Art!

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lal

Of course, this line of thought risks cutting all scope for discussion dead, but it shouldn't. Maybe we should, instead of trying to find some useful purpose to Tolkien's work, just sit back and discuss the sheer poetry of it all?

Although I'm sympathetic to the idea, Lal, I think you sort of answered your own question. I think we all agree that LotR is a beautiful piece of art, but discussing what everyone agrees on ain't that intriguing, is it? Like, isn't the Birthday Party a wonderful episode? - Oh yeah, and don't you just love Bilbo's speech? - Definitely! it's great how T manages to create that special atmosphere etc etc. Such a thread wouldn't get many replies, me thinks...

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I mean "take away the mystery"? I do hear that oftentimes at school. But what does that actually mean? Why are the "mysteries" of nature poorer than those produced by our poor imagination (I mean the "unicorns" or " anthropomorphic Gods", really, how low can you get)? I mean science has explained a lot of things that had a "mystical" explanation earlier but aren't their explanations even more mysterious? The idea that matter is actually composed of tiny particles and are merely constructed of nothing? How do you understand that even if it's taught to you at school? There's no mystery in there? Or that those tiny particles actually can be either waves or energy? What about the dark matter? Black holes sucking everything into them? Or the microscopic life-forms discovered that are more dreadful than any aliens Hollywood has produced, life-forms discovered from 10 kilometers+ under the sea thriving without sunlight, in acid... Would any human imagination thought of these unless the world threw them on our inquisitive eyes and minds?

I never understood that "takes away the mystery" nonsense either. Yes, modern science has explained many things that used to be clouded in myth and superstition, and we now know infinitely much more about ourselves and the world around it that we used to just a few hundred years ago. Then people believed in elves and dragons and trolls, which made for good bed time stories, but now we know there is in fact no "magic", there are no fairies dancing on misty meadows a midsummer's night, and when the thunder rolls, Thor isn't riding his great chariot in the sky. We know this, unless we do like the Ostrich and bury our heads in the sand (not that Ostriches actually do that either, that's another alluring but quite ridiculous myth). No, take the myths for what they are, but don't shy away from the truth.

Physicists have mathematically reconstructed and explained the creation of the universe down to the first tiny fractions of a pico-second (not saying they are right) and more and more is learned about our mind and consciousness. Still, the true orgin and meaning behind our existence here remains as much or more of a mystery, as Nogrod says. While physicists may argue convincingly for the Big Bang-theory, they still have no convincing answer just as to how something could come out of nothing, and how nothing can be everything. Chances are they never will either, but isn't the quest for knowledge and progress the very essence of humanity? I at least can't help to want to know. If the evidence don't add up, I will question it. But each to his own.

That said, I'm not a fan of academic literary analysis, unless the work in question is primarily an idea-book, which LotR certainly isn't. Not that it's lacking ideas, mind you.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I never understood that "takes away the mystery" nonsense either. Yes, modern science has explained many things that used to be clouded in myth and superstition, and we now know infinitely much more about ourselves and the world around it that we used to just a few hundred years ago. Then people believed in elves and dragons and trolls, which made for good bed time stories, but now we know there is in fact no "magic", there are no fairies dancing on misty meadows a midsummer's night, and when the thunder rolls, Thor isn't riding his great chariot in the sky. We know this, unless we do like the Ostrich and bury our heads in the sand (not that Ostriches actually do that either, that's another alluring but quite ridiculous myth). No, take the myths for what they are, but don't shy away from the truth.

Well, I can see all the points of what you are saying, and what Nogrod is saying, but still I kind of side more with Greenie. There IS some sort of magic or spell that is easily broken if you start to dig into the things like what is the sunlight actually made of, or stuff like that. And I'm far from calling it "nonsense". For emphasising the point, let me use a different angle of view - one which I noticed because of my "profession" as a theologian. It's again the same because it goes along the very same line with scientific knowledge of the world. I don't recall who was the one who said it, it was one of the German poets and nature philosophers of the 18th or 19th century, but he was complaining about one particular thing about Christianity, and that was, that it "disenchanted the nature". Which is something that I sort of agree with, even though I personally stand "on the other side of the barricade" and approve of what it means for the life of humans. That is, Christianity (or already Judaism, for that matter) of course did a tremendous deal of things and leap in humans' understanding of the world by denying the divinity of all the processes which in fact are nothing but effects of the creation, i.e. there is nothing divine in the sun, there is nothing divine in the moon, they are just some stellar objects which give light and that's it. Of course this is a positive thing for human's understanding to the world and it dealt with many superstitions in really strong way. However, I have to agree with the abovementioned guy whose name I cannot recall, that it kind of robs one of something. I just think there are moments when one could leave his knowledge, and that's just what fantasy is for, and that's what, I believe, the Professor meant with the "trips to Faërie". Of course on the basis of the daily, real life I am not going to worship the moon or make sacrifices in order to make the sun shine stronger, but there is nothing wrong in making a story where the sun talks or the moon has its own mind. I think here is just the role of knowledge in this matter - first, the man needs to understand the truth about the world he lives in, and after he does, then there is nothing wrong with entering the realm of myths again, but with the kind of "background knowledge" that this is but a "play".

And it is once again the same whether the question is whether there are faeries dancing in the moonlight in the forest or what one could see from the horizon of a black hole. It should just be acknowledged that at moments when it's a matter of aesthetic choice, one could see it from different points of view. Somebody just does not want to admire the beauty of the complexity of photones or whatever it is, but just sunlight as he sees it with naked eye. Somebody just may want to forget that Elves don't exist but wants to imagine that just behind the trees in front of him, there is one hiding there. Isn't this, after all, what we are all sort of prone to doing here? Even if just when reading LotR, if nothing else? I really even cannot say aloud, or write, that "there was no Gondolin, ever", because it's just not true! And that's just the point and also what others have said before here: When we are discussing Tolkien, sometimes we just don't want to hear "Tom Bombadil is Tolkien himself", because there is NO Tolkien in Middle-Earth, there is just Tom Bombadil, who is a real walking and living figure; just like the sunlight is just sunlight for our eyes - no matter how hard you try - and not any set of photones or whatever it might be.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Legate

I just think there are moments when one could leave his knowledge, and that's just what fantasy is for, and that's what, I believe, the Professor meant with the "trips to Faërie".

Sure, and hey, I'm obviously a big fan of the Silmarillion and so on. And I maybe could have picked a better word than nonsense. But what I meant by taking the myths and superstitions for what they are, is that while they might be good enjoyable stories if you can suspend your disbelief, they are also contradicted by a strong set of real life evidence and indicaments, and are therefore simply not true, and one should be aware of that. Sure, while reading a novel you might allow yourself to drift away from modern knowledge, and that's perfectly fine and harmless. One might say Tolkien is like a great illusionist, who makes his lovely assistant disappear in plain sight, leaving the audience gasping for breath. Although they know it must be a trick, the effect it leaves is as if it truly were magic, just like Tolkien has us believing that Finarfin still rules the Noldor in Túna. While reading, we want to believe in the stories as if they were real and Tolkien makes this easy indeed. And I thank him for that.

Originally Posted by Legate

Somebody just may want to forget that Elves don't exist but wants to imagine that just behind the trees in front of him, there is one hiding there. Isn't this, after all, what we are all sort of prone to doing here?

Agreed.

What bugs me though in other walks of life is that people only see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe. When it's more convenient to believe in myths and fantasies than actual empirical evidence or just plain common sense (if there is such a thing), they do so, and when politics comes into the mix, this can be very dangerous. 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.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

What bugs me though in other walks of life is that people only see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe. When it's more convenient to believe in myths and fantasies than actual empirical evidence or just plain common sense (if there is such a thing), they do so, and when politics comes into the mix, this can be very dangerous. 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.

Sure and definitely agreed. That's exactly what I meant by this paraghraph:

Of course on the basis of the daily, real life I am not going to worship the moon or make sacrifices in order to make the sun shine stronger, but there is nothing wrong in making a story where the sun talks or the moon has its own mind. I think here is just the role of knowledge in this matter - first, the man needs to understand the truth about the world he lives in, and after he does, then there is nothing wrong with entering the realm of myths again, but with the kind of "background knowledge" that this is but a "play".

And that's, I think, when it comes to it, one of the most important questions of life - to reach this stage and be aware of it. That's what makes humans truly free. Acknowledging the truth is what can make them free.

[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...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Although I'm sympathetic to the idea, Lal, I think you sort of answered your own question. I think we all agree that LotR is a beautiful piece of art, but discussing what everyone agrees on ain't that intriguing, is it? Like, isn't the Birthday Party a wonderful episode? - Oh yeah, and don't you just love Bilbo's speech? - Definitely! it's great how T manages to create that special atmosphere etc etc. Such a thread wouldn't get many replies, me thinks....

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.