I know, my aversion to chocolate has mystified many. (But if it makes you feel better, I love clothing and perfume. I just live by the idea that style is what I prefer, what I know to look good on me, and what is comfortable and practical, basically what makes me feel like me.)
What sweets do I like? Sugar. And fruitiness. Often with breadiness. So, pies and pastries, scones and tarts. With cherries, peaches, blackberries, etc. Hmm. Also, Skittles and Starbursts, caramel, toffee and juices.
I have found that those who do not like chocolate often prefer fruity desserts and those who love chocolate do not like fruity desserts. I however, and unfortunately for my derriere, love both. But too much sugar (for me) often leads to migraines which is why I do not eat a lot of sugary candy.
And thank you so much for the link! What an interesting article. Though I agree with much of it, I’m going to re-read it and think about some of the areas that gave me pause.
I found this interesting:
“A work of art"; and the only possible work of art is something which it has given pleasure to the worker to produce. This artwork may be reproduced by more or less mechanical processes, and still be something we are justified in using; but somehow, only that which has given joy in the making can in its turn give joy in the using, and, as a rule, the pleasure taken in producing a thing which passes through many mechanical processes before it reaches the user becomes so remote as to be almost negligible. This depends somewhat, of course, upon how mechanical the processes are. Some processes of reproduction involve so much art in their carrying out that they, as it were, keep the art in the thing alive. Many branches of printer’s work, such as wood-block printing, say in wall-papers and fabrics, various lithographing and engraving processes, and so on, while they are means adopted whereby to multiply a thing indefinitely, require so much exercise of artistic feeling on the part of the craftsman, if they are to be successful, that the art is, to some extent, kept alive. Therefore this is a test we can safely apply to anything we propose to use in decorating our rooms. Has it given joy to the producer? And if the answer is no, we know that it is not a work of art. We shall come to feel that it has no beauty, and if we ever took any pleasure in it, that pleasure will not last.”
Though I am
1. not certain if I can determine definitely if joy or pleasure was experienced in the making of a particular object. I think that is a purely subjective speculation.
and
2. I question if it is true that my ability to experience joy in using an item is largely determined by what the maker experienced while making the object or if my pleasure in a beautiful object will cease if I conclude that the object was not joyfully made.
It has certainly given me something to think about it. Oh dear, I may end up throwing items out of my house left and right. ;D
I certainly did not agree with the article in its entirety. And as for the point you brought up,
1) I (and I doubt many if anyone) can with perfect certainty and knowledge ascertain whether the maker/ producer of a certain object or artwork had joy in the making of it. Without personally knowing the artist and also trusting said artist to be honest, how would one know whether its making gave joy to the maker and even then, although the finished product may have given them joy (or pride or satisfaction), it may have in the course of its creation gave the artist considerable pain or frustration. Would that then nullify any resulting joy? To base one's enjoyment of something on the largely unknowable and unquantifiable "joy" of the maker seems a highly ridiculous method of choosing anything.
2)I utterly disagree with the proposition that my enjoyment of an item is contingent upon the degree of joy experienced by its maker, much less that my appreciation of said item would be able to be swayed by my knowledge, negative or positive, of that maker's level of joy. Indeed, many songs and paintings I know to have been created when the artist was very distressed emotionally and the resulting art gave them precious little joy at the time, rather being an outlet of their sorrow and pain, but I find beauty and solace in these works, a joy of a different sort, clearly not contingent on the artist's happiness at the time of the item's creation nor even my knowledge of their unhappiness at the time. Perhaps I am an anomalous factor, but I would posit that as a generality the above proposition as put forward in the article is unsound. (Um, that got rather longish.)
What sweets do I like? Sugar. And fruitiness. Often with breadiness. So, pies and pastries, scones and tarts. With cherries, peaches, blackberries, etc. Hmm. Also, Skittles and Starbursts, caramel, toffee and juices.
Ah, like the saying of William Morris: "Have nothing in your rooms which you do not either know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful."
( see article: http://chestofbooks.com/architecture/Modern-Buildings-Construction-V6/Chapter-XIII-The-Decoration-Of-Domestic-Buildings.html )
Simply, I like, as much as possible, to have the necessary and utilitarian items in a room be aesthetically pleasing. But I love pictures and paintings to have hung up on walls.
Ah, teacups! I have a very small collection, but I love using them, esp. since every one has a memory.
Reply
I have found that those who do not like chocolate often prefer fruity desserts and those who love chocolate do not like fruity desserts. I however, and unfortunately for my derriere, love both. But too much sugar (for me) often leads to migraines which is why I do not eat a lot of sugary candy.
And thank you so much for the link! What an interesting article. Though I agree with much of it, I’m going to re-read it and think about some of the areas that gave me pause.
I found this interesting:
“A work of art"; and the only possible work of art is something which it has given pleasure to the worker to produce. This artwork may be reproduced by more or less mechanical processes, and still be something we are justified in using; but somehow, only that which has given joy in the making can in its turn give joy in the using, and, as a rule, the pleasure taken in producing a thing which passes through many mechanical processes before it reaches the user becomes so remote as to be almost negligible. This depends somewhat, of course, upon how mechanical the processes are. Some processes of reproduction involve so much art in their carrying out that they, as it were, keep the art in the thing alive. Many branches of printer’s work, such as wood-block printing, say in wall-papers and fabrics, various lithographing and engraving processes, and so on, while they are means adopted whereby to multiply a thing indefinitely, require so much exercise of artistic feeling on the part of the craftsman, if they are to be successful, that the art is, to some extent, kept alive. Therefore this is a test we can safely apply to anything we propose to use in decorating our rooms. Has it given joy to the producer? And if the answer is no, we know that it is not a work of art. We shall come to feel that it has no beauty, and if we ever took any pleasure in it, that pleasure will not last.”
Though I am
1. not certain if I can determine definitely if joy or pleasure was experienced in the making of a particular object. I think that is a purely subjective speculation.
and
2. I question if it is true that my ability to experience joy in using an item is largely determined by what the maker experienced while making the object or if my pleasure in a beautiful object will cease if I conclude that the object was not joyfully made.
It has certainly given me something to think about it. Oh dear, I may end up throwing items out of my house left and right. ;D
Reply
1) I (and I doubt many if anyone) can with perfect certainty and knowledge ascertain whether the maker/ producer of a certain object or artwork had joy in the making of it. Without personally knowing the artist and also trusting said artist to be honest, how would one know whether its making gave joy to the maker and even then, although the finished product may have given them joy (or pride or satisfaction), it may have in the course of its creation gave the artist considerable pain or frustration. Would that then nullify any resulting joy? To base one's enjoyment of something on the largely unknowable and unquantifiable "joy" of the maker seems a highly ridiculous method of choosing anything.
2)I utterly disagree with the proposition that my enjoyment of an item is contingent upon the degree of joy experienced by its maker, much less that my appreciation of said item would be able to be swayed by my knowledge, negative or positive, of that maker's level of joy. Indeed, many songs and paintings I know to have been created when the artist was very distressed emotionally and the resulting art gave them precious little joy at the time, rather being an outlet of their sorrow and pain, but I find beauty and solace in these works, a joy of a different sort, clearly not contingent on the artist's happiness at the time of the item's creation nor even my knowledge of their unhappiness at the time. Perhaps I am an anomalous factor, but I would posit that as a generality the above proposition as put forward in the article is unsound. (Um, that got rather longish.)
Reply
Leave a comment