Art!

[Guinevere]

I agree with Legate and Greenie, too much analysing spoils the beauty of a text for me. After all, Tolkien wrote LotR to be enjoyed, not to be analysed!

from letter 181:

I hope you have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings? Enjoyed is the key-word. For it was written to amuse (in the highest sense): to be readable.

but:

But of course, if one sets out to address adults, they will not be pleased, excited or moved unless the whole, or the incidents, seem to be about something worth considering: there must be some relevance to the "human situation". So something of the teller's own reflections and "values" will inevitably get worked in. This is not the same as allegory.

Reading Legate's posts reminded me very much of Tolkien's Mythopoeia

a star's a star, some matter in a ball
compelled to courses mathematical
amid the regimented, cold, inane,
where destined atoms are each moment slain

He sees no stars who does not see them first
of living silver made that sudden burst
to flame like flowers beneath the ancient song,
whose very echo after-music long
has since pursued. There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-patterned; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Skip

Therefore I say, don't shy away from the truth and see things are they truly are. For me it doesn't take anything away from a beautiful sunset knowing that it isn't in fact Arien retreating behind the walls of night. Indeed it just adds another dimension to my enjoyment of it, as Nogrod says. As does Arien.

This is interesting, actually - what Skip said above made me realise that I don't want to think it as Arien retreating behind the walls of night, no more than I want to think it as something to do with physics and angles. For me, when I see a thing of beauty (be it, for example's sake, sunset) I don't want to analyse it in any way, be in mythical or scientific. Even myths can be what I call killjoys, since they, like science, aim at explaining the world around us, at unravelling the mystery. When I'm watching a sunset, I don't want to analyse anything. I only want to watch, to see only what my eyes see - no Arien, no photones reflected in certain angles, but only the sunset itself. And this is what I understand as seeing things as they truly are: not seeing photones (even though science told us that's what it is about), not seeing Arien, but seeing the sunset.

The same, I think, can be applied to a work of art. I understand people who have a need to explain it, but for myself, I am more content just taking it in as it is, without in-depth analysis. I don't need to analyse why exactly it is beautiful. The beauty, in itself, is enough.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Even myths can be what I call killjoys, since they, like science, aim at explaining the world around us, at unravelling the mystery.

That's the popular modern view of myths, regarding them as a sort of proto-science - like (to borrow skip's example from above) our ancestors were looking for a way to explain thunder, because it scared them, but were unable to explain it in scientific terms, so they invented the story of Thor riding his chariot and battling the giants with his hammer. But this is only one aspect of mythmaking, and to me it's far from central.
What matters to me about myths is that they tell stories in order to make sense of the world - but not by explaining it in a proto- or pseudo-scientific cause and effect way, not by unravelling the mystery, but by showing us how to relate to the mystery. E.g. our ancestors who worshipped Thor knew that a thunderstorm could be dangerous (so better not stand beneath an oak in case Mjolnir missed the mark), but they also knew that for all its violence the thunderstorm was their friend - that Old Redbeard was busy protecting them against the forces of chaos, clearing the air and bringing rain that would nourish their crops (he wasn't married to Sif, the corn-goddess, for nothing).

And this is what I understand as seeing things as they truly are: not seeing photones (even though science told us that's what it is about)[...]

No, the photones are not what it's about, they're only what it's made of. If you think of the sunset as a painting (e.g. the Mona Lisa), the photones are the pigments and the canvas (and that's all that science, for all its merits, will ever be able to explain, or more properly, describe; science knows nothing of the mysteriously smiling lady). We wouldn't have the Mona Lisa without the pigment and canvas, but the Mona Lisa is much more than that.
So in a way you're right - to see the Mona Lisa truly wouldn't mean seeing pigment and canvas, nor seeing the historical Lisa del Giocondo (or whoever the real model was), but seeing what Leonardo painted.
But if the Mona Lisa becomes alive for you - if she engages your imagination, if you start wondering what kind of woman she is and why she's smiling that way, if she becomes a person rather than a painting - then you're entering the realm of myth.

The same, I think, can be applied to a work of art. I understand people who have a need to explain it, but for myself, I am more content just taking it in as it is, without in-depth analysis. I don't need to analyse why exactly it is beautiful. The beauty, in itself, is enough.

Although I do enjoy analysing, what you're saying here still rings a bell for me. If, say, a painting doesn't make me stare at it wide-eyed and agape for it's sheer beauty (like a beautiful sunset would) beyond all thoughts of analysis, it's probably not worth analysing at all; and if somebody's never had that initial experience with a work of art, chances are their analysis of it will be a futile exercise not worth reading.
But why analyse at all, then?
Well, for me it's not so much a need to explain anything, but rather that when I see a painting, listen to a piece of music or read a book or poem for the 2nd, 3rd or umpteenth time I can't help noticing things about it (like e.g. Leonardo's use of sfumato rather than clear outlines, or that the two halves of the landscape on either side of Mona Lisa's head don't fit together). And once I've noticed them, I start thinking about them and what part they play in creating that initial impression, and I like pointing them out to others and hearing what they think about them or what other things they may have noticed that escaped me.
And funnily, this doesn't spoil my experience of the work of art in question at all - or rather, it's a hallmark of truly great works of art that they can take the analysis and still blow me away at the umpteenth+1 reading, viewing or whatsoever (not the least because I'll probably discover yet another thing about them I hadn't noticed before).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

When I'm watching a sunset, I don't want to analyse anything. I only want to watch, to see only what my eyes see - no Arien, no photones reflected in certain angles, but only the sunset itself. And this is what I understand as seeing things as they truly are: not seeing photones (even though science told us that's what it is about), not seeing Arien, but seeing the sunset.

Looking back on what I wrote I don't think I really was talking about art or how to appreciate a sunset when I was on about "seeing things as they truly are". Should perhaps come clean and admit that it was more like a veiled stab at religion, although this hardly is the venue for that. But I'm a bit irreverent by nature I guess, and just can't help deconstructing every political argument or conventional wisdom looking for its first often faulty premiss; I'm not very good deceiving myself nor conforming to group norms and ideology - hardly a desirable quality I should think. Uhm, enough about me, and you know, each to his own.

Science is all about finding a pattern, a predictability, it looks to explain and order things based on empirical evidence or theoretic models, and using these methods we now know what a sunset is, why we see the colours and how they are created. But seeing a sunset is an altogether different thing, because that is an individual interpretation in our brain, something our crude (in comparison to the human mind) scientific methods are powerless to predict or explain. A sunset isn't objectively beautiful, it becomes beautiful because your mind interprets it so. For me it isn't really the sunset that is beautiful, it's you, or should I say, the human mind. All the beauty in the world, as you perceive it, is in your head and nowhere else and that's what art is, isn't it? And since art is completely subjective, science has no role in evaluating its quality, and I do agree that analysis of art, if we talk about the pseudo-scientific stuff carried out at universities, is if not unnecessary, rather dry and dull. Not something I'd like to do, in any case.

Hope that made any sense, I should really be in bed by now...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by skip spence

But seeing a sunset is an altogether different thing, because that is an individual interpretation in our brain, something our crude (in comparison to the human mind) scientific methods are powerless to predict or explain. A sunset isn't objectively beautiful, it becomes beautiful because your mind interprets it so.

Ah, but appreciation of a colourful sunset, or a quiet waterfall experienced in solitude far from noise and distraction, are things pretty much universally enjoyed by the human race, I think. Not so with 'art', and things made by human hands and minds.
For instance, I actually have very little appreciation for 'art', when you're talking about the painted canvas and the sculpted clay. I am most moved by music, with the written word coming in second. And the music that causes an emotional response in me may make you want to retch, and vice-versa.
But if we both are looking at a bright Moon in a star-strewn sky, or the Sea pounding a rocky coastline, the effects on each of us will probably be quite similar.
I think 'nature' calls to all of us in much the same manner, whereas finding beauty and meaning in the works of Man is indeed an individual exercise.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I think 'nature' calls to all of us in much the same manner, whereas finding beauty and meaning in the works of Man is indeed an individual exercise.

I don't really agree. Although appreciating nature do seem to be more universal than say a Jackson Pollack painting, and might be more 'hardwired' and primal than other aesthetic pleasures, I know people who seemingly care nothing for a rocky coastline or a sunset over an ocean at rest, and you know, who can tell what a dog or a monkey thinks, seeing the same scene as we do. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is a tired old phrase, but true all the same. It's not out there, its solely in our heads. Our individual perception of beauty is of course strongly influenced by other people's opinions and so on, but it remains a human construct, and does not exist independently of us, as do the sun, the coast or a Jackson Pollack painting.

Originally Posted by Lal

Oh I don't mean that we shouldn't discuss anything, far from it, but that trying to root out a 'purposeful meaning' to it all can detract from appreciating the artistry of it.

Sometimes, in fact most times, it's much more enjoyable to look at a painting or a poem and both enjoy the powerful picture it makes and to look at how the colours and the words fit together in that certain way. Instead of looking at it and trying to figure out what the Artist meant.

But don't you think that pondering questions like "what did he/she mean by this?", "what does this symbolise ?" or "how did he/she do this?" also could heighten your appreciation of a work of art?

I mean, I find that the enjoyment one gets from art, or anything else for that matter (many things could be called art), often to a degree depends on your knowledge and engagement in the subject matter.

Take football fex. If you've hardly ever kicked a ball, don't understand the rules or tactics involved or how difficult it is to hit a good cross, and are unfamiliar with the players and the teams, chances are you're not going to appreciate watching a game, be that the Champions League final.

Same goes with looking at a painting, or reading a book, imo. If you have some idea of the effort and skill it must've taken painting the roof of the Sistine Chapel, recognise the motives and characters, understand the symbolism, also know a bit about Michelangelo himself, his life-situation when he made the masterpiece, how Renaissance Italy was like during his days, and how difficult obtaining and mixing good paint was in those days, you are likely to enjoy looking at the piece much more than if you just walk in as a tabula rasa, don't you think?

Although Tolkien denied any specific allegorical purpose to LotR- and I believe him - it still speaks to us in more ways than telling a good story, and Tolkien certainly had a purpose, or numerous, when he wrote the book. I believe there's plenty of 'meaningful purpose' in any good writers works, and I don't see any harm in speculating just what Tolkien had in mind writing his books; quite the opposite, discussing this with smart people here only adds to my enjoyment them. Of course, a good story isn't a good story if it doesn't speak of the human condition in some general way, and another hallmark of a good book is that it goes beyond the original purpose of the writer, and can support lots of unintended interpretations and ideas too, ideas that I might find odd, but others profound and undeniably true. Those are often fun to discuss too.

Well, once again I've strayed way beyond my original thought and am now confused as to where I started from or what point I was trying to make.

Edit. This is very true though:

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Although I do enjoy analysing, what you're saying here still rings a bell for me. If, say, a painting doesn't make me stare at it wide-eyed and agape for it's sheer beauty (like a beautiful sunset would) beyond all thoughts of analysis, it's probably not worth analysing at all; and if somebody's never had that initial experience with a work of art, chances are their analysis of it will be a futile exercise not worth reading.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

But don't you think that pondering questions like "what did he/she mean by this?", "what does this symbolise ?" or "how did he/she do this?" also could heighten your appreciation of a work of art?

I mean, I find that the enjoyment one gets from art, or anything else for that matter (many things could be called art), often to a degree depends on your knowledge and engagement in the subject matter.

Take football fex. If you've hardly ever kicked a ball, don't understand the rules or tactics involved or how difficult it is to hit a good cross, and are unfamiliar with the players and the teams, chances are you're not going to appreciate watching a game, be that the Champions League final.

Same goes with looking at a painting, or reading a book, imo. If you have some idea of the effort and skill it must've taken painting the roof of the Sistine Chapel, recognise the motives and characters, understand the symbolism, also know a bit about Michelangelo himself, his life-situation when he made the masterpiece, how Renaissance Italy was like during his days, and how difficult obtaining and mixing good paint was in those days, you are likely to enjoy looking at the piece much more than if you just walk in as a tabula rasa, don't you think?

Hmm, I sort of disagree. Sort of. Like, I probably will agree with you on the football, but with the painting, somehow, I think it's different. Like, I consider myself a complete analphabet when it comes to art, about 99% of the painters I hardly know anything more than their name, yet I can enjoy the paintings. A bit of truth of what you say may be reflected in the fact that I am not as fond of paintings as many are, I like some, but on the purely "first sight" basis, like "yes, this painting looks nice". But I can still appreciate it.

Take music for example. I think most people don't bother who composed this and that and that he actually lived in a cottage in the countryside where he had two pigs and one duck while he was composing this. Yet still, people enjoy much of the music.

Anyway, the main point - and I believe we all, or almost all, agree on that here - is that of course, Tolkien's work is something that has so many dimensions and analysing it may be fun. That's what we are doing here all the time. There's a difference between analysing and analysing, that is I think the main issue. Like, if you are asked a question "who was Tom Bombadil", one may answer "I think he was a Maia", another "I think he was Tolkien himself" and another "I don't want to know, he is a mystery". Now, there are people - of the first kind - who start a thread and would like to discuss whether Tom was a Maia or Eru or some other unknown spirit, and they "analyse", and they enjoy themselves. Now suddenly another person, of the second kind, comes in and says "he was Tolkien" or "he was the manifestation of Simple Life". Which is something many of the people of the first kind consider "unfair", as of course there is NO Tolkien in M-E, and they don't care to know which philosophical aspect or whatever was Tom the manifestation of. They consider the Second Group as "breaching" their speculation, indeed "breaking the light" in the fashion of Saruman, as they really don't want to dig into this, for them Tom is a living person and nobody has the right to reduce him to some moral principle or metaphore. And then the third group appears, shaking head at the both of them and saying "but don't you see that Bombadil is as he is? He even says it himself. Why should you ask who he is, if he himself is not saying it? Why should we dig into this?" And they consider even the first group being the "lightbreakers".

And that's not to say that these groups are not interchangeable. The very same person who condemned Group Two might be on a different thread or even on the same thread in the very next day discussing what are the enduring values or truths behind the Lord of the Rings.

I guess it's all an issue of sort of internal approach among a group of people, or of an individual. Every work of art has these different levels of reception, it HAS them, and it's a matter of choice if you want only to gaze at the sunset and experience its beauty (to return back to the favourite example), to imagine a chariot of the sun going down the evening sky, or to wonder at the amazing order of the universe and think "wow, and so the atmosphere can bend the light like this?" It is only a matter of acknowledging, also, if you are talking to somebody else, in which terms he or she is thinking now, so that one of you does not end up saying "oh, look how the chariot of the Sun descends today" and the other, mistaking the poetic language used by the other for lack of education (and seriously worried that his companion had missed several centuries of scientific discoveries), shouting "no, what are you saying, this is a big ball of hydrogen and helium!"

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

It is only a matter of acknowledging, also, if you are talking to somebody else, in which terms he or she is thinking now, so that one of you does not end up saying "oh, look how the chariot of the Sun descends today" and the other, mistaking the poetic language used by the other for lack of education (and seriously worried that his companion had missed several centuries of scientific discoveries), shouting "no, what are you saying, this is a big ball of hydrogen and helium!"

This makes me think of a part of Laura Ingalls Wilder's books about her young life as a pioneer. After her sister has gone blind and Laura is acting as her "eyes to the world," they go out for a walk on the prairie one fine spring day and nibble on some wild sorrel. Laura says that it "tastes like springtime," and her sister corrects her, saying that it really tastes a bit like lemon flavoring, and that people must always say precisely what they mean. Things like this occur more than once when Laura tries to describe something using words that convey more of what she feels about something she sees than give an accurate description of what is before her -- and she often doesn't know how to explain to her sister what she's trying to say.

That, I think, is rather like the difference between appreciating a work of art for the feelings it evokes in one rather than looking for the artist's intent. One is emotional; the other is intellectual. They can co-exist (despite Mary Ingalls' opinion ), and can, I believe, enhance one another. Not all artists have a specific intent in creating a work, beyond a desire to put an idea or image in their head into a form where others can see it, and thus can share it, but all Art does have something of its creator in it, even if it's merely in word choice or brush strokes. The worst stories and paintings and such are ones that follow an external formula for "how to write a story" or "how to make a painting" and have little of the artist's own feelings and thoughts in the work. There is a great deal of Tolkien's beliefs and feelings in his work, and there always has been. It can be appreciated on both thinking and feeling levels because he was a thinking and feeling person who wrote to appease his own sense of Art and not a predefined formula for how to write a book. If one wants to appreciate the beauty of the words without looking behind them for a larger meaning or intent, that's fine; and if one wants to go delving to see Tolkien the Author and his thoughts and beliefs peeping out through his words, that's fine, too.