Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust
From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re:  critics
Message-ID: <260@hyper.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 11:01:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: hyper.260
Posted: Mon Oct 14 11:01:04 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 01:27:58 EDT
References: <> <295@proper.UUCP> <250@hyper.UUCP> <438@rti-sel.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 73

> 
> But getting into music OR poetry at this surface level does not give
> one an appreciation for what the artist is really doing. Consider the
> Shakespearian sonnet (quoted from memory, so please forgive me, W. S.,
> if I've mangled your poetry):
> 
>          That time of year thou may'st in me behold
>          When yellow leaves, or none, do hang upon
>          The bough and shake against the cold...
> 
> Read it aloud; it sounds good, doesn't it? But a surface appreciation
> of the music gives you nothing of the poem's meaning: it might as well
> be in Swahili. 
> 

We seem to be pretty much in agreement here.  My point is and was
that literature ought to do both (tastes great! Less filling!).  As
far as I can tell you agree.  Correct?

> 
> >The conclusions I have come to are, brifly summarized,
> >good (fiction) writing is that which exposes and lays
> >bare areas of life that are normally hidden, and does
> >it in using language that can be understood.  
> 
> Agreed. But except for highly personal symbols, ALL language can be
> understood; it's just a matter of the amount of work you have to put
> into the understanding of the language.

I'll go along with that.  The only thing left out is:
to what extent is it the artist's responsibility to make
you WANT to put in a lot of work, and how can an artist
best go about it.  We seem to disagree here, and I believe
we have both stated our positions fairly well.

> 
> >You mention
> >the classics: can you name one art form (painting, music,
> >etc) in which those works which are now regarded as the
> >classics were not, at the time, entertainment for the
> >masses?  Doesn't this indicate something?
> 
> Until fairly recently, virtually all Western art was funded by and 
> produced by an educated and well-heeled elite. This tradition goes 
> all the way back to the 11th and 12th century trobadours, who adopted an
> anti-Church stance for the benefit of the well-educated members of the
> court, NOT for the benefit of the peasantry. The only art works
> produced specifically for the understanding of all society in those
> days were the great cathedrals of Europe. Popular art, oral stories, and
> music had little to do with the entertainments of the well-to-do
> educated elite that ran society. 
> 

I'm not quite certain if we are agreeing or disagreeing here.  My
impressions agree with yours.  It seems to me that most of the
classics of that era (as we consider them today) were produced for
the great cathedrals of Europe, or were part of the oral tradition.
(Homer, Beowulf, etc.).


> 
> So I think the perception that the 'classics' were intended at the time
> of their production as entertainment for the masses is based on a
> faulty understanding of the history of the arts in Western society
> over the last few hundred years.
> 
>                                 -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly

I follow you all the way up to your conclusion.  What am I missing?
Good, interesting stuff, though.

			--SKZB
.