Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Our silly standards

Philosophy Forum
» Aesthetics
» Our silly standards

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Reading From Dawn to Decadence, Barzun describes the restrictions on plays during a certain period:

Quote:

The poets had to observe excruciating rules. The three unities were rarely violated, never the code governing rime and meter. These prohibitions suggestive of bureaucracy at work had the force of etiquette. The public knew the rules and enforced them without mercy. The vocabulary too was more and more limited as pedants kept extending the veto of the Precieuses against calling a chair a chair or saying "It is midnight."

These constraints seem plainly silly, and it seems like the public enforces the rules out of an pedantic insistence that the play meet their arbitrary standards. Like the feel that if these rules are broken, they aren't getting a quality product for their money.

What are our silly rules, that we would be better off doing away with?

You might say we shouldn't do away with such rules, because it would be accepting inferior products. But from my own experience, if you open your mind, relax, and try to enjoy the work the way it is meant to be enjoyed, sometimes you can.

Here are some that come to mind:

"3 hours is too long for a movie"
"The song lyrics are trivial, without meaning"
"The story isn't original"
"The plot is simple"
"It's unrealistic"
"Not historically accurate"

These are all things that are at times legitimate, but often applied arbitrarily. Some of them are hard not to apply, but I've found that silencing your inner critic can greatly enhance enjoyment.

@Jebediah,

I agree. Rules that block are enjoyment are silly for just that reason. I'm not denying the value of certain rules which may indeed reflect the wisdom of experience. But this is the digital age and I definitely don't think 3 hours is too long for a movie. I think of a show like Deadwood. The 12 hour season has a dramatic unity and I am grateful there are hours of such characters and not only three. "Meaning" is sometimes cumulative.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;125240 wrote:

Here are some that come to mind:

"3 hours is too long for a movie"
"The song lyrics are trivial, without meaning"
"The story isn't original"
"The plot is simple"
"It's unrealistic"
"Not historically accurate"

These are all things that are at times legitimate, but often applied arbitrarily. Some of them are hard not to apply, but I've found that silencing your inner critic can greatly enhance enjoyment.

I agree with you completely, but I also think having rules sometimes causes artificial conflict which makes life interesting. Imagine how hard a comedians job would be if we had no rules? Often times they use these rules to point out either their absurdity or to just poke fun at them existing in the first place. Not to mention that some art is based off these rules being in place which the art utilizes to challenge the rule, making it progressive. Then there is some enjoyment out of breaking the rules from time to time as long as it isn't to someones detriment.

I wouldn't mind sitting for a three hour plus movie, it it was worth spending the time.
I like trivial song lyrics that are left unexplained, since it can develop it's own meaning within the listener.
The story doesn't need to be original if it's done in a new way or entertaining.
Simple plots are sometimes the easiest to follow.
It can be unrealistic as long as it isn't trying to protest it's realism.
I don't think I have ever found any history to be completely accurate to date so I take it to be what it is without a huge investment.

There are sometimes rules that either shouldn't be broken or if they are, it is difficult to absorb. Like music timing for example, you could try to change the music signature to a different time scale but the further you move out of 4-4 it tends to become harder to listen to musically. In my opinion anyways.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;125240 wrote:

... But from my own experience, if you open your mind, relax, and try to enjoy the work the way it is meant to be enjoyed, sometimes you can.

...

... I've found that silencing your inner critic can greatly enhance enjoyment.

Some things are only enjoyable if one fails to think about them. Whether it is better to stop thinking or select different pastimes, I will leave it to the readers of this post to decide for themselves.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;126196 wrote:

Some things are only enjoyable if one fails to think about them. Whether it is better to stop thinking or select different pastimes, I will leave it to the readers of this post to decide for themselves.

This is a bad post, I didn't enjoy it. It doesn't rhyme, the meter is off, and you used the word "readers" instead of "those whose eyes fall softly on the page, scanning it from left to right and back again".

:shifty:

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;126214 wrote:

This is a bad post, I didn't enjoy it. It doesn't rhyme, the meter is off, and you used the word "readers" instead of "those whose eyes fall softly on the page, scanning it from left to right and back again".

:shifty:

"This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"

@melonkali,

melonkali;126594 wrote:

"This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"

@Jebediah,

Funny, melonkali! That's a play on the old Churchill line, isn't it?

Samm

@melonkali,

melonkali;126594 wrote:

"This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"

Whoops -- I should have explained this quote when I first posted it, for those unfamiliar with its history.

Attributed to Winston Churchill (although he borrowed it from an earlier source). Churchill prided himself on his rhetoric. An editor clumsily re-wrote a line in Churchill's speech because it had originally ended with a dangling preposition. Churchill responded with the above quote...

@Jebediah,

There is no dramatic tension in my favorite short stories, which many might view as boring. I've noticed I tend to like philosophers to the extent reading them can put me to sleep.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;125245 wrote:

"Meaning" is sometimes cumulative.

Truer words were never spoken.

@Jebediah,

The notion that all that is real is measurable and verifiable is one rule that I would love to do away with.

We must again understand the difference between what is qualitative and what is quantitative. Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it isn't real, and what exists qualitatively cannot usually be quantified. Thus the dichotomy.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;125240 wrote:

Reading From Dawn to Decadence, Barzun describes the restrictions on plays during a certain period:

These constraints seem plainly silly, and it seems like the public enforces the rules out of an pedantic insistence that the play meet their arbitrary standards. Like the feel that if these rules are broken, they aren't getting a quality product for their money.

What are our silly rules, that we would be better off doing away with?

You might say we shouldn't do away with such rules, because it would be accepting inferior products. But from my own experience, if you open your mind, relax, and try to enjoy the work the way it is meant to be enjoyed, sometimes you can.

Here are some that come to mind:

"3 hours is too long for a movie"
"The song lyrics are trivial, without meaning"
"The story isn't original"
"The plot is simple"
"It's unrealistic"
"Not historically accurate"

These are all things that are at times legitimate, but often applied arbitrarily. Some of them are hard not to apply, but I've found that silencing your inner critic can greatly enhance enjoyment.

With our societies with great abundance, we grow tired of trivial stuff, imo people should make some travels to 3rd world countries, learning about great provety and misery, then such decadent people may learn to appreciate the simple things, may learn that the world doesn't evolve around their selfish needs.

Philosophy Forum
» Aesthetics
» Our silly standards

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Our silly standards

Quick Links

My Account

able2know