Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On 07.06.2015 13:00, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> Inkubo aside, you could make the case Esperanto is pretty "artless" by
> design, since Zamenhof's goal of ease of learning (which requires a certain
> degree of naturalism) included complete regularity (which is not very
> naturalistic at all).  Even if we stipulate that conlanging is an art,
> auxlangs are not artlangs.  Writing is an art, and a well-written
> instruction manual is both hard to create and a thing of beauty, yet an
> instruction manual is not judged by the same criteria as literature.

The comparison between an auxlang and an instruction manual is IMHO 
quite apt; the same way an instruction manual is not literature, an 
auxlang is not an artlang.  Yet, like an instruction manual can be well 
written, an auxlang can be aesthetically pleasing, and suitable as a 
medium of fine art.

Also, naturalistic artlangs do not have a monopoly on being artlangs.  
Just as there is abstract, non-representative visual art there can be 
artlangs that do not resemble natlangs, though I have to admit that 
AFAIK there aren't very many around, and the naturalistic style is still 
dominant in artlanging.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1