Re: Lighting Some Flames: Towards conlang artistry

En réponse à Jesse Bangs <jaspax@...>:

>
> A couple of people gave some version of what Christophe said: "it's
> art, in which case it's incomparable to anything else and depends
> only on the eye (or ear, or whatever organ they use) of the beholder
> and the intention of the author. There's no such thing as bad
> art."  IMHO, this is plain hogwash, the purest example of the
> postmodern fallacy.
First thing: learn to be polite! And be happy that thousands of kilometers of
cable are between us! If your idea is to insult people, you have no place here!
And about it being postmodern fallacy, I shall warn you that I first read this
opinion in Latin classes! If the Roman Republic was already postmodern, where
are we now?

  Just because value judgements differ doesn't
> mean that value judgements are meaningless.
It does. Value judgements are meaningless in art, since art defies values. The
only thing you can judge is technical abilities. You can for instance compare
Picasso and another cubist for their use of colours, for their way of using the
paintbrush, etc... But you cannot compare their works and say that one is
better than the other. That's nonsense. One may be more technically advanced
than the other, but technic is not a measurement value for art. Even the
paintings of a two-year-old child using his fingers can be art! Claiming the
contrary is denying the essence of art itself.

Please, civilisation has been suffering enough from value judgements in the
last millenia. Don't introduce that in a place which had been until then spared!

  See what I said above
> about the importance of critique even when critical criteria vary.
>
But critique using exterior criteria is meaningless! I thought it was clear
nowadays! There is no such thing as a school of criticism. The only things
there are are schools of art and schools of analysis. You can analyse a work of
art using exterior criteria, but that's not judgement, and you cannot go
further than that, unless you understand the goal of the author, and use that
as the only criteria possible. The only thing you can say of a work of art is
whether it reaches it goals or not. The rest is bullshit (I can be vulgar too).

It reminds me of my years of literary and philosophy classes. Somebody who
would criticize a text only using exterior criteria would not even get an
average note! The only way to get a good mark was to get really into the text,
understand the intent of its author, and explain whether in your opinion it
reached its goal or not, and why. That's the only meaningfull critique a work
can receive. And don't make me laugh by pretending that the French education
must be post-modern! There is nothing more conservative than the French
education!

But if you think that you can criticize a work of art using exterior criteria
that have nothing to do with the intend of the author, have your way. Make just
sure that it never crosses mine.

And sorry to be aggressive, but I hate being insulted by this kind of know-it-
alls.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply