Print

Print


"Thomas R. Wier" wrote:
>
> Rob Nierse wrote:
>
> > About justifying your conlang: this is my standard answer:
> >
> > "I can't justify."
>
> How do you justify that for which the very idea of "justification"
> makes no sense?  Does it makes sense to "justify" the Mona Lisa,
> or the Sistine Chapel? After the fact, maybe (in this line of thinking:
> because they make money for the Louvre/Vatican) -- but not
> when the artists involved were first thinking about the idea.
>

Careful about using examples like the Sistine Chapel in this argument.
That, AFAIK, was done on a commission from the Church. What was the
Church's justification? They didn't need one, they had the money.

Just so no one takes me wrong here, I'm not saying anything about the
Church, I'm trying to say something about the argument of needing
"justification" for art. People who insist on bringing up this tired old
saw never seem to bring it up when a work was commissioned. The idea
that money is a worthy justification but an artist's own pleasure
*can't* be is what really irritates me.

Laurie
[log in to unmask]
http://www.winternet.com/~milo
--
"Being bright does not grant an immunity to doing idiotic
things; more like, it just enlarges the possible scope."
     -- Lois McMaster Bujold