Quote:
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six  It was Sartre's notion that of all the forms of art, writing is the best, the most perfect, and the only that can truly describe itself. For example: a dead tree. If an artist or a photographer were to capture this, that's all they've merely done. They've took an object and showed it to us. It's left to our interepretation as it's meaning. A writer, on the other hand, if he were to install this imagery, it comes without saying that it has more meaning. The dead tree can represent any number of things: society, personal reflection, the result of a dry season, et cetera. In short, a writer has more tools which can help identify the essence of a dead tree. However, depending on the style, the essence is questioned.Now, going back to Sartre, it was his argument that out of all the styles of writing, prose is by far the most perfect. It is the only form which is deliberate in its aim, not open to interpretation, and yet can qualify as artistic.
Now, in keeping with our discussions, we all agree that each and all aspects are in someway perfect in themselves. Poetic phrasing is perfect for poetry which is perfect for artistic writing which is perfect in conveying a theme/emotion. But it's too figurative. Although poetry may be the perfect form from conveying an emotion, it's open to interpretation. Even then, you have many styles: slam poetry, prose poetry, lyrical poetry, haikus, epic poetry; and it encorporates a number of tools: meter, rhyme, rhyme-scheme, pure prose, structure. So, what's the perfect poem in conveying a dead tree? Who's the perfect poet?
Ergo, when writing in prose, one can only convey the literal meaning of the piece. A prose piece is perfect in not only conveying this and that, but it's the perfect form of writing in that each word can only convey this and that. It follows a set of rules (adhering to standards) and does so perfectly. |
excellent that you included this little digression, 666. i too see the parallels between this and our discussion. and sartre's ideas seem relevant to the topic at hand. more importantly, they're interesting - and seem to contain some of the things that have actually come out so far.
it seems that for sartre, everything is perfect in its own right, but can be perfect in different measures. that is to say, one thing can be more perfect than another. this is an angle that i hadn't really seen the problem from before. another thing that jumps out is his presumption of objective perfection, ie that prose is more perfect than poetry because prose is less open to interpretation (and hence less likely to be used incorrectly, or for anything but the objectively intended purpose).
you seem to agree with sartre on these points, or at least i gather as much from your not expressing any objections to sartre's arguments. hmmm.
perhaps we should run down a different road for a while, maybe on a sartre-induced tangent, and see if we can't get to the final answer down another road? we've been following the current one for a while, and i think it has helped us define the question very well, and given us good insight towards a conclusive answer. now, for the prompt...
road #1: deconstructionism. let's deconstruct it to try to make sense of the objective / subjective / intrinsic / extrinsic side of the nature of perfection.
road #2: the relationship between the risk of something being open to interpretation and its perfection. how does perfection depend on its makers intentions and others' interpretations?
road #3: what is the difference between being the best and perfect? is there any difference? what is the relationship between being perfect and being the best?
if anyone else has any suggested roads to run down, please suggest one, or post on any one of the three above. it just seems to me the flow of new ideas has slowed to a trickle in this thread, and we could very well make good headway on a very interesting (and perhaps less usual) philosophical question.
oh, and 666, i think i remember something about plato's forms, or figures, too. weren't they like the pure ideas extracted from the instances of them in the material world? or something. i think that could offer immense insight into our problem.
and what do you think, theburningbush? do you have any ideas of how we could further expand on this? i might even make a new thread here pretty soon so that all the other members can post and what not. i'll include a link to this thread so everyone can see what we've been up to...