  No natural language is completely
> regular or completely simple, so neither will our languages.
> Furthermore, we seek to describe and develop our languages as completely
> as possible.  Those who make dozens of half-finished sketches are
> creating the equivalent of commercial jingles.  We seek to create
> symphonies.
No room for haiku?  This is judging a poem by its length, a stupid
criterion if ever there was one.

>   *  Creativity, defined as difference from your native language.  If
> your native language is Chinese, your target should be Ancient Greek.  If
> your native language is English, your target is Dyirbal (tonal, ergative
> Australian language).  Those who speak Italian and are only interested in
> Romance-style conlangs earn no respect in this area.  Those that seek to
> challenge themselves and their learners are applauded.
Absolutely absurd.  If I make a Chinese-clone, and Mr. Mouren makes a
Chinese-clone, my Chinese clone is better than his because I'm American?

> Of course this won't be popular with everyone, especially not when I
> start telling people why their conlangs suck.  Why should it?  If you
It alsoo suffers from the fault of almost all aesthetic axiologies: it
breaks down into de gustibus after a few seconds' rational thought.

> disagree with me, form your own school.  But by all means, we have to
> start allowing for the critical analysis of conlangs to make them into an
> actual art form.  As a side effect of this, we also have to start taking
*shrugs*  Why do I want them to be actual art forms?  I make Mujai not
because I want people to come and say, "Oh, what a brilliant language!"  I
just make Mujai cause it's, as the name implies, pretty.

> each others conlangs seriously--putting in the time to understand and
> evaluate them.  Like everyone else on this list, my time is limited and I
> can hardly take the time to look at every conlang that comes my way.  But
> I intend to start taking time to look closely at the conlangs of others
> and myself and seeing how well they hold up to the Naturalist values.  I
> also intend to post my critiques to the list.  Hopefully, we're mature
> enough (as individuals and as a community) to take and give criticism
> without resorting to whining and hurt feelings.  And once again, if you
> don't like it form your own school.
>
> Responses, comments, counter-flames?
I just intend to ignore you when you post on my language, so you might as
well not waste your time.

--Patrick