Re: conlangs as art (was: Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Mailing lists as sources

Hallo!

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:32:34 +0000, R A Brown wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo!
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:50:01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> >> I can say, truthfully & without hyperbole, that I have been saying on
> >> this
> >> list longer than anyone that conlangs can be art. Nevertheless I am also
> >> convinced that as an artistic medium conlanging does not lend itself to
> >> the
> >> creation of great art that, say, exalts us, or moves us deeply, or gives
> >> us
> >> profound insights into life.
> >
> > Why not?  Where is the problem?  Why cannot be that a conlang moves
> > someone deeply?
>
> Why not indeed?
>
> I remember very many moons ago (about 50 years ago, in fact), being
> deeply moved when I read Galadriel's song "Ai! laurië lantar lassi
> surinen!..." in 'Farewell to Lórien'. It had the wow-factor! I found it
> stunningly beautiful and moving.
>
> I know beauty is only in the eye of the beholder (or ear of the
> listener) - but I was deeply moved by the words - and, indeed, still am.
You say it.  It was the same to me.  In my opinion, Quenya is truly
great art!  (Other people may feel differently.)

> > A conlang can express the thoughts and feelings of
> > its author as much as, for instance, a piece of music can do.  That,
> > at least, is my opinion; for instance, I find Quenya and Sindarin
> > very expressive of Tolkien's mindset.
>
> Yes, they probably do. But I must confess, I have never been
> particularly moved by Sindarin - but Quenya, wow!!
Quenya is, in my humble opinion, one of the most beautiful conlangs
ever made.  I agree with you that it is a more heart-moving language
than Sindarin - one can easily feel that Quenya, not Sindarin, was
the prime language in Tolkien's heart - but Sindarin has its strengths,
too.  Few conlangs reach the level of artistry of Sindarin; even fewer,
if any, are on a par with Quenya.

> David J. Peterson wrote:
> [snip]
>  > Aside from that, I'm tired of this discussion.  It's all about
> definitions,
>  > and if two people don't share a definition, and are not willing to
>  > agree on a common definition, then it amounts to nothing more
>  > than name-calling.
>
> I'm inclined to agree - and it's pushing up the number of mails from the
> list which is OK if one has the leisure to read them all properly - but
> today, I was just skimming through most.
>
> I know, for example, not everyone shares my view of Quenya. Nor do I
> expect them to. We have moved in very subjective areas in this thread
> and I feel David's assessment is true.
Amen.  Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, and any discussion of
greatness in the arts tends to be subjective.  I can easily accept if
someone says that he does not care about Quenya, or, say, the music
of Yes, but prefers Klingon and the Sex Pistols instead.  All I can
say to that is that tastes are different.

However, And Rosta, or so it seems to me, maintains a fundamentally
different position - he claims that there was art that was objectively
better than other art; I felt a desire to voice my dissent on that.
The fact that he had to draw dog-turds into the discussion IMHO shows
just how bankrupt that kind of reasoning is :)

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

Reply