|
Re: Book: Being No One
wandering off topic, or perhaps not, I came across this quote by Machen accidentally and within minutes of reading the above post.
"Let it not be supposed that I desire in any way to sneer at science. There are excellent souls whose vocation it is to know all about stamens and pistils, the geology of Snowdon, the date of the second Reform Bill, and the name of King Alfred's grandmother. Mankind is infinitely curious, even about trifles, and I would not have it otherwise. What I want to make clear is that these trifles are no affair of literature or painting or any of the arts. Art is not concerned with true things-the particular-but with the truth-the universal-which is but another aspect of Beauty."
I thought it might be wise to share at this point that the above is not a sentiment I disagree with, in fact i think it is beautiful and beautifully expressed. Trifles may be too harsh an expression as science has such practical use in the alleviation of suffering but I think you get the drift...
I also think that the beauty may be a very personal experience, so universal is not necessarily the word I would use...
Where my thoughts on the matter are conflicted is in the area of "Evolutionary Aesthetics" and such concepts as those expressed in Brian Stablefords work (PS Publishing - Black Wings - download - story freely available). Which are partly based on the experience of beauty (which I am using as a catch all word for the terrible/sublime feeling in great weird fiction also) being genetically or physically determined.
I like his novel "Young Blood" also, looking at virally generated conciousness.
I would not disagree with these ideas either - without going into all the data here, the theories behind them seem potentially valid to me.
Great Apologies for the digression. I will look at the references provided by both above posters.
|