Re: Lighting Some Flames: Towards conlang artistry

At 4:02 pm -0500 12/3/02, John Cowan wrote:
>Raymond Brown scripsit:
[snip]
>> Long live the hobbyists and the humble craftsmen, I say.
>
>Hear, hear.  And while we're at it, let us repudiate the notion
>of artists who aren't craftspeople.  Did anyone ever hear of a
>great painter who didn't happen to paint very well?
>
I agree - but some who ain't craftsman call their productions "modern art"
(quickly dons asbestos suit   ;)

But, yes, anyone who aspires to become a true artist must needs learn the
skills of his crafts first.  However, IME while we can generally agree on
what constitutes good craftsmanship, there is less agreement on what
constitutes art - especially if it is contemporary.  One has merely to
think of controversies whether a pile of bricks layed out on the floor of a
gallery is 'art' or not.  It seems to take time before the charlatans and
the true artists get distinguished.

The hobby/ practice of constructing languages has been likened to
modelling.  If I model, say, locomotives, there seem to me obvious criteria
by which my craft can be judged.  But who is to decide and by what criteria
that a particularly fine model of a locomotive is more than mere
craftsmanship, it's now a work of art?

Jesse gives 'naturalism' as a criterion.  OK - then one judges my models by
how truthfully they reflect the original locomotives.  But Jesse goes
further.  The highest praise, apparently, is for a conlang that someone,
not knowing its provenance, mistakes for a real natlang (at tall order in
my opinion).  So the 'most artistic' locomotive I can model is one that
actually could run on rails, pull coaches etc.  IMHO all that shows is that
my skill has matured to such a degree that I can actually build real
locomotives!  Is that artistry?

But I may not be interested in building scale models or even fully working
'life-size' versiuons (i.e. real locomotives); I may want to experiment
with new ideas.  Some of the more interesting conlangs IMHO are those that
are experimental.

Indeed, the true artist, surely, is the one who pushes the medium to its
limits, who creates something new.  The Roman poet Ovid was most certainly
skilled in his craft.  His hexameters are faultless; but his verse lacks
the shere artistry of Vergil.  The latter pushed the Latin language to its
very limits and created something entirely original - the Aeneid - which
makes it so very difficult to translate satisfactorily into English.

In my view, Srikanth's Lin - to take just one example - shows far more
creativity, imagination and artistry than many of the the humdrum
natlang-clones I've seen.  He has pushed the concept of compactness
(practically) to its limits with his enneasemy & other techniques.  But by
no stretch of the imagination could one mistake it for a natlang (it was,
after all, designed to encode the telepathic communication of an alien
culture).

Learn one's craft by natlang cloning, if that's what one wants - but
artistry takes something more, something creative, something inspirational.
------------------------------
At 10:42 pm -0800 12/3/02, Jim Grossmann wrote:
[snip]
>This does not present a problem for either the critic or creator.  Criticism
>represents freedom of speech;  the decision to heed or ignore it represents
>freedom of thought.  Personally, I think people want more criticism,
>provided that it is constructive.
>
>6.      There has been a dearth of criticism on this list.   (I admit it:  I
>wimped out on Johnathan's Telona project:  his notes are still waiting on a
>disk for me to peruse and respond to.   I hope to find the time to come back
>to them.)
Quite so.  Quite frankly there are two reasons why I am tardy in giving
such criticism:

1. Shere pressure of time.  The traffic on this list is so heavy that I
simply do not have time to read all.  Sometimes I've read an interesting
mail by someone outlining some feature(s) of their conlang and have made a
mental note to re-read and, probably, reply.  But when I next log on some
60, 70, 80 or so mails come flooding in and I never get around to
re-reading the earlier mail.  Indeed, I tend to trash unread those whose
subject lines don't seem interesting; which means I probably miss some
interesting things.  But how otherwise can I keep up.

In fact I've got a bit at the moment and know full well that next time I
open my mail box there'll probably be more than 100 mails, most of them
from Conlang. I have to be frank; if I really want criticism, I post on
another list with far less traffic.

2. Bad experience in making any criticism.  I remember one guy posting his
phonology and including in it a "voiced glottal stop".  When I pointed out
- _and explained why_ - such a sound was a physical impossibility, was I
thanked?  Was I given a description of how the sound was to be made and
asked what I thought?  Was I heck?  No, I was accused of being a
"professional linguist" (as though that's some sort of insult), which I am
not.  I was told the guy was making the sound and what sort of sound did I
think he was he making, then?  The fact that sound waves don't travel well
across the Atlantic seemed immaterial.  That sort of response tends to put
one off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

At 1:25 pm +0200 13/1/00, Dan Sulani wrote:
>    With all the discussion about the mechanics of conlang
>criticsm (BTW, much of which I am in agreement with),
>it seems to me that a very important aspect of conlanging
>is in danger of being lost --- and that is the feeling of
>_fellowship_ among conlangers!
AMEN!

>    When I joined this list, I was extremely pleased to note
>that one of the fundamental rules here was civility, and
>another big one was encouragement of creativity.
>I have heard that these virtues were hard-won and
They most certainly were hard-won.  I can remember the days when this list
was not the friendly, flame-free forum it now generally is.  That is why I
am so agin the 'separate schools'.

[snip]

>    Not everyone who "shows off" is asking for criticsm!
>Sometimes they are merely saying: "Hey, look at me; look
>at what I can do!" (even if it is reinventing a linguistic
>wheel that some of us have known about for a long time)
>or "I'm so pleased with what I just did
>that I just _have_ to share it with somebody!" And who
>better to share with than fellow conlangers?
>In cases like these, I think that a non-critical
>"Hey, that's great!" is totally appropriate.
I agree.

[snip]
>be judging apples by orange standards and would
>be opening the door to "my school is better than
>your school" and from there to "mine is the _only_
>school" .
>    Been there, done that, and don't care to go back!
You and me both!

No, I don't care to go back. If this should ever happen to the list, then
I'm off.

Ray,
Still trying to catch up on Wednesday's mails  :=(






=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                     [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================