Art!

[Lalwendë]

For all our discussions where we try and pin down the answers to questions like "but what did he mean?" isn't Tolkien's whole legendarium just one huge, complex and beautiful work of Art?

I would contend that there isn't one deeper meaning to it all, the evidence being that every reader finds different meanings in it, and some find none at all, they just like the way it looks, like Gimli when he saw the Glittering Caves of Aglarond.

I don't think even Tolkien could pin it all down to 'mean something'. He flatly denied it was allegorical in any way, and came up with umpteen ideas about this enigmatic 'meaning'. Maybe it's a symptom of the modern world that we're all Utilitarians and everything must have purpose, rather than just exist as a purely decorative and pleasurable object? Critics try and work out what the Mona Lisa is all about; isn't it just a beautiful portrait?

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?

What do you think?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Maybe it's a symptom of the modern world that we're all Utilitarians and everything must have purpose, rather than just exist as a purely decorative and pleasurable object? Critics try and work out what the Mona Lisa is all about; isn't it just a beautiful portrait?

And isn't even the beauty itself a purpose? (Or, as one of my teachers - and a priest he used to be - once said to a similar argument: "Life itself is a purpose.")

I guess Tolkien's works just have so many dimensions, which just proves how rich they are, like many other epics which deserve the attention, and which have found their popularity and enduring popularity in the history and throughout centuries or even millenia themselves just because of the same reason. With those books, and I believe Tolkien has the potential to belong to the cathegory (let's talk about it in a few hundred years), it's that they don't need any "advertising" or artifical way of labeling them as "classics", because they have and still can find their way to the humans' hearts themselves.

Books like these of Tolkien differ from the pure works of "simple belles-lettres" which do not have any more purpose than to amuse us, and also from the purely utilitarian books written in order to convey some message (which are often, alas, very badly written even if they are supposed to be nice to read).

It makes me wonder - it just occured to me - it is really possible that Tolkien himself did not perceive, or expect, the deeper thoughts and meanings behind his texts, and when he was writing it, he, just like Valar in his own story, "did not know that it had any other purpose apart from its own beauty".

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

It makes me wonder - it just occured to me - it is really possible that Tolkien himself did not perceive, or expect, the deeper thoughts and meanings behind his texts, and when he was writing it, he, just like Valar in his own story, "did not know that it had any other purpose apart from its own beauty".

This is what I often think. Tolkien seems to have been somewhat bemused by the fandom which suddenly blew up, and somewhat disheartened at having so many interesting letters to answer (he doesn't seem like the type who would just ignore it when a fan had gone to the effort of writing to him). The answers he gives to them are quite often contradictory when you read his letters in bulk - as shown by our endless discussions over "what he meant by x".

I think the germ of his work was simply an urge to write, to create this thing of beauty being inspired by so many different works of literature and art, and by his own life, by faith, by language. He spent years perfecting this writing so that it was coherent, even to the extent that he made names fot the linguistic patterns he had laid down, that moon phases and stars were correct. He was like a painter working in the most meticulous detail imaginable.

It almost seems a shame to pick it all apart and try to impose meanings upon it all, rather like looking at a beautiful painting and instead of sinking into the view to examine what sort of brushes were used and why. I wonder why we do that?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I think I would ask "define purpose." Giving pleasure, providing thought, or entertainment, amusement, something pretty to cover an ugly hole in the wall... all of those are purpose. Whether or not our modern world considers such things important or valuable is its own loss. The stimulation of imagination is, to me, something very important, valuable, and full of purpose, as both invention and culture need a healthy imagination to survive. It seems to me that Tolkien's work has provided a vast number of people with a powerful wellspring of inspiration, and that alone is a tremendous purpose, whether or not Tolkien intended it at first. Not everyone will think so, but then, some things I was once taught were the most Important Purposes in the world turned out to be some of the most negative influences on my life in the long run.

Purpose, I suppose, is very much in the eye, and mind, of the beholder.

[The Mouth of Sauron]

I think they were good fantasy novels.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think the germ of his work was simply an urge to write, to create this thing of beauty being inspired by so many different works of literature and art, and by his own life, by faith, by language. He spent years perfecting this writing so that it was coherent, even to the extent that he made names fot the linguistic patterns he had laid down, that moon phases and stars were correct. He was like a painter working in the most meticulous detail imaginable.

Indeed. Three words: Leaf by Niggle.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

I think I would ask "define purpose." Giving pleasure, providing thought, or entertainment, amusement, something pretty to cover an ugly hole in the wall... all of those are purpose. Whether or not our modern world considers such things important or valuable is its own loss.

Oh my! Well indeed - Leaf by Niggle. "He was of no real use to the Society." Did the Professor actually try to answer to us himself already a long time ago?

[Morsul the Dark]

I would say everything in Life needs a purpose and these novels are lovely but have the purpose of entertainment.

My philosophy on Art as Fea well knows is all about function

"Go for Form and Function, but if both are not attainable you need Function."

I always say that. Beauty itself I would say except in mating habits of humans Not a uselful thing.

So again I say LOTR entertains that IS it's function beyond that point is a realm for philosophers and critics.

[Morthoron]

Lal, you seem to be following (at least in this thread) the 19th century 'Art for Art's Sake' movement.

Oscar Wilde made the point that...

A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist.

James McNeill Whistler, a friend of Oscar's (that is until their egos became too big to fit in one room) concluded...

People have acquired the habit of looking, as who should
say, not at a picture, but through it, at some human fact,
that shall, or shall not, from a social point of view, better
their mental or moral state...

Then Whistler added more bluntly...

Art should be independent of all claptrap —should stand alone and appeal to the artistic sense of eye or ear, without confounding this with emotions entirely foreign to it, as devotion, pity, love, patriotism and the like

I don't necessarily subscribe to the Art for Art's Sake Movement (although the critiques and essays of Walter Pater are fascinating), nor do I think one can necessarily divorce intellectual considerations such as 'meaning' or 'social impact' from some art (particularly literature), but one can certainly exclude these considerations in a discussion and simply discuss, as you said "the sheer poetry of it all."

Ummm...where do you wish to start?

[A Little Green]

Beauty itself is a purpose. Of course it is. Whether Tolkien's work has another purpose than beauty is something known by the author alone. (And he has, I think, denied there being another purpose.) We can, however, argue about whether a purpose given to his work later and by other people is a purpose in the same way the original purpose is.

What I find interesting as well is that we seem to have a need to make sense of things by discussing things like "Do Balrogs have wings?" or "Why didn't the eagles just carry Frodo to Mount Doom?" or "What was Tom Bombadil?" When I see a thread like that appear, it always pops into my mind that LotR was, after all, a book, a fiction, a stunning work of art. There is no answer to questions like that because Tolkien didn't answer them in his book. Nor do we need those answers, necessarily, to enjoy the art, the beauty, the poetry of it all. In fact, to me it's rather the same as telling me that something beautiful is actually a chemical reaction in my brain. A killjoy. An attempt to analyse and make sense of a thing of beauty, whether it is an art guy explaining why some element in a painting is in the specific place it happens to be in or a scientist explaining how the sea is made of H2O molecules, is something I can't help but regard as interesting but dull - something that takes away the mystery. For myself, I don't want to know if there was a moral teaching behind LotR. I don't want to know whether Balrogs have wings.

[Inziladun]

While I don't mind ruminating over whether Balrogs have wings, or what Tom Bombadil really was, I draw the line at imparting metaphor and allegory to these works. That's the reason I insist on an 'in-story' explanation for Tom. Breaking down a story while trying to figure out a 'hidden' meaning or intent by the author has always seemed to me a Sarumanish thing to do. And Gandalf didn't care much for such activity.

'And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.'

I very much enjoy talking about in-story topics, such as the trade-route questions, the origins of Barrow-wights, and whether Thingol was a wise king.
I get no insight from prying into the author's head looking for all the answers though. The text usually has answers enough, and when it doesn't, that's where individual interpretations, which are virtually limitless in their variety, come into play to keep things interesting. Any one seen the movie Dead Poet's Society?

[Mithalwen]

I think Tolkien did have a purpose in that he created Arda as a place for his invented languages to live and be. In the process like the elves of Lorien he put the thought of all that he loved in to what he made and their presence can be distinguished by those that have the "eyes to see that can".

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

A killjoy. An attempt to analyse and make sense of a thing of beauty, whether it is an art guy explaining why some element in a painting is in the specific place it happens to be in or a scientist explaining how the sea is made of H2O molecules, is something I can't help but regard as interesting but dull - something that takes away the mystery.

It reminds me about the anecdote on Goethe which I don't don't remember exactly but I can outline the idea of it.

Goethe was climbing the Alps with his romanticist friend and when the sun set in beautiful colours his friend asked him how dull it would be for Goethe as he was a student of light and colour as a "scientist", that he wouldn't get the feeling of it. And then Goethe replied that on the contrary, knowing how the colours were born made it even a greater experience as it was not only an aesthetic but also an intellectual experience at the same time...

Like Morthoron implies, we have a nice divide between the romanticism of feeling and then the intellectualism of reason. Not that he suggests we should choose between the two - and not that I suggest it. But we should be aware of the divide and that none is the clear champion.

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?

In medieval times it was thought that human imagination was "connecting those things in nature that were not connected and dividing those which were not divided in nature". How true (think of the unicorns or anthropomorphic Gods again)! All fine and dandy, but dependent on our everyday vision of the world itself, built from our experiences...


Or to pose the question from a different angle: why is something you can't articulate dearer than that which you can articulate? And this I think is more to the point made here.

Okay too late (RL) to press the point, but let me just make a few questions...

In music as such (non-vocal music that is) or in non-figurative art one could say there is no easily discerned conceptual substance. But every novel, every poem, every song, every theater-piece is conceptrual through and through. They are built from concepts and their combinations. The question remains are the individual works immune to translation, can they be described meaningfully in other concepts?

The romantics made a difference between allegories and symbols meaning that an allegory was something you could explain with other concepts (eg. describe what it meant; like a scale meaning justice or a lion meaning courage etc.) but with symbols you could only point at the work and say: that is what is meant in there.

So is a piece of art a symbol in the romantic sense? Our culture tends to champion that view today...

Let me draw a parallel here. The romantic movement also "discovered" imagination again. To them it was inspiration, something coming from the innermost recesses of our individual being (paving the way for psycho-analysis and the concept of unconscious). But "inspiration" had meant something completely different before the 19th century Germany (and France). In-spirare actually means to "breath in", to breath in from outside - from the muses in the earliest notes of our culture.

So where do our "new" ideas - that make works of art, engineering, science... - come from; from outside of us (eg. the shared world open to all of us) or from the innermost recesses of absolutely particular individuals?

How should we "read" art? As something that can be shared with others - even if disagreeing but then again helping others to see things they don't see (or getting "corrected" or being opened with new perspectives by others) - or as private experiences closed to any conceptual sharing just keeping with our own feeling here and now?

Bah... the time is running. But I hope I managed to make at least a few provocative intrusions into the subject...

And to avoid any misunderstandings, I'm not sure I'm an advocate of either extreme view I've built up here. Like Aristotle said, the virtuous way is somewhere in between the extremes...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[davem]

Just come across this episode of Nemi :

Kind of sums it up, huh?