Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Lalwendė:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.
Quote:
The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.
No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendė is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.
|
As something I have said is being used in a debate, I thought I ought to clarify some points I have made.
Some things which I enjoy others may find aesthetically displeasing and 'bad', and I myself would agree that these things are definitely not aesthetically pleasing, as most would define that quality. But I do not find these things to be 'bad' in any way. In fact I would not like them if I did not see some 'good' in them. One of those 'good' things being that they stimulate my mind, or enable me to feel some kind of visceral pleasure. I consider to be 'good' (in fact marvellous) some bands/artists who, among other things, variously play down- tuned guitars, shout through megaphones, have narrators instead of singers, write songs about anti-depressants, etc., just about anything which by any definition could be called non-aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy these things with the same level of pleasure which I get from 'things' (for want of a better word) more widely accepted as 'pleasing'.
By the same token, I can find pleasure in driving along a perfectly smooth, wide and empty road through a beautiful landscape. Yet the paradox is that this very road has
spoiled that beautiful landscape. This hypothetical road is
not aesthetically pleasing, but it is also 'good' to me. I could sit and look at one of Damien Hirst's installation artworks and while I would say, yes, it is not aesthetically pleasing, it gives me the pleasure of mental stimulation and so is 'good' to me.
Enjoyment is vital, I find, to us considering any work to be good. If we do not get any enjoyment out of it, then it is bad. This enjoyment might include laughter, a sense of recognition, learning, catharsis, adventure, understanding, the sensation of freedom, or simple joy. If we do not find
enjoyment in one of its many forms, then what
do we find? Boredom. Books are a particularly good example of this - they take a lot of investment from us in terms of time, and if we are gaining nothing from that book then we are not enjoying it, in other words, it is boring, and we consider it 'bad'. Yes, it's annoying when we hear people dismiss books we hold dear as 'boring'. A young person might openly say something is boring, while a critic will express the concept of their finding something 'boring' in a rather long-winded way! I do get the feeling I might have to explain some of this further...
